Mixing
Will spacex launch in an inclined fashion while returning from mars?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Considering the toughest thing in launching a rocket is to achieve the tangential velocity, launching horizontally might give us an added advantage for delta V requirement.
This can't be done in earth, as the atmosphere is thick.But, since , the atmosphere of mars is thin, will spacex take advantage of the mars' rotation and launch horizontally?
Am I missing other considerations for a vertical launch.
spacex mars bfr
asked 2 hours ago
Vasanth C
1147
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Considering the toughest thing in launching a rocket is to achieve the tangential velocity, launching horizontally might give us an added advantage for delta V requirement.
This can't be done in earth, as the atmosphere is thick.But, since , the atmosphere of mars is thin, will spacex take advantage of the mars' rotation and launch horizontally?
Am I missing other considerations for a vertical launch.
spacex mars bfr
asked 2 hours ago
Vasanth C
1147
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Considering the toughest thing in launching a rocket is to achieve the tangential velocity, launching horizontally might give us an added advantage for delta V requirement.
This can't be done in earth, as the atmosphere is thick.But, since , the atmosphere of mars is thin, will spacex take advantage of the mars' rotation and launch horizontally?
Am I missing other considerations for a vertical launch.
spacex mars bfr
asked 2 hours ago
Vasanth C
1147
Considering the toughest thing in launching a rocket is to achieve the tangential velocity, launching horizontally might give us an added advantage for delta V requirement.
This can't be done in earth, as the atmosphere is thick.But, since , the atmosphere of mars is thin, will spacex take advantage of the mars' rotation and launch horizontally?
Am I missing other considerations for a vertical launch.
spacex mars bfr
spacex mars bfr
asked 2 hours ago
Vasanth C
1147
asked 2 hours ago
Vasanth C
1147
asked 2 hours ago
Vasanth C
1147
asked 2 hours ago
Vasanth C
1147
asked 2 hours ago
Vasanth C
1147
1147
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
A true horizontal launch requires infrastructure (a runway) which isn't there yet. The next best thing is to launch vertically, and turn the spacecraft to a more horizontal heading soon after launch (this is called a gravity turn, and is used on Earth as well).
All renderings of the BFR have landing legs at the bottom of the stage, for vertical landing/takeoff.
answered 1 hour ago
Hobbes
76.9k2210351
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In general, gravity losses are the key. While you are accelerating up out of the atmosphere, before you reach orbital or escape velocity, you are fight gravity.
On Earth it is worse than Mars due to being a larger/denser planet and thus greater value for gravity.
This is more obvious on descent for landing. Every second you spend decelerating, is one second where Earths gravity has further accelerated you downwards at 9.8 m/s. So SpaceX on landing waits to the last second to slow down (in a simplification) which is why the three engine burn is more fuel efficient for landing than the single engine burn. It slows down faster, spends less time being accelerated by Earth's gravity.
For launch, same idea. You want to get out of the atmosphere (agreed, worse on Earth than Mars) and then focus on speed to get to orbital where although Earth is still accelerating you downwards via gravity, you are now fast enough to just keep missing the Earth as you fall and you no longer have to fight the pull.
answered 2 hours ago
geoffc
52.5k8153292
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
They plan (or at leats planned in 2017) a direct return to Earth without entering Mars orbit. See the slide headed "Mars Transportation Architecture" on this presentation. Given that the only reason not to simply boost straight up is the possible small advantage from Mars' rotation. At the equator that is about 0.3 km/s, so, absent atmosphere, launching horizontally due East at the right time of day would save that much. At higher latitudes, the gain is less. More or less the same gain would be available by launching upwards until a few hundred meters clear of the ground and then turning sideways, which avoids the need for different landing gear.
On the other hand, although low density, Mars' atmohsphere extends up quite high, and exerts significant drag at high velocities, so spending extra time in it will have a performance cost. I don't have figures for that to be sure, but I suspect that effect outweighs any potential advantage from the rotation.
answered 22 mins ago
Steve Linton
3,9881529
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
A true horizontal launch requires infrastructure (a runway) which isn't there yet. The next best thing is to launch vertically, and turn the spacecraft to a more horizontal heading soon after launch (this is called a gravity turn, and is used on Earth as well).
All renderings of the BFR have landing legs at the bottom of the stage, for vertical landing/takeoff.
answered 1 hour ago
Hobbes
76.9k2210351
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
A true horizontal launch requires infrastructure (a runway) which isn't there yet. The next best thing is to launch vertically, and turn the spacecraft to a more horizontal heading soon after launch (this is called a gravity turn, and is used on Earth as well).
All renderings of the BFR have landing legs at the bottom of the stage, for vertical landing/takeoff.
answered 1 hour ago
Hobbes
76.9k2210351
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
A true horizontal launch requires infrastructure (a runway) which isn't there yet. The next best thing is to launch vertically, and turn the spacecraft to a more horizontal heading soon after launch (this is called a gravity turn, and is used on Earth as well).
All renderings of the BFR have landing legs at the bottom of the stage, for vertical landing/takeoff.
answered 1 hour ago
Hobbes
76.9k2210351
A true horizontal launch requires infrastructure (a runway) which isn't there yet. The next best thing is to launch vertically, and turn the spacecraft to a more horizontal heading soon after launch (this is called a gravity turn, and is used on Earth as well).
All renderings of the BFR have landing legs at the bottom of the stage, for vertical landing/takeoff.
answered 1 hour ago
Hobbes
76.9k2210351
answered 1 hour ago
Hobbes
76.9k2210351
answered 1 hour ago
Hobbes
76.9k2210351
answered 1 hour ago
Hobbes
76.9k2210351
76.9k2210351
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In general, gravity losses are the key. While you are accelerating up out of the atmosphere, before you reach orbital or escape velocity, you are fight gravity.
On Earth it is worse than Mars due to being a larger/denser planet and thus greater value for gravity.
This is more obvious on descent for landing. Every second you spend decelerating, is one second where Earths gravity has further accelerated you downwards at 9.8 m/s. So SpaceX on landing waits to the last second to slow down (in a simplification) which is why the three engine burn is more fuel efficient for landing than the single engine burn. It slows down faster, spends less time being accelerated by Earth's gravity.
For launch, same idea. You want to get out of the atmosphere (agreed, worse on Earth than Mars) and then focus on speed to get to orbital where although Earth is still accelerating you downwards via gravity, you are now fast enough to just keep missing the Earth as you fall and you no longer have to fight the pull.
answered 2 hours ago
geoffc
52.5k8153292
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In general, gravity losses are the key. While you are accelerating up out of the atmosphere, before you reach orbital or escape velocity, you are fight gravity.
On Earth it is worse than Mars due to being a larger/denser planet and thus greater value for gravity.
This is more obvious on descent for landing. Every second you spend decelerating, is one second where Earths gravity has further accelerated you downwards at 9.8 m/s. So SpaceX on landing waits to the last second to slow down (in a simplification) which is why the three engine burn is more fuel efficient for landing than the single engine burn. It slows down faster, spends less time being accelerated by Earth's gravity.
For launch, same idea. You want to get out of the atmosphere (agreed, worse on Earth than Mars) and then focus on speed to get to orbital where although Earth is still accelerating you downwards via gravity, you are now fast enough to just keep missing the Earth as you fall and you no longer have to fight the pull.
answered 2 hours ago
geoffc
52.5k8153292
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
In general, gravity losses are the key. While you are accelerating up out of the atmosphere, before you reach orbital or escape velocity, you are fight gravity.
On Earth it is worse than Mars due to being a larger/denser planet and thus greater value for gravity.
This is more obvious on descent for landing. Every second you spend decelerating, is one second where Earths gravity has further accelerated you downwards at 9.8 m/s. So SpaceX on landing waits to the last second to slow down (in a simplification) which is why the three engine burn is more fuel efficient for landing than the single engine burn. It slows down faster, spends less time being accelerated by Earth's gravity.
For launch, same idea. You want to get out of the atmosphere (agreed, worse on Earth than Mars) and then focus on speed to get to orbital where although Earth is still accelerating you downwards via gravity, you are now fast enough to just keep missing the Earth as you fall and you no longer have to fight the pull.
answered 2 hours ago
geoffc
52.5k8153292
In general, gravity losses are the key. While you are accelerating up out of the atmosphere, before you reach orbital or escape velocity, you are fight gravity.
On Earth it is worse than Mars due to being a larger/denser planet and thus greater value for gravity.
This is more obvious on descent for landing. Every second you spend decelerating, is one second where Earths gravity has further accelerated you downwards at 9.8 m/s. So SpaceX on landing waits to the last second to slow down (in a simplification) which is why the three engine burn is more fuel efficient for landing than the single engine burn. It slows down faster, spends less time being accelerated by Earth's gravity.
For launch, same idea. You want to get out of the atmosphere (agreed, worse on Earth than Mars) and then focus on speed to get to orbital where although Earth is still accelerating you downwards via gravity, you are now fast enough to just keep missing the Earth as you fall and you no longer have to fight the pull.
answered 2 hours ago
geoffc
52.5k8153292
answered 2 hours ago
geoffc
52.5k8153292
answered 2 hours ago
geoffc
52.5k8153292
answered 2 hours ago
geoffc
52.5k8153292
52.5k8153292
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
They plan (or at leats planned in 2017) a direct return to Earth without entering Mars orbit. See the slide headed "Mars Transportation Architecture" on this presentation. Given that the only reason not to simply boost straight up is the possible small advantage from Mars' rotation. At the equator that is about 0.3 km/s, so, absent atmosphere, launching horizontally due East at the right time of day would save that much. At higher latitudes, the gain is less. More or less the same gain would be available by launching upwards until a few hundred meters clear of the ground and then turning sideways, which avoids the need for different landing gear.
On the other hand, although low density, Mars' atmohsphere extends up quite high, and exerts significant drag at high velocities, so spending extra time in it will have a performance cost. I don't have figures for that to be sure, but I suspect that effect outweighs any potential advantage from the rotation.
answered 22 mins ago
Steve Linton
3,9881529
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
They plan (or at leats planned in 2017) a direct return to Earth without entering Mars orbit. See the slide headed "Mars Transportation Architecture" on this presentation. Given that the only reason not to simply boost straight up is the possible small advantage from Mars' rotation. At the equator that is about 0.3 km/s, so, absent atmosphere, launching horizontally due East at the right time of day would save that much. At higher latitudes, the gain is less. More or less the same gain would be available by launching upwards until a few hundred meters clear of the ground and then turning sideways, which avoids the need for different landing gear.
On the other hand, although low density, Mars' atmohsphere extends up quite high, and exerts significant drag at high velocities, so spending extra time in it will have a performance cost. I don't have figures for that to be sure, but I suspect that effect outweighs any potential advantage from the rotation.
answered 22 mins ago
Steve Linton
3,9881529
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
They plan (or at leats planned in 2017) a direct return to Earth without entering Mars orbit. See the slide headed "Mars Transportation Architecture" on this presentation. Given that the only reason not to simply boost straight up is the possible small advantage from Mars' rotation. At the equator that is about 0.3 km/s, so, absent atmosphere, launching horizontally due East at the right time of day would save that much. At higher latitudes, the gain is less. More or less the same gain would be available by launching upwards until a few hundred meters clear of the ground and then turning sideways, which avoids the need for different landing gear.
On the other hand, although low density, Mars' atmohsphere extends up quite high, and exerts significant drag at high velocities, so spending extra time in it will have a performance cost. I don't have figures for that to be sure, but I suspect that effect outweighs any potential advantage from the rotation.
answered 22 mins ago
Steve Linton
3,9881529
They plan (or at leats planned in 2017) a direct return to Earth without entering Mars orbit. See the slide headed "Mars Transportation Architecture" on this presentation. Given that the only reason not to simply boost straight up is the possible small advantage from Mars' rotation. At the equator that is about 0.3 km/s, so, absent atmosphere, launching horizontally due East at the right time of day would save that much. At higher latitudes, the gain is less. More or less the same gain would be available by launching upwards until a few hundred meters clear of the ground and then turning sideways, which avoids the need for different landing gear.
On the other hand, although low density, Mars' atmohsphere extends up quite high, and exerts significant drag at high velocities, so spending extra time in it will have a performance cost. I don't have figures for that to be sure, but I suspect that effect outweighs any potential advantage from the rotation.
answered 22 mins ago
Steve Linton
3,9881529
answered 22 mins ago
Steve Linton
3,9881529
answered 22 mins ago
Steve Linton
3,9881529
answered 22 mins ago
Steve Linton
3,9881529
3,9881529
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30935%2fwill-spacex-launch-in-an-inclined-fashion-while-returning-from-mars%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
