why don't they make our space probes look like airplanes so that they can manuever well in other atmospheres?

Question

it just seems dumb that they are doing things like landing on an asteroid or a planet or moon with probes that don't have landing gear. why don't they make ships that are also aerodynamically designed

Answer 1

Many objects in our solar system don't have atmospheres to begin with, like our Moon and all asteroids. Mars has a very thin atmosphere, so a traditional airplane design is not the best. When they land spacecraft on places that do have an atmosphere, they do take the atmosphere into consideration - otherwise the space craft would burn up upon entering the atmosphere!

Answer 2

I remember seeing a documentary a while back on just such a probe. I don't recall the name of the project, but the plan was for an unmanned airplane-like vehicle that would fly over the planet's surface taking photographs.

The craft would eventually run out of power and crash. Landing gear is obviously pointless as there are no runways.

I can only assume that it was destined for one of the planets that has sufficient weather for it be impossible to get decent images from outside of it's atmosphere, but not so hostile that it would destroy such a craft.

Whether or not this project actually got, er, off the ground, I don't know.

Answer 3

Asteroids are too small and rocky.

Only the inner planets are solid.

Mars would be reasonable for a runway, but who the heck is going to build the runway? How do you get the machinery up there for the runway to start with.

What is wrong with a hovering craft - that is what was used in Apollo. The LEM could be manouvered much like a helicopter, but unlike a chopper it did not need air.

I think you need to read a bit more about the planets and moons.

Asteroids and the rocky planets are like swiss cheese, full of holes.

The people who are dumb, mate, are the ones who think you could fly a shuttle to the moon, and then use that utterly ignorant opinion as an argument against the validity of Apollo having landed on the moon 35 years ago.

There are special conditions in space, and USA spent billions to overcome the difficulty of getting to and landing on a body that is heavily cratered and is covered ion material that is as fine as talc.

You need to read some books, my friend.

Answer 4

The moon has no atmosphere, so wings won't do any good.

Asteroids have no atmosphere; ditto. Likewise for the planet Mercury.

Mars has a very thin atmosphere, so the wings would have to be very large. But, there are actually plans to operate small robotic gliders on Mars -- maybe in the next decade.

Venus has a thick atmosphere, but it is so hot, dense, and corrosive, that any airplane would fail within minutes of getting airborne, so what's the point of flying on Venus?

Any other planets or moons, further away -- well... ask again in about 20 years.

Answer 5

When you are in space, aerodynamic design has nothing to do with travel. Aerodynamic designs work good within the atmosphere (with air flow and all). So while travelling in space and sending probs to distance locations, the emphasis is given to the research capabilities of the probe, stable landing design and so on.

Answer 6

Almost nowhere we go (so far) has an atmosphere that would respond to wings, so we have to use rockets and parachutes, and airbags. Simplest technology has the best chance of working.