Orion landings to be splashdowns

[docm]

Link<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Orion landings to be splashdowns</b><br /><br />The water landing scenario - previously only required during a launch abort - is one of several items that are being baselined into the next design cycle as a weight savings measure.<br /><br />The deletion of landing airbags - and reduction of Orion structure - will aid the requirement Lockheed Martin engineers have been given to reduce the mass of Orion, allowable because of the 'softer' water landings.<br /><br />Previously, the Orion was designed to land on large airbags at a landing range, although earlier hints that was no longer going to be the case came via documentation that showed a water landing - off the coast of Australia - for the Orion 3 unmanned test flight in September 2012. The first manned flight, Orion 4, was due to land at Edwards Air Force Base.<br /><br />Also part of the mass saving design cycle - knocking off a total of 1,200 lbs from Orion - is the deletion of green propellants on the Crew Module, returning to the tried and tested hypergolic Reaction Control Systems (RCS). This weight savings measure was made in-line with the change to a water landing, due to salt water's neutralizing of potential hypergolic fuel spills after splashdown.<br /> /><br /> /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[starfhury]

Some one tell me? Why bother? Have we come no where in the past 35 years? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Well, it is bigger <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />Another 1200 lbs gone and even less reason to use "the stick" save for inertia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Wow, that is news indeed.<br /><br />Now that land recovery is out of the picture, the primary reason for skip-reenty is gone. Interesting.

 

[starfhury]

One more round of de-scoping and I'll be surprised if it gets any bigger than Gemini. If this is just a re-hash of Apollo, we are just wasting out efforts on a sorry vision. The Russians have been landing on land for decades already. Why can't we? It seems it might cost more money to get the Navy involved in capsule retrieval than the development cost necessary to land Orion on land. We are already hobbling the program like the shuttle program was in the seventies. I do not see progress in that. It makes me wonder if we are not just going to dismantling the current space infrastructure without thought of a good replacement for the future. Let's not forget, successful as the original Apollo program was, it's model did not lead us anywhere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mccorvic]

I see a lot of people stating that Orion is little more than a throw back to Apollo and that Apollo was a developmental dead-end.<br /><br />Is it possible that this time around we have the technology to actually do something worthwhile with the Apollo/Saturn V/Orion rocket tech that we couldn't the first time around that would, in turn, make this not a dead end?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Wow, that is news indeed.</font>/i><br /><br />I distinctly remember hearing/reading that one of "pluses" in Lockheed's Orion proposal over Boeing's was that they explicitly included an optional development path for a water landing for early Orion missions in order to save money and meet timelines. Apparently NASA liked the idea of having a graceful fallback position clearly integrated into the proposal.<br /><br />Maybe jimfromnsf can clarify/correct this.</i>

 

[thereiwas]

Orion is not the same as Apollo, but an evolution from Apollo. I think they are still working out which changes will actually make it to the final design, now that practical reality is pushing back against some of the original ideas.<br /><br />In the software business we have a thing called Second System Syndrome. Apparantly aeronautical engineering suffers the same problem.

 

[docm]

IMO this is bordering on ridiculous. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[summoner]

I actually like it. Why not use that 1200 klb's somewhere else? The earth is 70% water and the Navy is already paid for anyway. It's really not going to cost any more than what they are using anyway. Who really cares if we land on water or land as long as it's safe? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[docm]

It's not the necessarily conclusion, it's the convoluted path to that conclusion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>>The earth is 70% water and the Navy is already paid for anyway.</i><br /><br />Capsule recovery operations in the 60s and 70s were run in an "search and rescue" mode. Helicopters in the air are more expensive than on the ground. Water recovery in general makes sense despite potential costs. I think the sweet spot is landing in fresh water for next-gen capsules and outer harbors for future Ultra-Heavy craft. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[ragnorak]

<br />This report is wrong IMHO. It's from Nasaspaceflight.com and that site regularly uses out of date presentations and its editors don't check their facts with NASA from what I can see.<br /><br />Everyone is jumping to the opinion that no airbags means no landlanding. <br /><br />Does Soyuz have air bags?<br /><br />No, it has rockets.<br /><br />If you read this;<br /><br />http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/12/211005/lockheed-and-nasa-agree-orion-changes.html<br /><br />you will note that air bags are not part of the reconciled design.<br /><br />Because airbags and the structure plus gas cannisters required for them are bulkier than rockets.<br /><br />It's why the Russians use rockets.<br /><br />And in this article;<br /><br />http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/09/12/208901/orion-rises.html<br /><br />It says the following;<br /><br />""The rockets could be a lighter system than airbags because we have to have structures to support the bags and the inflation systems," says airbag specialist ILC's space inflatables programme manager, Cliff Willey. ILC has been working with Lockheed on airbag flotation systems in case Orion is forced to make an emergency landing on water."<br /><br />This suggests no air bags, NO WATER LANDING.<br /><br />Rag.<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"the Navy is already paid for anyway."<br /><br />NASA would have to reimburse the Navy

 

[jimfromnsf]

"This report is wrong IMHO. It's from Nasaspaceflight.com and that site regularly uses out of date presentations and its editors don't check their facts with NASA from what I can see. "<br />Your IMHO is wrong. This is inside info.<br /><br />Air bags weren't for water they were for land. The CEV isn't going to use rockets neither.

 

[bdewoody]

Like they say"everything old is new again" part of the recent "retro movement". Maybe all the Orion astronauts will drive the new Mustang. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[spacefire]

yawn...honestly just how many people here care about the stillborn Orion?<br /><br />Bigelow and SpaceX, that's the future! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[bobblebob]

Aslong as it completes its mission objectives, and gets back to earth safely who cares how it does it?

 

[holmec]

Well, a capsule is a capsule is a capsule.<br /><br />You need a capsule to reenter the earths atmosphere and make a landing. And that pretty much it. To say that Apollo was a developmental dead end makes no sense. Because all capsules are equal in that perspective. <br /><br />Now we might see that the Russians had it right by keeping the capsule light. And that adding and adding stuff to a capsule might be a mistake, because it complicates the reentry.<br /><br />Capsules are nothing more than the escape pods you can read about in Sci-Fi. <br /><br />Just throwing out a thought: If capsule technology gets any bigger than Orion, then we might have to look at atmospheric buoyancy to assist in a touch down. As in helium balloons. <br /><br />Either that or revisit the winged approach. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

While I share your optimism, Spacefire, I would like to see the orion developed as the first ship that can leave Earth orbit (beyond the moon, hint: moon is in earth orbit) in this new space race. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I doubt the Orion will leave Earth orbit as anything other than a re-entry/escape vehicle of a bigger ship.<br /><br />Possibly for the asteroid mission it might be used like the Apollo command module was, but even so I doubt it. <br />For any long-duration mission the requirements change - i.e. radiation shielding, oxygen regeneration etc -that I really really doubt the Orion will ever be able to handle that unless they develop bigger and bigger versions like one of the plans called for.<br /><br />With a splashdown, that is highly unlikely. In fact, everything about this program is highly unlikely and I can't wait for Hillary to can it and give Elon a big check for his renewed efforts <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[holmec]

I hear ya! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />But I'm still have hope for the ESAS program.<br /><br />Frankly I don't particularly care how we get to Earth orbit. I just know there is a need to develop some infrastructure so we can operate beyond Earth orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"give Elon a big check for his renewed efforts"<br /><br />Dream on. That would be a bigger waste

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I doubt the Orion will leave Earth orbit as anything other than a re-entry/escape vehicle of a bigger ship. "<br /><br />That is exactly its purpose

 

[spacefire]

that takes cooperation, planning, commitment, a clearly defined step by step build-up of space assets...in other words it is beyond the government's abilities. <br /><br /><br /><br />edit:<br /><br />here's a Manned Mission to Mars proposal that gives the CEV the humble role of orbital taxi. It never even leaves LEO <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />http://www.aovi93.dsl.pipex.com/mars_for_less.htm<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>