| User | Post |
|
10:51 pm
November 21, 2009
|
first fatman in space!
| | Florida | |
| Member | posts 5 | |
|
|
i was wondering if like josh suggested on a different thread if vashmir was a suitable engine here?
|
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not only because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." JFK speech to Rice University 9/12/62
|
|
|
1:15 am
November 22, 2009
|
Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Firstly, just so you are aware, I have moved your post here from its original location, which was in the forum dedicated to the service module engine. This forum is dedicated to the lunar lander engine.
Secondly, can you be more specific about this vashmir engine? I have tried googling "vashmir engine", "vashmir motor", "vashmir rocket", "vashmir thruster", etc. and there seems to be a complete lack of information about it on the web. Is this an actual existing technology? The only reference I found to it was in a forum discussing project Orion. If vashmir is based on the idea of using nuclear explosions for propulsion then obviously it is completely inappropriate for a lunar lander (or any other part of CLLARE).
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
1:48 am
December 13, 2009
|
Snyder
| | Lakewood CO, USA | |
| Member | posts 7 | |
|
|
Try VaSIMR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V…..sma_Rocket
Not nuclear, but still inapropriate for a lunar lander. You need higher thrust.
Imagine yourself racing toward the moon faster than a rifle bullet. You need to stop, now!
The last few feet (hundreds of feet actually) you need a nice controllable (variable) soft landing engine, but
most of the heavy lifting is to stop you orbital (or faster) velocity.
|
|
|
9:54 pm
December 13, 2009
|
Luke Maurits
| | Adelaide, Australia | |
| Admin
| posts 1483 | |
|
|
Aah, that would explain why I couldn't find any links.
Not only is this system inappropriate for a lunar lander due to thrust reasons, it's also very far from simple. One of our main guiding design principles is to use the simplest thing that could possibly work at all times. Deviations from simplicity need to be justified by genuine engineering concerns, and I certainly can't see a justification for building what looks to essentially be a small linear particle acclerator where a chemical rocket has been demonstrated to work fine, especially since we will already by necessity be building (and hence learning a lot about) chemical rockets.
|
Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.
|
|
|
9:25 am
December 14, 2009
|
Rocket-To-The-Moon
| | Altus, Oklahoma, USA | |
| Member | posts 685 | |
|
|
VaSIMR is really only appropriate for station keeping and for interplanetary probes.
|
Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering
|
|
Login 
Register 
Search 
Home
Topic RSS 
