If you were to lay the shuttle on it’s side and launched it, assuming no buildings or mountains were in the way, would it go into orbit?
If you could launch it in this manner, would it be best to launch it in the direction of earth’s rotation?
It’s Friday so forgive the stupid … but fun question.
I don’t think so. Launching tangentially to the Earth means going though a lot more atmosphere, which requires a lot more fuel, which requires a bigger vehicle, which requires a lot more fuel which requires a bigger vehicle etc, whic is not the shuttle
The old space shuttles? What do you mean by laying it on it’s side and what do you mean by launching it? Aiming the whole rig a few degrees off horizontal instead of vertical?
The massive rockets used to send them into orbit were used because they were needed, and used in the manner that made the energy required as small as possible. If you make significant changes then, no, it’s not going into orbit.
But the way it was always done did benefit from already having the velocity that comes from going into an orbit in the direction it was already moving due to the rotation of the Earth.
I think the OP is talking about launching it from a runway. Apart from the fuel considerations, the whole thing is not designed for that, so again, not the shuttle.
Mangetout has the answer. To elaborate: the shuttle did launch sideways for the main part of its ascent. The straight up bit is not for very long, and only to clear the densest atmosphere, before the shuttle rolled onto its back and went for speed as well as height. The shuttle did launch in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, as do a great many launches. Not all do, in particualr if you want to get to a polar orbit (one that goes over the poles - something which is very desirable for Earth observation - be it remote sensing or spook satellites) you need to kill off the speed of the Earth’s rotation, and you fly the opposite way. So these orbits take a lot more energy, and are much more expensive as a result.
However it is worth taking things further. The idea of a horizontal launch taken to its logical conclusion results in a shuttle in an orbit that intersects the Earth at the same altitude as the launch. Normal launches need a circularising burn that ensures the orbit stays high enough above the Earth.
Yes, launching towards the East boosted valocity, but the shuttles were designed for polar orbits as well. When launched from Vandenberg towards the South, the rotation of the Earth would not have supplied its usual boost, so the usable payload would have been reduced accordingly. The (military) payloads to be launched into polar orbit had a predetermined size and mass, and this dictated much of the design of the shuttles in the 1970s. (Such a polar-orbit launch never actually happened, as it was decided to consolidate all launches at Cape Canaveral after the Challenger accident.)
Summing up in short sentences:
Could a hypothetical rocket achieve orbit starting with a horizontal / tangential launch and continuing that same direction until above the atmosphere? Yes.
Is that more efficient than the *first straight up then tangential *launches we use now? No.
Could the actual Space Shuttle have performed a tangential launch to orbit? No. Due to the reduced efficiency it wouldn’t have had enough power to reach space.
There are two issues with a horizontal launch. The first is the air resistance, which you’d prefer to have as low as possible, as others have mentioned. The second is the fact that the acceleration isn’t instantaneous, and until you reach orbital speed, you have to have something to keep you from smacking into the surface of the planet. In a normal launch, what keeps you from smacking into the surface is the rocket thrust pushing you up. If your rockets are pointed sideways, they’re not doing that.
However, if you launched out of a cannon on an airless world, it wouldn’t actually matter which way you went.
Well that’s really a maybe as you could use a airplane to boost the spacecraft before the rocket engine ignites such as what is done with Virgin’s Spaceshiptwo and other hybrid air breathing/rocket engine designs.
It would if you hit the surface.
What if it’s on a treadmill?
Once it gets loose it’ll land on your house? It seems a fitting response. 
I wasn’t too clear was I?
(Blame it on the beer)
Forget the shuttle.
Take any vehicle that could reach 40 thousand or even a 100 thousand mph.
Put it on wheels, on a runway that would stretch for thousands of miles, (No buildings, mountains or people in the way).
Wouldn’t it shoot off into space?
What I’m getting at and where my question originated was from that new tv show … The Flash.
In one episode he ran at the speed of light!
I’m claiming (And betting a friend) that at speeds as great as 50 thousand mph or better (speed of light better 8) … the guy (Flash) would actually run off into space!
True?
Yes, the Flash would run off into space, unless there were something preventing him from doing so. In the stories about that character, it’s generally assumed that there is something doing so, though just what that is is nebulously explained if at all.
Just as I thought … Speed will eventually overcome gravity!
Thanks
Sure, because really, you’re talking about acceleration as much as speed, and that’s all gravity is. Acceleration will overcome acceleration.
If The Flash only accelerates on land, and didn’t reach escape velocity, and instead went into orbit, the point I mentioned earlier still applies. He will be in an orbit that intersects the Earth’s surface. On an airless world this means his orbital path would graze the surface (if the world was not turning, he would arrive back at exactly the place he left the surface) and at the same angle. So I guess he could run a bit more, and maybe build up speed on each visit, until he did reach escape velocity - although each orbit would take longer.)
On a hypothetical airless Earth, once Flash reaches orbital speed for his altitude he would be in orbit and in free fall, so his feet wouldn’t touch the ground any more; he might be able to get a bit more speed by occasionally brushing the ground with his feet, but he couldn’t get much faster. Orbital speed at ground level is a bit more than 17 thousand mile per hour.
The presence of atmosphere complicates things- he’d have a massive shock wave in front of him to slow him down, but maybe by using clever aerodynamics he could angle the shock wave to press him downwards onto the Earth and run a bit faster than orbital speed. It would be something like having a massive meteor strike at ground level all the time he was running. A real disaster waiting to happen.
To go back to the original idea (more interesting?) couldn’t you have a vehicle with wings and jet engines to get it up to altitude, then rockets to get it into orbit? Once in orbit the wings could double up as solar panels.
Several variations on this are being developed. Most are more like using a mostly-conventional jet aircraft to carry a mostly conventional rocket to high altitude and typical jet speeds. Then the rocket is dropped and ignited. It has real stubby wings or a lifting body design for a reentry ending in a glide to a horizontal landing.
This way you avoid carrying most of the in-atmosphere part of the vehicle into space and back through the high speed part of re-entry. There are huge efficiency gains to be had doing it this way versus a one-piece vehicle which stays the same from horizontal takeoff to horizontal landing. “Efficiency gain” in this case is the difference between payloads measured in ounces or in tons.