"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

"Joann Evans" wrote:
Richard Schumacher wrote:
A vertical-takeoff vertical-landing rocket ought to be less susceptible to
weather than any airplane, true? It doesn't rely on aerodynamic lift
(except
perhaps very early in the re-entry, when it will be miles above the weather
anyway), so there's none of that nonsense about crosswinds or icing.

As we've seen with Apollo 12, there could be issues with cloud
electrical potentials, though. If the exhaust trail enhances
conductivity to ground, it's a path almost directly there, as opposed to
an HTO that may ascend into the clouds at a shallower angle.

Understand, I think VTVL is the way to go in most cases (espically at
very large payloads) but this has to be considered.

I don't believe that Apollo / Saturn V was specifically
designed to withstand lightning strikes. At least not
at an operational level. Most modern aircraft are, and
many aircraft are struck by lightning in flight without
causing severe (or any) problems for the fligt. I see
little reason why rockets couldn't be made equally
robust.

Fortunately, the the Apollo-Saturn stack happened to be sufficently
robust on that occasion, and there may be room for improvement. But the
point is, aircarft generally don't ascend almost vertically, leaving a
potentially conductive trail on the shortest path back to ground. Under
those circumstances, you may *cause* a discharge that otherwise might
not have happened. It's been done deliberately (rockets trailing wires)
for research purposes, many times.

Further complicating the matter (and this is already a consideration
for newer aircraft) is the fact that a VTO commercial launcher is likely
to use assorted composites in its construction (including low-temprature
potrions of its outer surfaces) for weight savings, rather than
conductive metals that could pass the energy around the interior....