The vehicle would doubtless need very little modification, rocket
structures are usually limited by buckling; a tensile load is likely to be
unproblematic, except right around the hook.
The biggest change would be losing the stupid feet and lightening that
associated structure.
It's fewer moving parts on the vehicle, lighter, higher performance, and
more reliable.
Also, the landing pad could have a hole in the middle, for the exhaust jet.
On 19 January 2016 at 20:50, Matt Maier <blueback09@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Would the structure require any reinforcement to switch from compression
to the tension of hanging from a nose hook?
If the numbers still worked then maybe the lightning grounding cables
could do double duty for catching the rocket.
On Jan 19, 2016 12:07, "Doug Jones" <djones@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
In 1980 I saw an operational demo of cradle landing when Tim Monsees
landed, threw off his parachute harness, ran to where Steve Johnston (who
had recently recovered from a broken leg) was landing and caught him as he
flared. All done with the MK I eyeball. The cradle could be slung from
towers to have a long travel, see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJCsomGwdk0
(Steve died in the 1981 midair collision at Loveland, CO)
The stage would descend to a preselected point with the plume missing the
cables, then the cradle maneuvers at several gees to grab the nose hook.
This could save thousands of pounds on the first stage while moving the
landing mechanisms to ground support equipment with large mass budgets.
Doug Jones
On 1/19/2016 10:47 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
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
<mailto: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>
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On Behalf Of *Matt Maier
*Sent:* dinsdag 19 januari 2016 17:27
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto:edward.v.wright@xxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
> How many airplanes do you see with five sets of landing gear?
Many planed
> can't land safely with a single gear failure. If there's a safety
concern,
> improving the reliability of each gear is usually more
cost-effective than
> adding more wheels.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 19, 2016, at 8:31 AM, James Fackert <jimfackert@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jimfackert@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Elon might be thinking right now....
> In the SpaceX spirit of redundancy, 5 might be a good number...
or 6 even.
> Hindsight is 20/20.
>
> jim fackert____
____
__ __
-- ____
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx>____
--
-Ian Woollard
Sent from my Turing machine
