|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astro bodies
Tonight I believe I have the outline of a proof that the recent Mars
probe lander could have occurred by only 2 methods of landing and no other new engineering method can ever land humans or human equipment on astro bodies. Method 1 is the retrorocket and this makes sense in that rockets get the spacecraft there and to fire them backwards slows down the craft to make a safe landing Method 2 is the parachute or the airbag, whichever way one considers it because the parachute is an airbag or vice versa the airbag is a modified parachute. Proof: in the proof we seek the lightest weight material to slowdown a spacecraft and a parachute made of fabric is the lightest possible considering the area covered to gain air resistance to slowdown. In the proof, I would show that all other engineered devises are merely a modified parachute or modified airbag. And so my consideration of a helicopter devise is turned into the idea that a helicopter for landing purposes is a "generalized parachute" only multi-times heavier. Often in proving things so formally, whether in mathematics or physics or engineering, that the proof really gives no big outside ramifications or implications. The proof seems to satisfy the initial concern as to whether some 3rd method existed. But seeing that all other methods are just "generalized or modified parachutes" it seems as though the proof stops and ends. But not so. Because if this formal proof can be fully proved seems to me that it gives off vastly important implications and ramifications. To mention one is that liquid fuel of oxygen and hydrogen and jet fuel are maximum fuels in spacecraft travel because fissile fuel of uranium cannot be configured to power a spacecraft for launch or retrorockets to slow down. Another implication is that some astro bodies do not have air for parachutes to work and for them it appears as though retrorockets are the only solution for landing. I am too tired tonight to write out more on a proof. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astro bodies
"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message om... Tonight I believe I have the outline of a proof that the recent Mars probe lander could have occurred by only 2 methods of landing and no other new engineering method can ever land humans or human equipment on astro bodies. Method 1 is the retrorocket and this makes sense in that rockets get the spacecraft there and to fire them backwards slows down the craft to make a safe landing Method 2 is the parachute or the airbag, whichever way one considers it because the parachute is an airbag or vice versa the airbag is a modified parachute. Proof: in the proof we seek the lightest weight material to slowdown a spacecraft and a parachute made of fabric is the lightest possible considering the area covered to gain air resistance to slowdown. In the proof, I would show that all other engineered devises are merely a modified parachute or modified airbag. And so my consideration of a helicopter devise is turned into the idea that a helicopter for landing purposes is a "generalized parachute" only multi-times heavier. Often in proving things so formally, whether in mathematics or physics or engineering, that the proof really gives no big outside ramifications or implications. The proof seems to satisfy the initial concern as to whether some 3rd method existed. But seeing that all other methods are just "generalized or modified parachutes" it seems as though the proof stops and ends. But not so. Because if this formal proof can be fully proved seems to me that it gives off vastly important implications and ramifications. To mention one is that liquid fuel of oxygen and hydrogen and jet fuel are maximum fuels in spacecraft travel because fissile fuel of uranium cannot be configured to power a spacecraft for launch or retrorockets to slow down. Another implication is that some astro bodies do not have air for parachutes to work and for them it appears as though retrorockets are the only solution for landing. Theres several ways to do it but all has looked at , and I bet theres concepts been considered by Nasa that you and I both haven't thought of but all have been placed on the back burner and the method used was considered the best options given limitation imposted.. I suggested using a 1950's vintage Good Year Inflate - A - Plane concept modified with a longer wing span and electric drive, Solar array for the wings tops..... This Plane can be packed in a smaller area than the Sprit payload package so the launch, in flight, entry capsule/w heat shield could be the same hardware that off the shelf in that several sets of systems were made for the rover launches ... Build an autonomous Rover type system and have that same system do flight control and communications... The idea is you enter as we do now deploy droog shutes and main shutes drop heat shield and drop the Plane on a teather as we do with the Bag system.... Inflate the plane and release at altitude.... Run a patterned flight taking photos... That allows time for ground to receive the data and send a tight landing target. Land and detach the rover from the craft and do a land examination. I am too tired tonight to write out more on a proof. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astro bodies
On 6 Jan 2004 01:33:25 -0800, (Archimedes
Plutonium) wrote: Tonight I believe I have the outline of a proof that the recent Mars I have proof that have won several kook awards, Ludwig. http://www.lart.com/auk/whiners.html -- Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed" Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253. You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com "Shake it like a polaroid picture." - Andre 3000 of Outkast |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astro bodies
"Paul R. Mays" wrote in message ...
(snip) Theres several ways to do it but all has looked at , and I bet theres concepts been considered by Nasa that you and I both haven't thought of but all have been placed on the back burner and the method used was considered the best options given limitation imposted.. I suggested using a 1950's vintage Good Year Inflate - A - Plane concept modified with a longer wing span and electric drive, Solar array for the wings tops..... This Plane can be packed in a smaller area than the Sprit payload package so the launch, in flight, entry capsule/w heat shield could be the same hardware that off the shelf in that several sets of systems were made for the rover launches ... Build an autonomous Rover type system and have that same system do flight control and communications... The idea is you enter as we do now deploy droog shutes and main shutes drop heat shield and drop the Plane on a teather as we do with the Bag system.... Inflate the plane and release at altitude.... Run a patterned flight taking photos... That allows time for ground to receive the data and send a tight landing target. Land and detach the rover from the craft and do a land examination. But that is exactly what the proof is warning us in that any other scheme to land a probe on Mars is no good. That the best scheme is (1) retrorockets (2)parachute & airbag or combinations of 1 and 2. There are no other engineering schemes that can outbest 1 and 2 because they are the lightest weight for getting the job done. Your inflate-a-plane is a generalization of the parachute only yours weighs way too much. You see, the beauty of the proof is that it causes people who are prone to wasting time in thinking that there is some other scheme of engineering that is better than the retrorocket+parachute. Those are the best two methods and any divergence is a waste of time, money, energy The proof also implies that uranium or fissile fuels will never be an engineering accomplishment to land humans or equipement onto astro bodies-- liquid fuels seem to be the maximal optimum in correspondence with retrorockets. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astro bodies
"Archimedes Plutonium" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
om... "Paul R. Mays" wrote in message ... (snip) ... undo snip: Tonight I believe I have the outline of a proof that the recent Mars probe lander could have occurred by only 2 methods of landing and no other new engineering method can ever land humans or human equipment on astro bodies You see, the beauty of the proof is that it causes people who are prone to wasting time in thinking that there is some other scheme of engineering that is better than the retrorocket+parachute. Those are the best two methods and any divergence is a waste of time, money, energy Proof: in the proof we seek the lightest weight material to slowdown a spacecraft and a parachute made of fabric is the lightest possible considering the area covered to gain air resistance to slowdown. In the proof, I would show that all other engineered devises are merely a modified parachute or modified airbag. And so my consideration of a Be carefully with such statements. What you do is saying there is no device TODAY that does not fit into the category parachute or modified airbag therefore there will be never one. This is a wrong conclusion. It's like saying We dont know of anything better therefore there will be never something better. You would have to proof first that this two methodes are in fact the only one existing and working, but this is not possible because you conlude form todays knowlede and foget that we dont know everything. The "never" conclusion is a very dangers thing. Midn teh past: Famous sientists where wrong with there "never" conclusion and I assure you that some will follow. Doing such statements kills inventions. I agree with you that for today your statement fits because everything else doesnt make much sense, but that doesnt mean there are no other ways. What is the lightest material to slow down a spacecraft? The use of no material! At least not on the Spacecraft. I could imagine that you send one spacecraft conventional with parachute or whatever. This Spacecraft carries solarpannels for collecting sun-energie on mars say over a timeperiode of a year or more. Now you can send another spacecraft with no material and you can slow it down with the energie you collected on mars. How this couls look like I let it open to think for you. It is not impossible, but very difficult for todays possibility. Nevertheless its a possibility that disarms your proof. Another methode I could think off is to pack antimaterie on the spacecraft that much that it equals out the matter and it stays neutral to the mars or wherever you like to go to. Not a good solution for today and maybe it will never be. But it's another solution and disarms your "proof". We could also use another force to compensate the gravity. A Magnet or charge would do the job . You would have to deposit this on the planet and on the spacecraft. Again this will not work for the first spacecraft. And if we step a little into since fiction we could shild the gravity field once we understand the nature of gravity. (This implies that Einstein is wrong in seeing Gravity as space deformation only. He also made such a danger "never" statement that I would put into question. But he's work is genius nevertheless) Anyway all I want to say is: Be carefully with such statements. What you do is killing breakthrough invention by telling somethign else will "never" work. When you stop thinking about something you gave up the real chance. Lombo 243 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astro bodies
