What Will Rockets Look Like In The Future?
Articles Blog

What Will Rockets Look Like In The Future?

January 23, 2020

Rockets of the future might look like rockets
of the past… but they could also be super sleek amazing futuristic single-stage jet
planes. You know? It depends. Hey fabulous flyers Trace here for DNews.
Rockets are essentially the same today as in the 1960s. They use better computers, lighter
materials and more advanced fuels, but they’re still burning massive amounts of fuel to get
a payload into orbit (or further). But all that aside, what would a rocket of the future
look like? Kind of like planes and missiles of today. By their nature, it’s the job of
a rocket to generate enough thrust to leave Earth’s orbit. The escape velocity is upwards
of 25,000mph (11km/s). That requires a lot of fuel for missile-like systems, and somewhat
less fuel for space planes, but it sort of depends on the job they need to DO. For example, NASA wants to go to asteroids
and Mars. They went to the moon with Saturn Five, so… let’s copy and improve on that!
Enter, the SLS, or Space Launch System. NASA took what they learned from Saturn launches,
and from the Space Shuttle, and built on them. The design isn’t super sexy because it’s built
on these “proven” (read: old) technologies. The Solid Rocket Boosters are improved versions
of those from the shuttle program. Same fuel, almost twice as tall, but basically the same.
And the main stage is powered by RS-25 engines, also, the same as used on the shuttle! They’re
doing this, because they know it works. If it works as planned, it will have more thrust
than a Saturn V and will one day send humans to our neighbor planet! Yay! But not everyone
needs to go to Mars… So some companies are using airplane technology
to get high-enough into the air, and then switching to a rocket engine to enter space
and drop off a satellite or, maybe, humans. Jet engines need oxygen to combust fuel and
generate thrust, and space doesn’t work that way. So, a British company called Reaction
Engines Limited has been working on a space-plane hybrid for more than 30 years, called Skylon
that works both IN and OUT of the atmosphere. They created the Synergetic Air-Breathing
Rocket Engines (SABRE) to burn oxygen in the atmosphere (when available), mixing it with
onboard liquid hydrogen to go five times the speed of sound. Once it’s too high to use
the available oxygen, the Skylon uses the same engines but adds onboard liquid oxygen,
mixing THAT with the hydrogen!! It’s crazy, but they’ve successfully tested the engines
and hope to fly soon. Ideally, those little wings will let craft land and be reusable,
because rockets are expensive. With the rise of profit-based commercial space companies,
you can guarantee future rockets will be reusable. But another company, Airbus, doesn’t want
to save the whole rocket, like REL, just the important parts: the avionics, main engines,
and computers. Their Adeline system sits at the bottom of the ESA Ariane 6 rocket stack,
holding all of those things inside of it. When the rocket gets the payload safely into
orbit, it heads back to Earth, using its little wings to glide safely to a runway for re-use! Until some new technologies come along and
make the fuel MORE combustible, or we find another way to get to space. Future rockets
will look a lot like the tech we have now, only better. And the rockets of the future
will have to be more specialized. Some, like the SLS, can lift heavy humans so they can
go on to Mars, others will pop little satellites into orbit and duck back to Earth… and still
others may do jobs we haven’t even thought of yet. There may be another way to get to space in
the future though… a SPACE. ELEVATOR. Get in on the literal Ground Floor, and ride a
cable all the way to space. Check out how that might work along with some other transportation
futures in this video… Do you have a favorite rocket? Why? I love
the Space Shuttle, I’m a space camp nerd… I went back in the 90s and it was like a dream.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. "We know it works". yeah because the moon landing was totally real thats why we could do it then and not now. smh

  2. what happened to the scram jet? I remember when that was gonna be the next big thing 10/15 years ago

  3. Why couldn't I have been born like 150 years in the future when space travel was actually a thing not just an early concept that's extremely klunky and inefficient. The world needs to put more effort and time (and money) into exploring our galaxy and things like faster than light speed travel. I just wanna have a spaceship and live on Mars! cries

  4. Still think remote laser ignition might give us the boost(pun intended) we need to take it to the next level :3
    It would reduce the amount of on board fuel we need by quite a bit, if done right

  5. Talking about these aspects won't get them done. Also, if there actually are people that think that space travel advancement is going to stagnate, then I'm losing hope in humanity.

    Honestly, unless superluminal travel is achieved, advancement will either be slow or fast, but Solar System-restricted, both of which are inconvenients for me.

  6. Favorite rocket? Oh boy, only one? R7, Atlas, Titan II, Saturn IB, Saturn V would be my favorites. Delta II and the shuttle would be there as well. Oh yeah, don't forget the Proton! It's really hard to pick one.

  7. No I fucking refuse. If in 30 years we don't have highly effective, very powerful propulsion methods I'll blow up the planet lol.

    Oh what could've been with Project Orion and Project Daedalus :/

  8. I mean, most of these are still concepts. SpaceX only had 4 years since first concept to first landing though..

  9. why not use a magnetic cannon to fire a huge rocket into space, with electronics that expand outwards in space so they don't get damaged from the magnetism?

