|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
January 5th 04, 06:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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 
|
|
#2
January 5th 04, 09:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Instead of the parachute and bouncing balls, engineer a capsule that withstands the damage
"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
|
|
#4
January 5th 04, 09:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mars has so much atmosphere Instead of the parachute and bouncing balls, engineer a capsule that withstands the damage
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
|
|
#5
January 5th 04, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mars has so much atmosphere Instead of the parachute and bouncing balls, engineer a capsule that withstands the damage
"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
|
|
#6
January 6th 04, 07:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mars has so much atmosphere Instead of the parachute and bouncing balls, engineer a capsule that withstands the damage
"Paul R. Mays" wrote in message ...
(snipped) 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.... Seems as though there are only 2. The one method of firing retrorockets such as in Viking landers. And then the method of using parachute and airbags or a combination of those 2. I do not recall of any other astro body landing that did not use either 1 or 2 or both. So is there a proof of Engineering that in our Solar System there exists 2 and only 2 means of landing on astro bodies? If no proof exists then there must be at least a 3rd method. Possibly a 3rd method is to design a capsule that converts into a helicopter and thereby increasing the size and weight of the landing probe. So that as the capsule shield protects against the enormous heat, at some point rotary blades of a helicopter come out and thence begin to helicopter the probe to the surface. Perhaps that is a dude idea. But until someone can prove that 2 and only 2 methods exist, I will keep hunting for a new method. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
#7
January 6th 04, 06:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mars has so much atmosphere Instead of the parachute andbouncing balls, engineer a capsule that withstands the damage
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 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. The Vikings made soft landings, but these were very expensive, and depended ( they came to realize ) on a lot of luck not to land on a boulder. The tumbling ball method uses a parachute and retro rockets before being released to bounce to the surface, so if you will allow the parachute, I think what is lacking for a final soft landing on the retros is simply the robotic intelligence to pick a safe spot. The robotic capabilities are in general very disappointing. I don't think they really rely on them much, do they? Don't they guide the rover remotely, and isn't this why everything is so slow? Lew Mammel, Jr.
|
|
#8
January 6th 04, 11:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mars has so much atmosphere Instead of the parachute and bouncing balls, engineer a capsule that withstands the damage
|
|
#9
January 5th 04, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Instead of the parachute and bouncing balls, engineer a capsule that withstands the damage
|
|
#10
January 6th 04, 07:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
helicopter method of landing on Mars Instead of the parachute and bouncing balls, engineer a capsule
John Larkin wrote in message . ..
On 4 Jan 2004 22:31:13 -0800, (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote: (snipped) 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 I know the vast harming of the G forces when travelling 15,000KM/H. But the burden really is not on me, but on you John. Because from the tone of your reply it is you who are assuming the retrorocket and parachute and airbags are the only two method to land on Mars. So the burden is on you to prove there are no other methods that can land safely on Mars. I do not make that assumption, and happily look for some other engineering that can do the job of retrorockets, parachute and airbag. Perhaps a capsule that converts into a helicopter. Instead of the probe with its solar panels, have a helicopter blades as the solar panels. Both of us know the damaging effect of crash landing. So John would have to prove that these 2 methods of retrorocket or parachute + airbags are the only 2 methods. If you can prove that, then it is senseless for me to look for other methods such as perhaps helicopter. But I don't think John can prove that there exists 2 and only 2 engineering methods of landing on Mars and that is why I am beginning to hunt for a 3rd method. And logic would say you start at step number 1-- is there a engineering design that can survive a crash landing? Probably not. So then we look at other methods-- the helicopter method. Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
