Comments on: Water or Land: The Orion Landing Choice http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/ Space and astronomy news Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:25:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Digital Puddle » NASA’s new Orion Space Vehicle http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-2/#comment-27511 Digital Puddle » NASA’s new Orion Space Vehicle Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:26:01 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-27511 [...] http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/ [...]

[...] http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/ [...]

]]> By: D Samoranos http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-2/#comment-12175 D Samoranos Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:33:40 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-12175 Land and Water anywhere with our best Technology then as our Technology get better and we learn more from our pass then we do what we did in the pass use our best Technology and work from their again. Just like the computer it started out big and did a lot of work, but now they are smaller and doing more work with less power. Land and Water anywhere with our best Technology then as our Technology get better and we learn more from our pass then we do what we did in the pass use our best Technology and work from their again. Just like the computer it started out big and did a lot of work, but now they are smaller and doing more work with less power.

]]> By: D Samoranos http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-2/#comment-12174 D Samoranos Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:17:28 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-12174 Insert from December 15th, 2007 at 4:05 am. If we could capture them or refuel them so that they have fuel to maneuver their space craft. This will allow them time and control to maneuver their space craft for example to slow down, to be able to dock on to the space station or maybe even land on the moon instead to get quarantine (checked out, inspected, medical) or possibly even land on Earth, but might be better at the space station or on the moon first then Home for our species. The advantage of this would be that they would not have to bring with them the extra fuel or parachute, and in exchange to it would be the capturing or refueling device. Now thinking about the advantage just now, if they could carry and or save enough fuel to be able to slow down the craft and be captured or refuel. Maybe even they could capture a plan craft in their path that will match their speed so that they will be able to control before and after they captured it. Insert from December 15th, 2007 at 4:05 am.

If we could capture them or refuel them so that they have fuel to maneuver
their space craft. This will allow them time and control to maneuver their space craft for example to slow down, to be able to dock on to the space station or maybe even land on the moon instead to get quarantine (checked out, inspected, medical) or possibly even land on Earth, but might be better at the space station or on the moon first then Home for our species.
The advantage of this would be that they would not have to bring with them the extra fuel or parachute, and in exchange to it would be the capturing or refueling device.
Now thinking about the advantage just now, if they could carry and or save enough fuel to be able to slow down the craft and be captured or refuel. Maybe even they could capture a plan craft in their path that will match their speed so that they will be able to control before and after they captured it.

]]> By: J Delphia http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-2/#comment-4167 J Delphia Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:50:37 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-4167 I think that the advantages of less weight and a large set of landing locations makes the water landing better. Once the touchdowns can be shown to be accurate, we could make the whole thing more secure - and less corrosive - by landing in a fresh water shallow landing pond or maybe a specific lake somewhere within US soil. I think that the advantages of less weight and a large set of landing locations makes the water landing better. Once the touchdowns can be shown to be accurate, we could make the whole thing more secure – and less corrosive – by landing in a fresh water shallow landing pond or maybe a specific lake somewhere within US soil.

]]> By: D Samoranos http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-2/#comment-3663 D Samoranos Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:05:50 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-3663 On there way back from the Moon, Mars or any other planets that they have walked on, they should stop at The International Space Station. Have them Quarantine to make sure it is safe for them to come back to Earth. To make sure that they are still the same crew that had left here to go to another planet and back. Then have the new shuttle bring them back home safely. If the new shuttle could be made to land on water too that would be great as well. Maybe the Moon mission may not have to be quarantine, and then maybe they should still be quarantine, mostly if they landed in new territory or new area of the Moon. Maybe even at the old area, you never know what could have developed there since they left the first time. We have seen the facts that Apollo design would still work. But we must continue to improve our current Technology even further like we have in the pass, for the safety of our crew and now for the safety of our planet and all who lives here. We could not pay enough for any lives lost (if it were our crews) now we also have our planet and all that lives here. On there way back from the Moon, Mars or any other planets that they have walked on, they should stop at The International Space Station. Have them Quarantine to make sure it is safe for them to come back to Earth. To make sure that they are still the same crew that had left here to go to another planet and back. Then have the new shuttle bring them back home safely. If the new shuttle could be made to land on water too that would be great as well. Maybe the Moon mission may not have to be quarantine, and then maybe they should still be quarantine, mostly if they landed in new territory or new area of the Moon. Maybe even at the old area, you never know what could have developed there since they left the first time.
We have seen the facts that Apollo design would still work. But we must continue to improve our current Technology even further like we have in the pass, for the safety of our crew and now for the safety of our planet and all who lives here.
We could not pay enough for any lives lost (if it were our crews) now we also have our planet and all that lives here.

]]> By: Edward Laufer http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-3605 Edward Laufer Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:26:14 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-3605 The problem with aerobraking is that it takes a large number of passes skimming the atmosphere to dissipate energy without overheating the spacecraft. With the orbit extending to the moon, it could take years to bleed off enough energy to reach LEO. To avoid the additional mass of food, water, and oxygen for the astronauts for additional orbits aerobraking would have to bleed off enough energy to reach LEO in one pass. Then you'd have to burn to circularize the orbit and rendezvous with ISS. At this point you've already got a heatshield, additional propellant, and greater risk to the mission than just going in. It seems that most objections to the capsule/water landing are variants of "We've done that before" or "The shuttle was so much cooler". The fact is that the Apollo design is still the simplest, most robust, mass efficient, and /cost effective/ design available, even with current technology. The problem with aerobraking is that it takes a large number of passes skimming the atmosphere to dissipate energy without overheating the spacecraft. With the orbit extending to the moon, it could take years to bleed off enough energy to reach LEO. To avoid the additional mass of food, water, and oxygen for the astronauts for additional orbits aerobraking would have to bleed off enough energy to reach LEO in one pass. Then you'd have to burn to circularize the orbit and rendezvous with ISS. At this point you've already got a heatshield, additional propellant, and greater risk to the mission than just going in.

It seems that most objections to the capsule/water landing are variants of "We've done that before" or "The shuttle was so much cooler". The fact is that the Apollo design is still the simplest, most robust, mass efficient, and /cost effective/ design available, even with current technology.

]]> By: David VomLehn http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-3519 David VomLehn Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:20:20 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-3519 Don't use fuel for braking, use aerobraking. You do still need some fuel to match ISS orbit, but both deceleration and orbital plane change to match the ISS can be done with aerodynamics. The nice thing about docking with the ISS first is that you can wait around nearby for weather to change, which you can't do with a direct-from-the-moon return. When we drown the first crew due to a storm that blew up in the three days it took to return from the moon, we'll finally realize we made a mistake. Don't use fuel for braking, use aerobraking. You do still need some fuel to match ISS orbit, but both deceleration and orbital plane change to match the ISS can be done with aerodynamics. The nice thing about docking with the ISS first is that you can wait around nearby for weather to change, which you can't do with a direct-from-the-moon return. When we drown the first crew due to a storm that blew up in the three days it took to return from the moon, we'll finally realize we made a mistake.

]]> By: Chris http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-3433 Chris Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:49:03 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-3433 "Why not just have the vehicle return to the ISS, dock, and have the crew land in whatever method we want from there? . . . You could take out everything involved in the landing such as heat shields and parachutes and move them to the landing module" The fuel required to brake the Orion spacecraft into low earth orbit would far outweigh the heatshield, parachutes, and other landing paraphernalia. Landing directly, rather than coming to a stop in orbit means you only have to do three big burns to get to the moon and back (trans-lunar injection, lunar orbit insertion, and trans-earth injection), rather than four (TLI, LOI, TEI, and earth orbit insertion). Dumping all that excess velocity through atmospheric friction is a lot more efficient than carrying enough fuel to slow down. "Why not just have the vehicle return to the ISS, dock, and have the crew land in whatever method we want from there? . . . You could take out everything involved in the landing such as heat shields and parachutes and move them to the landing module"

The fuel required to brake the Orion spacecraft into low earth orbit would far outweigh the heatshield, parachutes, and other landing paraphernalia. Landing directly, rather than coming to a stop in orbit means you only have to do three big burns to get to the moon and back (trans-lunar injection, lunar orbit insertion, and trans-earth injection), rather than four (TLI, LOI, TEI, and earth orbit insertion). Dumping all that excess velocity through atmospheric friction is a lot more efficient than carrying enough fuel to slow down.

]]> By: Rick http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-3427 Rick Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:28:22 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-3427 <i>No American program(s) never killed any astronauts as a function of the landing system in place </i> I'm not sure I see how Columbia wasn't a product of the landing system. Sure, the immediate cause was the foam collision at launch. But its vulnerability to that was a function of, in part, a landing system that required a relatively thin, low weight thermal protection system exposed during the whole launch process -- unlike the relatively robust, protected Apollo heat shields. No American program(s) never killed any astronauts as a function of the landing system in place

I'm not sure I see how Columbia wasn't a product of the landing system. Sure, the immediate cause was the foam collision at launch. But its vulnerability to that was a function of, in part, a landing system that required a relatively thin, low weight thermal protection system exposed during the whole launch process — unlike the relatively robust, protected Apollo heat shields.

]]> By: DontStop http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-3423 DontStop Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:04:28 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-3423 Nice idea to make a travel to ISS and then go on. But wouldn't it be a waste of a lot of energy to make this "pitstop"? I though out-of-orbit starts were a total different story than shutte-station-flights. Maybe I am wrong? Nice idea to make a travel to ISS and then go on. But wouldn't it be a waste of a lot of energy to make this "pitstop"?
I though out-of-orbit starts were a total different story than shutte-station-flights. Maybe I am wrong?

]]> By: Gene Cash http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-3422 Gene Cash Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-3422 So Soyuz lands on land w/o heavy airbags. How do they do it? IIRC they use braking rockets in the parachute harness, but my refs are at home. So Soyuz lands on land w/o heavy airbags. How do they do it?

IIRC they use braking rockets in the parachute harness, but my refs are at home.

]]> By: dplafoll http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-3413 dplafoll Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:24:17 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-3413 Why not just have the vehicle return to the ISS, dock, and have the crew land in whatever method we want from there? You could use Soyuz, shuttle/shuttle replacement, or (even better if it works) have a module at the ISS waiting for the Orion vehicle whereby the Orion docks to it and it contains the landing apparatus. You could take out everything involved in the landing such as heat shields and parachutes and move them to the landing module, which could also make it possible to reuse the Orion vehicle. Why not just have the vehicle return to the ISS, dock, and have the crew land in whatever method we want from there? You could use Soyuz, shuttle/shuttle replacement, or (even better if it works) have a module at the ISS waiting for the Orion vehicle whereby the Orion docks to it and it contains the landing apparatus. You could take out everything involved in the landing such as heat shields and parachutes and move them to the landing module, which could also make it possible to reuse the Orion vehicle.

]]> By: Tech News » Blog Archive » Orion’s Landing: One if by Land, Two if by Sea http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-3127 Tech News » Blog Archive » Orion’s Landing: One if by Land, Two if by Sea Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:29:09 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-3127 [...] Water or Land: The Orion Landing Choice [Universe Today] [...]

[...] Water or Land: The Orion Landing Choice [Universe Today] [...]

]]> By: grant http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-3020 grant Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:06:57 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-3020 No American program(s) never killed any astronauts as a function of the landing system in place - so all those comments seem irrelevant to the current topic. Intercepting a returning space-craft at terminal velocity? Or even while falling under chutes, would be a tremendously hazardous under-taking - perhaps even impossible when you think through the details of having a recovery aircraft in the right place, at the right time, without becoming a collision hazard, able to complete an interception within the few moments of re-entry/free-fall time available... nope. Ideally the new craft would be built in space and never return to earth and be completely re-usable - a true "space(only) craft." And the astronauts/payload would travel to earth via either a re-usable space-plane/shuttle, or a space elevator. I guess we're a long ways from these solutions, so I'm guessing quick and dirty(wet) will win out again as in the original Apollo. No American program(s) never killed any astronauts as a function of the landing system in place – so all those comments seem irrelevant to the current topic.

Intercepting a returning space-craft at terminal velocity? Or even while falling under chutes, would be a tremendously hazardous under-taking – perhaps even impossible when you think through the details of having a recovery aircraft in the right place, at the right time, without becoming a collision hazard, able to complete an interception within the few moments of re-entry/free-fall time available… nope.

Ideally the new craft would be built in space and never return to earth and be completely re-usable – a true "space(only) craft." And the astronauts/payload would travel to earth via either a re-usable space-plane/shuttle, or a space elevator.

I guess we're a long ways from these solutions, so I'm guessing quick and dirty(wet) will win out again as in the original Apollo.

]]> By: John Mendenhall http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-2964 John Mendenhall Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:55:09 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-2964 "Mark X Says: " see above. True, I was thinking the fire was in the Gemini program. Apollo never killed anybody in flight, although 13 was too close. At any rate, the point is that putting winged atmospheric vehicles into space is a waste of time and money. It's incredibly expensive and very dangerous. The physics is inexorable; an object has to go 18,000 plus miles per hour to orbit, and that requires huge amounts of energy per pound. You've got to spend it going up, and get rid of it again going down. Best to carry as little extraneous weight to orbit as possible, thus big dumb boosters and capsules. At least until alternate ways to orbit are available, and even then the energy requirements are the same. "Mark X Says: " see above. True, I was thinking the fire was in the Gemini program. Apollo never killed anybody in flight, although 13 was too close. At any rate, the point is that putting winged atmospheric vehicles into space is a waste of time and money. It's incredibly expensive and very dangerous. The physics is inexorable; an object has to go 18,000 plus miles per hour to orbit, and that requires huge amounts of energy per pound. You've got to spend it going up, and get rid of it again going down. Best to carry as little extraneous weight to orbit as possible, thus big dumb boosters and capsules. At least until alternate ways to orbit are available, and even then the energy requirements are the same.

]]> By: Mark X http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-2933 Mark X Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:03:47 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-2933 True, but it could have... True, but it could have…

]]> By: RUF http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-2786 RUF Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:27:51 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-2786 Go with water landings. There-- I've just completed the 2008 goal of the Constellation Program before 2008 ever got here. From the article: "Making the decision of land vs. water is the goal for 2008 for the Constellation program." BTW- Apollo 13 never killed anyone.... Go with water landings. There– I've just completed the 2008 goal of the Constellation Program before 2008 ever got here.

From the article:

"Making the decision of land vs. water is the goal for 2008 for the Constellation program."

BTW- Apollo 13 never killed anyone….

]]> By: Mark X http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-2745 Mark X Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:15:03 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-2745 The comment ...The shuttle has killed 14 astronauts so far. Apollo never killed any. Which way would you go?... is incorrect. From Wikipedia: "Apollo 1 is the official name given to the never-flown Apollo/Saturn 204 (AS-204) mission. Its command module (CM-012) was destroyed by fire during a test and training exercise on January 27, 1967 at Pad 34 (Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral, then known as Cape Kennedy) atop a Saturn IB rocket. The crew onboard were astronauts selected for the first manned Apollo program mission and all three died in the accident: Command Pilot Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, Senior Pilot Ed White and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee. Although the ignition source of the fire was never determined their deaths were attributed to a wide range of lethal design hazards in the early Apollo command module such as its highly pressurized 100% oxygen atmosphere during the test, many wiring and plumbing flaws, flammable materials in the cockpit, a hatch which might not open at all in an emergency and even the flightsuits worn by the astronauts." Oh, and don't forget Apollo 13... The comment …The shuttle has killed 14 astronauts so far. Apollo never killed any. Which way would you go?… is incorrect.
From Wikipedia:
"Apollo 1 is the official name given to the never-flown Apollo/Saturn 204 (AS-204) mission. Its command module (CM-012) was destroyed by fire during a test and training exercise on January 27, 1967 at Pad 34 (Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral, then known as Cape Kennedy) atop a Saturn IB rocket. The crew onboard were astronauts selected for the first manned Apollo program mission and all three died in the accident: Command Pilot Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, Senior Pilot Ed White and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee. Although the ignition source of the fire was never determined their deaths were attributed to a wide range of lethal design hazards in the early Apollo command module such as its highly pressurized 100% oxygen atmosphere during the test, many wiring and plumbing flaws, flammable materials in the cockpit, a hatch which might not open at all in an emergency and even the flightsuits worn by the astronauts." Oh, and don't forget Apollo 13…

]]> By: r ungrich http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-2742 r ungrich Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:22:54 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-2742 I think water landings could be accomplished also through deploying out-folding wings as the craft descends, and with the addition of a siphon engine and a hydrodynamic hull, the craft could return itself to a port suitably equipped. I think water landings could be accomplished
also through deploying out-folding wings
as the craft descends, and with the addition of
a siphon engine and a hydrodynamic hull,
the craft could return itself to a port suitably
equipped.

]]> By: John Mendenhall http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-2735 John Mendenhall Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:01:11 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-2735 "now they fly home to an airport and walk down a ladder -is this really progress?" The original idea of the shuttle was that it would have throttlable rocket engines and could go around once, if it had to, in the landing pattern. Way, way back, in the early '70's, they blew up two of the engines in a row at the test site in Huntsville. The explosions were so violent that they had trouble reconstructing enough of the engines to figure out what went wrong. The go around once concept went down the tubes. As a result, the space shuttle lands dead stick, one pass only, and it flys like a rock. They're lucky they haven't killed everybody in a landing. And that brings up the other issue. The shuttle has killed 14 astronauts so far. Apollo never killed any. Which way would you go? "now they fly home to an airport and walk down a ladder -is this really progress?"

The original idea of the shuttle was that it would have throttlable rocket engines and could go around once, if it had to, in the landing pattern. Way, way back, in the early '70's, they blew up two of the engines in a row at the test site in Huntsville. The explosions were so violent that they had trouble reconstructing enough of the engines to figure out what went wrong. The go around once concept went down the tubes. As a result, the space shuttle lands dead stick, one pass only, and it flys like a rock. They're lucky they haven't killed everybody in a landing. And that brings up the other issue. The shuttle has killed 14 astronauts so far. Apollo never killed any. Which way would you go?

]]> By: max good http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-2732 max good Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:23:05 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-2732 now they fly home to an airport and walk down a ladder -is this really progress? now they fly home to an airport and walk down a ladder -is this really progress?

]]> By: John Mendenhall http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-2700 John Mendenhall Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:40:35 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-2700 "We’ve tended toward updating our point of departure concept to now be a nominal US coastal water landing.� This is one of the finest examples nonsense bureau speak I have ever seen. What is wrong with saying "We're planning on offshore water landings.", instead of the gobbledygook above? "We’ve tended toward updating our point of departure concept to now be a nominal US coastal water landing.�

This is one of the finest examples nonsense bureau speak I have ever seen. What is wrong with saying "We're planning on offshore water landings.", instead of the gobbledygook above?

]]> By: Richad Kirk http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-2696 Richad Kirk Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:23:03 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-2696 There is a third option - have an aircraft catch it once it reaches terminal velocity. If the landing apparatus never leaves the atmosphere, then we could have second and third backups to hand. This might make it safer in the long run. There is a third option – have an aircraft catch it once it reaches terminal velocity. If the landing apparatus never leaves the atmosphere, then we could have second and third backups to hand. This might make it safer in the long run.

]]> By: shepard http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-2660 shepard Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:59:09 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-2660 If the (CEV) is going to launch to the Space Station,to the moon.and hopefully to Mars,how will it come back home? WIll it take the same steps backwards? If the (CEV) is going to launch to the Space Station,to the moon.and hopefully to Mars,how will it come back home? WIll it take the same steps backwards?

]]> By: Water or Land: The Orion Landing Choice | NASA Orion Spaceship Blog http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/comment-page-1/#comment-2659 Water or Land: The Orion Landing Choice | NASA Orion Spaceship Blog Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:22:06 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/10/water-or-land-the-orion-landing-choice/#comment-2659 [...] Read More at Universe Today… Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

[...] Read More at Universe Today… Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

]]>