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astrobodies
John Larkin wrote: Does an ablative heat shield come under your umbrella [1] definition of "parachute'? No. But a heat shield is not sufficient to produce a soft landing. A parachute is necessary. In the 1975 Viking Mission, Viking had retrorockets so it made a soft landing that way. Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently powerful rockets to launch a really large and capabable probe with retrofire capability, which is why NASA is dicking around with heat shields and parachutes. If NASA had a decent rocket, we would not have this problem. Right now the only capable launcher for interplanetary mission we have is the delta rocket. How can you consider an air bag to be a parachute? Air bags are impact absorbers, and parachutes are atmospheric drag devices. Just try jumping out of an airplane with an airbag, or crashing a car with a parachute popping out of the dash to protect you. Airbags by themselves are no good. Without heatshields and parachutes the airbags would burst on impact and the package would be destroyed. Until we get some decent propulsion our missions will be lightweight. Bob Kolker |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astro bodies
John Larkin wrote in message . ..
On 6 Jan 2004 01:33:25 -0800, (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote: Tonight I believe I have the outline of a proof that the recent Mars probe lander could have occurred by only 2 methods of landing and no other new engineering method can ever land humans or human equipment on astro bodies. Method 1 is the retrorocket and this makes sense in that rockets get the spacecraft there and to fire them backwards slows down the craft to make a safe landing Method 2 is the parachute or the airbag, whichever way one considers it because the parachute is an airbag or vice versa the airbag is a modified parachute. Does an ablative heat shield come under your umbrella [1] definition of "parachute'? Well, a retrorocket is really an ablative heat shield, so why bother with heat shields when retrorockets do the same thing-- slow the vehicle down. How can you consider an air bag to be a parachute? Air bags are impact Well an airbag is really a "enclosed parachute". The other way around, a parachute is an opened airbag. Even though one is involved with air resistance and air drag and the other is involved with EM forces of contact with surfaces. absorbers, and parachutes are atmospheric drag devices. Just try jumping out of an airplane with an airbag, or crashing a car with a parachute popping out of the dash to protect you. John Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astrobodies
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
In the 1975 Viking Mission, Viking had retrorockets so it made a soft landing that way. Actually, the Viking landers used parachutes until not far above the surface (1.5 kilometer altitude), where their aeroshell opened and released the landers to descend the last bit of altitude under their small descent engines. This was also the method used for landing by the ill-fated Mars Polar Lander. Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently powerful rockets to launch a really large and capabable probe with retrofire capability, which is why NASA is dicking around with heat shields and parachutes. If NASA had a decent rocket, we would not have this problem. Right now the only capable launcher for interplanetary mission we have is the delta rocket. Well, actually, we *do* have such powerful rockets available (Titan IV, Atlas 5, ect.), but they are expensive, which drives the cost up for such a mission. The Delta is somewhat less expensive but still allows a considerable payload to achieve escape velocity. In fact, the newer versions of the Delta now undergoing testing will allow even heavier payloads to be sent to Mars. Clear skies to you. -- David W. Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/ ********************************************** * Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir * * http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org * ********************************************** |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astro bodies
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|