3 ms·
It's a lot easier to get up to speed if you don't have to deal with cutting through a heavy chunk of atmosphere on the way up. Plus, rocket designs could vary,
by astrodust 10y ago
It's a lot easier to get up to speed if you don't have to deal with cutting through a heavy chunk of atmosphere on the way up. Plus, rocket designs could vary, be less concerned about aerodynamics, if they were starting from a launch platform already in very thin air.
A wider, shorter rocket might work better in thin air, for example, but that would be impractical launching from sea-level as is tradition.
- msandford 10y agoI have this dream that someday we'll build a SR-710 that's 10x the size and carry a BIG payload. And then putting stuff into orbit will basically be strapping your thing to a "big" upper stage (but small relative to a whole rocket stack), loading it into the cargo bay and then some fancy flying. I know it'll never happen for a variety of reasons. But it's such a cool plane and when you think about cruising at mach 3 (2000mph+, 15% of escape velocity (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/) http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/)) it seems like it could make the rocket equation for a plane-launched rocket much, much more forgiving.
- Scramblejams 10y agoOne big reason it'll never happen: The square-cube law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law
- Symmetry 10y agoWith a wider, shorter rocket and lower pressure you could also use wider engine bells, for more efficient thrust.