[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 13:06:03 -0700
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 believe
that can be simulated in X-Plane because it uses the model for
aerodynamics. But indeed as you say there are a lot of assumptions made
by the programmers and the simulations are only as good as we make them.
But hey I'm just trying to point out you might want to take a look at
these X-Plane simulations especially you young guy's that have an
interest in the real deal because I'm finding it way more useful than I
thought it could be. It's actually pretty damn good!
Monroe
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: supersonic retro (was Re: Re: Falcon 9 flight today)
> From: Henry Spencer <henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, October 02, 2013 12:46 pm
> To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, Monroe L. King Jr. wrote:
> > Hummm I might be able to simulate a mars landing like that HIL using
> > X-Plane. Or do you consider that not good enough?
>
> I assume this is in response to my "I've never seen a detailed analysis of
> the problem" comment... The issue is not simulating the descent, but what
> assumptions go into the simulation.
>
> (For example, bigger landers usually have higher ballistic coefficient --
> more kilograms behind each square meter of frontal area -- which is how
> the problem arises. But there are hidden assumptions there, e.g. your
> lander must be launched in one piece and you aren't allowed to use orbital
> assembly or deployable surfaces to increase frontal area. Arguably these
> things aren't off-the-shelf technology, but then, neither is supersonic
> retro-propulsion.)
>
> Henry Spencer
> henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> (regexpguy@xxxxxxxxx)
Other related posts:
