Blue Origins, update |
Blue Origins, update |
Jan 4 2007, 02:47 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 16-March 05 From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada Member No.: 201 |
|
|
|
Jan 8 2007, 01:03 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
With such high gravity to fight against, and a nice thick atmosphere that's screaming out for chutes, parafoils etc.... landing with rockets on Earth just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Doug |
|
|
Jan 8 2007, 02:55 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 593 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 279 |
[L]anding with rockets on Earth just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I agree. Using one of the fresh envelope-backs I got for Christmas, I see that retro-rocket-landing an Apollo CM from the drogue release altitude and speed, for example, would require something like a beefed-up AJ10-137 engine (massing around 4000kg), 31 seconds' thrust (1450 kg of fuel and oxidiser), all crammed into a 5800 kg mass capsule (!!). Naturally the engine would have to poke through the heat shield, which additionally complicates matters. Comparing that to the (original) 245kg parachutes-and-drogues-and-deployment package, it's an absolute no-brainer. <long pause> ...though, in its favour <whispering> it would look rather Heinleinian. Andy |
|
|
Jan 8 2007, 04:35 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
Comparing that to the (original) 245kg parachutes-and-drogues-and-deployment package, it's an absolute no-brainer. If you're never going to use the vehicle again, absolutely. The arguments for VTVL all revolve around reusability and rapid turnaround. See, for example, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/412/1 I'm agnostic on the topic; like most engineering, there is no clear best solution. It's very dependent on the mission profile and on the logistical/economic assumptions. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Jan 8 2007, 07:48 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2922 Joined: 14-February 06 From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France) Member No.: 682 |
If you're never going to use the vehicle again, absolutely. I'm agnostic on the topic; like most engineering, there is no clear best solution. It's very dependent on the mission profile and on the logistical/economic assumptions. I agree but I also wonder if a Soyouz-like last seconds hard brake retro-rocket solution could be used. There's no need here to have a "smooth" hard-brake since there's nobody inside. Is they can get the retro rocket working in the good force vector and then inflate air bags so the stage doen't hit too hard, I bet it'll not be too much of an extra weight as compared to reusability. And it'll be an elegant solution. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st September 2024 - 10:43 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |