I had no problem lowering the bodyflap using the normal flap keys (F5 & F8).  However, although it's modeled, it's not realistic.  The Cmdr doesn't move the bodyflap around during launch or landing.   In real life I've observed the elevons automatically lowered just when the nosewheel touches down, and the speedbrake opens almost concurrently with mainwheel touchdown.  The rudder speedbrake is mostly controlled automatically in the real shuttle, although it can be controlled manually and certainly should be if there's a problem.  Your joystick throttle controls the rudder-speedbrake.  So, open throttle equates to faster velocity, thus a closed speedbrake.  And closed throttle equates to slower, thus, full open speedbrake.  

Can't imagine deathcoffin really so naive to think the shuttle glider needs working rocket engines on descent.  Why not also add a death-ray Moon beam?  If rocket thrust is what you want, download the freeware X-15.  It's a glider, but features a rocket engine, just as the real X-15 utilized.   Someone asked about the OMS engines, well, they fire briefly to drop the shuttle into a lower orbit which skims the edge of the atmosphere, thus creating just enough drag that the shuttle won't remain in orbit.  This OMS burn may only last a few seconds, depending on the shuttle's orbit, and might only be a brief 2000 lb thrust.  Trust me, this small thrust isn't even going to budge a shuttle sitting on a runway, much less keep it flying.  

There was once a Soviet shuttle-trainer which featured 4 jet engines, it could take off and land like any jet plane, but these 4 jet-fuel guzzling engines severly limited its range.  But again, this Soviet shuttle was just used for training (practice landings).  NASA pilots use a Gulfstream for the same job.

Why not give Microsoft's default sailplane rocket engines?  Wouldn't that also be way-coool?  Or how about making cruiseships have engines so they can take off from the ocean and go into space, like that Japanese space-battleship cartoon?  Get real people, non-sensical suggestions are as practical as space-faring jeeps or cruise-ships would be.

Wouldn't we rather Captainsim & Co. continue to improve the accuracy and realism of the existing sim - I say YES!  Absolutely.  It's already cool; "realistic" additions and/or improvements would make it even better.  I'm already experimenting with the aircraft config file to try to make it handle more accurately just prior to touchdown.  I'd like to see Captainsim do what another company does, find out from their users where inconsistancies are and fix these with periodic updates.  Lastly, someone asked Captainsim to release Moonraker skins.  If you want a Moonraker skin, make it yourself people.  Or pay someone to paint a skin for you.