Why do rockets do not glide back?
Why do not the rockets after stage separation, glide back to Earth with wings?
Is retro propulsion a better idea than gliding rockets back to 'Earth'? The way Energia-II was supposed to perform...
Source: buran.ru
Energia-II, all stages (including payload fairing) were planned to be recovered.
stages recovery booster-flyback energia
edited 13 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
1,331318
asked yesterday
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
|
show 2 more comments
Why do not the rockets after stage separation, glide back to Earth with wings?
Is retro propulsion a better idea than gliding rockets back to 'Earth'? The way Energia-II was supposed to perform...
Source: buran.ru
Energia-II, all stages (including payload fairing) were planned to be recovered.
stages recovery booster-flyback energia
edited 13 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
1,331318
asked yesterday
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
1
Why not parachute?
– laptop2d
14 hours ago
2
Well, if it doesn't work in KSP...
– Mazura
10 hours ago
I still don't understand why we don't fly most of the way up with a giant cargo plane first and launch from the plane.
– takintoolong
7 hours ago
4
@takintoolong This has been discussing on Space.SE here and to some extent here. Basically the reason is that to reach orbit you need speed, not altitude. Air launching from a plane provides only a bit of the latter and essentially none of the former. This post summarizes the numbers quite nicely.
– Alex Hajnal
7 hours ago
2
@takintoolong Obligatory XKCD article
– Nelson
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Why do not the rockets after stage separation, glide back to Earth with wings?
Is retro propulsion a better idea than gliding rockets back to 'Earth'? The way Energia-II was supposed to perform...
Source: buran.ru
Energia-II, all stages (including payload fairing) were planned to be recovered.
stages recovery booster-flyback energia
edited 13 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
1,331318
asked yesterday
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
Why do not the rockets after stage separation, glide back to Earth with wings?
Is retro propulsion a better idea than gliding rockets back to 'Earth'? The way Energia-II was supposed to perform...
Source: buran.ru
Energia-II, all stages (including payload fairing) were planned to be recovered.
stages recovery booster-flyback energia
stages recovery booster-flyback energia
edited 13 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
1,331318
asked yesterday
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
edited 13 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
1,331318
asked yesterday
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
edited 13 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
1,331318
edited 13 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
1,331318
edited 13 hours ago
Alex Hajnal
1,331318
1,331318
asked yesterday
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
asked yesterday
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
asked yesterday
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
5817
1
Why not parachute?
– laptop2d
14 hours ago
2
Well, if it doesn't work in KSP...
– Mazura
10 hours ago
I still don't understand why we don't fly most of the way up with a giant cargo plane first and launch from the plane.
– takintoolong
7 hours ago
4
@takintoolong This has been discussing on Space.SE here and to some extent here. Basically the reason is that to reach orbit you need speed, not altitude. Air launching from a plane provides only a bit of the latter and essentially none of the former. This post summarizes the numbers quite nicely.
– Alex Hajnal
7 hours ago
2
@takintoolong Obligatory XKCD article
– Nelson
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
1
Why not parachute?
– laptop2d
14 hours ago
2
Well, if it doesn't work in KSP...
– Mazura
10 hours ago
I still don't understand why we don't fly most of the way up with a giant cargo plane first and launch from the plane.
– takintoolong
7 hours ago
4
@takintoolong This has been discussing on Space.SE here and to some extent here. Basically the reason is that to reach orbit you need speed, not altitude. Air launching from a plane provides only a bit of the latter and essentially none of the former. This post summarizes the numbers quite nicely.
– Alex Hajnal
7 hours ago
2
@takintoolong Obligatory XKCD article
– Nelson
4 hours ago
1
1
Why not parachute?
– laptop2d
14 hours ago
Why not parachute?
– laptop2d
14 hours ago
2
2
Well, if it doesn't work in KSP...
– Mazura
10 hours ago
Well, if it doesn't work in KSP...
– Mazura
10 hours ago
I still don't understand why we don't fly most of the way up with a giant cargo plane first and launch from the plane.
– takintoolong
7 hours ago
I still don't understand why we don't fly most of the way up with a giant cargo plane first and launch from the plane.
– takintoolong
7 hours ago
4
4
@takintoolong This has been discussing on Space.SE here and to some extent here. Basically the reason is that to reach orbit you need speed, not altitude. Air launching from a plane provides only a bit of the latter and essentially none of the former. This post summarizes the numbers quite nicely.
