On Thu, 29 May 2003 09:59:23 -0700, Pierce Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A man-rated SSTO is quite a sizeable vehicle -- if the tanks are >designed to crush properly and the crew cabin is on top, you will have at >least 10m through which to decelerate. IIRC, ppl have take 16 G continuos >on their backs with their legs up -- it should be no problem whatsoever.
Let me make sure I'm reading your post correctly:
You are going to crash. Ergo, something very bad has already happened, and may still be happening. During the crash, your vehicle is going to be destroyed. Unless you have crash tested your vehicle several times in the same configuration, you don't really know that peak g isn't going to much higher than 16 g.
But, it should be no problem whatsoever.
Have I got that right?
Not precisely -- the scenario I am envisioning here is a propulsion failure during the landing phase sufficient to preclude a normal landing phase. The canonical scenario is a failure of all or substantially all of your engines to light. In that scenario, in a properly designed SSTO or TSTO, you will still come straight down on the loud end of the vehicle, with the squishy end at the top. In that case, if the tank has been designed to crush predictably, it's better by far just to ride out the crash. Clever design should be able redirect most landing failure modes to coming straight down, loud end first.
Crash testing isn't that bad, since all you really need to drop is a tank, thrust frame, and an aeroshell -- you don't need to put any of the expensive engines, avionics, or TPS aboard the crash test dummies -- just cheap things to simulate them adequately. Properly weighted mockups of the expensive bits ought to do the trick.
-p
Mars or Bust! www.marssociety.com
_______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
