Correct me if I'm wrong, but the geometry of the capsule looks completely unsuitable for reentry. What is its supposed reentry attitude?
RisingFury said:So... what do they wanna achieve with this rocket? If it's a government funded project, it sure is a big waste of money...
What a timely bump, I'm off to visit these guys tomorrow (apparently they don't take the day off, unlike everyone else in Denmark).
They use a 'hybrid' rocket motor, so it has solid fuel and a liquid oxidiser. Theirs is actually pretty good, the specific impulse is fairly close to the theoretical maximum.
Some of them are the same people who built the submarine UC3 Nautilus, if you know that.
(edit) I'll try tog rab some pictures tomorrow and post them up here (if I'm allowed). That's dependant on how hungover I am, though, so don't expect miracles.
The problem with Mercury is that it wasn't that great to begin with. It was an experimental vehicle designed to put a single astronaut in space and see how he could cope with it, and its re-entry mode put a lot of g's on the poor soul. Since you're eliminating the spacesuit, and since we've made some progress materials-wise the structure can be lightened a lot anyway and provisions could be made for a lifting re-entry mode to have less of a load on the crew and more control on the landing point.
Besides, as it is Mercury is designed to land in water with a sizeable SAR effort to recover vehicle and astronaut, while I believe ground recovery to be a far better mode of operation. Yes, it does complicate things a bit because you've got to deconflict the flight path of the capsule and you've got to make sure the craft doesn't end up in someone's roof, but if Murphy's Law raises its ugly head and your guy gets stranded in the middle of Ramboville, his survival chances will be much better on solid ground than in sha(r)ky water.