Why doesn't the space shuttle take off like a plane?

You error in thinking comes from a misunderstanding of how something achieves orbit. Not only is height needed, but speed. To generate the need horizontal velocity (or speed in a direction), a large amount of fuel is needed to change your velocity (which is known as delta-v). No fuel that has been discovered can obtain this delta-v without being required in large amounts. To contain these large amounts, those large booster rockets are needed. The large majority of fuel used is not for gaining altitude, but for gaining speed.

The wings on the space-shuttle are also not designed for flying. They are there for a controlled approach once the shuttle has reentered the atmosphere. The space shuttle is actually incapable of flying, and is piloting it is sometimes referred to as 'piloting a brick', because of it's quick descents.

Fighter jets cannot reach the altitude that is generally regarded as space. They do indeed sometimes reach points where the sky above them is black, but that alone does not constitute space.

OK, I will answer you, even though you have a bad attitude. 1. Wind: The object is to lift the Shuttle into orbit. It is balanced on the vertical thrust of the rocket engines. There is not an excess of fuel on board. Fuel used in correcting the vehicle if it is blown off course by wind reduces the vertical component of the flight, and increases the possibility of mission failure. 2. Clouds: Clouds indicate wind (see above) and may produce lightening strikes which could damage electrical components, fuel tanks or re-entry tiles. Clouds may contain rain or hail which could adversely affect the flight.. 3. The Shuttle is not an airplane. If it doesn't reach a safe altitude, it will not be able to land. It is an expensive glider. They have to be extra careful with it. ;-D Science can be expensive. Let's go for it anyway! The truth is out there!

First off, your question isn't stupid because you are correct in thinking that a horizontal take off would require less energy to leave the atmosphere if it happened at minimal speeds for lifting the spacecraft. However, in the vertical takeoff of the space shuttle, the acceleration of the booster rockets is constant and the spacecraft achieves enormously high speeds before leaving the atmosphere. So then, if it requires more energy to do vertical takeoff, why do it? Because it's simpler. The space shuttle employs some of the most complicated engineering on(and off) the planet and with such a high demand on precise engineering for safety and success of the mission, engineers opt for simplicity wherever they can. In the case of the launch, you have to consider that because jet engines don't work in space, they have to use rockets. To do a horizontal launch, though, would either require jet engines in addition to the engines they already use or more rockets(not because of more energy used, but because of a more complicated launch that has to take into account wind speed, direction, course corrections, etc--in other words, the rockets would serve a different function than the main thruster or the boosters). Aside from that, it's generally simpler to fire a single set of rockets and just ride them to your destination(simpler flight path). Also remember that shuttle rockets, once fired, burn continuously until the fuel is depleted and the rocket can be ejected.

By doing it this way, they can fire their main thruster and their boosters and arc into their orbit smoothly while discarding the excess weight of the fuel tank and rockets in the fewest steps possible with the least possibilities of things going wrong.

As engineering becomes less demanding of simplicity of the launch procedure, fuel efficiency comes into play more, which is partly why NASA has opted to retire the fleet in favor of a new method as another answerer pointed out.

It would require too much fuel to fly into orbit. A tremendous amount of fuel would be required just to get the shuttle to the upper reaches of the atmosphere, and then even more would be required to raise it to a stable orbit.

It turns out that the most fuel-efficient way to get a spacecraft into orbit is to fly more or less straight up through the atmosphere. The spacecraft can then turn east and profit from Earth's rotation to help accelerate it into a stable orbit. The space shuttle is boosted into space with the highest practical acceleration in order to minimize the total amount of fuel necessary to get it there.

It works the same for airplanes, actually. It's more fuel efficient on a long trip to burn lots of fuel at first to get up to a high altitude and then cruise at high speed through very thin air. Staying low would require less fuel initially but would ultimately burn too much fuel on a trip of any significant length. A fast climb is usually the most fuel efficient climb.

The fuel-guzzling effects of atmospheric friction should not be underestimated. It's important for both spaceships and airplanes (and even satellites, since there are small bits of air left even at many satellite altitudes).

BECAUSE it doesn't have enough wing mass and the space shuttle doesn't have jet engines, they have rockets only. And it is way TOO FAST to fly like a normal passenger plane. Who would want an airliner that is flying through the sky at 18,000 miles an hour? Think about it. The space shuttle reaches speeds too excessive to fly like a normal passenger airplane. So no.

IT WOULD CONSUME MORE FUEL. It is useless if it burns alot of fuel.

Sorry for my rant, but it is true, the FAA would have very big problems on their hands if they knew that a space shuttle was used as an airliner.

It really doesn't matter. The space shuttle fleet is obsolete now and is being retired.

When the shuttle and it's like were being proposed it was determined that a vehicle piggybacked onto a rocket could carry a much heavier payload into space. That would cut down on the number of flights required and save the space agency millions of dollars.

Shuttle Takeoff

The space shuttle design is a rocket itself. The winged module is the only part that comes back to the ground which can be utilized for another take-off.

because the point in its launch, together with the rest of space rockets [and suborbital ballistic missiles] is to ZOOM out of the atmosphere as soon as possible to avoid atmospheric friction.

there is only ONE way to get the craft onto the orbit and that is accelerating it to the orbital speed. that speed (being about 7 kilometers per second) cannot be reasonably reached IN atmosphere.

recently they are trials in progress of suborbital launches, which would incorporate a spacecraft piggybacking a conventional craft rather than a big rocket. Yet, i believe the size and payload do not match to that of Shuttle, so far.

Because it is too heavy. And it needs A WHOLE LOT of fuel to get to 800,000 FT. And if it did not disconnect the gas tank connecting to the engines. it would land in its tanks.

And no, Fighters CAN NOT go up to the edge of the atmosphere. The air would be to thin and they would lose control.