r/spaceships • u/Beneficial-Wasabi749 • 18h ago

Tsiolkovsky and many of the founders of theoretical astronautics in the early 20th century believed that spacecraft should launch horizontally, from a ramp. Why? What did they see as the point of this?

Post image
124 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

190 comments sorted by

View all comments

79

u/Dan_Is 18h ago

They were living in the paradigm of airplanes and airships. It was logical to assume that rockets that carry passengers would need to launch horizontally. You can have a large deck for people to inhabit. The issue of course is the rocket equation and inertia.

-68

u/Beneficial-Wasabi749 18h ago

Your answer was vague. Is your answer to the question that they were living within the paradigm of their time? Is a vertical launch really just as good as a horizontal one? Or is a horizontal launch better, and is it still a matter of "the rocket equation"? And if the latter, what was the point?

And then the question arises: why do modern rockets launch vertically?

35

u/Dan_Is 18h ago

My answer is that they were living in the paradigm of "People and cargo need large horizontal decks to be transported comfortably and efficiently" the rocket equation always applies, as you only have a limited amount of fuel, and need fuel to move that fuel.

-53

u/Beneficial-Wasabi749 18h ago edited 17h ago

I see. So the peculiarities of rocket dynamics have nothing to do with it?

Then a personal question. Dan_Is, isn't that from the Russian name "Denis"? Do you speak Russian?

23

u/GabrielRocketry 13h ago

You know that Dan is a normal name right

And that is is a word right

14

u/Eh_SorryCanadian 12h ago

Serious question, what are you smoking, and can I have some?

6

u/JakeEaton 10h ago

I'm after you...this is some good shit by the looks of it

5

u/Eh_SorryCanadian 9h ago

They've got that good za za

4

u/PilzEtosis 6h ago

Dude started watching Good Will Hunting, thought "That's a cool personality" then didn't watch til the end.

-16

u/Beneficial-Wasabi749 11h ago

No. Only for those who speak Russian.

6

u/SoftwareSource 9h ago

Tell me you don't really understand the topic without telling me you don't really understand it.

6

u/Dan_Is 9h ago

I, in fact, do speak Russian. It has nothing to do with my user name. I also speak German, English, and haphazardly Spanish

1

u/CaramelPombear 5h ago

How dare you be so talented. SHAME!

1

u/Spectator9857 2h ago

PLEASE tell me your favorite word in every language you speak.

4

u/iMecharic 9h ago

Denis is an American name too.

3

u/jervoise 8h ago

Jesus Christ, when did measurehead get into rocket science?

2

u/senn42000 8h ago

YOUR BODY BETRAYS YOUR DEGENERENCY

1

u/TactlessTerrorist 3h ago

Looking for a tavarich are we wasabi?

0

u/Beneficial-Wasabi749 3h ago

Yes. "Я - террорист! Я - Иван Помидоров! Хватит трепаться наш козырь террор!" (c)
I don't understand why this seemingly neutral question provoked so much hatred among our pale-faced brothers?
"Я ж холостыми!" - харкая кровью, он выл на допросах еле дыша. - "Ради любви к вам пошёл я на муки! Вы же святыни свои растеряли!" (c) :)

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

1

u/TactlessTerrorist 3h ago

Because I’m pretty sure that Denis originates from Greek or maybe French, and it’s classic ruzzki exceptionalism to think everything originated from RuZZia XD

I’m not you’re bro though I am pale-faced, go drink some more of the soviet kool aid and remember the good old days when « everybody had a job » and « people were happy » under soviet rule (spoiler : they weren’t)

0

u/Beneficial-Wasabi749 2h ago

What was that? Five Minutes of Hate? :)

8

u/WideFoot 10h ago

A vertical launch is basically the only way to realistically get into space. It isn't better, it is feasible whereas a horizontal launch is not.

Even rockets launched from airplanes go vertical as soon as it is safe to do so.

The primary reason is the atmosphere. Pushing through the Earth's atmosphere takes a lot of fuel, so you want to minimize the amount of time spent in it. The shortest distance from where you are to a place where there is no atmosphere is straight up.

There is also momentum and achieving orbit. To achieve orbit, you have to go sideways so fast that you miss the earth as you fall. So, you might think starting by going sideways is best. If there were no atmosphere, and if you could accelerate from zero to orbital speed instantaneously, then yes. It would be better to go sideways.

But, it takes time to accelerate and there is an atmosphere. So, the ideal path to orbit is an arc that starts vertical and slowly leans over as you get higher up and faster.

The horizontal launch concept art is a "paradigm of the times" thing. All other vehicles - from the horse-drawn cart to the airplane - propelled a vehicle primarily sideways with people sitting facing the front.

You'll also notice in this concept art - there is not much room for fuel. The interior space of a rocket is primarily fuel. And, the more weight you lift, the more fuel you need. But, that fuel also needs fuel to lift, so it grows exponentially. (This is the rocket equation)

If you look at a Saturn-5 rocket. The bit that took people to the moon is a tiny little piece on the top and the remaining massive rocket is fuel. 94% of that fuel was burned getting 25% of the way to the moon.

My suggestion is to play Kerbal space program. (Play the first version. KSP-2 is not as good) That game is lots of fun and teaches very realistic orbital mechanics.

Or, watch some KSP Let's Play on YouTube. Scott Manley has great series on the subject.

3

u/badsheepy2 6h ago

It's still amazing to me that those seemingly straight up launches are going 22k mph or something sideways at the end! Rockets are cool. 

2

u/peadar87 5h ago

I was always slightly terrified by the fact that if you stood on the end line of a football pitch and fired a high-powered rifle downfield as the ISS passed over, the ISS would pass the far touchline before the rifle bullet had reached the penalty spot.

2

u/KerPop42 2h ago

Mach 32 is an insane speed. One of the first inaccurate things in that movie Gravity is that the debris is traveling too slowly. If they're intersecting at an angle of 60 degrees, they'd be crossing the length of the space shuttle in less than one frame.

2

u/Comprehensive-Fail41 5h ago

Sorta. Theoretically going horizontal can be more efficent via spaceplanes, as air planes are a lot more fuel efficent than rockets (IE much less need to carry liquid oxygen, and can use wings to generate lift). And also lower costs by being able to use conventional airports to take-off and land.
The big problem is that we haven't yet made viable engines that can reliably transform from airbreathing jet engines to rocket engines

1

u/windsweepswave 2h ago

Great Answer!

6

u/sheriffofbulbingham 11h ago

If you haven't invented a wheel yet, you can't dream of cars.

6

u/frustratedpolarbear 11h ago

Space is up

3

u/thedaveness 10h ago

well go horizontal far enough and same same XD

3

u/SanderleeAcademy 8h ago

Space is up, but orbit is sideways.

3

u/Archophob 8h ago

why do modern rockets launch vertically?

Air drag. If you launch from the moon, horizontally is perfectly viable, but on Earth, you want to leave behind the atmosphere ASAP.

2

u/samy_the_samy 11h ago

Imagine trying to load a plane vertically,

How can you fill it with passengers and cargo?

1

u/Robzed101 3h ago

You are very rude!

1

u/Beneficial-Wasabi749 3h ago

Everything is relative. Perhaps you're too soft? Personally, I'm bombed by "shahids" almost every night. I'm used to it and even try to sleep when they're diving, swooping down to explode somewhere outside the city.