Why don't we use circular spacecrafts?

Answer 1

Take a look at Sputnik I. It was basically a big ball with antennae sticking out of it. The VELA orbiters were dodecahedrons. That's nearly spherical. Of course they launched on a conventional pointy rocket.

Spacecraft are built to two conditions: where must it go, and what must it do.

For spacecraft that must launch, long and pointy gets you through the atmosphere with the least drag. A spherical spacecraft would have too much width for its weight, and would have a lot more drag, requiring a lot more effort to move it.

For spacecraft that do not have to launch, things that are kicked out of other spacecraft, round can work well. At that point, you really have very few constraints, but it helps to have a symmetrical shape, to make calculations of rotation and positioning easier.

Answer 2

If we didn't have to launch from the earth we could use circular spacecraft. Aerodynamically, we need to make the easiest launch we can because of weight and cost. Once in space, it matters not what the shape is.

Answer 3

The problem won't be in lauching but landing. This is because you cannot trust a circular base to land properly...though, theoritically circular spacecrafts will fly better!!

Answer 4

You mean UFO-shaped spacecrafts? I guess they would be difficult to launch and land. The Apollo spaceship had it's conic shape because it had to be mounted on a rocket. The space shuttle resemble airplanes mainly because they must fly like airplanes when they land.

Answer 5

- If the craft is for use in space, such as a satellite, the lack of atmospheric drag means it can be any shape we want.

- If you're thinking of rockets that place satellites into space, the most aerodynamic shape is an ogive curve, not a spherical curve.