why are we still designing rockets with the same shape (cylinder/nose cone)? Do we still not have the technology to send up boxier/flatter objects with thrusters on like the 4 corners, making for more stable landing and re take off?
In: Physics
Our atmosphere is filled with pressurized gasses. Moving through it causes resistance. Even if you just run forward, you have tons of molecules pushing back against you. This is why vehicles are built with aerodynamics in mind, to prevent too much resistance from the air. More resistance requires more energy to push past.
So, with a rocket, the shape needs to be aerodynamic to “slice” through the atmosphere in order to save fuel. To oversimplify, making a craft less aerodynamic is essentially making it harder to lift. That would mean you would need more fuel. However, more fuel equals more weight, so you can get to a point where the craft won’t even be able to launch properly.
In space, the shape wouldn’t matter, as traveling in a vacuum would allow for movement without resistance from air. If you watch space launches, the rocket comes apart after leaving the atmosphere. That’s all the rocket was needed for, and the smaller, non-rocket-shaped craft moves forward once in space.
Latest Answers