Hello. I have 3 questions that I would like to throw out there for discussion:
1,). I have for a long time wondered why we keep doing the same thing over and over again with regard to our rockets and rocket launches, which I myself consider to be outdated and pretty much passé. I feel like we just continue to keep doing the same old thing with regard to propulsion.... with ever bigger and shinier rockets that still look like what was being thought of in the cartoons of the 1950’s.
Why have we not designed a more flat and rounded space craft that could take off, in maybe a 45 degree trajectory, rather than the typical straight upward 90 degree trajectory from Earth’s surface? It seems to me that if we had a rounded spacecraft (like a saucer-type design), and that if we projected it off Earth’s surface at more of a 45 degree angle, rather than a straight up 90 degree angle, that it would encounter less atmospheric resistance, less friction, less drag, and maybe would require less combustible fuel. I'm not an engineer, just a logical gal. Yes, it would require a longer time to get up and out of the 32 miles of Earth's atmosphere, but so what? It might be less risky for the passengers.
2). The second question I have is: Why are we still using kerosene as rocket fuel, when we have nuclear power available to us?
3.) And on a more theoretical topic with regard to propulsion...if matter and antimatter particles annihilate each other when they encounter each other, yet produce energy in that process.....is anybody in the scientific community looking at that as a means of propulsion to get us farther out into space?
1,). I have for a long time wondered why we keep doing the same thing over and over again with regard to our rockets and rocket launches, which I myself consider to be outdated and pretty much passé. I feel like we just continue to keep doing the same old thing with regard to propulsion.... with ever bigger and shinier rockets that still look like what was being thought of in the cartoons of the 1950’s.
Why have we not designed a more flat and rounded space craft that could take off, in maybe a 45 degree trajectory, rather than the typical straight upward 90 degree trajectory from Earth’s surface? It seems to me that if we had a rounded spacecraft (like a saucer-type design), and that if we projected it off Earth’s surface at more of a 45 degree angle, rather than a straight up 90 degree angle, that it would encounter less atmospheric resistance, less friction, less drag, and maybe would require less combustible fuel. I'm not an engineer, just a logical gal. Yes, it would require a longer time to get up and out of the 32 miles of Earth's atmosphere, but so what? It might be less risky for the passengers.
2). The second question I have is: Why are we still using kerosene as rocket fuel, when we have nuclear power available to us?
3.) And on a more theoretical topic with regard to propulsion...if matter and antimatter particles annihilate each other when they encounter each other, yet produce energy in that process.....is anybody in the scientific community looking at that as a means of propulsion to get us farther out into space?