they use so much fuel and it seems wasteful to me. it would be a lot easier if they took off at a similar angle than airplanes. then just get insane altitude and leave the atmosphere. just seems like they wouldn't have to use like 1000 gallons per second during take off and launch. i don't know. why don't we just make flying saucers lol.
2006-12-16 17:18:50 · 8 answers · asked by smokesha 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
The Shuttle actually does pitch over during its ascent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle
As described above, the Shuttle does a roll/pitch manuever that almost immediately after clearing its launch tower.
If the Shuttle were to do its 7700m/s speed horizontally, which is Mach 22, it would actually consume more fuel from having to fight aerodynamic friction
see:http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/sim/
The program shows that in the default flight profile, the Shuttle reaches 90 km altitude in about 250 seconds. At that time, it's already going Mach 7+. Any other flight profile will require going Mach 7+ while still low in the atmosphere
2006-12-16 19:18:40 · answer #1 · answered by arbiter007 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1) Its doesn;t go straight up, it follows the clculated path requiring least energy to achieve orbit.
2) A B52 takes off horizontally to get lift from its wings by rushing air ofver them. The path taken is much much longer than and orbital path. An airplane can afford this longer path because it does not need to carry its own oxidizer. Ant the air provides lift at a reduced power. Try taking a helicopter vertical, and you will see it burn fuel and have a more powerfull engine for its weight
3) The usefull atmosphere extends on 20 miles up, a small fraction of an orbital path
2006-12-16 17:37:44 · answer #2 · answered by walter_b_marvin 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Being in orbit demands 2 issues: a million- vacationing around the earth at 27000 km/h 2- be out of the ambience so as that aerodynamic drag does not sluggish you down The holiday has to realize the two aims. yet going at 27000 km/h interior the ambience is very high priced style a gas point of view, and reasons risky heating of the airframe (that's precisely the comparable heating the holiday is going through whilst it comes back, different than this is is plenty lighter for the reason that all the gas is long previous). to have the flexibility to fly at that style of velocity mutually as nonetheless interior the ambience could require extra suitable wings (because of the fact the holiday could be heavier style all the take-off gas) and could project the airframe to intense rigidity for an exceedingly long quantity of time. the wonderful answer is to objective and get out of the ambience as quickly as accessible (take off vertically) and improve as much as 27000 km/h usually interior the vacuum. the only case the place placing out horizontally could make experience could be if the rocket/spaceplane did no longer carry as plenty oxygen in tanks and be counted to oxygen from the air to run some jet engines like scramjets as a replace of organic rocket engines. this would take place finally, yet learn progresses slowly on that front.
2016-12-11 10:42:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The space shuttle takes off vertically, not horizontally because of the simple matter of fuel, it would take more fuel to take off horizontally than vertically going into space because as you are going up, you move forward and it would take a longer time to reach your 122 nautical mile orbital insertion altitude.
2006-12-17 10:58:35 · answer #4 · answered by mcdonaldcj 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The question has validity. Scientists have propsed this also, but it was explained to my father that the Horizontal Approach is not very safe. The Time To Launch (TTL) and Time to Liftoff, (TtL) and the Exit of Atrmos, as well as the Entry to Orbit, then you have to figure out where all that other junk is that earth has put up since Rocketry was invented. A modern day space shot is rather a gamble in and of itself. So the Straight Vertical Line is the safest. sorta.
2006-12-16 17:34:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the problem is if they took off like airplanes they would still need the same amount of thrust to break through the atmospheres.Jet engines cannot do that.or at least not yet.Rocket engines are the only way to go.Now when the space shuttle gets retired by 2010 i believe thats when we will see an new kind of space flying machine,kind of like an airplane.I believe its going to be called Orion.
2006-12-16 17:28:48 · answer #6 · answered by Aces747 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is a tradeoff between getting high enough to avoid air resistance, and going horizontal fast enough to get to earth orbit. The path is carefully calculated in advance by computers to get to orbit with the minimum fuel use.
2006-12-16 17:30:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It has to go up anyway, as in directly away from the ground. How can they save fuel by going in a direction they are not trying to get to, as in horizontal.
2006-12-16 18:09:52 · answer #8 · answered by mensahank 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