I still think NO legs and a nose hook is the best idea.
Elon's argument that they're somehow practising Mars landing; really,
practising landing on a barge, on Mars???
On 19 January 2016 at 18:04, John Dom <johndom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
IMO, legs are intended to separate exhaust heat from the stage at landing,
allowing the craft not to become toast. A cradle high up might work if it
is flame resistant. Far fetched.
Jd
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
*On Behalf Of *Matt Maier
*Sent:* dinsdag 19 januari 2016 17:27
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: 3 no 4 no 5 legs.
Since the two landing scenarios are returning to the launch complex, or
finding a custom barge, and the rocket has to be able to bullseye the
landing pad anyway...why not just get rid of the landing legs entirely and
build a cradle for the rocket to settle down in?
On Jan 19, 2016 7:56 AM, "Craig Fink" <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
lol, yeah, he should get rid of the useless leg that keeps breaking. Four
offers no redundancy or robustness than three landing legs. But four
landing legs forms a nice X as in Space"X".
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Ben Brockert <wikkit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Antonov-225_main_landing_gear_2.jpg
Seriously though, five or more landing gear on an orbital rocket stage
is a terrible idea.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Edward Wright
<edward.v.wright@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How many airplanes do you see with five sets of landing gear? Many planedconcern,
can't land safely with a single gear failure. If there's a safety
improving the reliability of each gear is usually more cost-effectivethan
adding more wheels.even.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 19, 2016, at 8:31 AM, James Fackert <jimfackert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Elon might be thinking right now....
In the SpaceX spirit of redundancy, 5 might be a good number... or 6
Hindsight is 20/20.
jim fackert
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
