h a l f b a k e r yNo, not that kind of baked.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
In the vertical launch position, its profile offers very
little
wind resistance. Once the fuel is expended, it's ejected
from the main rocket and falls to earth like a helicopter
blade, maple seed or elongated turbine. Various shapes
and rotational configurations could be tried, spinning
around
its central point like a helicopter blade or around
it long axis like a dropped strip of paper. I wonder if
you'd have any benefit from combining the two.
To be practical, you'd need enough slowing of the fall for
the unit to survive hitting the water without having to
add
any strength to the structure, otherwise they you'd just
be
better off adding a very light parachute, although this
wouldn't require parachute deployment system. Simply
re-fuel and re-use.
A twist, no pun intended, of the magnus effect rocket
recovery idea from Baconbrain.
What if this turns out to be the perfect rocket design?
https://d1466nnw0ex...n_iv/600/573421.jpg
I think it's got issues but maybe I'm missing something. [doctorremulac3, Mar 10 2018, last modified Oct 12 2018]
[link]
|
| |
Just have some blades pop out when it detaches methinks.
Needs a better category. |
|
| |
Hmm. If the whole thing were blade-shaped, you'd have a
lower volume-to-weight ratio; that is, the booster would
contain less fuel for a given weight than if it were
cylindrical. |
|
| |
Yea, hmm. Maybe if it collapses into shape after
the fuel is expended? Start out round and then
flatten as you go. I dont' think there's much
problem if you have twists and turns behind the
leading point of the thing since that's all behind
the shock wave anyway. In other words, as long as
the nose cone is aerodynamic the body should be
able to collapse in various spots as the fuel
empties. |
|
| |
Having the body be made of a semi flexible
material might address the impact resistance issue
of the water landing as well. |
|
| |
I'm also thinking the maple seed model is the way
to go since you'd have your heavy motor at one end
like the seed in the example. The motor would
also be, by necessity, hardened compared to the
rest of the vehicle so when it hit the water it
would take the brunt of the impact. By the time
the flattened out fuel tank portion hit the water
it would be moving at a fraction of the initial
impact speed. |
|
| |
So when comparing this to the competition, those
automated rockets that land like a 1950s sci-fi
movie, it becomes a weight and complexity
comparison. Flexible might actually be lighter than
stiff tanks so I might win that one. I don't have to
carry any fuel throughout the landing so I get that
one as well. No landing gear, no guidance
mechanisims but perhaps the main thing is this is
stupid simple. |
|
| |
I forgot to put a category, thanks Ray. |
|
| |
Come to think of it, what about just hardening the engine
portion for water impact then softening the tank portion to
be flexible and just hitting the water at terminal velocity? |
|
| |
Thing is, parachutes aren't that heavy, they're simple, reliable and well-understood. |
|
| |
Is this idea going to be significantly better (cost, functionality, reliability) than the existing systems ? |
|
| |
Autorotation would make it better than a parachute. |
|
| |
Parachutes do fail. Even if a plane desintigrates in mid air
many of its parts autorotate on their way down. Point is it’s
pretty foolproof. |
|
| |
But yea, we’re working on the model t of rockets now. It’s
about value for the money. |
|
| |
Don't we want as much building stuff up there as possible? A climb capable booster would be better mechano'd for a space terminus or starship construction. |
|
| |
Well, I'm just talking about drop away first stage
boosters
that usually just fall back to Earth. |
|
| |
That was my question, the economy of partial reuse, your [doctorremulac3] attempt at increased efficiency, compared to the concept to throw everything up to be reused up there. Of course with some smart reuse engineering built in. |
|
| |
if advancing then the main engine is the flavour of time cutting edge engine and the boosters are Saturn V's. |
|
| |
Well, keep in mind, the first stage of the Saturn V
didn't acheive orbital velocity, it crashed back into
the ocean. The second stage as well. |
|
| |
I'm wating for Elon Musk to unveil the perfect re-
usable rocket design that turns out to be the one in
the link. |
|
| |
He's already got them landing on their tails, a science
fiction concept we all laughed at once upon a time. |
|
| |
You'll bankrupt yourself dragging payloads out of your planet's gravity well using chemical-fuelled reaction engines. |
|
| |
Just give up on developing new launchers and put all the money into building graviton-polarity generators. |
|
| |
Once you have that tech, chemical rockets will instantly become a historical curiosity, like coracles, sedan chairs, and war chariots. |
|
| |
//coracles, sedan chairs, and war chariots// |
|
| |
Combining those was not your best idea; the man between the
shafts never has a free hand to work those blades at the sides, so
the original coracle tendency to go in circles is
perpetuated. |
|
| |
Yes, but you have to concede that putting a sharp metal edge all round the paddle did confer a considerable advantage in mêlée combat. |
|
| |
The blood was everywhere... in retrospect, the sharp edge on the handle did represent poor judgement. |
|
| |
So [Ian], gravity is just us all being in solar orbit in very close proximity. The goal then would be to move all the other bits, on solar orbits, out of the way to allow a very low energy path out. |
|
| |
[doctorremulac3]I was trying to imagine bigger if the Saturn V was lifting less then maybe your getting a fuel reserve and spare engine for needed course corrections. |
|
| |
I think you're talking about single stage to orbit.
Those are tough. The staging system designed
hundreds of years ago is just a really good way to get
things up there. |
|
| |
No reason you can't build re-usability into those lower
stages though, which has been done successfully now. |
|
| |