Poll Which spacecraft do you think is the most realistic

[RisingFury]

Can't believe XR2 got as many votes as it did... I guess people are voting according to add-on popularity, not according to things a ship needs to exist...

 

[Linguofreak]

I vote for the Saturn V. It's even more realistic than the Shuttle.

 

[Sky Captain]

If engine like described here
http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_pg10.aspx
can be made to work without melting then large cargo spaceplane like XR5 might be possible. Ships like Deltagliders and XR2 are probebly too small to mount a nuclear engine and radiation shielding while still having space for propellant and cargo.

 

[Ghostrider]

I vote for the Saturn V. It's even more realistic than the Shuttle.

And it actually works as advertised.

 

[T.Neo]

None of the above. They're all equally unrealistic.

I vote for the Saturn V. It's even more realistic than the Shuttle.

:rofl:

 

[jinglesassy]

Yeah the shuttle i call the flying heavy lift brick and wasnt the shuttle designed to fly every other week?

 

[Jer95]

There is no other option besides delta gliders, i choose DGIV.. This should be called "Which Delta Glider is the most realistic"

 

[RisingFury]

wasnt the shuttle designed to fly every other week?

NASA had a vision of launching a shuttle every month or so and that every shuttle would have a civilian crew, but after the Challenger disaster, everything went downhill.

 

[agentgonzo]

Vote Custard!

 

[barcode]

All the above add-on vessels mostly obey the laws of physics, which is more than most fictional spacecraft have going for them.

 

[Usonian]

All the above add-on vessels mostly obey the laws of physics, which is more than most fictional spacecraft have going for them.

But that's a function of Orbiter -- all Orbiter vessels must obey Newtonian physics where orbital mechanics and areodynamics are concerned. That corner of realism is not exclusive to the vessels in this poll, and thus not to their credit.

The violation of physics (or, at least, practical reality) that Orbiter does allow is setting a rocket engine to any thrust and ISP you might like. You can easily configure a Multistage Saturn V to get to the moon on a drop of fuel. That's pretty much the Handwavium of which the Delta Glider and its add-on spin-offs are made -- wildly unrealistic thrust and fuel efficiency.

On the other hand, "realistic" might refer simply to graphics; do the ships look convincing. On that score, it's hard to beat the AMSO Lunar Module. The wrinkled gold foil on that model is amazing.

 

[PriestLizard]

The violation of physics (or, at least, practical reality) that Orbiter does allow is setting a rocket engine to any thrust and ISP you might like. You can easily configure a Multistage Saturn V to get to the moon on a drop of fuel. That's pretty much the Handwavium of which the Delta Glider and its add-on spin-offs are made -- wildly unrealistic thrust and fuel efficiency.

Totally agree. So my vote would go to the DGIV Mk1 model with 50kN thrust since I believe this ship has the lowest violation of realism.

 

[barcode]

But that's a function of Orbiter -- all Orbiter vessels must obey Newtonian physics where orbital mechanics and areodynamics are concerned. That corner of realism is not exclusive to the vessels in this poll, and thus not to their credit.

The violation of physics (or, at least, practical reality) that Orbiter does allow is setting a rocket engine to any thrust and ISP you might like. You can easily configure a Multistage Saturn V to get to the moon on a drop of fuel. That's pretty much the Handwavium of which the Delta Glider and its add-on spin-offs are made -- wildly unrealistic thrust and fuel efficiency.

On the other hand, "realistic" might refer simply to graphics; do the ships look convincing. On that score, it's hard to beat the AMSO Lunar Module. The wrinkled gold foil on that model is amazing.

All very good points, but I suppose what I meant is that none of them rely on artificial gravity, inertial dampening, faster than light drives, or any other magical devices.

A DGIV would be more feasible to build than, say, the starship Enterprise. One would require engines far more powerful and efficient than anything that we have today, and the other would require a complete revolution in our understanding of physics.

 

[Pilot7893]

Now that I think about it, XR5 without the payload bay might have the fuel supply to get to LEO. It might. I don't know much about spacecraft engineering, so I wouldn't know if it could overcome the thrust/weight ratio.

 

[RisingFury]

XR5 wouldn't be my first choice...

 

[Usquanigo]

As has been said many times - none of the above.

I would go with SSU and NASSP in the top tier.

Dragonfly (and maybe Shuttle A if kept out of atmospheres) for a second teir.

Then the HyperDart as the third teir. I feel it has just a bit too much fuel on board (the handwavium here coming from fuel tank pressure capabilities), but otherwise has plausibility going for it (purpose built in the VERY near future, using the lightest materials and construction techniques possible, the affore mentioned super high pressure tanks, aero-spikes, and a winged launcher which takes it to about 25Km and 1100+m/s ground speed, allowing it to get out of the thickest part of the atmosphere before accelerating and climbing. Plus it has a alt max not too far off from the Shuttle, yet is much smaller in comparison (lower drag), but not so tiny as a DG, and fully loaded weighs the same as the fully loaded Shuttle Orbiter, yet the shuttle orbiter does not include fuel, whereas the HD does (in that weight - oh and it's fragile too, something the Shuttles (stock or addon) are not). It certainly has the XR and DG series beat hands down.

That said..... if the DGIV and XR1 are handicapped enough that they need a launcher to reach orbit, why would that not make them realistic? Since it's the thrust/fuel amounts that are their big transgression.

In that case, I'd say the XR2 as well if similarly handicapped. But they trail because the end user must modify them to be that way, and they are also allowed to keep them ultra-unrealistic.

 

[RisingFury]

Well, the DGIV / XR-1 still have hover and retro engines and the TPS is amazing

Also, you'd need quite a big booster to loft a realistic DGIV into orbit...

 

[Usquanigo]

Well, the DGIV / XR-1 still have hover and retro engines and the TPS is amazing

True about the hovers, I keep forgetting abou that because I really never use the hover engines - and havent used a DG/XR in like forever. lol

"TPS"?

Also, you'd need quite a big booster to loft a realistic DGIV into orbit...

Wouldn't Energia or a shuttle stack do it?

 

[Hielor]

But that's a function of Orbiter -- all Orbiter vessels must obey Newtonian physics where orbital mechanics and areodynamics are concerned. That corner of realism is not exclusive to the vessels in this poll, and thus not to their credit.

Not true. A vessel is free to override Orbiter's handling of those things, and give no aerodynamic model.

As to the XR5: Not a chance. It couldn't even hold itself up on its own landing gear.

 

[Arrowstar]

"TPS"??

Thermal Protection System. Think reinforced carbon-carbon on an orbiter.