Instead of the parachute and bouncing balls, engineer a capsule that withstands the damage

The reason why this particular scheme was used was not esthetics: it had
been used before successfully. Engineering is a balance between cost,
utility and time. And don't forget, it's tax money.

"Bill Linares" wrote in message ...
The reason why this particular scheme was used was not esthetics: it had
been used before successfully. Engineering is a balance between cost,
utility and time. And don't forget, it's tax money.

Much of that NOVA program last Sunday was about the engineering of the
parachute with its "squidding" to be resolved and with the tear in the
airbags.

The old Irish saying-- if it works don't fix it. And this landing was
almost perfect and so there is no doubt that the sequence of (1)
capsule (2) retrorockets (3) parachutes (4) airbags works for landing
humans back on Earth but also probes on Mars.

My interest is whether these 2 Major Methods (i) retrorockets (ii)
parachute & airbags are the two and only two means of entering back on
Earth or Mars or any other astro body.

If they are the 2 and only 2 means, then it should be proven by
physics.
But until someone proves it true or false, I will look for other
methods.

Just tonight I cottoned onto a possible new method. Bill, do you know
helicopters? I was thinking of whether we can design a capsule that
converts into a helicopter before it comes near the surface. So
instead of releasing a parachute, the capsule converts to helicopter?

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
om...

Just tonight I cottoned onto a possible new method. Bill, do you know
helicopters? I was thinking of whether we can design a capsule that
converts into a helicopter before it comes near the surface. So
instead of releasing a parachute, the capsule converts to helicopter?

Look up "Roton".

Helicopter: interesting idea. But it would need to be tested; and it surely
would not be cheap. My point is that even if we could show that our method
is NOT optimal (from the physics point of view), it would be to costly to
find out which one is. Of course if one could bring up something that is
evidently cheap and workable, why not try it. But I guess the guys at NASA
got there for something.

I like this idea a lot... One of the hurdles of putting probes on the
surface of Mars and finding life (or water) is that the cost of engineering
and to move the mass to be able to dig down deep enough to pass the harsh
surface environment (couple of meters?) is too high.

If some high G capable/light weight electronics were put into a burrowing
lander (I'd still use a chute to slow it down some), and dropped in
clusters, you could get the digging done on landing. (Think bunker bombs
technology)

But I suspect that the mass required to lower the G's on impact and make it
tough enough would be prohibitive to lift.

Al...

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
m...
With interest tonight I saw on NOVA the past history of this Mars
robot probe that has landed on Mars.

NOVA is doing an excellent job of reporting this historical science
while in progress for I understand that on Tuesday of this week NOVA
will broadcast the latest news of the Mars probe. Sometime in the
future, the news of science will hog out most of the news reporting
and dumb and stupid news such as politics, entertainment, sports will
get little attention.

Anyway, I was wondering about the parachute and the bouncing balls to
land the probe safely. I was wondering if another concept could save
on weight and be more safe. The idea is to not have a parachute nor to
have a bouncing ball cover. Why not build a capsule with shield that
totally encloses the probe such that the capsule will crash, no doubt
about it but upon it crashing can release the inner contents without
harm or damage.

So that in the future, we compute the amount of damage done to the
capsule and build the capsule so that the inner contents can usher
forth unharmed. The idea is like an eggshell, strong enough to hold up
in a crash landing but easy enough for the probe inside to be
unscathed and to get out.

Perhaps that is impossible to engineer. But if it is possible to
engineer a landing unit that does away with parachutes and with
bouncing balls then the possibility opens up where we can engineer
probes of greater weight and more equipment because we can build
bigger capsules.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Alan Adrian" wrote in message
...
I like this idea a lot... One of the hurdles of putting probes on the
surface of Mars and finding life (or water) is that the cost of
engineering
and to move the mass to be able to dig down deep enough to pass the harsh
surface environment (couple of meters?) is too high.

If some high G capable/light weight electronics were put into a burrowing
lander (I'd still use a chute to slow it down some), and dropped in
clusters, you could get the digging done on landing. (Think bunker bombs
technology)

It's been tried twice already.
Check out:
http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds2/
Deep Space 2 consisted of 2 penetrators
slamming into the surface of Mars.
Neither, unfortunately, phoned home.

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
m...
With interest tonight I saw on NOVA the past history of this Mars
robot probe that has landed on Mars.

NOVA is doing an excellent job of reporting this historical science
while in progress for I understand that on Tuesday of this week NOVA
will broadcast the latest news of the Mars probe. Sometime in the
future, the news of science will hog out most of the news reporting
and dumb and stupid news such as politics, entertainment, sports will
get little attention.

Anyway, I was wondering about the parachute and the bouncing balls to
land the probe safely. I was wondering if another concept could save
on weight and be more safe. The idea is to not have a parachute nor to
have a bouncing ball cover. Why not build a capsule with shield that
totally encloses the probe such that the capsule will crash, no doubt
about it but upon it crashing can release the inner contents without
harm or damage.

[SNIP]

Sorry Archie, bin done...

Project Ranger:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-480/ch8.htm

'After rocket burning to completion, the reduced approach velocity would
allow a capsule to fall to the surface of the Moon at a survivable impact
velocity. It was a novel capsule system, weighing a total of 300 pounds,
made up of a small solid rocket and a mini-spacecraft enshrouded in balsa
wood. [...] Included were a special solid propellant retro motor, a radar
altimeter to bounce signals from the lunar surface and trigger the retro at
the proper instant, a crushable outer shell capable of withstanding impact
on hard rock at up to 250 feet per second, and a spherical metal instrument
package floated inside in a fluid to distribute and dampen impact loads. The
flotation feature in some ways resembled the design of an egg [...] As it
turned out, the best impact absorbers were made of balsa wood, assembled
around the capsule with the end-grain about 4 inches thick oriented in a
radial direction.'

I suspect that the egg analogy will appeal to you, but please bear in mind
that after Ranger 3, the balsa-wood sphere was, ahem, dropped.

It Didn't Work. And you are not showing your usual, er, whatsname,
originality here...

--
Fin
----------------------------------------------------------
Fin Fahey
)
-----------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 05:53:31 -0000, "Fin Fahey"
wrote:



I suspect that the egg analogy will appeal to you, but please bear in mind
that after Ranger 3, the balsa-wood sphere was, ahem, dropped.

I can't immediately think of a nastier organic-crud-vacuum-outgassing
structural material than balsa wood!

John

"Fin Fahey" wrote in message ...
(snip)

I suspect that the egg analogy will appeal to you, but please bear in mind
that after Ranger 3, the balsa-wood sphere was, ahem, dropped.

It Didn't Work. And you are not showing your usual, er, whatsname,
originality here...

I beg to differ. I spent more than usual time in the conventional
science and engineering than usual, before I hit on the original idea
that a Proof of Retrorocket + Parachute was the "only best way" to go.

The idea that Engineering becomes a Mathematical Proof is borne. And
that in the future, mathematicians will be romping through the fields
of engineering as they romp through numbers and geometry and algebra.

For example: Given a weight limit of 10-15 kg what is the optimal
transport vessel for Mars or Earth? Answer: bicycle.

So that in the future, when a Mars transport of humans is wanted for
that terrain and has the limit of weight, then some may engineer
something like a roller skate but eventually the optimum is a
mountain-bike.

I felt I had to look for at least several alternatives to the
retrorocket and parachute and airbag before I proffered the Math Proof
that those were the 2 and only 2 optimal solutions.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On 7 Jan 2004 13:10:44 -0800, (Archimedes
Plutonium) wrote:


So that in the future, when a Mars transport of humans is wanted for
that terrain and has the limit of weight, then some may engineer
something like a roller skate but eventually the optimum is a
mountain-bike.

Sounds like fun, pedaling on unpaved terrain in a space suit at -120C.

John