3 ms·
I seriously do not understand why moon or mars landing structures aren’t some kind of dodecahedron. It can always correct itself after landing and then “unpack
by ChicagoDave 2y ago
I seriously do not understand why moon or mars landing structures aren’t some kind of dodecahedron.
It can always correct itself after landing and then “unpack” itself.
Someone tell me why we’re not doing this.
- kulahan 2y agoThat sounds pretty darn complex to get perfectly. It’s a lot more moving parts, untested mechanics, etc. IMO, it’s probably just easier to have a few long pole extend so your base is absolutely enormous, no? Then again, I’m just some internet nerd lol.
- echoangle 2y agoBecause making a lander that’s wider and lower like the Firefly one is simpler and you have to control attitude for the landing anyways. Making it not tip over is easier than making it spherical and unpacking it after landing. But IM apparently chose to do neither of the 2 options…
- ForOldHack 2y agoDifficult to get into or it, but assemble in orbit... Read Digital Apollo. The moon is rocky. Really really rocky. You need enough fuel/thrust for your remote sensing to idle while Houston proceses you options. What if spherical comes up against a rock or crater wall as big as it is? Splat.
- ForOldHack 2y agoThere are both a ton of rocks and 1100 foot cliffs. Drop a Tesla tow truck...( A joke... But you would be able to see the explosion from Earth)