Orion will make water landing

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.
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No, before the primary landing site was land, now it is water.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'll take your word for it, but I don't see it in the document. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
shoot why not build into the capsules shock absorbers? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
So we need to build a bigger booster or use a Russian one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>
 
T

thereiwas

Guest
"Orion and Dragon will essentially have the same capabilities and methods of planetary return"<br /><br />I don't think Dragon is designed for anything other than return from LEO in its current form.
 
H

holmec

Guest
Sometimes you can use materials (rubber, plastics, carbon) to absorb the shock and design techniques. (There's all kinds of shock absorbers out there of varying mass). That would cut down on the weight. I bet though its too much energy to absorb.<br /><br />Quite frankly I don't see why they don't make the capsule out of carbon than aluminum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
Yeayeh! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
<font color="yellow">I certainly agree. It would make no sense to have a heat shield capable of a planetary return on Dragon.</font><br /><br />No, but if you replaced its PICA tiles with SIRCA and built it a proper service module what would stop it from being moon capable at a discount price? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>WTH? They may as well just break out the Apollo blue prints and save some money<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Obligatory note: reusing old designs is not as cheap as it sounds, and the older a design is, the more significant that becomes. The vast majority of the parts will no longer be available, so you're basically going to have to redesign it anyway to use modern parts. You'd end up with basically what's going on now -- designing a new spacecraft with a lot of the same basic design philosophies. Reusing the concept, really, without reusing the actual engineering drawings.<br /><br />Personally, I agree that a revamped STS would've been nice to see. I was very disappointed when CRV was cut, and at such a mature phase. Disappointed also that the aerospike engine tests were cancelled just before the first in-flight hotfire would've occured. That might've been very useful for such a revamped STS concept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
WTH? They may as well just break out the Apollo blue prints and save some money<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.<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />The shuttle was not designed to reenter the earth's atmosphere from a lunar trajectory. No proposed shuttle type vehicle has ever been designed for that. Lets compare apples to apples people. And don't even bring up having a returning moon ship rendezvous with a shuttle in orbit. Aside from having to conduct a separate shuttle launch--with all of its expense and dangers--your moon ship would be carrying so much fuel to slow down and rendezvous in earth orbit that you would be much better off just adding the heat shield and reentry system.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I'm thinking more of the lifting body idea than a winged vehicle, personally. With atmospheric skipping for reentry, it might work. But the capsule is expedient, and I must confess that I am anxious to see us back on the Moon. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
"I was very disappointed when CRV was cut, and at such a mature phase. Disappointed also that the aerospike engine tests were cancelled just before the first in-flight hotfire would've occured."<br /><br />I agree, Cali. There's lots of disappointments in space exploration. I love to see a plan come together <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
"The shuttle was not designed to reenter the earth's atmosphere from a lunar trajectory. "<br /><br />Sorry Tom, I wasn't clear with my post. I never expect a STS type of vehicle to do deep space exploration. Though what should be done (and I believe is being attempted) is making components modular. <br />Need more velocity/lift capacity? Add more modules. <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>
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No, but if you replaced its PICA tiles with SIRCA and built it a proper service module what would stop it from being moon capable at a discount price?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I was not aware that Dragon had tiles at all. I thought their heat shield was going to be like Apollo.<br /><br />But the idea that Dragon can be modified to reenter from a lunar trip cuppled with a hab unit is good. I would even put it with my idea of a permanent tug to take care of the TLI, Lunar Insertion, and TEI. In that case also you might want to consider to boost the size of the hab module (inflatable) and take two Dragon crews at once on a lunar trip.<br /><br />Letting the tug take care of the TLI, Lunar Insertion, and TEI will let the Dragon have same or similar service module so cost on the Dragon would be minimal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
Whoa! Great link, thanks. Love the pattern of the pica tiles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
B

bpfeifer

Guest
"I was very disappointed when CRV was cut"<br /><br />"I agree, Cali. There's lots of disappointments in space exploration. I love to see a plan come together "<br /><br />This is a basic problem of government sponsored spaceflight. Each project is so expensive that the US (or Russia, or China, or any other spacefaring nation) can only afford to explore one design theory at a time. That's not to say they don't build small scale test models and the like, but we only fly one full scale version at a time, and only gain flight experience with one type at a time. Yesterday, we built shuttles, today we are back to designing capsules.<br /><br />This is why the New Space companies are so exciting. Each one is trying something different. If you just look at the ones who are actaully building and flight testing hardware you see different design philosophies/technologies/systems. New Shephard is nothing like Falcon 1 or Pixel/MOD. And there's more on the drawing board. <br /><br />Some of these companies will end up using hardware based on NASA projects, wheter it's an aerospike engine, an inflatable module, or an HL-20 lifting body. <br /><br />In the early days NACA did a lot of basic research for airline designers. They calculated aerodynamic drag, and delved into wing icing and recovery from flat spins. Perhaps in the future, if we are lucky, NASA will engage in the same kind of research to support private space flight. Before that happens, the private ventures need to prove that they have a viable future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In the early days NACA did a lot of basic research for airline designers. They calculated aerodynamic drag, and delved into wing icing and recovery from flat spins. Perhaps in the future, if we are lucky, NASA will engage in the same kind of research to support private space flight. Before that happens, the private ventures need to prove that they have a viable future.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Absolutely! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
SDC article<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA expects to decide sometime in 2008 whether the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, the agency's space shuttle replacement, will typically splash down off the California coast or touch down on dry land when it returns from space.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Here is the kicker:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But by the time NASA gave permission this fall to begin Orion's detailed preliminary design phase, the assumption was that Orion would routinely land in water with only a contingency capability to touch down on land.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Why the confusion? Was there a mis communique?<br /><br />I really don't understand the thinking behind this. Why is the Orion team pushing for water landing? I read the article I see reasons there, but if it means to forgo a lunar base what's the point? I say land landing or scrap Constellation altogether. Let's not relegate ourselves to Apollo's limitations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
I wonder if the team is looking at time restrictions. <br /><br />With today's technology, I wonder if it might be wise to design the Orion in 3 variants. Earth orbital, Lunar water landing, Lunar land landing. Like they did with the joint strike fighter. <br /><br />I also don't particularlly understand why they cannot make a reusable caspule that lands in the water. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
S

steve82

Guest
If I had a choice between bringing back an extra thousand pounds of moon rocks and carrying air bags, I think I'd go with the moon rocks.
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>salt water...........<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That is really hard to swallow, in light of submarines, water surface ships, flying boats, and hover crafts that operate in the stuff. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
V

vulture2

Guest
The SRBs do land in salt water and are, to some extent, reusable, but only after complete disassembly and reassembly. The process is not economical.<br /><br />Still, many seaplanes were designed to operated at least occasionally from salt water without excessive weight or cost. (One of the procedures for removing the salt was said to be to do a landing on fresh water as soon as possible.) <br /><br />I am not suggesting it is necessarily practical, but with careful design the exterior of the capsule could be kept watertight. Without extensive testing and careful attention to all the details of reuse, however, one could end up with a system that costs more to reuse than to rebuild.
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>but with careful design the exterior of the capsule could be kept watertight. Without extensive testing and careful attention to all the details of reuse<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Thanks for your comments. <br /><br />Its true nothing like this has been done for a spacecraft, as SG suggests. But why not push the envelope? <br /><br />Perhaps a coating on the outer skin or even a different outer skin would come into play.<br /><br />I believe T-Space's capsule was a water landing reusable capsule. But most of the surface of its outer skin was tiles which could be replaced. (I love that design. It make so much sense for so many situations.)<br /><br />I was also under the impression that SpaceX's Dragon is supposed to be reusable with only a water landing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
<font color="yellow">Of course they could modify the Dragon for other than LEO missions if they wanted to. They certainly would not waste up mass by using a Lunar version for a LEO mission.</font><br /><br />Speaking of mass; what is the comparative density of PICA vs. SIRCA? I'm sure SIRCA is much heavier given it's monolithic, but haven't seen quantification as to just how much.<br /><br />And yes, Dragon is a water lander. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

comga

Guest
In reply to:<br /> That is really hard to swallow, in light of submarines, water surface ships, flying boats, and hover crafts that operate in the stuff....<br /><br />Submarines don't have ACS rockets sticking through their hulls. Flying boats don't have parachute launchers and pressure hull doors. Hovercraft don't have as severe weight limitations as a spacecraft or attach points for a launch abort system.<br /><br />All these details require attention, and many solutions would require mass, which would eat into the mass savings of deleting the airbags. If weight is king, reuse may go the way of the airbags.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY