Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.space.tech    |    Technical and general issues related to    |    3,113 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 2,089 of 3,113    |
|    bob to All    |
|    Re: Brute force re-entry    |
|    22 Aug 04 14:42:31    |
      From: bmorrell@notriad.spamrr.evercom.retro.com              I have not been following this thread, so i apologize if it repeats or sends       down an different alley, but i saw it today, and the idea of a brute force       re-entry matced an informal (very) discussion I had and wanted to know if       the conclusion we came to was correct:              to do a real brute force reentry ie, one that does not utilize air       resistance to any significant degree (and therefore, main point, would NOT       require a heat sheild) would require a rocket as big as the one that put the       spacecraft in orbit, correct?              the next question would be, if you allowed air resistance for landing (wings       or parachute) but continued to insist on no heat sheild, how much smaller       could it be? Our idea/question was whether it would be theoretically       feasible to put a re-entry rocket in orbit that could be attached to any       craft with a damaged heat shield and could lower it into the atmosphere by       brute force expenditure of fuel.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca