Fundemental disadvantages of traditional rockets

  • Thread starter Thread starter aquitaine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rockets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the fundamental disadvantages of traditional rocket designs, including specific models like Ares, Saturn 5, and Delta series. Participants explore various aspects of rocket technology, including safety, fuel requirements, and comparisons with advanced spaceplane concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that rockets require a tremendous amount of fuel.
  • Another participant mentions that rockets are prone to explosions, which can result in the loss of expensive payloads.
  • A participant questions whether rockets are fundamentally unsafe, prompting a discussion about reliability and launch success statistics.
  • Concerns are raised about the relevance of comparing rockets to spaceplanes, with one participant arguing that rockets are not airplanes and questioning the significance of airport compatibility.
  • Another participant suggests that for space travel to become more common, launch systems should be compatible with existing infrastructure.
  • The potential development of the SABRE engine is mentioned as a possible change in the future of spaceplanes.
  • Participants discuss various reasons for making space travel more common, including reducing travel times and exploring economic opportunities in space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the safety and reliability of traditional rockets, as well as the relevance of comparing them to spaceplanes. There is no consensus on the fundamental disadvantages of rockets, and multiple competing perspectives remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments depend on assumptions about the future of space travel and technology development, such as the viability of spaceplanes and the SABRE engine. The discussion also reflects varying perspectives on the importance of infrastructure compatibility.

aquitaine
Messages
30
Reaction score
9
What are the fundamental disadvantages to traditional rocket designs, such as the Ares (1 and 5), Saturn 5, Delta series, etc?

So far I've come up with incompatibilities with existing airport infrastructure and a partial or total lack of reusibility (what parts are reusable need to be fished out of the ocean).

Especially in comparison to something like the skylon or some other advanced spaceplane, can anyone think of other disadvantages, or just disadvantages in general? I'm not very knowledgeable in this subject. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rockets require a tremendous amount of fuel.
 
Rockets like to explode. Exploding very expensive payload is bad.
 
So they are fundementally unsafe?
 
I wouldn't say that. Is anything 'safe'? A car isn't. It's a matter of reliability, i.e., how does it's statistics of successful to unsuccessful launches compare (I think it's pretty low).
 
aquitaine said:
What are the fundamental disadvantages to traditional rocket designs, such as the Ares (1 and 5), Saturn 5, Delta series, etc?

So far I've come up with incompatibilities with existing airport infrastructure and a partial or total lack of reusibility (what parts are reusable need to be fished out of the ocean).
Disadvantages compared to what and for what purpose? Why is incompatibility with airports relevant? Rockets aren't airplanes.
Especially in comparison to something like the skylon or some other advanced spaceplane, can anyone think of other disadvantages, or just disadvantages in general?
Well spaceplanes in the traditional sense don't exist, so I'm not sure that is a reasonable basis for comparison either.
 
Disadvantages compared to what and for what purpose? Why is incompatibility with airports relevant? Rockets aren't airplanes.

True, but for space travel to become more common, having launch systems that are mostly compatible with existing infrastructure would be very helpful.

Well spaceplanes in the traditional sense don't exist, so I'm not sure that is a reasonable basis for comparison either.

With the current development of the SABRE engine that might finally change in the next 10 years. Right now it's more of a thought experiment (yet another one of my infamous thought experiments :P).
 
Why should space travel be more common, where do you plan on going?
 
Cyrus said:
Why should space travel be more common, where do you plan on going?


Any number of reasons. One immediate thing I can think of is the ability to go into orbit to drasticly cut travel times on long distance flights. Unless you're ok with 14+ hour flights across the Pacific. And really, who is to say there aren't plenty of opportunities for economic expansion? Why can't we use the natural vacuum of space (or the moon for that matter) to fabricate materials that would be so easily done on Earth? What about R&D? Somehow, sometime, somewhere, an entrepreneur will see an opportunity and make a fortune out of it. It's happened in other endevours and it will happen again in space.
 
  • #10
aquitaine said:
Any number of reasons. One immediate thing I can think of is the ability to go into orbit to drasticly cut travel times on long distance flights. Unless you're ok with 14+ hour flights across the Pacific. And really, who is to say there aren't plenty of opportunities for economic expansion? Why can't we use the natural vacuum of space (or the moon for that matter) to fabricate materials that would be so easily done on Earth? What about R&D? Somehow, sometime, somewhere, an entrepreneur will see an opportunity and make a fortune out of it. It's happened in other endevours and it will happen again in space.

Eventually. But I agree.
 

Similar threads

Pure Math Preparation (the ultimate high school / pre-university book thread)
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
41K
Graduate Prospects of the canonical formalism in loop quantum gravity [Alexandrov, Roche]
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
9K