Fozzie Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 I have just watched a news video of a Soyuz rocket taking off from Baikonur and noticed that there is no trail of smoke like you see on the American launchers. It left the sky quite clear. Why is this?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 It burns kerosene, which doesn't leave much of a smoke trail. American rockets (like the Space Shuttle) have solid rocket boosters which leave quite a smoke trail. If you look carefully, you'll notice the liquid-fueled engines on the Space Shuttle (the center ones) leave no trail -- they burn liquid hydrogen.
Fozzie Posted May 27, 2009 Author Posted May 27, 2009 Thanks, I guessed it must be something like that. So the next question is what are the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 From what I understand solid-fueled boosters can provide more power but are uncontrollable: once you light them up they just go. Liquid-fueled boosters have the advantage of being fully throttlable, and some can even be turned on and off multiple times throughout the flight.
ydoaPs Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 It burns kerosene, which doesn't leave much of a smoke trail. American rockets (like the Space Shuttle) have solid rocket boosters which leave quite a smoke trail. If you look carefully, you'll notice the liquid-fueled engines on the Space Shuttle (the center ones) leave no trail -- they burn liquid hydrogen. Not to mention most of the "smoke" in the beginning is really steam.
swansont Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Not to mention most of the "smoke" in the beginning is really steam. You can't see steam either. What you see is small water droplets that have condensed from steam.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now