Orion will make water landing

[soyuztma]

Spaceref posted a document that confirms that Orion will make a water landing: NASA CxP ISTIM Outbrief to JSC Engineering Management 30 November 2007<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Landing mode - Nominal coastal water landing, contingency-only land landing, cease/desist working nominal land landing, water landing environment definition per Team 0 recommendation, landing accuracy increased from 5 km to 10 km<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Spaceref posted a document that confirms that Orion will make a water landing</font>/i><br /><br />Maybe they should stop calling it Apollo on Steroids and start calling it Apollo on Protein Drinks.</i>

 

[josh_simonson]

So much for re-useability. I wouldn't fly in a spacecraft that plunked down in DI water, let alone seawater.

 

[holmec]

Ok what is ISTIM? <br /><br />This document state water and land landings. No different than what NASA has been saying all along. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Least it can be said its been "Watered down". Watered down protein drinks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>From NASA Watch:<br /><br /> Editor's update: A NASA Watch reader noted that the 3 Dec Space News quotes Jeff Hanley as follows:<br /><br />"Q. How did Orion manage to lose the weight?<br /><br />A. In their recent weight scrub effort, the Orion team settled on a targeted water-based landing off the California coast as the nominal landing mode, which the program has accepted."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />Baseline landings off the California coast, looking at the Gulf of Mexico too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[3488]

How would Orion carry out a landing on land.<br /><br />Encased in airbags like the MERs & Mars Pathfinder???<br /><br />Somehow I do not think so with a crew aboard.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

Why can the Russians do it and we can't? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

Soyuz capsules are not reused, hard bumbs at land landing is not issue. Orion shall be resuseable, you need to make sure the capsule lands really soft.

 

[astrowikizhang]

Soyuz capsule fires retro-rockets meters obove ground, those rockets are dangerous and adding extra weight.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Why can the Russians do it and we can't?</font>/i><br /><br />I was under the impression that it was a weight issue.</i>

 

[bdewoody]

We have more rules about the safety of the crew and less empty space to aim at. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[larper]

All because the booster is underpowered. *sigh* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[bobblebob]

Sorry for my ingorance but not been following Orion that closely. Why have they chosen water landings over land? Money?

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why have they chosen water landings over land? Money? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Nope. It is not money. It is because they are sizing the capsule to the proposed booster, instead of sizing the booster to the proposed capsule. And the booster keeps getting wimpier and wimpier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[3488]

This is clearly a retrograde step in some ways. The Space Shuttle appears <br />to be a far more capable & powerful vehicle.<br /><br />The Orion CEV does appear to be a very capable & versatile vehicle for crewed <br />transport, but appears to have no cargo capability, launched on top of a crappy <br />little booster, not much more powerful than a firework rocket, much like <br />SpaceX's amatuerish crappy effort. In a way we are definately going backwards post STS.<br /><br />Hope I'm wrong.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[summoner]

<font color="yellow">much like<br />SpaceX's amatuerish crappy effort</font><br /><br />That's a bit harsh since they've only tried 2 launches and all with their own $$. <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I agree. SpaceX is moving forward at a reasonable affordable pace.<br /><br />So far, they are in a class by themselves as far as private potential satellite launch capability. At least they have a track record. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Yup, and the new monster update just solidifies that. Dragon has a heat shield and thrusters, engine out has been tested on the F9 test stand etc. etc. <br /><br />They're making great progress for a "crappy effort" <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>engine out has been tested on the F9 test stand<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />No it has not, yet. From the update:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A few weeks ago, we fired an integrated Falcon 9 first stage for first time. ... Over the next three to four months, we will gradually add more engines until reaching the full complement of nine. Once we have all nine engines and the stage working well as a system, we will extensively test the “engine out†capability<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />They are making great progress, but lets stick to the facts.

 

[tanstaafl76]

<br />It sounds like Orion and Dragon will essentially have the same capabilities and methods of planetary return & recovery.<br /><br />Somewhat ironic that a private company that's only been in business for less than a decade is (if all goes well) going to be able to produce competitive machinery to that designed by the "space experts" at NASA.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

WTH? They may as well just break out the Apollo blue prints and save some money <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />I still believe a revamped STS type of vehicle is the go. With what has been learnt from the present STS program and the mistakes/cutbacks, it could be everything the Shuttle was meant to be but wasn't. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[docm]

What I meant and poorly stated is that over stressing the Merlin had been done and failures evaluated;<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It should be said that the failure modes we’ve seen to date on the test stand for the Merlin 1C are all relatively benign – the turbo pump, combustion chamber and nozzle do not rupture explosively even when subjected to extreme circumstances. We have seen the gas generator (which drives the turbo pump assembly) blow apart during a start sequence (there are now checks in place to prevent that from happening), but it is a small device, unlikely to cause major damage to its own engine, let alone the neighboring ones.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Of course you can't evaluate engine out until you have />1 engine in the bay, but what has been shown is very promising for that mode.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[steve82]

It doesn't look like good news. But an outbrief chart from the Integrated Stack TIM on recommendations for the 606C reference design doesn't necessarily mean that all land landing is out for all Orion versions for the life of the program. They will still have to demonstrate or prove by analysis a survivable contingency land landing which could well evolve into a nominal land landing. I remember years ago one of the NASA higher-ups NEVER wanted to have EVA except as a contingency and now it's a nominal part of ISS assembly. Maybe they want to do everything they can to get to the first manned flights as soon as possible and land landing was standing in the way.

 

[farmerman]

I think it's history repeating itself. The shuttle program had many redesigns/cutbacks to get to it's current configuration, and now Orion is going through the same process. The moon is looking farther and farther away all the time. The term "fubar" is starting to pop in my mind. The next thing we'll hear is we can only have a three person crew.