In the early manned space program, all of the capsules landed at sea. How well would a water landing work? --- Michael Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm told they might have used the kind of balloons > they used on the recent > Martian landings, but that would have greatly > increased the weight -- and > therefore > the cost -- of what was supposed to be a > relatively inexpensive > return system. But I bet they're rethinking that > now. > > Maybe the balloon shock absorber idea could be > turned upside down - you > could cover the target zone with balloons. Hmm, > that would be a large area. > > OK, how about this: when you figure out where the > sample return capsule is > going to land (to within a couple hundred meters), > send planes to > carpet-bomb that area with bombs that produce huge > masses of foam for the > capsule to plunge into. > > Let's see, if you engineer the capsule to withstand > 20 g deceleration, and > the capsule comes in at maybe 400 mph terminal > velocity, straight down, and > the foam can resist at 20 g, that's maybe only 60-70 > ft of foam. > > Hmm, but that foam is probably styrofoam-stiff. > Maybe no foaming process is > fast enough. > > Well, then (yes, I *do* have a million half-back > ideas, thank you for > asking) if the foaming gases are shock-reactive, you > might get good > deceleration even with a lighter foam. Plus, the > whole foam pad > self-disposes by combustion before you can say > "environmentalist picketers." > (Heat stress on the capsule? Yeah, but maybe no > worse than what you get > already with reentry.) > > Call it "scorched-earth splashdown". Kinda crazy, > but maybe not as crazy as > trying to sift through a gazillion tiny shards of > silicon and germanium to > find a few that can still tell you something. And > if Scorched Earth > Splashdown cost $10 million a shot, well, this splat > was a $260 million > splat. Maybe it's worth experimenting with just as > a backup to the James > Bond Helicopter Retrieve. (And it would certainly > be worthy of a scene from > a James Bond movie if it worked.) > > OK, I'll go back to playing with matches now. > > -michael turner > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ----- > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: "Michael Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: 09/09/2004 09:04PM > Subject: Re: the latest splat > > > I was there in the hangar at Dugway Proving > Grounds as we watched the > > capsule embed itself in the dry lakebed. My > girlfriend works on the > Genesis > > project at JPL and I was along as her guest. > > Gee, if I weren't married, I'd try to figure out > what cafes to hang out > in, around JPL ;-) > > > It was a terribly sad moment, as you can > imagine, and a long, sad > > afternoon. Through my girlfriend, I had met > some of the key engineers > and > > scientists involved. I saw that the project > manager was on the verge > of > > tears as he tried to answer reporters' > questions about what had gone > wrong. > > One scientist had been supporting the idea for > 14 years, I believe he > said, > > and some of the engineers had lived it with > three or more years. > > One of the unfortunate things about this > incident is that it casts a > shadow > over an the idea really sounds very sensible - > it's just that the > parachute > system wasn't cooperating that day. Reentry > survival equipment isn't > really "payload" - it's just the last stage of > the overall sample > delivery > system. Why design the craft itself for soft > landings when it costs so > much to send things into space? If some such > soft-landing gear > weighs, say, 100 lbs, the cost of retrieving by > helicopter instead > seems like it would be cost-competitive even for > the lower range > of launch costs. > > > I work in publishing for the IEEE Computer > Society. Sometimes, one of > the > > magazines I help launch doesn't do as we > hoped, so over a period of > several > > months, we get the bad news. That's tough > enough, but it must be > really > > wrenching to see your dreams come crashing > down in a matter of > seconds. > > I got out of software development because I got > so sick of the typical > 60-80% project failure rate. But at least I got > to see some projects > go to completion. I can't imagine what it must > be like to see a project > end up in splinters after a decade or more. It > must be a little like > watching > a home you built burn down. > > > (Incidentally, I understand that the Stardust > material would withstand > the > > kind of impact that shattered the silicon and > germanium wafers in > Genesis > > to smithereens. The Stardust material is an > almost lighter-than-air > foam. > I > > forget the name, but I got to hold a piece > when my 10-year-old > daughter > and > > I went to JPL's open house this summer.) > > "Aerogel"? > > -michael turner > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing > list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: > http://klx.com/europa/ > > > > = You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing > list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: > http://klx.com/europa/ > ===== Sincerely James McEnanly __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
