Tumlinson (self-admitted) Rant

[mattblack]

>>I want to know what the response was that supports the idea that the Apollo semi-ballistic capsule is better than a modest lifting body for return speeds greater than 11 km/s<< <br /><br />Not necessarily better, just better UNDERSTOOD. <br /><br /> />>The biconic is one of the more modest lifting body shapes, but still a lifting body.<<<br /><br />Yeah, ironic isn't it?! But somewhere between capsules and lifting bodies in the context of being better understood. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Not necessarily better, just better UNDERSTOOD."<br /><br />Hmmm...understood as in an Apollo style semi-ballistic capsule with a lift to drag of 0.3 would undergo 16 g's at Mars return speeds? At least that's what Lockheed claims. <br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

Interesting question: I thought it would be more like 10gs over Apollo's 7gs, with a skip-return trajectory preferred over a straight ballistic trajectory. Still very high, in any case. Worth looking into. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>