| Author |
Message |
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
 Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:08 am Vertical Rocket Landings |
|
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9643167/ wrote: |
Rocket takes a tumble
Between the E-Z Rocket's two outings, Armadillo Aerospace conducted a brief but hardly boring launch of a vertical-launch test rocket. The cone-shaped vehicle blasted off with orange flame, then went to a height of about 15 or 20 feet, as planned. But when the craft eased back down for a landing, it tipped off its landing legs, and the rocket tumbled on its side in the dirt.
"Ohhhhh," the crowd said collectively. Then there was a buzz of laughter and side comments.
"It needs more power," said 11-year-old Ivan Valdez of El Paso, Texas.
Armadillo's Carmack said that the craft went off balance because three of its four legs sank into the mud surrounding the intended landing pad. The tumble damaged a pressurized hose on the test vehicle, killing chances for another try on Sunday.
|
Why try to land vertically? It's much easier and safer to do a horizontal glide landing (like the shuttle), but with enough power for a second pass.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:50 am |
|
A vertical landing would require a phenomenal amount of extra fuel and just makes no sense.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:05 pm |
|
Maybe if you're trying to fit into a very tight parking spot. . . .  Otherwise, I'd have to agree, horiziontal landings are cooler and better.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:24 pm |
|
Yeah, vertical landings are neat, but rather impractical. Landing it horizontally would probably be more logical.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:32 pm |
|
Well, I suppose if they wanted to launch a rocket from sea or something, vertical would make sense. Or if they don't want to purchase land for a runway,  They're creating fighter jets now with vertical landing/takeoff capabilities, so they can be easily launched at sea.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:03 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | They're creating fighter jets now with vertical landing/takeoff capabilities, so they can be easily launched at sea. |
Yeah, but correct me if I'm wrong, those "vertical" launches are more similar to helicopters, in that the actual body of the plane remains horizontal, right?
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:11 pm |
|
Yuuup. Was making the comparison that it would still be still be easier to land/launch a rocket vertically at sea, than horizontally (no matter the shape).
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:25 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Well, I suppose if they wanted to launch a rocket from sea or something, vertical would make sense. Or if they don't want to purchase land for a runway, They're creating fighter jets now with vertical landing/takeoff capabilities, so they can be easily launched at sea. |
But in the case of an airplane, the center of gravity is almost exactly the center of pressure (lift), and the landing gear give it a much larger "stance". Try to imagine an F35B falling over with the landing gear touching the ground.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:12 pm |
|
I doubt the lockheed martin jsf would have the power to take off or land vertical with full weapons and fuel load anyway. It would probally need short take off or landing.
If a rocket would want to land vertical, it would need to carry twice as much fuel at least. The more fuel and weight it carrys, the more fuel it needs just to get into orbit and to get anywhere.
|
|
|
Micteth-Son of Udas
Klingon Warrior
Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Posts: 3202
Location: rite behind you!
|
| Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:46 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | They're creating fighter jets now with vertical landing/takeoff capabilities, so they can be easily launched at sea. |
what you people never heared of the Harrier jet!? vertical take of and landings.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:59 pm |
|
How many 5 mile runways are on earth? If mastered, a vertical landing could made the return to earth much safer.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:05 am |
|
| Micteth-Son of Udas wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | They're creating fighter jets now with vertical landing/takeoff capabilities, so they can be easily launched at sea. |
what you people never heared of the Harrier jet!? vertical take of and landings. |
The Harrier can only take off vertical with a very light load (like 2 Sidewinders). With bombs it has to take a short takeoff. It also has a very short time on station (less than 30 minutes). That's why it's used mainly for close air support.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:16 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | How many 5 mile runways are on earth? If mastered, a vertical landing could made the return to earth much safer. |
For much less fuel than a vertical landing, a horizontal lander can brake to a slower speed than the Shuttle, and land at a more conventional airstrip.
Also, landing vertical requires landing with a large fuel load, making it much more dangerous if "something bad" happens. A horizontal can dump fuel on final approach, making the landing less hazardous.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:11 pm |
|
Yeah good point. Also if your engines fail at 50ft while hovering it's really going to spoil your day.
It would take a massive amount of fuel and power to hover and land a space shuttle. It takes no power to glide it down (only wasted energy is the wheel brakes and speed chutes upon touchdown).
The only good vertical landing idea is (very large) parachutes. Like on the appolo type modules. but then again a parachute can break easily.
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