– Alex Hajnal
7 hours ago
@takintoolong This has been discussing on Space.SE here and to some extent here. Basically the reason is that to reach orbit you need speed, not altitude. Air launching from a plane provides only a bit of the latter and essentially none of the former. This post summarizes the numbers quite nicely.
– Alex Hajnal
7 hours ago
2
2
@takintoolong Obligatory XKCD article
– Nelson
4 hours ago
@takintoolong Obligatory XKCD article
– Nelson
4 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
As with most things space, it all comes down to tradeoffs. The most efficient rocket is one that is purely expendable and has no mass that does not contribute to getting the payload towards orbit.
If the aim is to reuse the rocket, you need a mechanism to achieve control in the upper atmosphere, a method to control descent rate and a method to achieve a landing that does not destroy the hardware (or just tough hardware). And do all of this without increasing the risk of the launch itself failing due to hardware for the return.
Wings are a partial option, they work well for achieving a controllable descent rate, but they do not do much useful at high altitude and need additional supporting hardware (wheels/runway/airbags etc) to achieve a soft touchdown and a fair bit of flight control smarts.
Using the existing rocket engine is less efficient than using wings, but it is something that is already there on the rocket and gives you a system with extra capability in expendable mode.
So the final decision involves a lot of trade offs that often have much to do with seemingly minor details and less on perfection of a single aspect. For example SpaceX has ambitions on the moon and mars, and both of those require mastering powered descent rather than wings.
Related questions/answers
SpaceX decision making
Wings during ascent
Plans to have wings on SRBs
edited 14 hours ago
edc65
1032
answered yesterday
GremlinWranger
1,685215
1
You probably mean "descent rate" instead of "descent rate"
– Kakturus
20 hours ago
24
@Kakturus you probably meant "decent rate" the second time. 😆 I had to read that a dozen times before I figured out what happened here.
– MikeTheLiar
19 hours ago
13
@Kakturus That's how you send a human brain into an infinite loop...
– Volker Siegel
17 hours ago
add a comment |
Wings are heavy. They also add mass to the rocket's structure, because it is loaded horizontally when flying with wings rather than vertically as it is at launch. At the time Energia was developed, control systems were not developed enough for a vertically landing rocket. However, now that we have that ability (as Blue Origin and SpaceX have demonstrated), there is less of a weight penalty to carry a bit of extra fuel for a powered landing than to add wings.
answered 19 hours ago
Skyler
22114
New contributor
Skyler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Instead of carrying perhaps twice as much fuel, those proposed boosters have LOX engines with air intakes (as opposed to an extremely simple SRB - but those you can't turn on and off...), three sets of retractable wheels, and robust armatures for four variable wings, let alone those wings themselves. Their payload would have to be about the size of the zero painted on the side, which would make the boosters not worth their addition to the cross section. And it looks like you'd still need a computer to fly those tiny wings.
– Mazura
10 hours ago
@Mazura thing is though, you don't need twice as much fuel. You're no longer accelerating the Second Stage, and you've already burned most of the weight of the first stage.
– Zac Faragher
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Wings won't work on the moon, and won't work nearly as well on mars. SpaceX is getting some practice in with the landings (note that recovering boosters is still in beta according to SpaceX) on the Falcon 9 before they build the Starship (Formerly known as the BFR) that will need to be able to land with no atmosphere.
answered 16 hours ago
Sdarb
20616
1
The question is not about the Moon or Mars.
– Organic Marble
16 hours ago
there's only one reusable orbital rocket right now, and I have heard this described as the reasoning that that rocket's builders are using.
– Sdarb
15 hours ago
3
@OrganicMarble, the question is about why existing rockets are designed the way they are. Expections about travel to the moon and Mars are relevant to the design choices that have been made.
– prl
14 hours ago
6
@organic SpaceX wants to go to mars. On earth they can either invest in a dead end technology that will never take them to mars or on earth they can invest in a technology that will work both on earth and on mars. An organisation's long term objectives are relevant to what an organisation is doing today. The answerer may be wrong, j don't know, but they are answering the question
– Richard Tingle
10 hours ago
1
@OrganicMarble considering there is currently only one orbital class rocket in the world capable of recovery and reuse, I think that that particular company's motivations are entirely relevant to the question. If the question was "Why have there never been any rockets that glide back" that would be a very different and much muddier question.
