Orion landings to be splashdowns

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

docm

Guest
IMO the "job" of an RV should be just that: an orbital taxi, just one more mission module designed with minimalism in mind and no larger than it takes to fit the crew for the trip up/down. Want more room? Stick on a small, perhaps inflatable, hab. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

spacefire

Guest
it would be nice if the CEV could be used as a lifeboat for returning to Earth if anything happens to the Hab module...but I doubt it would ever have the capacity to sustain astronauts for an abort in the middle of a mission to Mars.<br /><br /><br />which is fine with me, I'd rather see a robust, redundant, maybe reusable spaceship making safe, fast trip to Mars by 2040 than a rickety flag planting mission by 2025. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
Then someone needs to get cracking on nuclear rockets, the various plasma rockets or help Ad Astra in getting VASIMR ready.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
Where did this "news" come from? There is no citation. I have noticed that a lot of space boards are full of self procalaimed "experts" and "insiders" who constantly mistake or intentionally misrepresent contingency plans, rumors, and just plain spitefull axe grinding as "breaking news". Anyway even if Orion does go back to Apollo style splashdowns it is still light years ahead of Apollo. apollo could only land 2 astronauts and a tiny bit of cargo at equitorial loctions. Constalation will land at ANY POINT on the moon. That alone is a mega increase in exploration potential. Don't be fooled by superficiality. Orion looks like Apollo because it has to do the same job--return to the Earth's surface from lunar distances.
 
M

mysdcuserid

Guest
Tom,<br /><br />NASASpaceflight.com's proven track record negates the need for them to cite their specific sources when making such claims. They have earned the trust of the reader.
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
An Apollo type of system placed some 12 different men on the moon in some 6 different locations! Has ANYBODY done any better than that in the last 35 years?<br /><br />If NASA wants to build on that legacy, then fine with me!<br /><br />Had we continued to fund NASA and Von Braun at the levels of the 1960's we would now have entire colonies on the moon and bases on Mars (and possibly even O'Neill colonies in space itself)!!!<br /><br />But of course, war is a much more important activity than is building a true space faring civilization for the betterment of ALL mankind!!<br /><br />Even though I am a supporter of both the shuttle program and the ISS (after all, what else has kept the Dream Alive?) I fully support NASA getting back to the point we were at during the height of Apollo, and then going on to where we should have already been a long time ago!
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">If NASA wants to build on that legacy, then fine with me!</font>/i><br /><br />I wonder if instead of promoting the Constellation effort as "Apollo on steroids", they should have promoted it as "Starting at Apollo and moving onwards."<br /><br />In other words, make a tacit acknowledgement that the initial baseline will look a lot like Apollo, but that the architecture has built-in <i>extensibility, expandability</i>, and <i>financial sustainability</i> that the early Apollo architecture did not. For example, if a water-landing is easier to meet for schedule and development cost reasons (i.e., looks like Apollo), that is fine for the initial flights, <b>BUT</b>, the design, software, and procedures should be designed in from the beginning to allow a relatively easy transition to a land-based landing (<i>extensability</i>).<br /><br />Likewise, NASA should more actively promote the fact that the architecture is designed from the beginning to support other missions such as visits to NEOs, Mars' moons, landing on Mars (<i>expandability</i>), and that the architecture is much cheaper to develop and operate than Apollo was (<i>financial sustainability</i>).<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">Constellation: Starting at Apollo and moving onwards</font>/b><br /><br />Ok. Maybe it isn't the greatest, but it is better than "Apollo on Steroids".</b></i>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> apollo could only land 2 astronauts and a tiny bit of cargo at equitorial loctions. Constalation will land at ANY POINT on the moon.</i><br /><br />The major component of Constellation is the Lunar LSAM, not the CEV or even EDS. As I understand, the only work on the LSAM has been a series of insightful trade studies and methane-LOX rocket hot-fire test. How CEV lands on Earth has very, very little with success at returning to the Moon.<br /><br /><i>> Don't be fooled by superficiality.</i><br /><br />Very true. And don't try to fool nature. Apollo and blunt-body reentry in general, follows the same principles that create tektites. The designers of the original de Havilland Comet jet airliner saw fit to install square windows in the pressurized fuselage. People make counter-intuitive mistakes. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
<font color="yellow">NASASpaceflight.com's proven track record negates the need for them to cite their specific sources when making such claims. They have earned the trust of the reader.</font><br /><br />Horse manure. The basic rules of journalism say otherwise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Agreed. I personally like it!! How about it Shuttle-Guy, could you put in a word to NASA? It IS far better than "Apollo on Steroids". Of course, the latter was thought up by somebody who thought it would be derogatory! <br /><br />To me at least, as Apollo itself was the greatest achievement of mankind during the twentieth century, it really isn't derogatory, but a compliment!!!<br /><br />But the other would be better for the average Joe taxpayer. And therefore better for the program!!
 
L

lampblack

Guest
NASA is explicitly denying the claim that it has decided to not land Orion on solid ground. Check out NASA Watch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
lovely...<br /><br />We will see what will happen then...<br /><br />Don't ask me to bet (if anyone is going to bet) I don't drink beer like ShuttleGuy! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
It doesn't matter if you are NASAspaceflight.com, the New York Times, or Jesus H. Christ, you still have to name sources. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
then why do journalists go to jail for protecting sources?<br /><br />Not naming sources is also standard procedure. <br /><br />Just get over it, sour grapes
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
Yes but the article didn't even say "a NASA official, speaking under the condition of anonymity, stated that..." The article didn't even indicate that it got the information from NASA or the prime contractor. In fact, the article didn't even hint as to where the info might have come from.<br /><br />It's also good journalistic practice to verify sources as well. The impression that I got from the article was that they found a PowerPoint presentation or some memo on the Internet and, without even calling up NASA to verify it, went to press. <i>That</i> is just bad journalism.<br /><br />And, if it was an Internet document, why not put a link to the document so that readers could judge for themselves? How are we to know that this isn't just the author's fevered imagination? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
Your impression is wrong<br /><br />Because inside sources provide the info and don't want to reveal themselves. <br /><br />Either get the inside track info or stay on the sidelines.<br /><br />
 
D

docm

Guest
The plot thickens; Scott Horowitz & Co. denied it<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1228<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA Denies Making Orion Water Landing Decision - and Deleting Touchdowns on Land<br /><br /> Editor's note: There are some reports and rumors circulating that NASA has decided to redesign the Orion spacecraft to land in water only - and not on land with airbags.<br /><br />According to a short statement from NASA PAO to NASAWatch.com/SpaceRef.com - one corroborated with ESMD Deputy AA Doug Cooke): "NASA has not abandoned the concept of land re-entries. The decision has not been made."<br /><br />When contacted for comment on these rumors and reports, and asked "Has NASA deleted the requirement that Orion make routine landings on land instead of in the ocean? Has NASA directed Lockheed Martin to make these changes in the design of Orion?" ESMD AA Scott Horowitz told NASAWatch.com/SpaceRef.com: "No. Still being studied, currently part of the trades to see what effects each requirement (including land landing nominally) has on weight."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

cuddlyrocket

Guest
The difference between the official sources quoted by NASA Watch and the position taken by NASASpaceflight.com is that the former say this is a study, part of a series, to determine what changes will produce which mass reductions, but that no decision has been made as to whether any will be implemented, whereas the latter says that the decision <i>has</i> been made to change to a water landing.<br /><br />Now both could be right - in most cases everyone knows what is going to happen long before the formal <i>decision</i> is taken. Or it can be the situation that this is going to happen unless someone can think of a good reason why not (this is what politicians are usually doing when they say no decision has been made). In the current situation we may have the position that the Orion needs to lose mass, this will reduce mass, so it <i>will</i> happen unless someone can think of another way of saving mass.<br /><br />Who knows? Well someone probably does, but the rest of us will have to wait and see! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
D

docm

Guest
Journalism 101: sometimes sources who don't want to be quoted are talking out of their ass. This could be because they want to feel important or sometimes because they want to make the journalist look like a fool, but in <i>any</i> case: caveat emptor.<br /><br />Ask Dan Rather. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mattblack

Guest
I'll believe it when I see it. No more, no less. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
S

starfhury

Guest
I do not deny Apollo's greatness, but I do not think we should resort to crossing the seas on rafts either. We know rafts work, Apollo proves that, along with it's forebears, Russian and American, however, we should be working on a canoe. The shuttle got us closer to the canoe. If we assume, that the guys who built Apollo and the shuttle were truly smart people, then, merely rebuilding either really doesn't serve to extend our reach into space very far nor reveal that we've learned anything significant over the past 35 years. The way to do it better, is to do the things we have not done yet. Maybe Kennedy did have it right after all. We should be doing things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. ESAS is the easy way out, and no one can tell me that we've learned or improved on any necessary technology by rehashing Apollo. In fact, a water landing if that's what they are thinking about is tantamount to failure of ESAS, Orion, Constellation et al. <br /><br />Let's examine why we are impressed with Rutan, Musk, and Bigelow. They are attempting to do what has not be done before. They are explorers, each in his own way attacking a piece of a very tough problem from a new perspective. Bigelow builds it, Musk flies it, and Rutan generates high awareness to encourage greater investments. I can't imagine what the three collaborating together in a few years might actually accomplish. In the mean time, NASA is going to spend the next decade plus trying to rebuild the Apollo program, abandoning or reducing interest in ISS in the mean time. What does that mean? Realistically, Mars is not even on the radar until after 2030 at the earliest if then. The truth of the matter is that the Moon and Mars are not going anywhere. We are in no real rush to send a raft to Mars or the Moon. We can do it right this time.<br /><br />So what do I think? NASA should forget about going back to the Moon or Mars. We are not going to get to Mars for another two <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
You do indeed have some very good points. However, I seem to remember many posters on these boards running NASA into the ground for years because "NASA is just going around and around in LEO!"<br /><br />Everybody was ecstatic over president Bush giving a new direction to NASA! A new direction that took NASA away from LEO and pointed outwards to going back to the moon and on to Mars. <br /><br />The only problem with this is that president Bush does not seem to want to "walk the talk" as the saying goes. His administration is even threatening a veto over the relatively small (but larger than the administration wanted) increase to NASA's next budget. <br /><br />And it IS this funding that dictates the type of system that NASA has to use to get back to the moon. The least expensive way of going to the moon is still the same way it was done back in the 1960's. This is in turn dictated by the physics of the situation now as then.<br /><br />With enough launches (always a large factor) the EELV program will eventually cut the cost of a pound to LEO down to below $3,000 per pound form the current $10,000 per pound. This is good in itself (particularly for the military which paid for the EELV program), but is still not sufficient to really open up space to more profitable (and profit IS the key here) enterprises. <br /><br />Personally, I think the true starting threshold for this is the area of $1,000 per pound to LEO, and then on to even better pound to orbit costs. <br /><br />I have also come to the conclusion (that I did not originally come to) that this is going to have to be the job of the alt.space people such as Rutan and Musk. If they can't figure out how to bring the costs down rather drastically, then NOBODY is going to! NASA can indeed help with funding to help such people to do this, but it is going to be space tourism and its resulting possible profits that are going to be the real driving factor!<br /><br />In the meantime, I also believe it is good that NASA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts