Skip to main content
Space Exploration

Return to Question

replaced http://space.stackexchange.com/ with https://space.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

Question relates to this topic Horizontal space launchHorizontal space launch

Question is rewritten, so some details are probably lost.
Here I make a sketch of the launch principle and I want to know, if it could improve the whole launch process regarding its safety in first place. In other words, I suppose that this method should reduce the probability of a fault by a launch.
This is a possible carrier, which should be reusable in ideal case. The rocket is placed on the top and splits off at certain height: enter image description here
A ramp is ca 30 degrees on its end. This looks realistic, since more inclination means more construction complexity and thus safety. After liftoff it should smoothly correct it's trajectory to more vertical position, but that is not a must, it depends on how much fuel I can save due to total air resistance difference:
enter image description here Whole trajectory could be like that:
enter image description here
Rocket detachement happens when it is time to make the trajectory more horizontal again, lets say at 10 km altitude.
enter image description here

Mass of the vehicle I suppose should be also optimised, it should not be too big. The carrier should land after split off, how exactly, I don't know, it is subject to a separate question.

So main questions:

  1. This seems a much more intuitive and natural way to launch a heavy thing to the orbit. So I wonder, is vertical start believed to be safer or just some economical aspects?

  2. What can be a strong argument against my scheme, besides fuel consumption?

  3. What could go wrong by rocket detachement on high speed? Like for example a strong trajectory declination due to turbulence?

Please note, this all is to a known grade just a speculation, since I am not expert and do not know specific parameters. Also it is not focused on fuel consumption aspects in first place.
Main benefit as I see it, we don't need a huge engine on first stage, which I believe is unnecessarily powerful.
Also the vehicle by vertical start does not seem to be much controllable, if at all. Small crack on the nozzle edge - and it will loose stability. Mechanical vibrations in engine area, overheating, it all adds scepticism. Looks so freaking dangerous even compared to jet fighter take off from an aircraft carrier.

Question relates to this topic Horizontal space launch

Question is rewritten, so some details are probably lost.
Here I make a sketch of the launch principle and I want to know, if it could improve the whole launch process regarding its safety in first place. In other words, I suppose that this method should reduce the probability of a fault by a launch.
This is a possible carrier, which should be reusable in ideal case. The rocket is placed on the top and splits off at certain height: enter image description here
A ramp is ca 30 degrees on its end. This looks realistic, since more inclination means more construction complexity and thus safety. After liftoff it should smoothly correct it's trajectory to more vertical position, but that is not a must, it depends on how much fuel I can save due to total air resistance difference:
enter image description here Whole trajectory could be like that:
enter image description here
Rocket detachement happens when it is time to make the trajectory more horizontal again, lets say at 10 km altitude.
enter image description here

Mass of the vehicle I suppose should be also optimised, it should not be too big. The carrier should land after split off, how exactly, I don't know, it is subject to a separate question.

So main questions:

  1. This seems a much more intuitive and natural way to launch a heavy thing to the orbit. So I wonder, is vertical start believed to be safer or just some economical aspects?

  2. What can be a strong argument against my scheme, besides fuel consumption?

  3. What could go wrong by rocket detachement on high speed? Like for example a strong trajectory declination due to turbulence?

Please note, this all is to a known grade just a speculation, since I am not expert and do not know specific parameters. Also it is not focused on fuel consumption aspects in first place.
Main benefit as I see it, we don't need a huge engine on first stage, which I believe is unnecessarily powerful.
Also the vehicle by vertical start does not seem to be much controllable, if at all. Small crack on the nozzle edge - and it will loose stability. Mechanical vibrations in engine area, overheating, it all adds scepticism. Looks so freaking dangerous even compared to jet fighter take off from an aircraft carrier.

Question relates to this topic Horizontal space launch

Question is rewritten, so some details are probably lost.
Here I make a sketch of the launch principle and I want to know, if it could improve the whole launch process regarding its safety in first place. In other words, I suppose that this method should reduce the probability of a fault by a launch.
This is a possible carrier, which should be reusable in ideal case. The rocket is placed on the top and splits off at certain height: enter image description here
A ramp is ca 30 degrees on its end. This looks realistic, since more inclination means more construction complexity and thus safety. After liftoff it should smoothly correct it's trajectory to more vertical position, but that is not a must, it depends on how much fuel I can save due to total air resistance difference:
enter image description here Whole trajectory could be like that:
enter image description here
Rocket detachement happens when it is time to make the trajectory more horizontal again, lets say at 10 km altitude.
enter image description here

Mass of the vehicle I suppose should be also optimised, it should not be too big. The carrier should land after split off, how exactly, I don't know, it is subject to a separate question.

So main questions:

  1. This seems a much more intuitive and natural way to launch a heavy thing to the orbit. So I wonder, is vertical start believed to be safer or just some economical aspects?

  2. What can be a strong argument against my scheme, besides fuel consumption?

  3. What could go wrong by rocket detachement on high speed? Like for example a strong trajectory declination due to turbulence?

Please note, this all is to a known grade just a speculation, since I am not expert and do not know specific parameters. Also it is not focused on fuel consumption aspects in first place.
Main benefit as I see it, we don't need a huge engine on first stage, which I believe is unnecessarily powerful.
Also the vehicle by vertical start does not seem to be much controllable, if at all. Small crack on the nozzle edge - and it will loose stability. Mechanical vibrations in engine area, overheating, it all adds scepticism. Looks so freaking dangerous even compared to jet fighter take off from an aircraft carrier.

Edited to be more specific
Source Link
Mikhail V
Mikhail V
  • 107
  • 6

Question relates to this topic Horizontal space launch

Question is editedrewritten, so some details probably are probably lost.
Here I make a sketch of the launch principle and I want to know, if it could improve the whole launch process regarding its safety in first place. In other words, I suppose that this method should reduce the probability of a fault by a launch.
This is a possible carrier, which should be reusable in ideal case. The rocket is placed on the top and splits off at certain height.

[![carrier][1]][1]

A: enter image description here
A ramp is ca 30 degrees on its end. This looks realistic, since more inclination means more construction complexity and thus safety. After liftoff it should smoothly correct it's trajectory to more vertical position, but that is not a must, it depends on how much fuel I can save due to total air resistance difference:
[![enter image description here][2]][2]enter image description here Whole trajectory could be like that:
[![enter image description here][3]][3]enter image description here
Rocket detachement happens when it is time to make the trajectory more horizontal again, lets say at 10 km altitude.
[![enter image description here][4]][4]enter image description here

Mass of the vehicle on startI suppose should be also optimised, it shoulshould not be too big. The carrier should land after split off, how exactly, I don't know, it is subject to a separate question.

So main questions:

  1. This seems a much more intuitive and natural way to launch a heavy thing to the orbit. So I wonder, how it came to the situation that a more unintuitive method is practicised (vertical start)?

    This seems a much more intuitive and natural way to launch a heavy thing to the orbit. So I wonder, is vertical start believed to be safer or just some economical aspects?

  2. What can be a strong argument against it, besides fuel consumption?

    What can be a strong argument against my scheme, besides fuel consumption?

  3. What could go wrong by rocket detachement on high speed? Like for example a sudden trajectory declination due to asymmetric turbulence?

    What could go wrong by rocket detachement on high speed? Like for example a strong trajectory declination due to turbulence?

Please notnote, this all is to a known grade just a speculation, since I cannotam not expert and do not know specific parameters of the whole process.
Also Also it is notnot focused on fuel consumption aspects in first place.
Main benefit as I see it, we don't need a huge engine on first stage, which I believe is unnecessarily powerful.
Also the vehicle by vertical start does not seem to be much controllable, if at all. Small crack on the nozzle edge - and it will loose stability. Mechanical vibrations in engine area, overheating, it all adds scepticism. Looks so freaking dangerous even compared to jet fighter take off from an aircraft carrier.

Question relates to this topic Horizontal space launch

Question is edited, so some details probably are lost.
Here I make a sketch of the launch principle and I want to know, if it could improve the whole launch process regarding its safety in first place. In other words, I suppose that this method should reduce the probability of a fault by a launch.
This is a possible carrier, which should be reusable in ideal case. The rocket is placed on the top and splits off at certain height.

[![carrier][1]][1]

A ramp is ca 30 degrees on its end. This looks realistic, since more inclination means more construction complexity and thus safety. After liftoff it should smoothly correct it's trajectory to more vertical position, but that is not a must, it depends on how much fuel I can save due to total air resistance difference:
[![enter image description here][2]][2] Whole trajectory could be like that:
[![enter image description here][3]][3]
Rocket detachement happens when it is time to make the trajectory more horizontal again, lets say at 10 km altitude.
[![enter image description here][4]][4]

Mass of the vehicle on start should be also optimised, it shoul not be too big. The carrier should land after split off, how exactly, I don't know, it is subject to separate question.

So main questions:

  1. This seems a much more intuitive and natural way to launch a heavy thing to the orbit. So I wonder, how it came to the situation that a more unintuitive method is practicised (vertical start)?
  2. What can be a strong argument against it, besides fuel consumption?
  3. What could go wrong by rocket detachement on high speed? Like for example a sudden trajectory declination due to asymmetric turbulence?

Please not, this all is to known grade just a speculation, since I cannot know specific parameters of the whole process.
Also it is not focused on fuel consumption aspects in first place.

Question relates to this topic Horizontal space launch

Question is rewritten, so some details are probably lost.
Here I make a sketch of the launch principle and I want to know, if it could improve the whole launch process regarding its safety in first place. In other words, I suppose that this method should reduce the probability of a fault by a launch.
This is a possible carrier, which should be reusable in ideal case. The rocket is placed on the top and splits off at certain height: enter image description here
A ramp is ca 30 degrees on its end. This looks realistic, since more inclination means more construction complexity and thus safety. After liftoff it should smoothly correct it's trajectory to more vertical position, but that is not a must, it depends on how much fuel I can save due to total air resistance difference:
enter image description here Whole trajectory could be like that:
enter image description here
Rocket detachement happens when it is time to make the trajectory more horizontal again, lets say at 10 km altitude.
enter image description here

Mass of the vehicle I suppose should be also optimised, it should not be too big. The carrier should land after split off, how exactly, I don't know, it is subject to a separate question.

So main questions:

  1. This seems a much more intuitive and natural way to launch a heavy thing to the orbit. So I wonder, is vertical start believed to be safer or just some economical aspects?

  2. What can be a strong argument against my scheme, besides fuel consumption?

  3. What could go wrong by rocket detachement on high speed? Like for example a strong trajectory declination due to turbulence?

Please note, this all is to a known grade just a speculation, since I am not expert and do not know specific parameters. Also it is not focused on fuel consumption aspects in first place.
Main benefit as I see it, we don't need a huge engine on first stage, which I believe is unnecessarily powerful.
Also the vehicle by vertical start does not seem to be much controllable, if at all. Small crack on the nozzle edge - and it will loose stability. Mechanical vibrations in engine area, overheating, it all adds scepticism. Looks so freaking dangerous even compared to jet fighter take off from an aircraft carrier.

edited to be more specific
Source Link
Mikhail V
Mikhail V
  • 107
  • 6

Question relates to this topic Horizontal space launch

So the questionQuestion is edited, why we cannot useso some details probably are lost.
Here I make a sketch of the followinglaunch principle and I want to know, if it could improve the whole launch process regarding its safety in first place. In other words, I suppose that this method insteadshould reduce the probability of verticala fault by a launch:.
This is a possible carrier, which should be reusable in ideal case. The rocket is placed on the top and splits off at certain height.

enter image description here [![carrier][1]][1]

Main problemsA ramp is ca 30 degrees on its end. This looks realistic, as discussed in linked topicsince more inclination means more construction complexity and thus safety. After liftoff it should smoothly correct it's trajectory to more vertical position, but that is not a must, it depends on how much fuel I can save due to total air resistance difference:
[![enter image description here][2]][2] Whole trajectory could be like that:
[![enter image description here][3]][3]
Rocket detachement happens when it is time to make the trajectory more horizontal again, lets say at 10 km altitude.
[![enter image description here][4]][4]

Mass of the vehicle on start should be also optimised, it shoul not be too big. The carrier should land after split off, how exactly, I don't know, it is subject to separate question.

So main questions:

  1. The rocket will stay in atmosphereThis seems a bit longermuch more intuitive and natural way to launch a heavy thing to the orbit. So I wonder, how it came to the situation that a more unintuitive method is practicised (air resitancevertical start)?
  2. How to maintain the trajectory after lifting off.What can be a strong argument against it, besides fuel consumption?

Main benefits:

  1. More safety, since we don't have such mechanical stressWhat could go wrong by rocket detachement on start, which is essentialhigh speed? Like for the rocket itself and its cargo.
  2. More possibilitiesexample a sudden trajectory declination due to make reusable components.asymmetric turbulence?

Argument about improving heat resistance and minimising fuel consumtion do soundPlease not, this all is to known grade just a bit weak for mespeculation, since if we could find out a way to maintainI cannot know specific parameters of the trajectory after start, it could be put in vertical position after lift offwhole process. And
Also it is not focused on fuel consumption - is it really more important than safety? I doubt itaspects in first place.

(Update)

Sketch of the principle:

enter image description here

After split:
enter image description here

Question relates to this topic Horizontal space launch

So the question is, why we cannot use the following method instead of vertical launch:

enter image description here

Main problems, as discussed in linked topic:

  1. The rocket will stay in atmosphere a bit longer (air resitance)
  2. How to maintain the trajectory after lifting off.

Main benefits:

  1. More safety, since we don't have such mechanical stress on start, which is essential for the rocket itself and its cargo.
  2. More possibilities to make reusable components.

Argument about improving heat resistance and minimising fuel consumtion do sound a bit weak for me, since if we could find out a way to maintain the trajectory after start, it could be put in vertical position after lift off. And fuel consumption - is it really more important than safety? I doubt it.

(Update)

Sketch of the principle:

enter image description here

After split:
enter image description here

Question relates to this topic Horizontal space launch

Question is edited, so some details probably are lost.
Here I make a sketch of the launch principle and I want to know, if it could improve the whole launch process regarding its safety in first place. In other words, I suppose that this method should reduce the probability of a fault by a launch.
This is a possible carrier, which should be reusable in ideal case. The rocket is placed on the top and splits off at certain height.

[![carrier][1]][1]

A ramp is ca 30 degrees on its end. This looks realistic, since more inclination means more construction complexity and thus safety. After liftoff it should smoothly correct it's trajectory to more vertical position, but that is not a must, it depends on how much fuel I can save due to total air resistance difference:
[![enter image description here][2]][2] Whole trajectory could be like that:
[![enter image description here][3]][3]
Rocket detachement happens when it is time to make the trajectory more horizontal again, lets say at 10 km altitude.
[![enter image description here][4]][4]

Mass of the vehicle on start should be also optimised, it shoul not be too big. The carrier should land after split off, how exactly, I don't know, it is subject to separate question.

So main questions:

  1. This seems a much more intuitive and natural way to launch a heavy thing to the orbit. So I wonder, how it came to the situation that a more unintuitive method is practicised (vertical start)?
  2. What can be a strong argument against it, besides fuel consumption?
  3. What could go wrong by rocket detachement on high speed? Like for example a sudden trajectory declination due to asymmetric turbulence?

Please not, this all is to known grade just a speculation, since I cannot know specific parameters of the whole process.
Also it is not focused on fuel consumption aspects in first place.

Post Closed as "Duplicate" by kim holder, Nathan Tuggy, duzzy, TildalWave
added 274 characters in body
Source Link
Mikhail V
Mikhail V
  • 107
  • 6
added 4 characters in body
Source Link
Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
  • 1.6k
  • 2
  • 14
  • 25
Source Link
Mikhail V
Mikhail V
  • 107
  • 6