Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of...
by lmm on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @06:51AM
(#13228419)
The "Red Dragon" missions are planning on the cheap approach, using a flattish (indeed rising in places) trajectory to extend the aerobraking long enough to be effective, combined with supersonic retropropulsion. We've got a lot better at fluid dynamics and lifting-body physics in the last few years, and SpaceX in particular is cleverly developing a lot of experience using the same "EDL technology stack" for their booster landings on Earth.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of...
by LeifCarrotson on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @08:06AM
(#13228758)
EDL = Entry/Descent/Landing, for anyone else confused.
Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of...
by lmm on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @10:22AM
(#13229762)
Heh, I figured it was ok to use the acronym since it's defined in the article.
Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of...
by kwhitefoot on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @10:48AM
(#13229986)
Not everyone reads the articles. I usually skim the comments first to find out if the article might be worth reading; defining the abbreviations definitely helps.