<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Drop</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jpaerospace.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=5015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jpaerospace.com/blog/?p=5015</link>
	<description>Our Journey to Space</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2022 19:44:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete M</title>
		<link>http://jpaerospace.com/blog/?p=5015#comment-80376</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jpaerospace.com/blog/?p=5015#comment-80376</guid>
		<description>This is amazing. Could you build a rocket with this type of protection? I&#039;m thinking of a two stage rocket where the first stage retracts it&#039;s engines into a protected section right after stage separation.

Alternatively this technology could be used for landing mars rovers. Airbags were used for Spirit and Opportunity. Curiosity was too big for airbags to be used so the sky-crane was built. Its seems to me that a protective canister could be both less massive and less costly than a sky-crane and wouldn&#039;t kick up as much debris on landing or have as many failure modes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is amazing. Could you build a rocket with this type of protection? I&#8217;m thinking of a two stage rocket where the first stage retracts it&#8217;s engines into a protected section right after stage separation.</p>
<p>Alternatively this technology could be used for landing mars rovers. Airbags were used for Spirit and Opportunity. Curiosity was too big for airbags to be used so the sky-crane was built. Its seems to me that a protective canister could be both less massive and less costly than a sky-crane and wouldn&#8217;t kick up as much debris on landing or have as many failure modes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spares world</title>
		<link>http://jpaerospace.com/blog/?p=5015#comment-79996</link>
		<dc:creator>spares world</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:07:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jpaerospace.com/blog/?p=5015#comment-79996</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;spares world...&lt;/strong&gt;

[...]JP Aerospace Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Drop[...]...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>spares world&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>[...]JP Aerospace Blog &raquo; Blog Archive &raquo; The Drop[...]&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
