Because of the amount of debris kicked up during landings, NASA did some research into preparing landing pads. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120920101035.htmBasically, to prevent damage during the landing of a large craft, robotic rovers would be sent in advance to prep a landing pad.
Quote from: RonM on 11/30/2013 06:29 pmBecause of the amount of debris kicked up during landings, NASA did some research into preparing landing pads. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120920101035.htmBasically, to prevent damage during the landing of a large craft, robotic rovers would be sent in advance to prep a landing pad.Isn't a landing area several km across? Is the entire area going to be stabilized/excavated? If the spacecraft is already moving slow enough to land with precision of a few meters, isn't it already moving slow enough to just land?
Landing anything big (Curiosity size and up) on Mars already requires using rocket engines and the idea is usually to simply use them all the way down to a soft landing at a specific point.
Quote from: eriblo on 12/04/2013 12:18 pmLanding anything big (Curiosity size and up) on Mars already requires using rocket engines and the idea is usually to simply use them all the way down to a soft landing at a specific point.What if you're landing "anything big" that doesn't require soft landing?Random example: food.
Quote from: QuantumG on 12/04/2013 09:21 pmQuote from: eriblo on 12/04/2013 12:18 pmLanding anything big (Curiosity size and up) on Mars already requires using rocket engines and the idea is usually to simply use them all the way down to a soft landing at a specific point.What if you're landing "anything big" that doesn't require soft landing?Random example: food.Speed of sound into a 10 feet of snow?Or speed of sound with some sort of impactor design to keep gees to about constant 100.So tube/pipe which pile drives into surface? absorbing shock both with penetrating groundand payload sliding down tube with ever steeper resistance. So tube being about 5' long.And/or 5 feet of crumple zone- made of stuff which could have value as scrap- metal, plastics, etc.
Quote from: gbaikie on 12/04/2013 11:08 pmQuote from: QuantumG on 12/04/2013 09:21 pmQuote from: eriblo on 12/04/2013 12:18 pmLanding anything big (Curiosity size and up) on Mars already requires using rocket engines and the idea is usually to simply use them all the way down to a soft landing at a specific point.What if you're landing "anything big" that doesn't require soft landing?Random example: food.Speed of sound into a 10 feet of snow?Or speed of sound with some sort of impactor design to keep gees to about constant 100.So tube/pipe which pile drives into surface? absorbing shock both with penetrating groundand payload sliding down tube with ever steeper resistance. So tube being about 5' long.And/or 5 feet of crumple zone- made of stuff which could have value as scrap- metal, plastics, etc.Parachute + airbags should be sufficient for food deliveries to Mars.I remember Jim posted some numbers when people were wondering why NASA didn't send more Spirit/Opportunity missions.
Liken the lander to a Skycrane helicopter, minus rotating parts. The helo can operate by itself or it can carry cargo containers, vehicles or equipment underslung.The lander would be the same. It would contain the crewed area, all propulsion, tankage, avionics and life support. It could be used solely as a crew transport or as a cargo lander. I cannot remember who suggested this idea on another thread but if ISRU is available then the lander can fill up on the surface and launch with all the ascent and descent prop required for the next cycle.Cargo can be hab, power station, ISRU plant, rovers, MPLM type containers, anything that could be made in, or fitted into the same shape and mass limits.Mick.
Parachute + airbags should be sufficient for food deliveries to Mars.
I concede that but it reminds people of the shuttle so we decide to leave it as is. After all, Mars landings will certainly be automated given the need for a 3-6G burn just before touchdown with tight margins. I'm also leaning towards an engines-first descent with the nozzles flush with the heat shield, given the loads the rollover maneuver before would put on structures, and the need to keep the docking port safe. Actually Stanley has just such a concept (which predates mine), "Hydra" Edit: Image uploaded - I was on a mobile device which didn't allow attaching.