3 ms·
Is there a reason you couldn't have things on the side of the landing pad that "grab" onto it and secure it? It could be as simple as a huge ring of cable that
by socialist_coder 11y ago
Is there a reason you couldn't have things on the side of the landing pad that "grab" onto it and secure it?
It could be as simple as a huge ring of cable that just closes around the top of the rocket, then pulls it tight on all sides- like the guidelines on a tower to keep it stable.
Maybe they don't want to do that because they think they can do it without it?
- iyn 11y agoI was thinking the same, seems that it would be the easiest way to stabilize the rocket. I'm curious what were the reasons for not using this idea - for sure they though about it, but concluded that the current way is better.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago> Maybe they don't want to do that because they think they can do it without it? If they master vertical landing without external support equipment, they can pull it off on Mars as well. I think that's their other goal here.
- NamTaf 11y agoThat's certainly the case. It has to be entirely self-contained to the rocket.
- polemic 11y agoIt might also be that the structural changes required to handle a grabbing force would be too extreme. At that point it's basically a thin shell, so a grabber or cable might just slice it. I like the 'but then it can't land on mars' answer too though.
- Lorento 11y agoIf you want a more intuitive mechanical system, see the Boeing/somebody 1st stage engine recovery plan that uses a heat shield and parachute to land just the engine, not the whole stage body. Don't forget the barge is also actively controlled to keep it stable. If you have sufficient control systems, you don't need mechanical aids. Just like humans can walk on two legs every day our whole lives using our brains, so we don't need four for "extra safety".