Why is that max-Q doesn't occur in transonic regime?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












6












$begingroup$


Is there any reason why the maximum dynamic pressure should not occur in the transonic regime.
It is clear from this answer that the max-Q for various rockets occur outside the transonic region



Do the rocket scientists design the launch in a way that the max-Q always occur outside transonic region?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    6












    $begingroup$


    Is there any reason why the maximum dynamic pressure should not occur in the transonic regime.
    It is clear from this answer that the max-Q for various rockets occur outside the transonic region



    Do the rocket scientists design the launch in a way that the max-Q always occur outside transonic region?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$


      Is there any reason why the maximum dynamic pressure should not occur in the transonic regime.
      It is clear from this answer that the max-Q for various rockets occur outside the transonic region



      Do the rocket scientists design the launch in a way that the max-Q always occur outside transonic region?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Is there any reason why the maximum dynamic pressure should not occur in the transonic regime.
      It is clear from this answer that the max-Q for various rockets occur outside the transonic region



      Do the rocket scientists design the launch in a way that the max-Q always occur outside transonic region?







      rockets mission-design






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Feb 25 at 17:12









      peterh

      2,04011531




      2,04011531










      asked Feb 25 at 14:31









      Vasanth CVasanth C

      562113




      562113




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          13












          $begingroup$

          Max-Q is a function of both altitude and velocity. There isn't any reason in particular that it needs to fall at a particular Mach number. It's just the point at which the rate that atmospheric density is falling outpaces the rate at which the square of the velocity is increasing. Nothing more.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            Concur, for shuttle first stage flight design there was no specific constraint about when max q needed to happen.
            $endgroup$
            – Organic Marble
            Feb 26 at 2:20


















          3












          $begingroup$

          Here's a very simple model of a Faux Falcon 9 launched vertically, with no turn towards horizontal. That doesn't matter so much at the altitude at max-Q but the final altitude at MECO is higher than in the videos because it hasn't turned towards horizontal. There are several simplifications, but it should reproduce most things in a qualitative way.



          The final velocity is a little high but that may be related to the model not throttling back near max Q, or to other approximations.



          I chose a scale height model for density $rho(h) = rho_0 exp(-h/h_scale)$ and a trans-sonic drag coefficient $C_D$ of 0.6 (from here) which matters mostly near mach 1 when max-Q is happening. I assumed the first stage fuel is 70% of the total launch mass of 550,000 kg.



          Answer: Max-Q happens around mach 1 because the Earth's atmosphere and gravity and structural materials are what they are. Rockets are designed to make due with our atmosphere and gravity to get the most mass to orbit or beyond, with the caveat that they don't fall apart under crushing forces at max-Q.



          If we lived on a planet with a lower surface pressure, it would happen earlier. If we lived on planet with different mass or diameter, that would affect both gravity on the rocket and the scale height, and max-Q would also happen earlier or later.



          Luckily we don't live here!



          Faux Falcon-9 FT launched vertically



          def deriv(X, t):
          h, v = X
          acc_g = -GMe / (h + Re)**2
          m = m0 - mdot * t
          acc_t = vex * mdot / m
          rho = rho0 * np.exp(-h/h_scale)
          acc_d = -0.5 * rho * v**2 * CD * A / m
          return [v, acc_g + acc_t + acc_d]

          import numpy as np
          import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
          from scipy.integrate import odeint as ODEint

          Re = 6378137. # meters
          GMe = 3.986E+14 # m^3/s^2
          rho0 = 1.3 # kg/m3
          h_scale = 8500. # meters

          # faux falcon-9 FT
          vex = 3600. # m/s
          tburn = 160. # sec
          m0 = 550000. # kg
          mdot = m0 * 0.70 / tburn # kg/s
          CD = 0.6
          A = np.pi * (0.5*3.66)**2 # m^2

          times = np.arange(0, tburn+1, 1) # sec
          X0 = np.zeros(2) # initial state vector

          answer, info = ODEint(deriv, X0, times, full_output=True)

          h, v = answer.T
          hkm = 0.001 * h
          vkph = 3.6 * v
          mach = v / 330. # roughly
          rho = rho0 * np.exp(-h/h_scale)
          Q = 0.5 * rho * v**2

          if True:
          plt.figure()
          plt.subplot(2, 2, 1)
          things = (hkm, vkph, mach, rho, Q)
          names = ('height (km)', 'velocity (km/h)', 'mach', 'density (kg/m^3)', 'Q')
          for i, (thing, name) in enumerate(zip(things, names)):
          plt.subplot(5, 1, i+1)
          plt.plot(times, thing)
          if i == 2:
          plt.ylim(0, 3)
          plt.plot(times, np.ones_like(times), '-k')
          llim, ulim = plt.ylim()
          plt.text(5, 0.7*ulim, name)
          plt.xlabel('time (sec)', fontsize=16)
          plt.show()





          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$




















            0












            $begingroup$

            No. Rockets need to be optimized for various, contradicting requirements:



            1. Minimal mass of the hull ($rightarrow$ should be so weak as possible)

            2. Aerodynamics of the hull in sub-sonical regime

            3. Aerodynamics of the hull in supersonical regime (very different from the sub-sonical aerodynamics)

            4. Minimal gravity loss ($rightarrow$ it needs to get to orbit quickly)

            5. Minimal aerodynamical loss ($rightarrow$ should not fly too quickly in dense athmosphere)

            The planned trajectory of the vehicle is a compromise between them.



            There is no direct reason to close out a sub-sonical max-Q. It simply didn't happen on engineering optimization reasons until now.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "508"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34449%2fwhy-is-that-max-q-doesnt-occur-in-transonic-regime%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              13












              $begingroup$

              Max-Q is a function of both altitude and velocity. There isn't any reason in particular that it needs to fall at a particular Mach number. It's just the point at which the rate that atmospheric density is falling outpaces the rate at which the square of the velocity is increasing. Nothing more.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$








              • 2




                $begingroup$
                Concur, for shuttle first stage flight design there was no specific constraint about when max q needed to happen.
                $endgroup$
                – Organic Marble
                Feb 26 at 2:20















              13












              $begingroup$

              Max-Q is a function of both altitude and velocity. There isn't any reason in particular that it needs to fall at a particular Mach number. It's just the point at which the rate that atmospheric density is falling outpaces the rate at which the square of the velocity is increasing. Nothing more.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$








              • 2




                $begingroup$
                Concur, for shuttle first stage flight design there was no specific constraint about when max q needed to happen.
                $endgroup$
                – Organic Marble
                Feb 26 at 2:20













              13












              13








              13





              $begingroup$

              Max-Q is a function of both altitude and velocity. There isn't any reason in particular that it needs to fall at a particular Mach number. It's just the point at which the rate that atmospheric density is falling outpaces the rate at which the square of the velocity is increasing. Nothing more.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              Max-Q is a function of both altitude and velocity. There isn't any reason in particular that it needs to fall at a particular Mach number. It's just the point at which the rate that atmospheric density is falling outpaces the rate at which the square of the velocity is increasing. Nothing more.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Feb 25 at 14:57









              TristanTristan

              10.9k13856




              10.9k13856







              • 2




                $begingroup$
                Concur, for shuttle first stage flight design there was no specific constraint about when max q needed to happen.
                $endgroup$
                – Organic Marble
                Feb 26 at 2:20












              • 2




                $begingroup$
                Concur, for shuttle first stage flight design there was no specific constraint about when max q needed to happen.
                $endgroup$
                – Organic Marble
                Feb 26 at 2:20







              2




              2




              $begingroup$
              Concur, for shuttle first stage flight design there was no specific constraint about when max q needed to happen.
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              Feb 26 at 2:20




              $begingroup$
              Concur, for shuttle first stage flight design there was no specific constraint about when max q needed to happen.
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              Feb 26 at 2:20











              3












              $begingroup$

              Here's a very simple model of a Faux Falcon 9 launched vertically, with no turn towards horizontal. That doesn't matter so much at the altitude at max-Q but the final altitude at MECO is higher than in the videos because it hasn't turned towards horizontal. There are several simplifications, but it should reproduce most things in a qualitative way.



              The final velocity is a little high but that may be related to the model not throttling back near max Q, or to other approximations.



              I chose a scale height model for density $rho(h) = rho_0 exp(-h/h_scale)$ and a trans-sonic drag coefficient $C_D$ of 0.6 (from here) which matters mostly near mach 1 when max-Q is happening. I assumed the first stage fuel is 70% of the total launch mass of 550,000 kg.



              Answer: Max-Q happens around mach 1 because the Earth's atmosphere and gravity and structural materials are what they are. Rockets are designed to make due with our atmosphere and gravity to get the most mass to orbit or beyond, with the caveat that they don't fall apart under crushing forces at max-Q.



              If we lived on a planet with a lower surface pressure, it would happen earlier. If we lived on planet with different mass or diameter, that would affect both gravity on the rocket and the scale height, and max-Q would also happen earlier or later.



              Luckily we don't live here!



              Faux Falcon-9 FT launched vertically



              def deriv(X, t):
              h, v = X
              acc_g = -GMe / (h + Re)**2
              m = m0 - mdot * t
              acc_t = vex * mdot / m
              rho = rho0 * np.exp(-h/h_scale)
              acc_d = -0.5 * rho * v**2 * CD * A / m
              return [v, acc_g + acc_t + acc_d]

              import numpy as np
              import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
              from scipy.integrate import odeint as ODEint

              Re = 6378137. # meters
              GMe = 3.986E+14 # m^3/s^2
              rho0 = 1.3 # kg/m3
              h_scale = 8500. # meters

              # faux falcon-9 FT
              vex = 3600. # m/s
              tburn = 160. # sec
              m0 = 550000. # kg
              mdot = m0 * 0.70 / tburn # kg/s
              CD = 0.6
              A = np.pi * (0.5*3.66)**2 # m^2

              times = np.arange(0, tburn+1, 1) # sec
              X0 = np.zeros(2) # initial state vector

              answer, info = ODEint(deriv, X0, times, full_output=True)

              h, v = answer.T
              hkm = 0.001 * h
              vkph = 3.6 * v
              mach = v / 330. # roughly
              rho = rho0 * np.exp(-h/h_scale)
              Q = 0.5 * rho * v**2

              if True:
              plt.figure()
              plt.subplot(2, 2, 1)
              things = (hkm, vkph, mach, rho, Q)
              names = ('height (km)', 'velocity (km/h)', 'mach', 'density (kg/m^3)', 'Q')
              for i, (thing, name) in enumerate(zip(things, names)):
              plt.subplot(5, 1, i+1)
              plt.plot(times, thing)
              if i == 2:
              plt.ylim(0, 3)
              plt.plot(times, np.ones_like(times), '-k')
              llim, ulim = plt.ylim()
              plt.text(5, 0.7*ulim, name)
              plt.xlabel('time (sec)', fontsize=16)
              plt.show()





              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                3












                $begingroup$

                Here's a very simple model of a Faux Falcon 9 launched vertically, with no turn towards horizontal. That doesn't matter so much at the altitude at max-Q but the final altitude at MECO is higher than in the videos because it hasn't turned towards horizontal. There are several simplifications, but it should reproduce most things in a qualitative way.



                The final velocity is a little high but that may be related to the model not throttling back near max Q, or to other approximations.



                I chose a scale height model for density $rho(h) = rho_0 exp(-h/h_scale)$ and a trans-sonic drag coefficient $C_D$ of 0.6 (from here) which matters mostly near mach 1 when max-Q is happening. I assumed the first stage fuel is 70% of the total launch mass of 550,000 kg.



                Answer: Max-Q happens around mach 1 because the Earth's atmosphere and gravity and structural materials are what they are. Rockets are designed to make due with our atmosphere and gravity to get the most mass to orbit or beyond, with the caveat that they don't fall apart under crushing forces at max-Q.



                If we lived on a planet with a lower surface pressure, it would happen earlier. If we lived on planet with different mass or diameter, that would affect both gravity on the rocket and the scale height, and max-Q would also happen earlier or later.



                Luckily we don't live here!



                Faux Falcon-9 FT launched vertically



                def deriv(X, t):
                h, v = X
                acc_g = -GMe / (h + Re)**2
                m = m0 - mdot * t
                acc_t = vex * mdot / m
                rho = rho0 * np.exp(-h/h_scale)
                acc_d = -0.5 * rho * v**2 * CD * A / m
                return [v, acc_g + acc_t + acc_d]

                import numpy as np
                import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
                from scipy.integrate import odeint as ODEint

                Re = 6378137. # meters
                GMe = 3.986E+14 # m^3/s^2
                rho0 = 1.3 # kg/m3
                h_scale = 8500. # meters

                # faux falcon-9 FT
                vex = 3600. # m/s
                tburn = 160. # sec
                m0 = 550000. # kg
                mdot = m0 * 0.70 / tburn # kg/s
                CD = 0.6
                A = np.pi * (0.5*3.66)**2 # m^2

                times = np.arange(0, tburn+1, 1) # sec
                X0 = np.zeros(2) # initial state vector

                answer, info = ODEint(deriv, X0, times, full_output=True)

                h, v = answer.T
                hkm = 0.001 * h
                vkph = 3.6 * v
                mach = v / 330. # roughly
                rho = rho0 * np.exp(-h/h_scale)
                Q = 0.5 * rho * v**2

                if True:
                plt.figure()
                plt.subplot(2, 2, 1)
                things = (hkm, vkph, mach, rho, Q)
                names = ('height (km)', 'velocity (km/h)', 'mach', 'density (kg/m^3)', 'Q')
                for i, (thing, name) in enumerate(zip(things, names)):
                plt.subplot(5, 1, i+1)
                plt.plot(times, thing)
                if i == 2:
                plt.ylim(0, 3)
                plt.plot(times, np.ones_like(times), '-k')
                llim, ulim = plt.ylim()
                plt.text(5, 0.7*ulim, name)
                plt.xlabel('time (sec)', fontsize=16)
                plt.show()





                share|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  3












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$

                  Here's a very simple model of a Faux Falcon 9 launched vertically, with no turn towards horizontal. That doesn't matter so much at the altitude at max-Q but the final altitude at MECO is higher than in the videos because it hasn't turned towards horizontal. There are several simplifications, but it should reproduce most things in a qualitative way.



                  The final velocity is a little high but that may be related to the model not throttling back near max Q, or to other approximations.



                  I chose a scale height model for density $rho(h) = rho_0 exp(-h/h_scale)$ and a trans-sonic drag coefficient $C_D$ of 0.6 (from here) which matters mostly near mach 1 when max-Q is happening. I assumed the first stage fuel is 70% of the total launch mass of 550,000 kg.



                  Answer: Max-Q happens around mach 1 because the Earth's atmosphere and gravity and structural materials are what they are. Rockets are designed to make due with our atmosphere and gravity to get the most mass to orbit or beyond, with the caveat that they don't fall apart under crushing forces at max-Q.



                  If we lived on a planet with a lower surface pressure, it would happen earlier. If we lived on planet with different mass or diameter, that would affect both gravity on the rocket and the scale height, and max-Q would also happen earlier or later.



                  Luckily we don't live here!



                  Faux Falcon-9 FT launched vertically



                  def deriv(X, t):
                  h, v = X
                  acc_g = -GMe / (h + Re)**2
                  m = m0 - mdot * t
                  acc_t = vex * mdot / m
                  rho = rho0 * np.exp(-h/h_scale)
                  acc_d = -0.5 * rho * v**2 * CD * A / m
                  return [v, acc_g + acc_t + acc_d]

                  import numpy as np
                  import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
                  from scipy.integrate import odeint as ODEint

                  Re = 6378137. # meters
                  GMe = 3.986E+14 # m^3/s^2
                  rho0 = 1.3 # kg/m3
                  h_scale = 8500. # meters

                  # faux falcon-9 FT
                  vex = 3600. # m/s
                  tburn = 160. # sec
                  m0 = 550000. # kg
                  mdot = m0 * 0.70 / tburn # kg/s
                  CD = 0.6
                  A = np.pi * (0.5*3.66)**2 # m^2

                  times = np.arange(0, tburn+1, 1) # sec
                  X0 = np.zeros(2) # initial state vector

                  answer, info = ODEint(deriv, X0, times, full_output=True)

                  h, v = answer.T
                  hkm = 0.001 * h
                  vkph = 3.6 * v
                  mach = v / 330. # roughly
                  rho = rho0 * np.exp(-h/h_scale)
                  Q = 0.5 * rho * v**2

                  if True:
                  plt.figure()
                  plt.subplot(2, 2, 1)
                  things = (hkm, vkph, mach, rho, Q)
                  names = ('height (km)', 'velocity (km/h)', 'mach', 'density (kg/m^3)', 'Q')
                  for i, (thing, name) in enumerate(zip(things, names)):
                  plt.subplot(5, 1, i+1)
                  plt.plot(times, thing)
                  if i == 2:
                  plt.ylim(0, 3)
                  plt.plot(times, np.ones_like(times), '-k')
                  llim, ulim = plt.ylim()
                  plt.text(5, 0.7*ulim, name)
                  plt.xlabel('time (sec)', fontsize=16)
                  plt.show()





                  share|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Here's a very simple model of a Faux Falcon 9 launched vertically, with no turn towards horizontal. That doesn't matter so much at the altitude at max-Q but the final altitude at MECO is higher than in the videos because it hasn't turned towards horizontal. There are several simplifications, but it should reproduce most things in a qualitative way.



                  The final velocity is a little high but that may be related to the model not throttling back near max Q, or to other approximations.



                  I chose a scale height model for density $rho(h) = rho_0 exp(-h/h_scale)$ and a trans-sonic drag coefficient $C_D$ of 0.6 (from here) which matters mostly near mach 1 when max-Q is happening. I assumed the first stage fuel is 70% of the total launch mass of 550,000 kg.



                  Answer: Max-Q happens around mach 1 because the Earth's atmosphere and gravity and structural materials are what they are. Rockets are designed to make due with our atmosphere and gravity to get the most mass to orbit or beyond, with the caveat that they don't fall apart under crushing forces at max-Q.



                  If we lived on a planet with a lower surface pressure, it would happen earlier. If we lived on planet with different mass or diameter, that would affect both gravity on the rocket and the scale height, and max-Q would also happen earlier or later.



                  Luckily we don't live here!



                  Faux Falcon-9 FT launched vertically



                  def deriv(X, t):
                  h, v = X
                  acc_g = -GMe / (h + Re)**2
                  m = m0 - mdot * t
                  acc_t = vex * mdot / m
                  rho = rho0 * np.exp(-h/h_scale)
                  acc_d = -0.5 * rho * v**2 * CD * A / m
                  return [v, acc_g + acc_t + acc_d]

                  import numpy as np
                  import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
                  from scipy.integrate import odeint as ODEint

                  Re = 6378137. # meters
                  GMe = 3.986E+14 # m^3/s^2
                  rho0 = 1.3 # kg/m3
                  h_scale = 8500. # meters

                  # faux falcon-9 FT
                  vex = 3600. # m/s
                  tburn = 160. # sec
                  m0 = 550000. # kg
                  mdot = m0 * 0.70 / tburn # kg/s
                  CD = 0.6
                  A = np.pi * (0.5*3.66)**2 # m^2

                  times = np.arange(0, tburn+1, 1) # sec
                  X0 = np.zeros(2) # initial state vector

                  answer, info = ODEint(deriv, X0, times, full_output=True)

                  h, v = answer.T
                  hkm = 0.001 * h
                  vkph = 3.6 * v
                  mach = v / 330. # roughly
                  rho = rho0 * np.exp(-h/h_scale)
                  Q = 0.5 * rho * v**2

