4 thoughts on “Petal Base Concept for Kerbal Space Program”
I would put the landing engines on the lower part of the nosecone so that it doesn't have to fire in the gaps between the padels (which as far as i know is not really possible on mars becuase of plume expansion) and maybe you could have some sort of heat resistant fabric bteween the padels to get more drag. Also i feel like this will want to reenter backwards because of its CoM and CoL so you may have to put some sort of fins in the back or have large rcs thrusters.
Skip the landing engines. The diameter on this thing is enough to get a decent fraction of a g at the ends of the petals if you spun it up at 2-3 rpm. Call it a partial gravity station or maybe transfer vehicle for Mars
I'm reading: "The Space Shuttle Decision" by T.A. Heppenheimer (pdf on Google books). It shows how much effort and discussion precedes any new space craft. In the end, it is a very political decision, minimizing the cost (weight, materials etc.), maximizing the (perceived) essential functions, operating environment how it is positioned and/or working together with other craft, minimizing risk (redundancy), reusability, technology bricks, technological challenges, optimizing finance (when the major costs are incurred and when the benefits come it), employment (who will build what where) and keeping stakeholders (congress?) happy. It shows how the final shape of the craft is just a small aspect, it might be interesting to first make a detailed analysis of what the craft is supposed to do and how it is to be used, who would be stakeholders, etc. Maybe you don't care about such things in your design or maybe you do, but I think it will affect the concept. Also traditionally in design, one would look at some functional aspects and make multiple solutions and weigh them on various criteria to prevent fixing ideas to one solution too early. If you start with a cylindrical shape (basic rocket body shape) then indeed folding out petals like you indicate seems a good way to go, to create a large surface for Mars-atmospheric entry. By adjusting the petal opening angles one could potentially do some steering and braking speed regulation. I think you will probably still need an engine at the tip. To me a final descent engine does not need to ever come back to orbit, and breaking it on landing may be acceptable. Personally I'm not in favor of pushing things to always be 100% reusable. Reusability of components should be driven by cost reduction and is not a major goal in itself. The petals as separate horizontal labs in a cross on the surface looks promising. As you may guess, as a viewer, I'm totally in favor of discussing concepts early on, before full modeling. To me it is by far the most interesting stage and I normally enjoy hearing the rationales behind the designs.
I would put the landing engines on the lower part of the nosecone so that it doesn't have to fire in the gaps between the padels (which as far as i know is not really possible on mars becuase of plume expansion) and maybe you could have some sort of heat resistant fabric bteween the padels to get more drag. Also i feel like this will want to reenter backwards because of its CoM and CoL so you may have to put some sort of fins in the back or have large rcs thrusters.
Really cool design, I wouldn’t even bother with an ascent vehicle option 🤷♂️
How dope would it look to see a few petals descending to the surface on a one way colony trip
Skip the landing engines. The diameter on this thing is enough to get a decent fraction of a g at the ends of the petals if you spun it up at 2-3 rpm. Call it a partial gravity station or maybe transfer vehicle for Mars
I'm reading: "The Space Shuttle Decision" by T.A. Heppenheimer (pdf on Google books). It shows how much effort and discussion precedes any new space craft. In the end, it is a very political decision, minimizing the cost (weight, materials etc.), maximizing the (perceived) essential functions, operating environment how it is positioned and/or working together with other craft, minimizing risk (redundancy), reusability, technology bricks, technological challenges, optimizing finance (when the major costs are incurred and when the benefits come it), employment (who will build what where) and keeping stakeholders (congress?) happy. It shows how the final shape of the craft is just a small aspect, it might be interesting to first make a detailed analysis of what the craft is supposed to do and how it is to be used, who would be stakeholders, etc.
Maybe you don't care about such things in your design or maybe you do, but I think it will affect the concept.
Also traditionally in design, one would look at some functional aspects and make multiple solutions and weigh them on various criteria to prevent fixing ideas to one solution too early.
If you start with a cylindrical shape (basic rocket body shape) then indeed folding out petals like you indicate seems a good way to go, to create a large surface for Mars-atmospheric entry. By adjusting the petal opening angles one could potentially do some steering and braking speed regulation. I think you will probably still need an engine at the tip. To me a final descent engine does not need to ever come back to orbit, and breaking it on landing may be acceptable. Personally I'm not in favor of pushing things to always be 100% reusable. Reusability of components should be driven by cost reduction and is not a major goal in itself. The petals as separate horizontal labs in a cross on the surface looks promising.
As you may guess, as a viewer, I'm totally in favor of discussing concepts early on, before full modeling. To me it is by far the most interesting stage and I normally enjoy hearing the rationales behind the designs.