– Sdarb
8 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
The Energia certainly took more payload than Falcon Heavy..
answered 2 hours ago
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Nathan Tuggy
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33259%2fwhy-do-rockets-do-not-glide-back%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As with most things space, it all comes down to tradeoffs. The most efficient rocket is one that is purely expendable and has no mass that does not contribute to getting the payload towards orbit.
If the aim is to reuse the rocket, you need a mechanism to achieve control in the upper atmosphere, a method to control descent rate and a method to achieve a landing that does not destroy the hardware (or just tough hardware). And do all of this without increasing the risk of the launch itself failing due to hardware for the return.
Wings are a partial option, they work well for achieving a controllable descent rate, but they do not do much useful at high altitude and need additional supporting hardware (wheels/runway/airbags etc) to achieve a soft touchdown and a fair bit of flight control smarts.
Using the existing rocket engine is less efficient than using wings, but it is something that is already there on the rocket and gives you a system with extra capability in expendable mode.
So the final decision involves a lot of trade offs that often have much to do with seemingly minor details and less on perfection of a single aspect. For example SpaceX has ambitions on the moon and mars, and both of those require mastering powered descent rather than wings.
Related questions/answers
SpaceX decision making
Wings during ascent
Plans to have wings on SRBs
edited 14 hours ago
edc65
1032
answered yesterday
GremlinWranger
1,685215
1
You probably mean "descent rate" instead of "descent rate"
– Kakturus
20 hours ago
24
@Kakturus you probably meant "decent rate" the second time. 😆 I had to read that a dozen times before I figured out what happened here.
– MikeTheLiar
19 hours ago
13
@Kakturus That's how you send a human brain into an infinite loop...
– Volker Siegel
17 hours ago
add a comment |
As with most things space, it all comes down to tradeoffs. The most efficient rocket is one that is purely expendable and has no mass that does not contribute to getting the payload towards orbit.
If the aim is to reuse the rocket, you need a mechanism to achieve control in the upper atmosphere, a method to control descent rate and a method to achieve a landing that does not destroy the hardware (or just tough hardware). And do all of this without increasing the risk of the launch itself failing due to hardware for the return.
Wings are a partial option, they work well for achieving a controllable descent rate, but they do not do much useful at high altitude and need additional supporting hardware (wheels/runway/airbags etc) to achieve a soft touchdown and a fair bit of flight control smarts.
Using the existing rocket engine is less efficient than using wings, but it is something that is already there on the rocket and gives you a system with extra capability in expendable mode.
So the final decision involves a lot of trade offs that often have much to do with seemingly minor details and less on perfection of a single aspect. For example SpaceX has ambitions on the moon and mars, and both of those require mastering powered descent rather than wings.
Related questions/answers
SpaceX decision making
Wings during ascent
Plans to have wings on SRBs
edited 14 hours ago
edc65
1032
answered yesterday
GremlinWranger
1,685215
1
You probably mean "descent rate" instead of "descent rate"
– Kakturus
20 hours ago
24
@Kakturus you probably meant "decent rate" the second time. 😆 I had to read that a dozen times before I figured out what happened here.
– MikeTheLiar
19 hours ago
13
@Kakturus That's how you send a human brain into an infinite loop...
– Volker Siegel
17 hours ago
add a comment |
As with most things space, it all comes down to tradeoffs. The most efficient rocket is one that is purely expendable and has no mass that does not contribute to getting the payload towards orbit.
If the aim is to reuse the rocket, you need a mechanism to achieve control in the upper atmosphere, a method to control descent rate and a method to achieve a landing that does not destroy the hardware (or just tough hardware). And do all of this without increasing the risk of the launch itself failing due to hardware for the return.
Wings are a partial option, they work well for achieving a controllable descent rate, but they do not do much useful at high altitude and need additional supporting hardware (wheels/runway/airbags etc) to achieve a soft touchdown and a fair bit of flight control smarts.
Using the existing rocket engine is less efficient than using wings, but it is something that is already there on the rocket and gives you a system with extra capability in expendable mode.
So the final decision involves a lot of trade offs that often have much to do with seemingly minor details and less on perfection of a single aspect. For example SpaceX has ambitions on the moon and mars, and both of those require mastering powered descent rather than wings.
