From: nuny@bid.nes   
      
   On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:11:18 AM UTC-7, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
   > Le mardi 19 juillet 2016 04:08:43 UTC+2, nu...@bid.nes a écrit :   
   > >    
   > >   Reducing thrust offers the greatest opportunity for the cable to foul in   
   > > one way or another. Obviously the simplest solution is to reel the cable in   
   > > while reducing thrust to maintain tension, and that's probably the safest   
   > > way to handle large-angle maneuvers.   
   >    
   > I don't think simply reducing thrust would cause any difficulty... you don't   
   > get fouled up until there is NO thrust, or there is a negative thrust   
   > component in the direction of the original thrust vector. Otherwise, there is   
   > still tension.    
      
     Yes, but remember that the cables *stretch* as thrust is applied. Reduce   
   thrust to zero and the cables don't just hang slack, restoring force pulls the   
   towed module forward. Unless the cables are reeled in there's a clear risk of   
   fouling them.   
      
   > >   Also, I don't like the Revell design for another reason; how do you get   
   > > going? You can't just fire the main engine before reeling the crew module   
   > > out because, well, nuclear rocket in your face, and if you reel the cables   
   > > out before boosting, what makes the two modules separate?   
   > >    
   > >    
   >  The Revell model was actually based on a real concept proposal, called   
   > HELIOS. In this riginal proposal, the crew module fires retro jets to reel   
   > out the tow lines. This is probably coupled with chemical separation jets on   
   > the propulsion module.   
      
     Ah. That detail I somehow missed. Or forgot- that was a while ago.   
      
      
     Mark L. Fergerson   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)