I'm guessing it's the least-questions-asked shape as far as aerodynamics goes, and gives good weight efficiency assuming you can build what you need into a round shape. Is there anything more fundamental than that?
I'm guessing it's the least-questions-asked shape as far as aerodynamics goes, and gives good weight efficiency assuming you can build what you need into a round shape. Is there anything more fundamental than that?
Round is structurally strong (which, when it comes to aerospace engineering, is really just the opposite side of the "light weight" coin).
Symmetry of shape and mass makes the stability and control equations a hell of a lot simpler to deal with, and a round shape makes it easier to be (nearly) symmetrical in more ways than with other shapes..
I haven't done the math, but I always assumed it would be less expensive (as in fuel and weight) to start the orbital boosters from 50,000ft after climbing via traditional wings, as opposed to the brute force option of simply producing as much thrust as possible and climbing straight up.
Granted for extremely large payloads the structural requirements for building wings that can support the weight might be impractical, but wouldn't it have been easier for the space shuttle to "launch" from 50,000ft?