Why do you aerospace engineers have such a hard time making spacecraft?

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of making cost-efficient spacecraft by using multiple types of rockets on a ship, which can alternate rocket engines at different levels of the atmosphere and eventually escape into space. However, this approach is deemed expensive and inefficient due to the added weight and complexity of the control system. It is also mentioned that launching a vehicle from an aircraft, as seen in the X-Prize competition, is not a viable solution for orbital flights. The conversation also explores the idea of using a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle or developing a high-altitude launching platform, but both have their own challenges. Ultimately, it is concluded that discarding spent stages is necessary for cost efficiency and a multi-stage-to-orbit vehicle with non-disc
  • #1
Oomair
36
0
isnt possible to make cost efficient spacecraft by putting multiple types of rockets on a ship which can then alternate rocket engine at different levels of the atmosphere and eventually escape into space?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Lots of engines? Sounds expensive...
 
  • #3
Oomair said:
isnt possible to make cost efficient spacecraft by putting multiple types of rockets on a ship which can then alternate rocket engine at different levels of the atmosphere and eventually escape into space?
Let's start with the easiest question for you...Are you referring to manned or non-manned space flight?

Every engine that gets put on an aircraft has to get certified (expensive). Every engine has to have its associated components (weight). Every engine costs money to make (again, expense). The more engines you have the more complicated the control system is (cost)...There are a whole lot of tradeoffs to consider other than an engine's Isp in a vehicle design.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
russ_watters said:
Lots of engines? Sounds expensive...

It also sounds inefficient, as the rocket engines not in use at a given time just become extra dead weight that the engine in use has to lift
 
  • #5
Oomair said:
isnt possible to make cost efficient spacecraft by putting multiple types of rockets on a ship which can then alternate rocket engine at different levels of the atmosphere and eventually escape into space?

This is exactly what we do right now. We do not use a single-stage-to-orbit. The systems that carry vehicles from the Earth's surface to space comprise a number of rockets. Multiple stages are needed because a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle would need to carry its entire empty structure all the way to orbit. With present fuel technologies, doing so be very expensive.
 
  • #6
There is a compromise approach, but it's still not as good as dropping dead stages. Variable-geometry nozzles such as the (still experimental?) linear aerospike can operate at peak efficiency throughout the climb. That doesn't resolve the issue of all the dead weight, but jettisonable fuel tanks would help.
 
  • #7
The most efficient I'm thinking right now at the moment is the strategy made by Scaled Composites for the X-Prize competition. Have an aircraft carry the spacecraft from high altitudes and launch it from there. I think the Antonov An-225 could do just that for heavier manned orbital flights.

But maybe in the future, an aircraft could be made just for that and could cruise above 70,000 ft and still carry very heavy payloads, that makes a good launching platform. Instinctively, this craft would be BWB or possibly a high aspect ratio flying wing with extended booms for elevator pitch control, that makes for a high L/D craft with high altitude capability with excellent structural integrity for carrying heavy payloads.
 
  • #8
Danger said:
There is a compromise approach, but it's still not as good as dropping dead stages. Variable-geometry nozzles such as the (still experimental?) linear aerospike can operate at peak efficiency throughout the climb. That doesn't resolve the issue of all the dead weight, but jettisonable fuel tanks would help.
There is no aerospike that has flown to my knowledge. There are engines that have movable skirts to help compensate for altitude, but not to the extent of the spike.
 
  • #9
gaming_addict said:
The most efficient I'm thinking right now at the moment is the strategy made by Scaled Composites for the X-Prize competition. Have an aircraft carry the spacecraft from high altitudes and launch it from there. I think the Antonov An-225 could do just that for heavier manned orbital flights.

Launching a vehicle from an aircraft worked for SpaceShipOne precisely because it was only a suborbital vehicle. SpaceShipOne had a maximum specific energy of about 1 megajoule. Compare this to a vehicle in low Earth orbit, which has a specific energy of 32 megajoules or more. Launching a vehicle from an aircraft doesn't buy much capability in terms of getting a spacecraft into orbit. The first stage would still be needed. Much better is to make the various stages completely reusable (Rocketplane-Kistler K1, Space-X Falcon-9).
 
