4 ms·
The legs would need to be much longer (because you can’t push the engine nozzles all the way into the ground and still hope for good things.) Longer structure m
by krisoft 2y ago
The legs would need to be much longer (because you can’t push the engine nozzles all the way into the ground and still hope for good things.) Longer structure means more mass, but also larger torque which need to be handled with the support of the structure.
Legs need to move to deploy. The struts are just there, static things are much simpler. Simpler things weigh less.
Legs need to contain shock absorbers. With the struct solution the shock absorber is in the chopsticks. It doesn’t matter how much the shock absorber weighs when you don’t need to carry it up with you.
- adolph 2y agoIt was pretty neat how Bezos explained to Everyday Astronaut how they were using 6 legs so the legs weren’t as long. On the whole, pad catch is the way to go for non-expeditionary vehicles. For orbital uses each booster basically becomes a pyrotechnic elevator.
- avmich 2y agoIt would be good to see the numeric analysis of variants here. Legged landings are surely possible - say, with longer legs (twice as long as struts?), possibly static (legs are always deployed, even when launching), with shock absorbers which aren't that heavy... Would be good to see good and bad qualities next to each other.
- rockemsockem 2y agoI think it all just comes down to weight. If you can trim mass on the vehicle then you should do it.