Next Russian space capsule could land on a gentle cushion of fire

We're all used to space vehicles making a fiery ascents into the heavens whilst sitting atop massive, earth-shaking rockets that fill the sky with light and hearts with awe. What's a little more unusual is a spacecraft that relies on the same technique make a gentle return trip. Ships landing under rocket power have been bandied about for decades, but now the Russians seem intent to make it a reality for their next space capsule. The current Soyuz capsules do use rockets to cushion landings, firing at the last seconds before touchdown, but still descent is largely managed by a series of parachutes. This next-gen ship would forgo such frilly things in favor of rather more pyrotechnic ones, a change that sounds rather exciting but, to be honest, somewhat less than reliable. Given our choice we'd probably take a halo of silk above rather than a pack of explosives below, thanks.

[Via BBC News]

[chuuchdizzle @ Apr 30th 2009 8:26AM]

wouldn't this prove to be counter-productive? I mean all that rocket fuel during reentry isn't the safest thing and it just seems like it's worlds more complicated just for a marginal improvement of where the capsule will land. I mean am I wrong to think that the cons far outweigh the benefits in this one?

[Lifelion @ Apr 30th 2009 8:47AM]

I suppose that if you plan to use a parachute, you need an atmosphere that is thick enough.

[ehisforadam @ Apr 30th 2009 8:53AM]

I agree, it seems like this would take a lot of extra fuel, and that's more weight haul up into space just to use right before you land.

[Jon Acheson @ Apr 30th 2009 10:17AM]

It is a design tradeoff. Yes, you have to carry fuel to land with. But it gives you much more control over where you actually set down, and provides a smoother landing also.

Parachute landings are controlled crashes at best.

With VTVL, you also have the possibility of landing at a spaceport, instead of in the back of beyond, or the middle of the ocean.

[Wwhat @ Apr 30th 2009 12:39PM]

The need for fuel is exactly why this will NOT happen, if you want controlled do as the space shuttle and glide.
Talking about the spaceshuttle, they had to do design sacrifices just to get enough fuel and power to get it to space alone.

Mind you if you jettison most of the bulk you take up you could still do the vertical landing I guess, but you would in fact lose a lot of money since what you take in fuel you lose in payload, and you can charge a lot of money to take stuff to space for people.

A better plan would be to redesign parachute/glide technology to be more controlled and precise, I noticed that they often still use very old school parachutes for space-capsules, 3 of the round ones often it seems, instead of the double-layer steerable square type.

[Scott @ Apr 30th 2009 8:30AM]

OR they could "land" on a "gentle cushion" of death

[yopladas @ Apr 30th 2009 8:33AM]

I sleep on a cushion of fire.

[dan @ Apr 30th 2009 8:53AM]

I watch TV on a sofa of lightning.

[superhobo @ Apr 30th 2009 9:17AM]

My internal fusion reactor means I don't need to go to the toilet.

[absinthe party @ Apr 30th 2009 11:35AM]

I bathe in a shower of water.

[hemmy @ Apr 30th 2009 12:50PM]

I lol a cacophony of lulz

[Kelmon @ Apr 30th 2009 8:33AM]

Probably best to use an approach different to Beagle 2...

[Gipionocheiyort @ Apr 30th 2009 8:35AM]

So finally my "Lunar Lander" skills could actually have a practical application?

Sounds good to me.

[From My Cube @ Apr 30th 2009 8:36AM]

little known fact russian cosmonaut's will train for this by playing lunar lander

[Ian @ Apr 30th 2009 1:30PM]

ooo just a minute too late but i still laughed

[CreepinJesus @ Apr 30th 2009 8:54AM]

"... vehicles making a fiery ascents into the heavens ..." ?

Yes, I'm being a grammar bully.

[Steve @ Apr 30th 2009 8:58AM]

In Soivet Russian, Fire lands you

[superhobo @ Apr 30th 2009 12:35PM]

In other countries, you land fire.

[Jorvay @ Apr 30th 2009 9:01AM]

Just as long as it has an iPod dock...

[Agent .25i @ Apr 30th 2009 9:05AM]

"Given our choice we'd probably take a halo of silk above rather than a pack of explosives below, thanks."
Just, great.

[Romesh @ Apr 30th 2009 9:19AM]

If most of the descent is managed by parachutes, then it seems that the purpose of the rockets is to provide a *very* low impact velocity. Since they only fire for a few seconds, they wouldn't weigh much. If they get rocket-controlled landings to a reliable point, they'd be a better way of landing delicate probes rather than bouncing them around on airbags like they do now

[hmmwv @ Apr 30th 2009 9:58AM]

I think you misunderstood the technology, current capsules fire a retro rocket at the last second to further reduce impact, but this proposed method will ditch the chute all together, using rocket to slow it down all the way to the ground, like what they initially planned for X33.

[matt @ Apr 30th 2009 9:41AM]

Didn't the "lunar landers" of years ago land on the moon using retro-rockets? Worked fine for them, didn't it?

[JB US @ Apr 30th 2009 10:31AM]

Yes, it works fine. Parachutes work finer because they leverage atmospheric drag. That's a much more efficient way to shed velocity than to throw exhaust overboard (or to carry around wings and landing gear). If the moon had an atmosphere, NASA would have used parachutes on all lunar landers, including the Apollo-era LEM.

Mars has a thin atmosphere, so landers there use parachutes for most of the braking. It is only at the terminal stage of the landing that Mars vehicles switch to some other system to get the impact Gs as low as necessary. Viking and Phoenix used rockets. The rovers used the bouncing airbag technique.