                  if True:
                  plt.figure()
                  plt.subplot(2, 2, 1)
                  things = (hkm, vkph, mach, rho, Q)
                  names = ('height (km)', 'velocity (km/h)', 'mach', 'density (kg/m^3)', 'Q')
                  for i, (thing, name) in enumerate(zip(things, names)):
                  plt.subplot(5, 1, i+1)
                  plt.plot(times, thing)
                  if i == 2:
                  plt.ylim(0, 3)
                  plt.plot(times, np.ones_like(times), '-k')
                  llim, ulim = plt.ylim()
                  plt.text(5, 0.7*ulim, name)
                  plt.xlabel('time (sec)', fontsize=16)
                  plt.show()






                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Feb 25 at 16:20

























                  answered Feb 25 at 16:08









                  uhohuhoh

                  39.2k18144498




                  39.2k18144498





















                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      No. Rockets need to be optimized for various, contradicting requirements:



                      1. Minimal mass of the hull ($rightarrow$ should be so weak as possible)

                      2. Aerodynamics of the hull in sub-sonical regime

                      3. Aerodynamics of the hull in supersonical regime (very different from the sub-sonical aerodynamics)

                      4. Minimal gravity loss ($rightarrow$ it needs to get to orbit quickly)

                      5. Minimal aerodynamical loss ($rightarrow$ should not fly too quickly in dense athmosphere)

                      The planned trajectory of the vehicle is a compromise between them.



                      There is no direct reason to close out a sub-sonical max-Q. It simply didn't happen on engineering optimization reasons until now.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$

















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        No. Rockets need to be optimized for various, contradicting requirements:



                        1. Minimal mass of the hull ($rightarrow$ should be so weak as possible)

                        2. Aerodynamics of the hull in sub-sonical regime

                        3. Aerodynamics of the hull in supersonical regime (very different from the sub-sonical aerodynamics)

                        4. Minimal gravity loss ($rightarrow$ it needs to get to orbit quickly)

                        5. Minimal aerodynamical loss ($rightarrow$ should not fly too quickly in dense athmosphere)

                        The planned trajectory of the vehicle is a compromise between them.



                        There is no direct reason to close out a sub-sonical max-Q. It simply didn't happen on engineering optimization reasons until now.






                        share|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$















                          0












                          0








                          0





                          $begingroup$

                          No. Rockets need to be optimized for various, contradicting requirements:



                          1. Minimal mass of the hull ($rightarrow$ should be so weak as possible)

                          2. Aerodynamics of the hull in sub-sonical regime

                          3. Aerodynamics of the hull in supersonical regime (very different from the sub-sonical aerodynamics)

                          4. Minimal gravity loss ($rightarrow$ it needs to get to orbit quickly)

                          5. Minimal aerodynamical loss ($rightarrow$ should not fly too quickly in dense athmosphere)

                          The planned trajectory of the vehicle is a compromise between them.



                          There is no direct reason to close out a sub-sonical max-Q. It simply didn't happen on engineering optimization reasons until now.






                          share|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          No. Rockets need to be optimized for various, contradicting requirements:



                          1. Minimal mass of the hull ($rightarrow$ should be so weak as possible)

                          2. Aerodynamics of the hull in sub-sonical regime

                          3. Aerodynamics of the hull in supersonical regime (very different from the sub-sonical aerodynamics)

                          4. Minimal gravity loss ($rightarrow$ it needs to get to orbit quickly)

                          5. Minimal aerodynamical loss ($rightarrow$ should not fly too quickly in dense athmosphere)

                          The planned trajectory of the vehicle is a compromise between them.



                          There is no direct reason to close out a sub-sonical max-Q. It simply didn't happen on engineering optimization reasons until now.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered Feb 25 at 17:59









                          peterhpeterh

                          2,04011531




                          2,04011531



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34449%2fwhy-is-that-max-q-doesnt-occur-in-transonic-regime%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown






                              Popular posts from this blog

                              How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                              Bahrain

                              Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay