Not all landers are created equal

Still in an early development phase, Morpheus showed that it's not easy
to get a lander to land. The design is intended to be used on the
Moon, where the sky-crane trick won't work.

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/09/13202236-nasa-lander-blows-up-during-test


/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

On Aug 11, 3:06*pm, Snidely wrote:
Still in an early development phase, Morpheus showed that it's not easy
to get a lander to land. *The design is intended to be used on the
Moon, where the sky-crane trick won't work.

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/09/13202236-nasa-lander-bl...

/dps

--
Who, me? *And what lacuna?

Actually, if their spendy stuff didn't break, it probably could have
performed as planned.

Because of the demanding fuel/payload requirements, the special fuel
was necessary in order to provide the necessary energy and of
sufficient duration which those Apollo landers probably didn't have
because none of their prototypes worked either.

Apparently their "environmentally friendly rocket fuel" had something
to do with its demise before any attempt at a controlled landing was
even possible.

Liquid methane and liquid oxygen was their special fuel. (what the
hell is so special about that?)

Isn't RP1 and LOx similar if not better?
Isn't HTP and propargyl alcohol or cyclopropane a whole lot better
yet?
http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”