In all rockets that launch satellites to orbit, the satellite is always placed at the top.
Why are payloads always placed at the top of rockets?
Space Exploration Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for spacecraft operators, scientists, engineers, and enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
First of all, let's look at what the limitations are for placing objects in a rocket.
Okay, so given all of that, what are your options, aside from a satellite launch at the top, as you mentioned? There are two things of note which I will include.
The bottom line is, putting the satellite at the top is convenient to dampen vibrations, reduce aerodynamic turbulence, improve performance, reduce heating of the spacecraft, etc. It doesn't have to be done that way, but it sure makes the design a lot easier, and there aren't any compelling cases that I'm aware of to do anything differently.
Behold a (proposed) counterexample, the Martin Marietta proposal for the Space Shuttle External Tank Aft Cargo Carrier! (The image is credited to Martin Marietta; I found it on the Spaceflight History blog.)
I haven't found a full version of the conference paper, "External Tank Aft Cargo Carrier" for all the cons, but David S.F. Portee's blog post One Space Shuttle, Two Cargo Volumes: Martin Marietta's Aft Cargo Carrier (1982) sums up some issues (which by my reading, come from the Marietta studies, and not from editorializing by the blogger):
The ACC's position adjacent to the Orbiter's three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) and between the powerful twin Solid-Rocket Boosters (SRBs) meant that payloads it carried would be subjected to more heating and acoustic pounding than would those in the Orbiter payload bay. Martin Marietta proposed an ACC "environmental protection system" made up of 707 pounds of thermal insulation and a 2989-pound "acoustical barrier."
Martin Marietta assumed that, with planned Shuttle performance upgrades, an Orbiter would be able to boost 36.9 tons of payload into a 160-nautical-mile-high orbit inclined 28.5° relative to Earth's equator. An empty ACC would add 8.3 tons to the Shuttle's mass at liftoff, potentially reducing the payload mass the Orbiter and ACC could inject into orbit. If the ACC remained attached until SSME cutoff, then the payload mass the Orbiter and ACC could place into orbit would total 28.7 tons.
To my reading it would've been quite complicated to use in practice. Fairing staging was proposed to save mass after SRB burnout, but the external tank isn't destined for orbit so payloads end up needing kick-stages, etc. Still some neat thinking and when I saw this pop up as a "related question" to something else I thought it would be fun to share.