  10. why would NASA spend so much money on such a long and risky journey to put man on Mars rather than practice with living on the Moon first? The Moon is 3 days away if something goes wrong. Make no sense unless of course The Moonlings dont want us there.

  11. Launch loop would be a far better solution than a space elevator. It only needs to hold the weight of itself rather than a tens of thousands of tons throwing hammer. There won't ever be a space elevator because a launch loop will do the job far easier. The same reason we don't use helicopters to airlift cars over a river when a bridge is a far more economical and practical solution.

  12. Hate to point out the obvious but the speed of sound is 768 m/hr. Current rockets go 25,000 m/hr – about 30 (not 5) times faster. Unless we discover the secret of gravity (and thus, anti-gravity) rockets for space will almost surely be in space. They do not require the massive amounts of fuel of earth rockets and they can be larger (vitally important for long tricks)

  13. My favorite rocket is the Energia – one of the most powerful rocket system in the world powered by the RD-170. I hope the Buran project will be revived soon.

    I wonder though, Russia is doing most of the space activities recently, including the space deliveries to the ISS and also crew change – but no one really talks about them and DNews didn't even talk about Russian rockets despite using the Soyuz in the thumbnail.

  14. why a space elevator it sounds really expensive
    to me a space gauss gun that sends satellites or crafts with in drone is much more cost effective but i can see the allure for a way to send humans up there easily

  15. If you think about it, rocket propulsion is a highly advanced extension of fire, you know, the rubbing two sticks together thing. It's amazing that basic combustion got man to the Moon, Curiosity to Mars and Voyager out of the solar system. But there are alternatives: electric ion propulsion is fundamentally different and is a real break from campfire technology. So too is laser and maser propulsion and nuclear propulsion too. But basic combustion technology is so familiar and accessible, it's likely to be the main way to get off the planet and into orbit for a long time to come, even if newer methods are used to buzz around the solar system and beyond.

  16. what if we make a hole in the ground put some atomic bombs, a spacecraft on top and launch that baby?

  17. come on dude, you not even gonna mention the supercooling intake in the sabre engine? It's a fantastic innovation.

  18. Rockets are a terrible way of getting into space; they are super inefficient, expensive, need massive amounts of fuel to get a small payload into space, pollute the atmosphere and can't be launched anywhere near a civilian population. I can't wait for the day that we do away with them in favour of a better system (hopefully a space elevator or something cool like that).

  19. Build the NASA designed  "24-Hour Lunar Shuttle" (LEO to Low Lunar Orbit) to help jump start the Lunar Economy.  And build Space Based Power with the help of the US Navy.  And the Spaced Based Power can power the VASIMR engine to Mars and Beyond.  Back to the Moon to Stay and onto Mars and Beyond-Ad Astra…  tjl

  20. Since when is SLS bigger than Saturn V? Numbers indicate that SLS is initially half the size of Saturn. The Bosters aren't even double the length that those from the shuttle, they have 5 Elements instead of 4. And why is it better to have specialized rockets, rather than one that can carry everything that fits into the cargo bay?

  21. Mentions falcon 9 for one second, doesn't even talk about Blue Origin, talks about Adeline in detail which not even ULA are serious about. End of the video, sponsored by Boeing, ooohhh

  22. I'm willing to bet that controlled fusion reactions will power spacecraft in the future. Most likely adapted from the stellarator or a screw pinch design, with the means to release some of the high energy plasma to produce controlled thrust.

  23. Reaction Engine Engineers haven't tested SABRE engine yet, they plan to test a smaller engine by 2019. For now they just have tested individual parts and show it could work, but we cannot be sure until they show they could reach the required performances for Skylon. As far as I know, the marge of error for a working Skylon is really thin :/ I like Skylon concept anyway!

  24. There is no future for the rockets . Future travel will use electrogravitics .  or how de used to be call ,flux liners . suppressed technology  for the benefit of the  big oil companies.

  25. Flying saucer with 2 rotational magnet that pray water on the magnet to make static shock a controlled flight vehicle power off a magnetic that looks like a b12 would be cool everything's shape like a penis this planet god everything is funny

  26. Is it possible to have propulsion system that something we mostly see in sci fi movies like Star Wars? I'm not no scientist, but I'm curious.

  27. I have a thing for Soviet rockets. To me the N1 moon rocket is perhaps the coolest looking rocket to me. After that I think I'll go with Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket. While I am a big SpaceX fan, the aesthetics of their rockets don't particularly appeal to me. Looks perhaps a bit too clean and simple to me. I like it when rockets look a bit more like machinery. But of course I love the technical solutions SpaceX have come up with. Building the N1 today would be terrible idea.

  28. Space x Big Falcon Rocket is the future rocket……thats it conclusion

    How he didnt say about BFR maybe it is sponsored by Boeing i guess

  29. When will NASA wise up and dump large SRB's!? Space-X,the Russians and Changer all know better. Some day IF solids can be throttled, shut off have non toxic exhausts then maybe. Need a cheap non chlorinated high performance alternative to ammonium perchlorate for starters. Nope, liquids like the F-1,no, not complicated closed cycle Russian technology,i.e. F-1,Space-X,etc. OR, Graphine and the space elevator. I know,lots of 'ifs'.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *