Paul E. Bennett wrote:
> John Doty wrote:
>
> [%%X]
>
>>> Given that it ought to be a cheap lander, it probably adds further
>>> difficulties, e.g. use a solid rocket for most of the acceleration and
>>> for the descent, as well. So you end up somewhere, and your "real" rocket
>>> motor (burning nitromethanol or something like that) can only do
>>> fine-tuning. Accurate burning time of the rockets is not an issue: get
>>> rid of them when you have reached your target speed.
>
> Some good ideas seem to be coming out here.
>
>> It's very difficult to jettison a solid rocket that's still thrusting.
>
> Can't be too difficult as NASA jettison the solid boosters on their Shuttle
> at each launch. Probably using explosive bolts though.
Ah, but they wait until they've burned out. Then they shove them away
gently. As opposed to letting them run wild while they're at max thrust.
Still a very dangerous event in the mission.
>
>>>> Welcome to the feasibility study. What are we calling this mission, and
>>>> who's in charge? ;-)
>>> Nobody, it's still in the fun phase ;-).
>> With small missions, the whole thing is fun, at least if it works.
>
> If there is enough interest it might be worth looking at the feasibility of
> doing it. We will want some central point for collected agreed
> documentation so that we can be sure all the bits will fit together at the
> appropriate time. I would certainly be interested in some aspects of this
> project (hardware and software mix).
>
The social engineering needed to assemble and organize an efficient team
for a low cost mission is as difficult as the applied science. And then
there's the problem of finding a sponsor with deep enough pockets.
