You've still got a problem with streamlined water landing: if you use
regular ablative shielding techniques, you need a blunt body reentering
blunt-face-downward. So you have to either reorient the whole
craft to a sharp-point-downward attitude, or separate the payload
carrier and do some such ma
Larry writes: "[Bell] even got some of the facts
wrong about TAS: The Scoop 7 return capsule was not torn open from an
impact. It actually landed successfully. The problem began when some
of the townsfolk in the little New Mexico community it landed in took the
capsule to the local doctor
> Michael, Larry, et al.,
>
> I didn't know that Jeff has apparently retired.
That's how his articles are signed - he has at least retired from
space science in some sense. Isn't he still on the faculty though?
> He writes a good
> article, but why he thinks there are no Mars meteorites is be
Or rather a cone, weighted so that the apex points
more or less in the direction of travel. Think of a
high diver
--- Gary McMurtry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> The question would be can you design a vehicle to
> transition from air
> to water at 200+ miles per hour with minimum shock?
>
>
- Original Message -
From: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 3:15 PM
Subject: Genesis Scientists Bouncing Back From Hard
Landing
MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICEJET PROPULSION LABORATORYCALIFORNIA
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYNATIONAL AERONAUTI
Michael, Larry, et al.,
I didn't know that Jeff has apparently retired. He writes a good
article, but why he thinks there are no Mars meteorites is beyond me.
There are plenty of good, solid scientific reasons to believe so, and
I think Jeff is in a tiny minority here. So being, then Zubrin's
The question would be can you design a vehicle to transition from air
to water at 200+ miles per hour with minimum shock?
Shape it to dive like a duck, then come back up to float on surface,
with finder beacons.
That a good idea
A system can be designed to use a streamlined capsule that could
That a good idea
A system can be designed to use a streamlined capsule that could hit the
water at rather high velocity without jarring the payload. Make it
bouyant and you get it back when it floats to the surface. If something
goes wrong and it cracks when hitting the water, you would at lea
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
I am rather surprised at Bell's dumping upon of the 1971 SF film The
Andromeda Strain, which is one of the very few SF films I have ever seen that
strove hard to get the science and technology right (for the early 1970s, of
course). And I thought the scientists in the film acted like scient
- Original Message -
From: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 6:51 PM
Subject: Genesis Mission Status: Conducting Inventory of
Canister
MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICEJET PROPULSION LABORATORYCALIFORNIA
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYNATIONAL A
Jeff Bell is a bit depressed about this whole
thing.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04z.html
He slightly disparages mid-air helicopter
retrieval, even though that seemed to be one of the bits of good news in this
story: it can be done.
He also has some rather unkind words for
Rob
> 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 ba
13 matches
Mail list logo
