5 ms·

These two images are telling: http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/15/52/1600x800/landscape-1450887852-atkpdax.png http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/15/52/1600x800/landscape-14

• DiThi 9y ago
  T̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶p̶i̶c̶t̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶k̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶m̶i̶s̶l̶e̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶.̶ ̶F̶a̶l̶c̶o̶n̶'̶s̶ ̶b̶o̶o̶s̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶u̶s̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶c̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶K̶á̶r̶m̶á̶n̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶e̶.̶ However, as it is apparent from the size in the second picture, Falcon needs much, much more thrust to help put things to orbit. Going to space is kind of easy, the hard part is staying there.
  • agildehaus 9y ago
    Falcon 9's first stage certainly reaches and (fairly greatly) exceeds the Kármán line in RTLS boostback, as the graphic shows. Even in an ASDS landing, it exceeds the Kármán line. I think the typical apogee is around 120-130 km. Stage sep happens below the line, however.
    • DiThi 9y ago
      Thanks for correcting me instead of just downvoting.
    • angstrom 9y ago
      Having played several hundred hours of KSP I can confirm you shouldn't underestimate momentum. It's amazing that it's even possible. I think the number I've heard is if the earth's gravity was something like 10% stronger this wouldn't be feasible.
      • EGreg 9y ago
        Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying with a 10% higher gravity we wouldn't be able to escape Earth's field with any amount of thrust? What?
        • trevyn 9y ago
          Possibly not able to carry enough chemical fuel to lift the fuel into space and return and do a controlled landing without refueling? That seems more plausible. Fuel is heavy, and most of it is spent on... lifting fuel.
          • EGreg 9y ago
            But the way the rocket works is creating a continuous explosion behind it. The propellant explodes, pushing the rocket. It's not just the rocket equation, but the explosion from a central point BEHIND the rocket that pushes it further. Having a nuclear explosion for example behind the rocket would surely be enough to push it into space... even on Jupiter.
            • trevyn 9y ago
              Sure, which is why I said chemical fuel. New propellants change the equation.
            • kabouseng 9y ago
              "But the way the rocket works is creating a continuous explosion behind it." Not quite, it's all about mass flow.
          • angstrom 9y ago
            Yes, this is what I was referring to. Though there's probably another percentage that makes most rocket fuel also insufficient for anything more than LEO.
        • sten 9y ago
          You can't escape the rocket equation.
        • 9y ago
      • njarboe 9y ago
        If gravity was 10% stronger rockets might be much more powerful and been reusable much sooner. Having the military need to produce nuclear powered rockets for effective ICBMs would have produced a very different nuclear power development path than the one on this Earth.
        • BatFastard 9y ago
          And pigs would fly. Their squat powerful bodies would have developed wings!
      • greedo 9y ago
        Project Orion would like to have a word with you...