The Earth has quite a thick atmosphere, and parachutes are practical all the way to the surface, especially if you also leverage the relative softness of the vast liquid water oceans that we have. The Russians don't leverage that, so they again fall back on rockets at the very last moments to cushion a landing on soil.

The only reason that I can think of to pursue this is to be able to control the precise location of a returning vehicle. That would permit landings at spaceports in populated areas, as is done with the Space Shuttle. I guess the ground recovery guys are tired of driving out into the boonies to recover the capsule and crew.

[pradera @ Apr 30th 2009 10:49AM]

They also had to deal with 7 times less gravity which more than made up for lack of parachutable atmosphere...

[nbarry @ Apr 30th 2009 10:09AM]

"Given our choice we'd probably take a halo of silk above rather than a pack of explosives below, thanks."

That's what she said.

[Mark @ Apr 30th 2009 10:43AM]

This is somewhat similar to a previous experimental reusable space craft called the McDonnell Douglas DC-X or Delta Clipper except it wasn't just a capsule like the russian concept, it was the entire rocket, one stage, that would take off vertically and then land vertically. There was a working prototype but NASA unfortunately abandoned the whole project. You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-X

[ivanotter @ Apr 30th 2009 1:26PM]

DAmmit beat me to it ^_^.

My dad worked on the DC-X at WSMR in New Mexico

[diefldrmas @ Apr 30th 2009 11:11AM]

I fell in to a burning ring of fire
I went down,down,down
and the flames went higher.
And it burns,burns,burns
the ring of fire
the ring of fire.


Maus

[Gert @ Apr 30th 2009 11:15AM]

Its just a matter of power. One day our tech will hopefully be so advanced that we are able to land these things like a feather.
Just let the computer handle re-entry angles and landing.

A little offtopic: Does it occur to you that its allmost allways the Russians that come up with weird but working tech. Its allmost like their tech comes from another alternative earth.

[Mark @ Apr 30th 2009 11:28AM]

Well no. If you read my comment two posts up you'll see that Mcdonald Douglas, the US Military, and NASA had a working prototype of a much more advanced craft. It's more likely that the russians are copying element of the Delta Clipper design so that their capsule can make a controlled vertical landing.

[oppressor @ Apr 30th 2009 2:47PM]

I just love like the 18 years old US tech suddenly became "much more advanced" than a future russian prototype. If I remember it right, it were americans running manual landings on the shuttle after decades of use, and the russians performing that trick on pure automatics. Superiar US tech, yeah...

[Colonel Kernel @ Apr 30th 2009 3:25PM]

"American components. Russian components ... All made in Taiwan!"

[souleater23 @ Apr 30th 2009 11:35AM]

I'm surprised no one noticed the frightened look on it's face. o_o

[absinthe party @ Apr 30th 2009 11:40AM]

This can't possibly be a true Russian prototype; it doesn't have nearly enough wings, wheels, and props. It needs like 35 more of each.

[Spiraling Shape @ Apr 30th 2009 12:08PM]

This reminds me of this game I used to play ages ago: http://physics.ship.edu/~mrc/astro/NASA_Space_Science/observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/fun/mars/mars.html

[engadget.mlc @ Apr 30th 2009 12:28PM]

It's going to be a cushion of *fail* if one of those retros doesn't fire.

[Ryan @ Apr 30th 2009 1:32PM]

Anybody else find that the 2 port holes on the side, coupled with the russian flag underneath, forms to look like a pair of eyes and mouth?

Am I the only one seeing a surprised lander farting fire?

[Colonel Kernel @ Apr 30th 2009 3:27PM]

Yeah, I see the face now. Must have been something it ate.

[Vitaliy @ Apr 30th 2009 5:56PM]

Ruskie!!-Vperedd!

[Psycros @ Apr 30th 2009 9:58PM]

The main purpose of this vehicle is probably to condition cosmonauts for lunar landings (the real thing, not the coin-op). There's a new race back to the moon in case nobody has noticed. The Chinese have already stated their intention the claim our only satellite as their own. That will be really something, right up until their moonbase gets magically nuked.

[Jeremy K @ Apr 30th 2009 11:00PM]

Everyone knows this has already been done! Haven't you seen "You Only Live Twice?" :-D

[AA Alex @ May 2nd 2009 4:06PM]

Don't see nothing to laugh about. Russians use this technology for their one and only air droppable(and flotable) tank in the world. These tanks can be thrown out from a plane and safely land and immideatly go to action. So before making laugh of something, check if it really works, dumbasses :(

[momo @ May 5th 2009 1:33PM]

As far as I know, the Russians are preparing for Mars colonization in the same way as NASA and ESA. This could be the first step towards the creation of a Mars lander. What they are trying to achieve with this vehicle is to put together the technologies of the Soyuz capsules (one of the most reliable landers in history) and landing rocket booster.

Mars has a thinner atmosphere so it will require HUGE parachutes to land a Soyuz-like craft. By using rocket boosters, this problem is solved. Also, with rocket boosters, a very precise landing can be achieved (no need to walk for miles to the base after landing).

Mars also has a smaller gravity than Earth, so using landing rockets is easier, as the landing module's weight will be significantly smaller.

I don't think the Russians will change a working technology just for the sake of innovation. Soyuz and Progress landers and their parachutes have a long and very good history record and are very cheap to construct and use. They surely have a purpose for that change, and a very good one...