This has been puzzling me since before I was in kindergarten. When we take people into space, we use a rocket ship, a very huge, and long vehicle. But many rockets don't take off due to mechanical failures, weather conditions, and many other factors.

But I've always seen a problem, always. And that problem is: Why Rocket Ships. The whole idea of a rocket ship in my opinion is ridiculous. Its vehicle itself is too long for its base. Making it way unbalanced. Even though the base is absolutely huge, it still can be very unbalanced during take-off and flight.

Have you ever watched a rocket ship take off? If so, have you ever noticed that they sometimes start to tilt, and begin to fly at an angle? When I see that, I go straight back to my question...WHY?

The whole idea is ridiculous. But finally, about 2, maybe 3 years ago, one man did something smart. If I recall correctly, this happened in California. A man, built his own plane, specially built to fly in space, and then took it into the highest atmosphere layer. And then he successfully flew back down and landed.

So, why are we trying to balance a toothpick, while we can be insuring our astronauts a safe, and a more fuel efficient transportation into space with an actual plane. Now, I didn't say that this plane had to be small, but why aren't we doing that. To many things can go wrong with rockets to begin with, rockets ships should be considered a dead science in my opinion.

Plus, with an actual plane-like structure, it will be easier to deploy satellites, and to control the space craft. Its just that rocket ships in general are unsafe, its about a 50 50 chance, that you'll make it back, or if you'll even make it out of the atmosphere alive...

Do you agree with me, or am I just a lone ranger?

umm...

Have you not seen the space shuttle? It looks like a plane to me. Or are you just refering to the take off method?

A plane couldn't be used because the escape velocity needed is far more than what a jet engine currently allows. Gravity would act against the plane and make it impossible to get to the speed needed for orbit.

Just to add:

If SCRAMJETS were used, then the problem with that is most of the orbital energy would have to be attained WITHIN the atmosphere, creating massive heat, which would have to be endured AGAIN on re-entry.

I think the future lies with conventional boosters, but also Plane / Rocket comboes such as Pegasus rocket.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Doesn't it seem that there should be friction going up as well, especially in the lower atmosphere where the air is denser. Doesn't the shuttle go like mach 10 or something? I have no idea except that it is fast, but none the less, unless it is burning on the way down it will hit terminal velocity not to mention the drag. Isn't there a layer of atmosphere where stuff will just burn up in that layer? I can't remember.

Yes, the Shuttle and other launch vehicles have to be very careful with regard to how fast they go - which is why at one point soon after actual lift off the Shuttle actually throttles back as it goes through the maximum air density threshold. After that, it throttles back up to 104% or so (100% is the original rated thrust of the engines, which has been increased since then) because the atmosphere is thinning the farther it goes up.

Another thing, I've seen in the Saturn 5 footage as well as the footage of the shuttle, how are the rockets still burning in space since there is no oxygen? With the shuttle they blow the boosters but are still lit. The Saturn's would loose the bottom rings and it is way obvious in any footage from those that a burn is still occuring in space.

Rockets carry their own oxidiser, as well as the actual fuel - the big reddish brown tank on the Shuttles belly contains two tanks inside it, one for the liquid oxygen and one for the liquid hydrogen.

Also, why is the footage always from a fish eye lens? Do you know of any "Transit" rocket footage that isn't? I understand that it is possibly to get a better look at more area of the rocket, but with that comes the illusion of a curved earth surface through the lens?

The footage isnt done for your enjoyment, its done for reasons linked to the launch - better view of the vehicle is more important than making it look good for spectators.

I also find it weird that there is so much light coming in the windows that you can't see out of them in the video. Shouldn't it be blue then darker blue then black, but it is like they are heading into the sun.

Its lighter outside because the light level inside the cabin is so much lower - the camera taking the footage is set to the exposure level for the light level inside the cabin, and thus the much brighter outside light will overwhelm it.

[edit on 12/8/2008 by RichardPrice]

Thanks for your responses, didn't mean to derail the topic if I did, but I always have questions. On topic, what do you guys think about the new Virgin space vehicle? Thanks again, Peace

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Thanks for your responses, didn't mean to derail the topic if I did, but I always have questions. On topic, what do you guys think about the new Virgin space vehicle? Thanks again, Peace

The new Virgin space vehicle? Its a sub-orbital pimp mobile - its the sort of thing tourists hire to drive around Florida in, you see thousands of these parked outside Disney World.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Thanks for your responses, didn't mean to derail the topic if I did, but I always have questions. On topic, what do you guys think about the new Virgin space vehicle? Thanks again, Peace

The new Virgin space vehicle? Its a sub-orbital pimp mobile - its the sort of thing tourists hire to drive around Florida in, you see thousands of these parked outside Disney World.

The Branson Pimp mobile...that gave me a good laugh...no you can join the 200 mile high club. Rad...peace

I think all of your questions can be answered simply by understanding what Delta-V is:

When designing a trajectory, delta-v is used as an indicator of how much propellant will be required. Propellant usage is an exponential function of delta-v in accordance with the rocket equation.

For example, most spacecraft are launched in an orbit with inclination fairly near to the latitude at the launch site, to take advantage of the earth's rotational surface speed. If it is necessary, for mission-based reasons, to put the spacecraft in an orbit of different inclination, a substantial delta-v is required, though the specific kinetic and potential energies in the final orbit and the initial orbit are equal.

The rockets “tip” so they can take advantage of the rotation of the earth and increase their speed relative to the earth by going in the opposite direction. That is why they always “tip” and head East. As others have touched on, it is not possible to carry enough fuel to overcome gravity and reach escape velocity directly (straight up). So what we do is a number of tricks to achieve orbit, including dumping empty weight (stages, boosters) on ascent, and the "tipping" mentioned above. All of this comes down to the Delta-V, the fuel/energy required to reach a trajectory, and the weight of that fuel on the spacecraft.

Though they never seemed to catch on to this fact, Delta-V is also the reason why “certain individuals on this website”'s theory of a secret space station is not feasible. The Shuttle, for example does not have enough Delta-V to go from station to station, and it barely has enough to get the ISS. This is why it has to be launched in such a precise window when it docks with the ISS.

I supposed I should also add that in the upper atmosphere, the air is so thin, it lacks the ability to generate lift under an airfoil surface, rendering wings useless. The lack of Oxygen makes it impossible to use traditional, combustion, turbine engines. The Shuttle uses LOX/LH2 (Liquid oxygen/Liquid hydrogen) so it basically is providing its own oxygen allowing it to burn in a vacuum.

[edit on 6/16/2009 by defcon5]

Time to cut the bull and get right to the heart of the matter:

Rockets are used because of their ability to generate large amounts of thrust and are not "air breathing" - they do not require the Earth's atmosphere to function.

That's pretty much it.

Reaching a higher altitude effectively increases your velocity, which reduces the "escape velocity" necessary. Escape velocity is - atmosphere aside, the speed at which an object must be moving away from the center of mass (and surface of the mass) to 'escape' to a self-sustaining orbit. Escape velocity, in and out of itself, has very little relevance to whether or not a craft can go into orbit.

You can put yourself into orbit by climbing up a ladder, if you really wanted to. It would be no different than blasting you up there with a rocket.

Now - why not use an airplane, then?

Well, regardless of what has been said previously - rockets are horribly inefficient by comparison to even the most inefficient aircraft. You can talk aerodynamics all you want to - flying the empire state building around with jet engines is more efficient than shooting it around with rockets.

The reason why aircraft are not used is due to the engineering challenges associated with placing a payload-carrying, trans-atmospheric vehicle into the outer fringes of our atmosphere. You're looking at the largest winged craft ever built - it would make a B-52 look like a toy Micro Machine. You would need a runway that stretched across Texas to help the thing take off - much less land.

More recently, the concept of using magnetically coupled catapult systems (similar to the systems used in roller-coasters and maglev trains) in the mountains to accelerate a craft designed for hypersonic, trans-atmospheric flight to supersonic (or higher) velocities on the ground before ski-jumping it skywards. Sustaining rockets and/or engines will bring the craft into orbit.

It's a far more practical approach than even the ridiculous space-elevator concepts. Though it requires an initial investment overhead that will not be taken by any private firms any time soon, and will certainly not be approved by the present administration (and congress) with regards to government spending.

It's also questionable just how suitable such methods will be for transporting organic materials (people). That ski-jump is likely to exact some very high G-forces.... though they will be momentary - so shock-absorbing systems will likely help ease some of the trauma risks.

As for in-space maneuvering, it's highly likely that "plasma jets" (forget what they are actually called) will become the new favorite toy. Most of their power comes from electricity - which can be converted from solar radiation, as well as nuclear decay and nuclear fission and fusion. It has much more power-density than chemical rockets - and the "plasma jets" only require a small amount of reaction mass - which can be provided by waste fluids and materials. Their exospheric performance is vastly superior to chemical rockets, and their nature allows them to be actively-electronically-'scanned' (AESA Jet engines - the future of 3d thrust-vectoring) - or... 'steered' in three directions - which greatly improves the versatility of said engines.

Eventually - they may even be powerful enough to operate in an atmosphere and simply use the atmosphere, itself, as a reaction mass (though none of the prototypes in existence are anywhere near capable of this).