this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
38 points (100.0% liked)
Space
259 readers
1 users here now
founded 4 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I will stand by forever that landing it in the vertical orientation is the wrong way to land a rocket, and it should land on its belly. That would provide a much more stable landing.
Sure the Vertical landing looks cooler, but it adds extra unneeded complication, when if you could have anything that can act like wings, you can glide it down onto its belly far easier
I've always assumed that they land vertically because the entire vehicle is designed and optimised to withstand huge forces along that axis already, while being as light as possible.
Meanwhile a rocket that will land on its side will have to be designed to withstand impacts and forces (albeit smaller ones) from completely different angles, so I don't think we'll see that kind of design until the weight added by the additional lifting surfaces and structural reinforcement is less than the weight of the fuel needed for landing vertically.
I know Space X does it because elon musk said that was how old cartoons did it, I cannot remember the exact wording but its because Elon wanted it.
I have no proof but my assumption is that this is "well they are doing it this way" and it just all lines up assuming that the predissessor has thought it through
Hopefully the Chinese scientists aren't just uncritically copying SpaceX. I doubt Chinese technology would be pulling ahead so rapidly in so many fields if they were!
I do recall USSR experimented with this idea. There was a concept of a fully reusable Zenit flyback booster for the Energia II
also the Baikal fly-back booster https://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikal.html
apparently the idea might be getting a revival now (in Russian) https://tass.ru/kosmos/6644506
That would be my dream.
It does seem like a much simpler solution all around.
Likely something to do with aerodynamics and weight distribution. Aircraft and rocket design are very different, and the glaring problem with designing the booster to fly back like a plane is the fact that the payload is mounted on top, meaning you can't have a tapered end, since you've got to be able to mount a full second stage rocket on top with 20+ tons of mass. So the problem becomes, how can you make a functional airplane out of what is basically a giant steel cylinder with a flat top on one end, and rocket boosters on the other. Also when it flies back, it's going to be bottom heavy, as most of the fuel mass will be gone, leaving all the heavy rocket engine weight dragging it down.