[AR] Re: supersonic retro (was Re: Re: Falcon 9 flight today)
- From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 13:36:56 -0700
Indeed I don't believe it can simulate that at all well. But it is
indeed a more useful tool than I expected.
Monroe
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: supersonic retro (was Re: Re: Falcon 9 flight today)
> From: Nate Vack <njvack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, October 02, 2013 1:28 pm
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Monroe L. King Jr.
> <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Maybe I misunderstand but "your lander must be launched in one piece and
> > you aren't allowed to use orbital
> > assembly or deployable surfaces to increase frontal area."
>
> I understood Henry to mean that whether X-Plane's CFD is good enough
> isn't particularly relevant, as simulations are relatively easy.
> What's more relevant is "what assumptions have you made about the
> system you can actually get to Mars?" Maybe you don't need to do
> supersonic retro because you can use other tricks to not be
> supersonic.
>
> That said, I probably wouldn't trust X-Plane's results regarding
> flying into your exhaust plume at a supersonic velocity on Mars
> without checking pretty carefully.
>
> -n
Other related posts:
