Russian, American and chinese booster nose cones.

[chriscdc]

Something that has been bugging me is why are the tops of the boosters have different aerodynic nose cones. Russians seem to favour the tip of the cone pointing towards the main engine body, whilst the US and Chinese favour the simple cone shape.<br /><br />Does this choice make any real difference what so ever, or is it purely aesthetics?

 

[chriscdc]

Well astronautix has plenty of examples.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm<br /><br />The booster rockets nose cone points towards and touches the main rocket body. Whilst on the shuttle the cones simply point straight up. Russia's rockets look far sleeker as a result, whilst nasa's rocket looks more like the boosters are just bolted on.

 

[darkenfast]

The Ariane 5 boosters also have the "slanted-in" cones. I also noticed that some solids used on the new Atlas 5 had "slanted-in" tips, unlike those used on the Dalta. Six of one, half a dozen of the other?<br />

 

[ace5]

Just a matter of aerodynamics, and how much fuel/oxidizer you need for each booster, separation altitude/attitude issues of each launcher...<br /><br />Ariane 5 and Proton (tanks) are slanted, SRBs are pointed upwards, as well on Ariane 4 and CZ-2F.<br /><br />Soyuz boosters are a very unique cathegory (I dont remember of any other conical design for lateral "Bloks" like they use to name their 1-st stage composite of 4-boosters [a,b,v,g and d] other than this Russian design)<br /><br />And the huge N-1 was an entirely conical design, topped by a enlarged Soyuz-like body.<br /><br />Japanese Lambda and Mu launchers had some boosters that were simply cylinders cut on an angle. Just a tech matter of each design, I am sure.