Orion airbag test

[docm]

Article/video <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nwade]

Thanks for the link!<br /><br />I'd forgotten that the Ares booster is solid-fueled (Shuttle SRB sections bolted together).<br /><br />I've gotta say that I've got really mixed emotions about it... On the one hand, the SRB's got a great operational record (ignoring that "little" Challenger problem). <br /><br />But on the other hand, a solid-fuel rocket reduces your operational flexibility, doesn't it? Throttling and rocket shutdown is tough (or impossible) when its just a solid booster, right? Failures tend to be more catastrophic than liquid rockets, don't they? <br /><br />And most of all, it represents a continuation of existing heavy/expensive/old technology (from the 1970's) and big contracts given out to large Aerospace contractors whereby they can sit back and keep doing the same ol' same ol' without developing newer and better systems. I'm not against the big Aerospace companies - I'm sure they have fine people working for them and are as entitled to a profit as any small startup; but coming from a computer background I understand the value and benefits of constant innovation and evolution of systems. It can be painful and hard to do - but ultimately it results in better systems that are higher performance and lower-cost in the long run.<br /><br />Ah, well...<br /><br />--Noel<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

See this as well...<br /><br />Tossing Orion: NASA Performs Drop Tests, Rocket Checks for Next Spaceship<br /><br />Huh. I thought NASA was going with solid propellant soft-landing rockets rather than airbags. Lockheed-Martin even had a cool design for the landing rocket mounted Voskhod style in the parachute risers (until NASA nixed it).<br /><br />The latest word for the CEV mass is now 21,450 kg, depressingly heavy. I thought the CEV was going to be closer to 18,000 kg.<br /><br />The other interesting new detail is the use of a launch shroud to cover the Service module. That makes sense considering how stubby the Service module has to be. I imagine the SM will now have more of a conical shape than a stubby cylindrical shape. That should be more mass efficient. <br /><br /><br />

 

[nwade]

Thanks shuttle_guy. I'd read about the "star shaped" grain before (more surface area at first, then it burns to more of a cylindrical shape with less surface area, so less thrust - if I recall correctly).<br /><br />But that's my point exactly: It is all pre-planned in the building of the rocket. Once you're riding it, there's really only one decision: keep burning or do some kind of full-abort. Unlike a liquid-fuel rocket, if your thrust is low for some reason or you have a slight excursion from the flight-plan, you can't simply adjust the burn-time or throttle setting.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />--Noel

 

[holmec]

"retro rockets vs air bags is still up in the air"<br /><br />Until it hits the ground....LOL!<br /><br />Nice punn! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Did they get any data from the Russians on land landings...I can only imagine they did. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">retro rockets vs air bags is still up in the air. These 2 options are being evaluated.</font>/i><br /><br />IIRC, Lockheed's Orion proposal stressed the flexibility of their landing approach (although, I thought it was water vs. ground), so that costs could be adjusted as needed. For example, if development funds are short, they could go to water landing and push costs towards the operational side. On the other hand, if development funding is available and schedule in on track, they could shift towards a ground-based landing relatively easily. <br /><br />Apparently NASA liked that flexibility in their proposal.</i>