On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:15:31 -0800, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 23:24:39 +0000, R2D2 <alfa@bravo.co> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:08:08 -0800, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
>><invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:37:38 +0000, R2D2 <alfa@bravo.co> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:19:02 -0600, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Odd. It worked just fine on dry land a few weeks ago
>>>>
>>>>Hang on.. it has only 3 legs? That's a dangerously unstable
>>>>configuration...
>>>
>>>Four legs, but it appears that as it tips on two, they collapse.
>>>
>>>http://www.space.com/29770-spacex-cargo-launch-reusable-rocket-test.html
>>
>>They really should put 5 or 6. It would make it a lot easier to
>>compensate for any tiny movement...
>
>I wonder how much cargo capacity is alrteady sacrificed with the extra
>hardware and fuel to allow it to soft land?
As the targeting and navigation technologies improve, I wonder if they won't be able to have some kind of a
soft capture system on the landing platform, maybe vertical towers that can swing up and deploy large airbags
as the booster touches down.......
|
|