  • #10
what I am trying to say is that, why doesn't NASA develop manned vehicles with multiple types of engines, for example, the ship uses let's say engine A to get to one point of the atmosphere,

then engine A is shut off but not broken off the ship, then you activate engine B, C, and eventually escape into space

that way the engines are saved so NASA doesn't have to waste money to make new ones
 
  • #11
Oomair, many reasons why it's not done like that were already given in the previous answers you got...
 
  • #12
Oomair said:
what I am trying to say is that, why doesn't NASA develop manned vehicles with multiple types of engines, for example, the ship uses let's say engine A to get to one point of the atmosphere,

then engine A is shut off but not broken off the ship, then you activate engine B, C, and eventually escape into space

that way the engines are saved so NASA doesn't have to waste money to make new ones

The crucial phrase here is "but not broken off the ship". If the vehicle doesn't discard spent stages it has to haul all that dead weight into orbit. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation" [Broken] says this is cannot be done. It would be better to have a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle (which we can't do yet) than a multi-stage-to-orbit that doesn't discard spent stages. Moreover, returning this dead weight to Earth will be a considerable challenge. The return vehicle will have to be a lot heftier to be able to keep that awkward weight under control when it hits the atmosphere at Mach 25. That's even more dead weight that has to be hauled into orbit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Oomair, you might be getting misled by some ideas that have been kicking around for atmospheric machines, such as taking off with turbojets and switching to scramjets when supersonic. Those things are not intended to go orbital, and they don't have to carry an oxydizer.
 
  • #14
Danger said:
Oomair, you might be getting misled by some ideas that have been kicking around for atmospheric machines, such as taking off with turbojets and switching to scramjets when supersonic. Those things are not intended to go orbital, and they don't have to carry an oxydizer.

Oomair may have a point, but not literally with multiple engines. I've read about some 'single stage' concepts put forth by reputable aircraft companies. One of them actually envisioned a turbojet that 'morphed' and doubled as rocket engine. The turbojet seemed to close it's inlet, compressor and combustion area, and used the nozzle section as the rocket engine.

I was thinking that turbojets are rather complex and heavy. So I might propose a ramjet instead that morphs to scramjet, and finally morphing to rocket engine to reach orbit. Scramjet are indeed not intended to go orbital and that's when the rocket engine or 'rocket mode' takes over.

The idea understandably, makes the vehicle carry much less oxidizer needed than would a pure-rocket design, that enormous fuel weight saved could directly translate to greater payloads carried and of course, much improved economy of space flights. The challenge now is designing a morphing engine that is efficient in wide range of flight regimes as well as light in weight.

There has been real plans to use the the scramjet for use with single stage orbital vehicles, but scramjet technology and hypersonic flight is still relatively early as of now. There's not even one manned flight conducted to date.

@D H, the energy comparison, is very enlightening to know, thanks, so that would make aerial launches very much insignificant gain in energy
 
  • #15
Hypersonic research has been going on since the 60's gaming_addict. The problem has been finding materials that will survive the high viscous heating.
 
  • #16
ok one thing i want to get straight in my head here is that does a space shuttle that is returning to orbit just dive into orbit at a high speed and makes a landing like a plane or does it stay in a suborbital area for a few hours by slowly coming down each atmospheric level so that the heat doesn't dissolve it?
 
  • #17
Oomair said:
ok one thing i want to get straight in my head here is that does a space shuttle that is returning to orbit just dive into orbit at a high speed and makes a landing like a plane or does it stay in a suborbital area for a few hours by slowly coming down each atmospheric level so that the heat doesn't dissolve it?

It takes a little over an hour to start from deceleration burn to landing. And yes, you are right with your 2nd statement.