Related questions/answers
SpaceX decision making
Wings during ascent
Plans to have wings on SRBs
edited 14 hours ago
edc65
1032
answered yesterday
GremlinWranger
1,685215
As with most things space, it all comes down to tradeoffs. The most efficient rocket is one that is purely expendable and has no mass that does not contribute to getting the payload towards orbit.
If the aim is to reuse the rocket, you need a mechanism to achieve control in the upper atmosphere, a method to control descent rate and a method to achieve a landing that does not destroy the hardware (or just tough hardware). And do all of this without increasing the risk of the launch itself failing due to hardware for the return.
Wings are a partial option, they work well for achieving a controllable descent rate, but they do not do much useful at high altitude and need additional supporting hardware (wheels/runway/airbags etc) to achieve a soft touchdown and a fair bit of flight control smarts.
Using the existing rocket engine is less efficient than using wings, but it is something that is already there on the rocket and gives you a system with extra capability in expendable mode.
So the final decision involves a lot of trade offs that often have much to do with seemingly minor details and less on perfection of a single aspect. For example SpaceX has ambitions on the moon and mars, and both of those require mastering powered descent rather than wings.
Related questions/answers
SpaceX decision making
Wings during ascent
Plans to have wings on SRBs
edited 14 hours ago
edc65
1032
answered yesterday
GremlinWranger
1,685215
edited 14 hours ago
edc65
1032
edited 14 hours ago
edc65
1032
edited 14 hours ago
edc65
1032
1032
answered yesterday
GremlinWranger
1,685215
answered yesterday
GremlinWranger
1,685215
answered yesterday
GremlinWranger
1,685215
1,685215
1
You probably mean "descent rate" instead of "descent rate"
– Kakturus
20 hours ago
24
@Kakturus you probably meant "decent rate" the second time. 😆 I had to read that a dozen times before I figured out what happened here.
– MikeTheLiar
19 hours ago
13
@Kakturus That's how you send a human brain into an infinite loop...
– Volker Siegel
17 hours ago
add a comment |
1
You probably mean "descent rate" instead of "descent rate"
– Kakturus
20 hours ago
24
@Kakturus you probably meant "decent rate" the second time. 😆 I had to read that a dozen times before I figured out what happened here.
– MikeTheLiar
19 hours ago
13
@Kakturus That's how you send a human brain into an infinite loop...
– Volker Siegel
17 hours ago
1
1
You probably mean "descent rate" instead of "descent rate"
– Kakturus
20 hours ago
You probably mean "descent rate" instead of "descent rate"
– Kakturus
20 hours ago
24
24
@Kakturus you probably meant "decent rate" the second time. 😆 I had to read that a dozen times before I figured out what happened here.
– MikeTheLiar
19 hours ago
@Kakturus you probably meant "decent rate" the second time. 😆 I had to read that a dozen times before I figured out what happened here.
– MikeTheLiar
19 hours ago
13
13
@Kakturus That's how you send a human brain into an infinite loop...
– Volker Siegel
17 hours ago
@Kakturus That's how you send a human brain into an infinite loop...
– Volker Siegel
17 hours ago
add a comment |
Wings are heavy. They also add mass to the rocket's structure, because it is loaded horizontally when flying with wings rather than vertically as it is at launch. At the time Energia was developed, control systems were not developed enough for a vertically landing rocket. However, now that we have that ability (as Blue Origin and SpaceX have demonstrated), there is less of a weight penalty to carry a bit of extra fuel for a powered landing than to add wings.
answered 19 hours ago
Skyler
22114
New contributor
Skyler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Instead of carrying perhaps twice as much fuel, those proposed boosters have LOX engines with air intakes (as opposed to an extremely simple SRB - but those you can't turn on and off...), three sets of retractable wheels, and robust armatures for four variable wings, let alone those wings themselves. Their payload would have to be about the size of the zero painted on the side, which would make the boosters not worth their addition to the cross section. And it looks like you'd still need a computer to fly those tiny wings.
– Mazura
10 hours ago
@Mazura thing is though, you don't need twice as much fuel. You're no longer accelerating the Second Stage, and you've already burned most of the weight of the first stage.
– Zac Faragher
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Wings are heavy. They also add mass to the rocket's structure, because it is loaded horizontally when flying with wings rather than vertically as it is at launch. At the time Energia was developed, control systems were not developed enough for a vertically landing rocket. However, now that we have that ability (as Blue Origin and SpaceX have demonstrated), there is less of a weight penalty to carry a bit of extra fuel for a powered landing than to add wings.
answered 19 hours ago
Skyler
22114
New contributor
Skyler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Instead of carrying perhaps twice as much fuel, those proposed boosters have LOX engines with air intakes (as opposed to an extremely simple SRB - but those you can't turn on and off...), three sets of retractable wheels, and robust armatures for four variable wings, let alone those wings themselves. Their payload would have to be about the size of the zero painted on the side, which would make the boosters not worth their addition to the cross section. And it looks like you'd still need a computer to fly those tiny wings.
– Mazura
10 hours ago
@Mazura thing is though, you don't need twice as much fuel. You're no longer accelerating the Second Stage, and you've already burned most of the weight of the first stage.
– Zac Faragher
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Wings are heavy. They also add mass to the rocket's structure, because it is loaded horizontally when flying with wings rather than vertically as it is at launch. At the time Energia was developed, control systems were not developed enough for a vertically landing rocket. However, now that we have that ability (as Blue Origin and SpaceX have demonstrated), there is less of a weight penalty to carry a bit of extra fuel for a powered landing than to add wings.
answered 19 hours ago
Skyler
22114
New contributor
Skyler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Wings are heavy. They also add mass to the rocket's structure, because it is loaded horizontally when flying with wings rather than vertically as it is at launch. At the time Energia was developed, control systems were not developed enough for a vertically landing rocket. However, now that we have that ability (as Blue Origin and SpaceX have demonstrated), there is less of a weight penalty to carry a bit of extra fuel for a powered landing than to add wings.
answered 19 hours ago
Skyler
22114
New contributor
Skyler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 19 hours ago
Skyler
22114
New contributor
Skyler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 19 hours ago
Skyler
22114
answered 19 hours ago
Skyler
22114
22114
New contributor
Skyler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Skyler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Skyler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Instead of carrying perhaps twice as much fuel, those proposed boosters have LOX engines with air intakes (as opposed to an extremely simple SRB - but those you can't turn on and off...), three sets of retractable wheels, and robust armatures for four variable wings, let alone those wings themselves. Their payload would have to be about the size of the zero painted on the side, which would make the boosters not worth their addition to the cross section. And it looks like you'd still need a computer to fly those tiny wings.
– Mazura
10 hours ago
@Mazura thing is though, you don't need twice as much fuel. You're no longer accelerating the Second Stage, and you've already burned most of the weight of the first stage.
– Zac Faragher
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Instead of carrying perhaps twice as much fuel, those proposed boosters have LOX engines with air intakes (as opposed to an extremely simple SRB - but those you can't turn on and off...), three sets of retractable wheels, and robust armatures for four variable wings, let alone those wings themselves. Their payload would have to be about the size of the zero painted on the side, which would make the boosters not worth their addition to the cross section. And it looks like you'd still need a computer to fly those tiny wings.
– Mazura
10 hours ago
@Mazura thing is though, you don't need twice as much fuel. You're no longer accelerating the Second Stage, and you've already burned most of the weight of the first stage.
– Zac Faragher
6 hours ago
Instead of carrying perhaps twice as much fuel, those proposed boosters have LOX engines with air intakes (as opposed to an extremely simple SRB - but those you can't turn on and off...), three sets of retractable wheels, and robust armatures for four variable wings, let alone those wings themselves. Their payload would have to be about the size of the zero painted on the side, which would make the boosters not worth their addition to the cross section. And it looks like you'd still need a computer to fly those tiny wings.
– Mazura
10 hours ago
Instead of carrying perhaps twice as much fuel, those proposed boosters have LOX engines with air intakes (as opposed to an extremely simple SRB - but those you can't turn on and off...), three sets of retractable wheels, and robust armatures for four variable wings, let alone those wings themselves. Their payload would have to be about the size of the zero painted on the side, which would make the boosters not worth their addition to the cross section. And it looks like you'd still need a computer to fly those tiny wings.
– Mazura
10 hours ago
@Mazura thing is though, you don't need twice as much fuel. You're no longer accelerating the Second Stage, and you've already burned most of the weight of the first stage.
– Zac Faragher
6 hours ago
@Mazura thing is though, you don't need twice as much fuel. You're no longer accelerating the Second Stage, and you've already burned most of the weight of the first stage.
– Zac Faragher
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Wings won't work on the moon, and won't work nearly as well on mars. SpaceX is getting some practice in with the landings (note that recovering boosters is still in beta according to SpaceX) on the Falcon 9 before they build the Starship (Formerly known as the BFR) that will need to be able to land with no atmosphere.
answered 16 hours ago
Sdarb
20616
1
The question is not about the Moon or Mars.
– Organic Marble
16 hours ago
there's only one reusable orbital rocket right now, and I have heard this described as the reasoning that that rocket's builders are using.
– Sdarb
15 hours ago
3
@OrganicMarble, the question is about why existing rockets are designed the way they are. Expections about travel to the moon and Mars are relevant to the design choices that have been made.
– prl
14 hours ago
6
@organic SpaceX wants to go to mars. On earth they can either invest in a dead end technology that will never take them to mars or on earth they can invest in a technology that will work both on earth and on mars. An organisation's long term objectives are relevant to what an organisation is doing today. The answerer may be wrong, j don't know, but they are answering the question
– Richard Tingle
10 hours ago
1
@OrganicMarble considering there is currently only one orbital class rocket in the world capable of recovery and reuse, I think that that particular company's motivations are entirely relevant to the question. If the question was "Why have there never been any rockets that glide back" that would be a very different and much muddier question.
– Sdarb
8 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Wings won't work on the moon, and won't work nearly as well on mars. SpaceX is getting some practice in with the landings (note that recovering boosters is still in beta according to SpaceX) on the Falcon 9 before they build the Starship (Formerly known as the BFR) that will need to be able to land with no atmosphere.
answered 16 hours ago
Sdarb
20616
1
The question is not about the Moon or Mars.
– Organic Marble
16 hours ago
there's only one reusable orbital rocket right now, and I have heard this described as the reasoning that that rocket's builders are using.
– Sdarb
15 hours ago
3
@OrganicMarble, the question is about why existing rockets are designed the way they are. Expections about travel to the moon and Mars are relevant to the design choices that have been made.
– prl
14 hours ago
6
@organic SpaceX wants to go to mars. On earth they can either invest in a dead end technology that will never take them to mars or on earth they can invest in a technology that will work both on earth and on mars. An organisation's long term objectives are relevant to what an organisation is doing today. The answerer may be wrong, j don't know, but they are answering the question
– Richard Tingle
10 hours ago
1
@OrganicMarble considering there is currently only one orbital class rocket in the world capable of recovery and reuse, I think that that particular company's motivations are entirely relevant to the question. If the question was "Why have there never been any rockets that glide back" that would be a very different and much muddier question.
– Sdarb
8 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Wings won't work on the moon, and won't work nearly as well on mars. SpaceX is getting some practice in with the landings (note that recovering boosters is still in beta according to SpaceX) on the Falcon 9 before they build the Starship (Formerly known as the BFR) that will need to be able to land with no atmosphere.
answered 16 hours ago
Sdarb
20616
Wings won't work on the moon, and won't work nearly as well on mars. SpaceX is getting some practice in with the landings (note that recovering boosters is still in beta according to SpaceX) on the Falcon 9 before they build the Starship (Formerly known as the BFR) that will need to be able to land with no atmosphere.
answered 16 hours ago
Sdarb
20616
edited 8 hours ago
answered 16 hours ago
Sdarb
20616
answered 16 hours ago
Sdarb
20616
answered 16 hours ago
Sdarb
20616
20616
1
The question is not about the Moon or Mars.
– Organic Marble
16 hours ago
there's only one reusable orbital rocket right now, and I have heard this described as the reasoning that that rocket's builders are using.
– Sdarb
15 hours ago
3
@OrganicMarble, the question is about why existing rockets are designed the way they are. Expections about travel to the moon and Mars are relevant to the design choices that have been made.
– prl
14 hours ago
6
@organic SpaceX wants to go to mars. On earth they can either invest in a dead end technology that will never take them to mars or on earth they can invest in a technology that will work both on earth and on mars. An organisation's long term objectives are relevant to what an organisation is doing today. The answerer may be wrong, j don't know, but they are answering the question
– Richard Tingle
10 hours ago
1
@OrganicMarble considering there is currently only one orbital class rocket in the world capable of recovery and reuse, I think that that particular company's motivations are entirely relevant to the question. If the question was "Why have there never been any rockets that glide back" that would be a very different and much muddier question.
– Sdarb
8 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
1
The question is not about the Moon or Mars.
– Organic Marble
16 hours ago
there's only one reusable orbital rocket right now, and I have heard this described as the reasoning that that rocket's builders are using.
– Sdarb
15 hours ago
3
@OrganicMarble, the question is about why existing rockets are designed the way they are. Expections about travel to the moon and Mars are relevant to the design choices that have been made.
– prl
14 hours ago
6
@organic SpaceX wants to go to mars. On earth they can either invest in a dead end technology that will never take them to mars or on earth they can invest in a technology that will work both on earth and on mars. An organisation's long term objectives are relevant to what an organisation is doing today. The answerer may be wrong, j don't know, but they are answering the question
– Richard Tingle
10 hours ago
1
@OrganicMarble considering there is currently only one orbital class rocket in the world capable of recovery and reuse, I think that that particular company's motivations are entirely relevant to the question. If the question was "Why have there never been any rockets that glide back" that would be a very different and much muddier question.
– Sdarb
8 hours ago
1
1
The question is not about the Moon or Mars.
– Organic Marble
16 hours ago
The question is not about the Moon or Mars.
– Organic Marble
16 hours ago
there's only one reusable orbital rocket right now, and I have heard this described as the reasoning that that rocket's builders are using.
– Sdarb
15 hours ago
there's only one reusable orbital rocket right now, and I have heard this described as the reasoning that that rocket's builders are using.
– Sdarb
15 hours ago
3
3
@OrganicMarble, the question is about why existing rockets are designed the way they are. Expections about travel to the moon and Mars are relevant to the design choices that have been made.
– prl
14 hours ago
@OrganicMarble, the question is about why existing rockets are designed the way they are. Expections about travel to the moon and Mars are relevant to the design choices that have been made.
– prl
14 hours ago
6
6
@organic SpaceX wants to go to mars. On earth they can either invest in a dead end technology that will never take them to mars or on earth they can invest in a technology that will work both on earth and on mars. An organisation's long term objectives are relevant to what an organisation is doing today. The answerer may be wrong, j don't know, but they are answering the question
– Richard Tingle
10 hours ago
@organic SpaceX wants to go to mars. On earth they can either invest in a dead end technology that will never take them to mars or on earth they can invest in a technology that will work both on earth and on mars. An organisation's long term objectives are relevant to what an organisation is doing today. The answerer may be wrong, j don't know, but they are answering the question
– Richard Tingle
10 hours ago
1
1
@OrganicMarble considering there is currently only one orbital class rocket in the world capable of recovery and reuse, I think that that particular company's motivations are entirely relevant to the question. If the question was "Why have there never been any rockets that glide back" that would be a very different and much muddier question.
– Sdarb
8 hours ago
@OrganicMarble considering there is currently only one orbital class rocket in the world capable of recovery and reuse, I think that that particular company's motivations are entirely relevant to the question. If the question was "Why have there never been any rockets that glide back" that would be a very different and much muddier question.
– Sdarb
8 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
The Energia certainly took more payload than Falcon Heavy..
answered 2 hours ago
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Nathan Tuggy
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The Energia certainly took more payload than Falcon Heavy..
answered 2 hours ago
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Nathan Tuggy
2 hours ago
add a comment |
The Energia certainly took more payload than Falcon Heavy..
answered 2 hours ago
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
The Energia certainly took more payload than Falcon Heavy..
answered 2 hours ago
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
answered 2 hours ago
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
answered 2 hours ago
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
answered 2 hours ago
Red Orbiter 10.1
5817
5817
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Nathan Tuggy
2 hours ago
add a comment |
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Nathan Tuggy
2 hours ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Nathan Tuggy
2 hours ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Nathan Tuggy
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33259%2fwhy-do-rockets-do-not-glide-back%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Why not parachute?
– laptop2d
14 hours ago
2
Well, if it doesn't work in KSP...
– Mazura
10 hours ago
I still don't understand why we don't fly most of the way up with a giant cargo plane first and launch from the plane.
– takintoolong
7 hours ago
4
@takintoolong This has been discussing on Space.SE here and to some extent here. Basically the reason is that to reach orbit you need speed, not altitude. Air launching from a plane provides only a bit of the latter and essentially none of the former. This post summarizes the numbers quite nicely.
– Alex Hajnal
7 hours ago
2
@takintoolong Obligatory XKCD article
– Nelson
4 hours ago