When I see stuff on Netflix (yes not real), and yet I look stuff up on the Net (real)
and they try and create a spaceship capable of travellng anywhere else in the solar system,
they always come up with standard missile design and go "new and improved.."
When they then show failure to actually land such a vessel ( https://www.netflix.com/watch/80216899 )
I always ask myself, why ?
If you wanna go into outer space you need 2 things for long term space travel, at least..
Simulated gravity and landing capability of parts of the vessel after it reaches it's destination,
in the case of this series from Netflix, Mars.
I made a simple diagram, that has no problem with achieving this..
Each 'module' is circular in design, with it's engine mounted near the top rather than it's bottom..
Once in space each module can be connected to the next and the next..
Leftover fuel goes into the 'lander' module (which could be the front one.)
then when moving to Mars the design would have enough width to spin, and create
a simulated gravity, and,
when landing it would use it's main engine to reduce the speed while the center of gravity
would be located near it's bottom, with the point of force being above that,
automatically levelling out against gravity and thus being able to land..
(and even to take off again if or when needed..)
So, my question is this:
What's with the persistence on the age old rocket model ? is there a certain advantage to it,
or does every new rocketscientist always take the same design and tinker with it till it's 'new' ?
16.4 KB Views: 596