-It starts by deceleration burn
-Skips over the upper atmosphere, much like a skipping stone thrown over the surface of a lake
-By maintaining high angle of attack, you create a 'lot of drag' and the glide path steepens <-do that if you think you might overshoot your target landing area, conversely, you reduce angle of attack if you feel like coming short.
-You could also do a series of 'S-Turns' or steep break turns left and right to bleed more speed if you think you might overshoot
^^All of the above maneuvers are done above 200,000 ft traveling at hypersonic velocities.

When you have gone below hypersonic at lower altitudes, the glide bath then becomes more steep.

So to summarize, glide path during high altitude hypersonic phase is relatively shallow, done at high angle of attack(to expose the more heat resistant bottom tiles) and to experience the least heating possible(least aerodynamic pressures) but at a longer period of time. Once the craft have gone supersonic, lower altitude, and nearing the landing area, that's when the glide path becomes very steep, to have good speed for landing, and of course to make up for the space shuttle's very poor aerodynamic efficiency :)
 
  • #18
gaming_addict said:
Oomair may have a point, but not literally with multiple engines. I've read about some 'single stage' concepts put forth by reputable aircraft companies. One of them actually envisioned a turbojet that 'morphed' and doubled as rocket engine. The turbojet seemed to close it's inlet, compressor and combustion area, and used the nozzle section as the rocket engine.

I was thinking that turbojets are rather complex and heavy. So I might propose a ramjet instead that morphs to scramjet, and finally morphing to rocket engine to reach orbit. Scramjet are indeed not intended to go orbital and that's when the rocket engine or 'rocket mode' takes over.
You really should be careful with the words you choose. I have been on a couple of programs that looked into hybridization between air breathing and rocket propulsion systems. That's exactly what they are, hybrids. The whole "morphing" thing, other than sounding cool, is a pipe dream brought about, mostly, by people looking for government research funding. I can imagine my Chevy Blazer morphing into a Ferrari when I want to go into "race car" mode. You're saying the same thing.

I would challenge you to look at the weight of a turbojet versus the combined weight of a thruster package and the associated turbo pumps and delivery systems.


gaming_addict said:
The idea understandably, makes the vehicle carry much less oxidizer needed than would a pure-rocket design, that enormous fuel weight saved could directly translate to greater payloads carried and of course, much improved economy of space flights. The challenge now is designing a morphing engine that is efficient in wide range of flight regimes as well as light in weight.
Oh yeah...those pesky details we have to think about I guess. Morphing...light...efficient over a wide operating range...That's not a challenge. That's unrealistic dreaming.

gaming_addict said:
There has been real plans to use the the scramjet for use with single stage orbital vehicles, but scramjet technology and hypersonic flight is still relatively early as of now. There's not even one manned flight conducted to date.
Considering that the first real scramjet model research craft testing was in 2002 and then 2004, it may be a bit of a stretch to say "we haven't even had a manned flight yet." There's at least a couple of decades of research and development before we see anything close to a manned flight.
 
  • #19
Yep, that 'hybrid' term didn't come to mind so I used 'morph' instead. When I meant the 'morphing' thing, here's what I meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_J58

That's a real example of an engine that 'morphed' into another, from a turbojet into ramjet. So 'hybrid' it is! Sorry I'm not a native speaker so I could get lost with words :)

I would challenge you to look at the weight of a turbojet versus the combined weight of a thruster package and the associated turbo pumps and delivery systems.

I know one of them will be heavier(the turbojet will be the lighter in weight, I assume), and I presume you'd say it won't matter if I used ramjets or turbojets. But I prefer using the ramjet because, it will be used from high subsonic to mach 4 in which, a ramjet will by far outperform a turbojet in thrust levels. Turbojets can only match a ramjet in reheat but it becomes so inefficient

But you're right, these things, ramjet to scramjet, then rocket, is still decades away.

My best bet at present would still be a BWB because it can be stiffened so easily and made very strong. Thus a very light body and yet strong could be made, making single stage flight possible and reentries safer.
 
  • #20
gaming_addict said:
-It starts by deceleration burn
-Skips over the upper atmosphere, much like a skipping stone thrown over the surface of a lake ...

This is all wrong. The Shuttle has only done a skip reentry in simulations. It has never done one in reality. Skip reentry has a very low Technology Readiness Level (TRL 3, to be precise). It is one of the many technologies that need to be beefed up considerably before we even consider sending people to Mars.
 
  • #21
gaming_addict said:
Yep, that 'hybrid' term didn't come to mind so I used 'morph' instead. When I meant the 'morphing' thing, here's what I meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_J58

That's a real example of an engine that 'morphed' into another, from a turbojet into ramjet. So 'hybrid' it is! Sorry I'm not a native speaker so I could get lost with words :)
The thing about the J58 is that it "morphs" into a different version of the same class of engine, i.e. air breathing. It's a big difference from trying to go between air breathing and non-air breathing. The technical difficulties that immediately come to mind to marry the two is pretty substantial.
 
  • #22
I don't know how practical it would be, but my approach would be to use an air-breathing rocket with a variable geometry nozzle and something like a APU turbine to run the compressor. At ram speed, the compressor could be bypassed, then cut in the oxydizer pumps when the air runs out.
Plausible, Fred? :confused:
 
  • #23
Danger said:
I don't know how practical it would be, but my approach would be to use an air-breathing rocket with a variable geometry nozzle and something like a APU turbine to run the compressor. At ram speed, the compressor could be bypassed, then cut in the oxydizer pumps when the air runs out.
Plausible, Fred? :confused:
If I understand you correctly, the first two issues would be

1) Exhaust gas temps from the rocket would be waaay too high for any known made turbine to date. You would have to make some pretty big leaps in materials to do that. The existing rocket chambers are made of pretty exotic stuff like Columbium (Niobium) and Rhenium. Very tough stuff to manufacture parts with let alone complex geometries like a turbine.

2) Getting the variable nozzle to be effective over a wider altitude range (that is a very realistic goal to shoot for).
 
  • #24
Thanks for the response, Fred. You did apparently misunderstand about item #1, though. The rocket would be just a rocket, with no turbine or compressor inherent to its design. The compressor would be a separate structure which could be ducted into the system with a bypass circuit to force-feed the engine at low speed. With ram speed attained, the diverter valve would be flipped to 'straight-through' from the intake to the rocket. I was thinking of an aircraft APU or electric motor to power it, rather than tapping into the rocket.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
D H said:
This is all wrong. The Shuttle has only done a skip reentry in simulations. It has never done one in reality. Skip reentry has a very low Technology Readiness Level (TRL 3, to be precise). It is one of the many technologies that need to be beefed up considerably before we even consider sending people to Mars.

Nice to know. I only experienced the skipping portion in X-plane shuttle simulation, it has way too much speed to start with(perhaps, very little fuel for reentry rocket burn).. I followed everything you read in books with success but it never mentioned the skipping part.. In x-plane you have to hand fly all the reentry phase up to touchdown, and I have a success rate of 3 of 10 attempts. I either crashed or went too short or overshot Edwards AFB :)

Thanks for the response, Fred. You did apparently misunderstand about item #1, though. The rocket would be just a rocket, with no turbine or compressor inherent to its design.

Same here, one air-breathing hybrid(ramjet/scramjet) but my rocket would be an entirely separate unit located in the rear. The rocket nozzles when not in use will be covered by disposable/detachable aerodynamic fairings. Even the ramjet/scramjet can be discarded and reused. But like it is, the technological hurdle is the hybrid ramjet/scramjet. For now, very light weight BWB(with excellent fuel fraction) and aerospike nozzles are within reach.

