Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- From: "Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 09:04:24 -0400
"Hyper" <hyperboreea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1179403580.594865.75610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 17, 3:49 am, richard schumacher <no-s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sensible spacecraft will land vertically on pads a few hundred feet in
diameter.
And other sensible spacecraft will land horizontally at regular
airports.
NASA's reasons for choosing a HL shuttle are still valid, despite what
they actually built.
How is an unpowered vehicle performing a horizontal landing better than a
powered vehicle performing a vertical landing?
For one thing, the powered vertical lander seems to have more abort options
since, in an emergency, it is possible to safely land on pretty much any
horizontal surface, including water.
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- From: Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
- Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- From: Hyper
- Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- From: MichaelJP
- Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- References:
- Why not a circular landing field?
- From: George Orwell
- Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- From: rcochran
- Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- From: richard schumacher
- Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- From: Hyper
- Why not a circular landing field?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- Next by Date: Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- Next by thread: Re: Why not a circular landing field?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|