Did that lander need air to fly as well?
China's Space Program News Thread
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
- Status
Did that lander need air to fly as well?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Helicopter drone??? On the moon??
... Lack of atmosphere might prove a slight, teensy weensy hindrance to that idea
Actually there may be a atmosphere on Luna but just so thin it might as well be non existent. and could never support the lift needed to allow a Helicopter. the Way the lander came down was by thrust and gravity
Helicopter drone??? On the moon??
... Lack of atmosphere might prove a slight, teensy weensy hindrance to that idea
...Make the drone 1/15 size of the lander, then fly it the same way they controlled that lander during the landing, including hovering , changing into different positions going forth and back... why not? probably helo is not a proper word, drone/flying device is.
By directional thrusts you overcome gravity, and fly.
Weither calling it a drone or helo or a flying device doesn't matter. It can fly.
As for power source, weither using sole fuel, or a combi of fuel + solar paneled or pre-charged battery engines, is another question then.
If they couldn't make an object fly at about ground level, there wouldn't have been any 2-way trip to Moon. How they came back?
Last edited:
The Chang'e orbiter doesn't. That's why it's there. It's the, "Drone".
Still can't get your point...
But didn't you see at about 100m above ground the lander stopped, hovering around for 30 secs to choose a good landing site?
How they achieved that? By directional thrust? If they can do that, it can fly an object there at that altitute all over the place. The question left is how much fuel, along with what kind of fuel source/s, it will take.
I just mean that the orbiter already does whatever a low flying drone would.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Speeder If we were talking about Mars Perhaps I could see the logic. as the Martin Atmosphere would allow for operation of Drones using Solar power to generate thrust, But for Luna here is as I see it the issue.
Although The moon has weak gravity it has gravity. In order to maintain the low altitude you are looking for you would need a fairly large amount of Fuel. and to balance the thrust applied to maintain just the right amount of velocity vs Escape Velocity.
Every second of Burn to maintain hover is a second of fuel burn every turn is a maneuver made with fuel burn, your Drone needs fuel. the longer she goes the more fuel she needs your talking a lot of fuel for a extended mission.
and the Fuel its self demands more fuel. the heavier the craft the more thrust needed. so your drone has a short life span.
additionally since the moon changes little. there is little need for Dynamic up to date images. So optimally A orbiter is the best option. once it establishes a stable orbit it just coasts along sipping fuel. with high Quality camera it can give photos with the same resolution as a craft in a lower orbit.
Although The moon has weak gravity it has gravity. In order to maintain the low altitude you are looking for you would need a fairly large amount of Fuel. and to balance the thrust applied to maintain just the right amount of velocity vs Escape Velocity.
Every second of Burn to maintain hover is a second of fuel burn every turn is a maneuver made with fuel burn, your Drone needs fuel. the longer she goes the more fuel she needs your talking a lot of fuel for a extended mission.
and the Fuel its self demands more fuel. the heavier the craft the more thrust needed. so your drone has a short life span.
additionally since the moon changes little. there is little need for Dynamic up to date images. So optimally A orbiter is the best option. once it establishes a stable orbit it just coasts along sipping fuel. with high Quality camera it can give photos with the same resolution as a craft in a lower orbit.
Engineer
Major
The lander was not flying.
What Apollo landers did was not flying.
Yeah, but that's not flying.
You cannot fly in the moon as there is no air. You cannot hover indefinitely either, as that takes infinite amount of fuel.
Consider a simple thought experiment. You add more fuel to the Chinese lander so that it can hover longer. Now that you have added more fuel, the lander has more mass. More mass means the Moon can exert a more powerful pull on the lander through gravity, so the engine has to work harder to hover and burns more fuel. To compensate for that, you need to add even more fuel, which makes the lander even more heavier, leading to an even more powerful engine which burns even more fuel. It is a viscous cycle.
So, what you have suggested is simply not doable with current technologies. The closest you can do is send a probe to orbit the Moon at a very low altitude, such as what China did with Chang'e 2. However, that's not flying either.
there are 2 ways to fly, rotor or jet.
rotor as you can see in drones can use electricity and thus solar panel,
jet as you can see in rocket need fuel.
the yutu lander of course were jet type of vehicle as we can see it spraying gases when it reduce its speed trying to land
can we use rotor engine on the moon...? the answer is very thin air mean very light or not possible to generate lift powerful enough to lift even the engine.
off course with technology(miniaturization, lighter metal alloy etc) we may be someday somehow put this kind of drone flying all over the moon...
rotor as you can see in drones can use electricity and thus solar panel,
jet as you can see in rocket need fuel.
the yutu lander of course were jet type of vehicle as we can see it spraying gases when it reduce its speed trying to land
can we use rotor engine on the moon...? the answer is very thin air mean very light or not possible to generate lift powerful enough to lift even the engine.
off course with technology(miniaturization, lighter metal alloy etc) we may be someday somehow put this kind of drone flying all over the moon...
Last edited:
- Status