Michael Wallis wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: >>I was going over the recent debate of "VTVL wants to be short and >>squatty, but in-flight aerodynamics say no", and I'm trying to remember >>why the solution that immediately occurs to me - vary the geometry based >>on what phase of the flight you're in - isn't the best of ideas (seeing >>if maybe I can find solutions to those problems). > > Changing the geometry of the vehicle? In flight? (shakes head) > Why? I can see no reasonable advantage and enormous failure-mode > impacts to flight operations by changing the size, length, shape or > volume of things like propellant tanks while in flight.
<shrugs> The reasons to do it are as I listed. You'd engineer it around the failure modes (failure -> abort, not failure -> crash). But, if the problems this addresses can be solved by "short & squatty with a long spike nose", then that's probably a better solution. So long as the spike nose itself doesn't break off, creating the shock wave ahead of the main vehicle body like it does. ...though, come to think of it, would it make sense for said spike nose to contain some kind of deployable heat shield, for use during re-entry? _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
