Are lunar landings without chemical rockets possible?

In summary, A satellite trying to land on the moon without rockets would come in too fast and crash into the surface.
  • #1
guss
248
0
If a satellite tries to land on the moon without rockets to counter the force of gravity, it comes in too fast and crashes into the surface destroying itself. A satellite would be orbiting at approximately 1.8 km/s or so at a 50km altitude, and come in for landing from that height which would speed it up an additional .4 km/s. All in all we are probably talking 1.2km/s in the horizontal direction and 400 m/s in the vertical direction upon touchdown. It would I was thinking there may be some type of airbag that could deploy, and allow it to roll on the surface which would slow it down in the vertical direction. Maybe have it land on a downward slope for a bit of a softer landing?

Just something interesting I was thinking of. Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It might help if you thought of the problem from a practical standpoint. You're talking about trying to bring something from 4300 km/hr in the horizontal, and 1400 km/hr in the vertical, to a stop. There's just no way to do that with an airbag and keep the accelerations reasonable.

Taking into account just the vertical speed, if we assume your airbag is 10m thick (that sounds like a pretty big airbag), you're talking an acceleration of -8,000 m/s^2 (-816g), not even including the 182 rpm spin rate that would be induced from impacting the surface at 4300 km/s. Your airbag would also have to be made out of material that is tough enough to handle hitting the very abrasive lunar surface (basically ground silica glass) at that speed, probably not possible with any existing technology.
 
  • #3
The answer to this question relies heavily on how you define a landing. In general terms a lunar landing without a chemical rocket is very easy to do as long as you are aimed at the surface and you hit said surface. If you require the landing device/object to be usable afterwards then this conversation changes completely ;)
 
  • Like
Likes 256bits
  • #4
Yes landing... in one piece.. and functional.
 
  • #5
No atmosphere to dissipate any energy like on Mars.
 
  • #6
There was a swedish rocket that used ion engines. Terribly weak engines they said. but in the future perhaps those would be able to counter the gravity enough to make a landing.
 

1. Can we use alternative forms of propulsion for lunar landings instead of chemical rockets?

Yes, there has been research and development into alternative forms of propulsion such as nuclear thermal rockets, solar sails, and ion propulsion. However, these methods are still in the testing and development phase and have not been used for lunar landings yet.

2. What are the challenges of using non-chemical rockets for lunar landings?

The main challenges include the high cost of development and testing, the need for a reliable power source for long-distance missions, and the potential risks and ethical concerns surrounding the use of nuclear technology in space.

3. Are there any current plans or missions to use non-chemical rockets for lunar landings?

There are ongoing research and development projects, such as NASA's Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program, that aim to develop and test alternative propulsion technologies for future missions to the moon and Mars.

4. How would non-chemical rockets affect the safety of lunar landings?

The safety of lunar landings using alternative forms of propulsion would depend on the reliability and success of the technology being used. Each method has its own risks and challenges, and thorough testing and development would be necessary to ensure the safety of astronauts and equipment.

5. Could non-chemical rockets make lunar landings more efficient or cost-effective?

Possibly, as some alternative forms of propulsion have the potential for higher speeds and lower fuel consumption. However, the initial costs and development time for these technologies may still be higher than traditional chemical rockets. Further research and advancements would be needed to determine the overall cost-effectiveness.

Similar threads

  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
816
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
5
Views
7K
Back
Top