Concept for you to ponder after Genesis Failure

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

annodomini2

Guest
There appears to be concern given the misson failed, one idea I have had is that instead of having the return to earth system fitted to the satellite/capture vehicle.<br /><br />Possibly have the cargo deposited into a orbit where it can be captured by the ISS (by some means or another) then the return to earth system could be attached there, this has many benefits including:<br /><br />1. The recovery system hasn't been sat in space for X years being damaged by the harsh environment.<br /><br />2. The payload weight could be less given that the earth re-entry equipment is not present.<br /><br />I can see there may also be problems with this idea, given that it may be too difficult to get it to ISS capture and that also there may be too much of a risk factor in flying something towards ISS, but its an idea.<br /><br />Comments? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
This idea has be mentioned in here somewhere. Basically the idea got pooh poohed because of the extra cost. I think it was in the genesis thread in M&L. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
As earth_bound_misfit says, this was covered at length in another thread here. In short, the extra fuel required to slow the craft into Earth orbit would outweigh the re-entry equipment. This would require a larger lift-off vehicle. <br /><br />It was also suggested that rather than slowing directly into a low Earth orbit, the craft could go into a very elongated elliptical orbit, which would not require much fuel, and gradually adjust to a low orbit. I have no idea if or how this would work.<br /><br />Then there's the whole problem of having a separate control and propulsion system for approching the ISS.<br /><br />Probably the best solution would be to find out what went wrong and solve the problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

annodomini2

Guest
Well would structural improvement be more weighty, given that apparently most of it survived intact and just let it hit the ground/water? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>...and just let it hit the ground/water?</i><p>Ah, the ever popular lithocapture. The problem with that method is that, while the fall isn't bad, the sudden stop at the end is a killer. It's pretty hard to design experiments that can withstand >200Gs at impact.</p>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
All these ideas! Why not just build a parachute system that works!? <br /><br />They've been using parachutes for MANNED landings for 40 years. Surely they can be made safe for unmanned landings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts