A first for the Russians! |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | |
VulcanB2
Chief Pilot Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Points: 13365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Did I just read the word "compromise" in that last statement you quoted Martin?
Compromise = Disaster. They are just about to enter a new era of catastrophic failures. This stuff is great when it works. It is when it doesn't that it creates the real problems. Why don't they aim for a sea landing?? I know they like their pin-point precision ground landings, but this proposed system just "WT...????" written all over it. Best regards, Vulcan. |
|
johnsmithfsx
Chief Pilot Joined: 29 May 2008 Location: United States Points: 3391 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'm afraid I do not see how it wouldn't. I am not claiming to be an expert on the subject as I clearly am not. If you could glide the craft down rather than using rockets and more fuel, wouldn't it be cheaper (in terms of fuel). Also, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to maintain a reusable craft rather than build an entirely new one? |
|
|
|
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Did I just read the word "compromise" in that last statement you quoted Martin? The parachute is in addition to the thrusters Vulcan. It’s a compromise not in terms of the technology but in terms of the debate amongst the Russians as to whether the technology is safe or not. It’s an added safety measure. I don’t think they have the option of a sea landing, they chose the region intended for a reason. The |
|
MartinW
Moderator in Command Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'm afraid I do not see how it wouldn't. I am not claiming to be an expert on the subject as I clearly am not. If you could glide the craft down rather than using rockets and more fuel, wouldn't it be cheaper (in terms of fuel). Also, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to maintain a reusable craft rather than build an entirely new one? It depends on what you meant by 'like the shuttle.' A full scale reusable space plane like the shuttle with propulsion for launch integral, would obviously be incredibly expensive, don't forget that the issue here is landing a small capsule. If you meant in terms of the capsule itself, as in some kind of guidable reentry vehicle attached to the Soyuz, then that too would be far more expensive. It wouldn’t be just a case of slapping some wings on a capsule; an entire reentry vehicle would have to be designed. A capsule is an ideal shape for reentry and in addition a proven technology thats very wellunderstood, with a relatively simple ablative heat shield at the base, nothing complex there. Basic thruster technology is simple enough, and the electronics required easy these days. The negative is in the event of failure and the difficulty in recovering a deadly situation. Compare that with building a brand new design space plane, with wings, modifying or redesigning the Soyuz itself to take the new reentry vehicle that is now entirely different to a basic capsule. Redesigning the launch rocket to accommodate the new shape and mass, and building a purpose built runway for landing. And don't forget, that like the shuttle a glidable controllable space plane would require heat proof tiles or similar technology and in addition something like carbon-carbon panels for the leading edge of the wings. Training facilities would have to be set up to teach the astronauts to operate the new systms, and computer technology would have to be designed and installed to enable an automated glide to the landing site, plus a myriad of backups etc. Easier to drop a capsule with a parachute or if you need guidance stick some rockets on the bottom. A capsule is simple and relatively cheap even with thrusters. Safety is the issue not cost. Also, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to maintain a reusable craft rather than build an entirely new one? The new capsule is intended to be reusable. And of course the Russians would have considered a space plane rentry vehicle design and chose that if it were better for their needs.
|
|
johnsmithfsx
Chief Pilot Joined: 29 May 2008 Location: United States Points: 3391 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ah, I see
|
|
|
|
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |