Why does the shuttle have to launch vertically?

Question

Couldn't they build one that would take off like a regular jet airliner?

It could top-off its fuel tanks in flight from a tanker plane. And if necessary burn off its auxillary boosters to get up into sub-orbit.

Leaving the atmoshere laterally means any ice debris would simply fall off and away from the craft thanks to gravity.

Sure it would mean a slightly different approach to the problem. But still it seems like a viable solution to having a reuseable space shuttle.

Answer 1

Believe it or not, vertical ascent is the best way to get into space from the point of view of, well, just about everything, though fuel economy is the big limiting factor.

But leaving the atmosphere laterally would not solve the debris problem. The problem is not falling debris but debris getting caught in the airstream around the ascending shuttle and rapidly decelerating as a result, which is why the foam strike takes place at huge relative speeds even though the distance travelled is only a few dozen feet. Objects that break off from a flying craft do not just drop straight down immediately. If they did the angle of attack of Columbia would have made the foam that caused the damage miss the shuttle entirely. They have their own momentum, their own inertia and their own drag, and that is what makes them dangerous.

Answer 2

It would be very difficult to create a craft that could achieve enough lift with wings to take off while carrying all the cargo and fuel needed. Mid-air refuelling presents the same problem, as the craft carrying the fuel has to get off the ground too. Also, it would be difficult to ensure a craft with large enough wings to actually fly could safely reenter the Earth's atmosphere. The shuttle as is requires a fuel tank bigger than the craft itself and two of the most powerful rocket engines ever created just to make it into a low orbit. It just isn't feasible.

Remember, the shuttle can't actually fly. It's a glider in the atmosphere. It doesn't even use it's own egines after returning to the atmosphere. Once it lands it cannot take off again.

Creating a craft as you describe is beyond our current technology-- at least to be able to do it in such a way that wouldn't be extremely prohibitively expensive.

Answer 3

Some of the latest design possibilities have the shuttle (capsule) well above the boosters, thus eliminating falling debris problems.

There are designs for aircraft style assents, but they wouldn't be able to lift the many tons that the shuttle can lift. As others have stated, fuel requirements are paramount, so much so, that the shuttle is launched towards the east to gain some advantage of the revolving earth.

Additionally, weight variances are measured in grams. A few more grams, lots more thrust required.

Answer 4

Weight is a BIG problem. The fuel requirements are tremendous and the tanks are heavy.
To take off like an airplane would require wings with a lifting capacity adequate to carry the weight of the external fuel tanks and fuel.
THAT would require a MUCH larger shuttle with a HUGE wing span.
That would require even more fuel, larger tanks and more weight. (And that added weight would add the need for even LARGER wings.)
Large wings would be wasted mass once the shuttle is in orbit, and would require more clearance to maneuver once on orbit near the orbiting space station. Then there is the stress on those wings from re-entry.
LOTS of problems!

Answer 5

for a short and simple answer... fuel. to take off Horizontally and climb out 100+ miles would take a lot more fuel than taking off vertically and climbing up 100+ miles. further more, it travels at a speed of 17500 mph in orbit, it would outstrip a tanker aircraft in the first 20-30 seconds of flight.

when the shuttle returns to earth, it is a high tech, several hundred thousand pound glider, and there is no available option for the astronauts to "go around" and try another approach.

The Shuttle is refered to as a flying brick because of it's flight aerodynamics, if the shuttle was held in a pitch up attitude for long periods of time, without engines, it will start to lose altitude and crash into the ground

Answer 6

It's not truly designed for takeoff-style of flight. It doesn't have enough lift area to support itself without using massive amounts of thrust, and therefore, fuel. Too much to be easily stored onboard, and again that fuel renders the shuttle too heavy for aircraft-style flight at launch.
No, Rutan's company, Scaled Composites, is working on SpaceShip 2, which like the prototype, SpaceShit 1, will take off from the belly of an aircraft, and blast into orbit from a certain altitude.

Answer 7

It would require vastly more fuel.

Right now, the space shuttle only has to generate enough force to go straight up. Lateral movement, which takes fuel, is unnecessary.

If you ask for lateral movement, then you have to both burn enough fuel to go up, and you also need to burn enough fuel to go around.

As for refueling in the air - the space shuttle takes off at around 25,000 mph. The fastest tanker planes in the world top out at about 500 MPH.

Answer 8

Because it doesn't fly so well. And its external tank would drag the ground. Pilots describe the shuttle as a "flying brick." Its horizontal flight characteristics are poor to let it dissipate energy as it comes thru the atmosphere.

Answer 9

It wasn't designed to take off horizontally.

The SSTO bird - VentureStar - had solved a lot of the issues you raised, but, it too launched vertically. And, it's been shelved - the 'aerospike' engine being developed for the system never functioned as hoped.

Answer 10

Did anyone mention that the shuttle doesn't launch itself? It is attached to a large rocket.

That rocket is mostly fuel.

The rest is obvious.