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

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

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
m...


[snip]

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.

And where is the kinetic energy of the innards supposed to go to?

[snip]

Franz

Don't forget weight. The heavier the capsule is, the less scientific instrument
they can put in. So parachute and balloons is a cheap AND light solution!

On 4 Jan 2004 22:31:13 -0800, (Archimedes Plutonium)
wrote:

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

Good night!

Benoît Morrissette

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.

On 4 Jan 2004 22:31:13 -0800, (Archimedes
Plutonium) wrote:

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

The math of decelerating from high speed to zero in a limited crush
distance is simple. Assume, say, 15,000 KM/H and a stop distance of,
say, one meter, and calculate the G forces.

Try it.

John

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[snip]
Nothing.

Archie-Poo sees himself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees Archie-Poo this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete7.jpg

Hey stooopid,

http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

30 years of NASA-sponsored egg drops in everything from elementary
schools to graduate schools of engineering clandestinely evolved the
airbag concept. The next best tactic is angel's food cake, but it is
not adequately deployable nor can it be disengaged in a facile manner.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
a grand unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Benoit Morrissette wrote in message . ..
Don't forget weight. The heavier the capsule is, the less scientific instrument
they can put in. So parachute and balloons is a cheap AND light solution!

(snip mine)

Good night!

Benoît Morrissette

Benoit, I am looking for an alternative to the parachute and bouncing
balls method. Usually there are alternative methods.

I am surprized at how much atmosphere Mars has to have a wind and to
have air to utilize parachute.

A landing of a probe onto an asteroid could not be done with
parachute.

So I am hunting for alternatives.

What about making the entire spacecraft the landing capsule. Much like
a dart analogy that you design the spacecraft to dart and stick onto
the spot of Mars or an asteroid or Venus or Mercury. To stick into the
ground like a dart and then have the probe in the rear of the dartlike
spacecraft that opens and then makes it's way free onto the surface.

I just am not satisfied with having parachute and tumbling balls
method and want to seek an alternative that may have more advantages
in other landings.

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

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.

I think you meant epitome.

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
om...
Benoit Morrissette wrote in message
. ..
Don't forget weight. The heavier the capsule is, the less scientific
instrument
they can put in. So parachute and balloons is a cheap AND light
solution!

(snip mine)

Good night!

Benoît Morrissette

Benoit, I am looking for an alternative to the parachute and bouncing
balls method. Usually there are alternative methods.

I am surprized at how much atmosphere Mars has to have a wind and to
have air to utilize parachute.

A landing of a probe onto an asteroid could not be done with
parachute.

So I am hunting for alternatives.

What about making the entire spacecraft the landing capsule. Much like
a dart analogy that you design the spacecraft to dart and stick onto
the spot of Mars or an asteroid or Venus or Mercury. To stick into the
ground like a dart and then have the probe in the rear of the dartlike
spacecraft that opens and then makes it's way free onto the surface.

I just am not satisfied with having parachute and tumbling balls
method and want to seek an alternative that may have more advantages
in other landings.

There are many.. All require large amount of fuel... Every drop
of fuel require increase in launch lift... If you think you can
hit the Martian atmosphere at 25,000mph and come to a dead stop
at the surface without lots of fuel or Chutes/Balls and have anything
left other than a hunk of dead metal you have no idea how this
stuff works... Just consider stopping a bullet.... Stick a
rock it front of it and you get a crater....



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

LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!!!!

Uncle Al,

I normally refrain from commentary such as that below. However, I have to
agree with this one.

As they say ... stupid is as stupid does. Archie Poo is beyond stupid.
He's defined a new word ... STOOOOOOPID!


Uncle Al wrote in message
...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[snip]
Nothing.

Archie-Poo sees himself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees Archie-Poo this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete7.jpg

Hey stooopid,

http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

30 years of NASA-sponsored egg drops in everything from elementary
schools to graduate schools of engineering clandestinely evolved the
airbag concept. The next best tactic is angel's food cake, but it is
not adequately deployable nor can it be disengaged in a facile manner.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
a grand unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!