But I have to ask this time, maybe we are thinking of fuel economy of space flights, but do they contribute significantly to cost of space flights or is the maintenance/manufacture of space vehicles or other things?
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Danger said:
Thanks for the response, Fred. You did apparently misunderstand about item #1, though. The rocket would be just a rocket, with no turbine or compressor inherent to its design. The compressor would be a separate structure which could be ducted into the system with a bypass circuit to force-feed the engine at low speed. With ram speed attained, the diverter valve would be flipped to 'straight-through' from the intake to the rocket. I was thinking of an aircraft APU or electric motor to power it, rather than tapping into the rocket.
I got you now. I can't say it's unfeasible technically. It may tough to match an APU big enough to drive a reasonable sized compressor and not go through the roof on weight.

I would have to figure out the entire cycle though and where you would insert the compressor to help the rocket at low speeds. I'm just not seeing that being any help. Do a sketch...those are always a huge help.
 
  • #27
Will do. It'll take a while, though, because I'll be using Illustrator. That entails filtering it through Photoshop in order to get a format that Imageshack will accept. I did that crappy little turbine sketch in Paint, but I hate that program.
 
  • #28
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=14589 [Broken]
The plume physics behind aerospike nozzle altitude compensation and slipstream effect

J. H. Ruf and P. K. McConaughey (NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL)
AIAA-1997-3218
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 33rd, Seattle, WA, July 6-9, 1997

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/losses.shtml

Test flight of aerospike engine - see figures 5 & 6
http://www.maecourses.ucsd.edu/mae155a/nlv.pdf

I am not sure that aerospikes can be scaled up for large rocket motors though. There comes a point where storage of cryogenic hydrogen becomes in issue, which is why Saturn V was based on kerosene/LOX.

Back in the days of large thermonuclear devices, the Pentagon embarked on a program for nuclear propulsion to launch them. Then the guys at the Livermore and other labs got innovative and the size of the TN's got smaller such that conventional rockets could launch them. Then nuclear propulsion was realigned to interplanetary travel - which then died in the early 1970's.

As for power, many systems use a power head or bleed and feed system.

http://shuttle.msfc.nasa.gov/SSME.cfm [Broken]

http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/dataresources/SpaceShuttleMainEngineThirtyYearsOfInnovation.doc

See also - http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/sli_cobra_020904.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
Hey, Fred... I finally got a chance to do that sketch up. As you can see, I didn't go into any detail; it's just an overview of what I have in mind. I didn't bother drawing the 3rd configuration, which seals the combustion chamber from atmosphere for straight rocket operation.
"[IMG[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Nice drawings Danger. You even included the preheat/cooling coils on the nozzle.

I think the idea is feasible. There would be a couple of tricky spots to it if it ever got off the ground (pardon the pun):

- You would have an aerodynamic flowpath into the top of the rocket chamber. That flow would be pretty tough to have behave. It would take some doing but not impossible.

- The typical smaller rocket engine chamber pressure is around 150 psia (from what I have seen). That would mean you would either have to size the compressor to have the same final pressure rise or increase the wall thickness on the chamber which would usually mean huge dollars.

- The compressor section would have to decouple some how from the chamber. Typical rocket chamber temps are wicked hot*. The thermal soakback would be tremendous. Thermal management in general would be tough.

* Technical engineering term for high temperature.

- The only other thing I can think of off the top of my head is how would this thing run when in the air breathing mode? I don't think it would be easy to get the equivalent burn out of the air breathing side versus the rocket side simply because the air is a different oxidizer. Would you get the same burning characteristics out of the same fuel using two very different oxidizers? I don't know.

Still, I don't think it would be beyond anyone to try this configuration. I think the toughest part would be to sell someone to fund it!
 
Last edited:
  • #31
I agree with some points by FredGarvin. Modern rockets must generate incredible chamber pressures to attain the desired efficiency and higher exhaust speeds. In order to 'practically' hybridize a rocket, some compromise has to be made and it's not going to be good on rocket efficiency. The compromise in efficiency may not justify the weight savings, complexities or even potential reliability issues with the design

For what it's worth, jet engines are not massive engines. I would keep the air breathing engines completely separate from rocket engines.

I might even improve on it that the turbojet/ramjet/scramjet package, hybrid or not, will be slung beneath the launch vehicle with it's own set of wings blending with the underside to not add to drag, it will detach once for example, mach 20 is reached and will glide back to Earth and land on a runway.

For convenience, launch site will be relocated to Guam or Hawaii. So by the time the vehicle is over US mainland, it should've reached mach 20(hopefully) so the jet package glider can land in an airport, refueled, and flown on it's own power to east coast, then transported(by sea or air) back to the launch site again.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
FredGarvin said:
* Technical engineering term for high temperature.

:rofl:
Thanks for the thorough analysis, Fred. Some of those things never crossed my mind at all.

(I should explain at this point that I 'invented' this thing about 30 years ago to power a mach 8 fighter/bomber that I also 'invented' for an SF novel which will never see daylight. It was intended to operate at 28,000° C, so could actually plasmacize ram air for thrust rather than relying upon the onboard hydrogen supply. The whole thing, of course, depended upon a fictional amorphous al/ti/polyurothane alloy with a failure temperature of 30,000°. :redface:
There was no combustion chamber; rather it used a 'thrust block' of the same material perforated like the core of a NERVA, heated by a 10MW neutral hydrogen accelerator, through which the propellant flowed.
The compressor was to be driven by a hugely powerful electric motor drawing from a pair of SNAP generators, later replaced by a 20MW cobalt 60 beta-source generator. It didn't feed to the engine, but to a gas separation system that pulled the hydrogen out and sent it to the fuel storage. The engine turbopump drew from that. There was no oxydizer, because it worked by pure thermal expansion.
All that I'm trying to do now is 'downgrade' the idea to see if it could be done with actual technology.)

I'm concerned about the aerodynamics of the intake ducting, since it can't be properly efficient for both configurations. I figure to maximize it for ram mode, since the compressor can compensate somewhat for bad flow in turbo mode.
The thermal soakback never crossed my mind, and I haven't a clue what to do about it other than either routing the fuel or other coolant around the compressor, or just putting it a lot farther away from the combustion chamber.
The different operating characteristics with different oxydizers also didn't occur to me. I'd have a pretty good idea of how to deal with it in an IC engine, by fiddling with the mixture and timing, but I really don't know nearly enough about rockets or jets to have clue in this case.
I just noticed while referring back to your post that Gaming Addict has weighed in while I was composing this. I'll just go ahead and post this, then read that one.
 
  • #33
Good points, GA. I particularly like the 'gliding booster' idea. The only problem point that I can immediately think of, which is probably quite surmountable, is that the recess into which the booster fits for 'blending into the underside' could give pretty nasty aerodynamics for the re-entry phase. Perhaps a top-mount design would be more appropriate?
 
  • #34
The 'gliding booster' will have a perfectly 'flat top' design so the launch vehicle's (LV) underside, need not be specially shaped to maintain aerodynamic efficiency. It only has to have a flat bottom to have a smooth mating of the LV and glider.

The 'flat top' is actually a common design for hypersonic designs nowadays. In addition, the glider's wings with a span that is wider than the LV will also serve as additional lift source for the whole booster/launch package. When the glider has detached from the LV, the LV's main lift source will be from it's lifting body design and it's small wings that will be used to control the LV in reentry and landing.

The glider will be physically larger than the LV, but nearly all it's fuel will come from the LV, with a little jet fuel left for landing.

Nice idea for a fully reusable, fuel efficient launch package, but think that for a manned launch package, the glider, will be a large craft, may be larger than XB-70 bomber and has to fly at hypersonic speeds. You may even think of it as the mothership, instead of the LV! Given that we are no longer in a Cold War era, it may take decades to become practical :)

So yeah, maybe that answers the title of this thread, why not? Because the threat of a space-based war is no longer a possibility, at least for now.. The space program naturally won't be the highest of priorities.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Hmmm... sounds like a few minutes of work have gone into planning this.
I misunderstood about the mating surfaces; I thought you meant that the booster's bottom blended into the lines of the payload.
 
<h2>1. Why is it so difficult to make a spacecraft?</h2><p>Making a spacecraft is a complex and challenging process that requires a high level of precision and attention to detail. Aerospace engineers have to consider a wide range of factors, such as aerodynamics, structural integrity, propulsion, and thermal management, in order to design a spacecraft that can withstand the harsh conditions of space and perform its intended functions.</p><h2>2. What are some of the biggest challenges in spacecraft design?</h2><p>One of the biggest challenges in spacecraft design is achieving the perfect balance between weight and strength. Every component of a spacecraft must be carefully designed and optimized to minimize weight while still maintaining structural integrity. This is crucial because the heavier the spacecraft, the more expensive it is to launch into space.</p><h2>3. Why does it take so long to develop a spacecraft?</h2><p>The development process for a spacecraft can take several years, and sometimes even decades. This is because every aspect of the spacecraft, from the design to the materials used, must undergo rigorous testing and evaluation to ensure its safety and functionality in the harsh environment of space. Any mistakes or flaws in the design can have catastrophic consequences, so thorough testing and revisions are necessary.</p><h2>4. How do aerospace engineers ensure the safety of a spacecraft?</h2><p>Aerospace engineers use a variety of techniques and technologies to ensure the safety of a spacecraft. This includes extensive computer simulations, ground testing, and in-orbit testing. Engineers also conduct risk assessments and implement redundant systems to minimize the chances of failure. Additionally, strict regulations and standards are in place to ensure the safety of spacecraft.</p><h2>5. What are some of the most common reasons for spacecraft failures?</h2><p>There are many potential reasons for spacecraft failures, but some of the most common include human error, mechanical failures, and environmental factors. Human error can occur during the design, manufacturing, or operation of a spacecraft. Mechanical failures can be caused by flaws in the design, materials, or manufacturing process. Environmental factors such as radiation, extreme temperatures, and micrometeoroids can also cause damage to a spacecraft. That's why thorough testing and redundant systems are crucial in spacecraft design.</p>

1. Why is it so difficult to make a spacecraft?

Making a spacecraft is a complex and challenging process that requires a high level of precision and attention to detail. Aerospace engineers have to consider a wide range of factors, such as aerodynamics, structural integrity, propulsion, and thermal management, in order to design a spacecraft that can withstand the harsh conditions of space and perform its intended functions.

2. What are some of the biggest challenges in spacecraft design?

One of the biggest challenges in spacecraft design is achieving the perfect balance between weight and strength. Every component of a spacecraft must be carefully designed and optimized to minimize weight while still maintaining structural integrity. This is crucial because the heavier the spacecraft, the more expensive it is to launch into space.

3. Why does it take so long to develop a spacecraft?

The development process for a spacecraft can take several years, and sometimes even decades. This is because every aspect of the spacecraft, from the design to the materials used, must undergo rigorous testing and evaluation to ensure its safety and functionality in the harsh environment of space. Any mistakes or flaws in the design can have catastrophic consequences, so thorough testing and revisions are necessary.

4. How do aerospace engineers ensure the safety of a spacecraft?

Aerospace engineers use a variety of techniques and technologies to ensure the safety of a spacecraft. This includes extensive computer simulations, ground testing, and in-orbit testing. Engineers also conduct risk assessments and implement redundant systems to minimize the chances of failure. Additionally, strict regulations and standards are in place to ensure the safety of spacecraft.

5. What are some of the most common reasons for spacecraft failures?

There are many potential reasons for spacecraft failures, but some of the most common include human error, mechanical failures, and environmental factors. Human error can occur during the design, manufacturing, or operation of a spacecraft. Mechanical failures can be caused by flaws in the design, materials, or manufacturing process. Environmental factors such as radiation, extreme temperatures, and micrometeoroids can also cause damage to a spacecraft. That's why thorough testing and redundant systems are crucial in spacecraft design.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
594
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
20
Views
560
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Aerospace Engineering
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top