Comments on: The Debate Continues: Water or Land Landings for Orion

By: pavan

pavan — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:40:33 +0000

hello this is pavan ,i need some details abutot astoraids, planets, galaxes, etc for my recharch .i want to collect all websites abuot universe. can you please suggest websites regarding abuot this……….thank you very much,

regards,
pavan
kumar.lokanadham@gmail.com

By: Some Guy

Some Guy — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:47:30 +0000

Regardless of where they land, water and hard land have their own advantages. With land, there's no drowning danger (look up Gus Grissom's Mercury mission), but with water, you don't need to add an impact absorbing system which would add probably at least a ton of dead-weight. This debate could go on forever it seems, but I for one like the idea of a freshwater landing as mentioned by Mike G. Not only would the spacecraft be much more readily reusable, but say the astronauts splashdown off-target, are out of water, and in need of hydration, I know it's far-fetched, but I'd rather be thirsting in a lake of freshwater I could drink than salt-water which looks tantalizing but is deadly to drink.

By: Mike G.

Mike G. — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:29:56 +0000

Vanamonde – as I understand it (I am not a rocket scientist) wings suck. They're dead weight on the way up and in orbit, where every gram of wing is at least 1 gram less of payload.

And having wings, the vehicle has a much more complex shape on re-entry, leading to hotspots you need to use crazy fragile stuff like RCC joints to try to shield against.

Capsules have a much better aerodynamic shape on the way up, and (as I understand it) and easier-to-shield shape on the way down.

Of course, steering would be nice, agreed. But I don't think anyone makes space-capsule-sized parasails.

By: Vanamonde

Vanamonde — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:23:46 +0000

This is depressing. It really seems like a step backward in either direction. Why cannot we not have a nice aerodynamic dead stick landing on a runway? The Dynasoar was designed way in the 60's! And we certainly have a lot of experience at it. Hell, it seems by now, we would consider a jet engine in case the vehicle has to be "waved off" for a second try at the landing.

This is a retro design, done on the cheap.

By: Mike G.

Mike G. — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:44:58 +0000

Alien Overlord: Lake Superior is more what I had in mind… It would have to go FAR off-target to miss that lake.

And of course, the off-target problem exists for ground landings as well. Hitting Phoenix instead of the desert might not be ideal.

By: Alien OverLord

Alien OverLord — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:10:40 +0000

Great lakes? Great idea. Maybe the capsule can go off target like Russian entertainment and slam into the Sears Tower or in the middle of a Bears football game.

By: Mike G.

Mike G. — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:49:40 +0000

Why not freshwater landings?

The Great Lakes are inconveniently far from Florida (and the most orbits), but they're very large targets. If the orbital/reentry mechanics work out, I'll bet a spacecraft will be much more reuseable after a freshwater dunking.

You'd need more floatation (fresh water is less dense), but that has to be easier to deal with than a ground impact…

By: Danzio

Danzio — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 05:45:22 +0000

Silver Thread
Though I heartily agree with you . . .
Our steps beyond Earth will be furtive and take ever so much more time that we have patience for.

Perhaps not voting for conservatives (ever, for the rest of your natural life) would help!
A Progressive leadership is about hope, and not fear. Our own Moon, Mars and the moons of Jupiter are about hope and the human spirit. People seem to think that conservative leaders offer security, when really the offer war . . . on something.
As a Junior Scientist Boy, I have vowed to support what science teaches us (proof, verification, peer review) and especially to avoid the emotional arguments of Neocons and Theocons (as these individuals are true butt monkeys!).
My hope is that corporate cost over-runs and multiple layers of subcontractors do not kill the plan, in the end. It is a very pragmatic approach, after all.
Me . . . I like the "Mars Direct Plan.

By: Silver Thread

Silver Thread — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:36:40 +0000

We just need to convince the Bush Administration that there are WMD's and Oil on the Moon. We'd have 150,000 Soldiers and Prospectors there in two weeks, and an entire Carrier Group in Orbit around it.

I know it seems ridiculous but the only way I see the Government making an honest effort to support this venture is by selling it as a Military endeavor.

A large percentage of notable historic ventures have been undertaken by Military agents and as such they always have consistent financial backing.

I know that to undertake such an ambitious and costly task would be difficult to say the least, but at this point, our every effort seems a lot like floundering in a deepening quagmire.

By: David

David — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:15:11 +0000

Moon exploration for NASA is not making sense. I realize we're still in the early developmental stages of Orion and Ares, but so far I do not see much evidence supporting a mission that will be seen to conclusion. If we want to return to the moon so bad, leave it up to the constituency to develop a privatized plan. That will inject much needed capital which could potentially be used toward the presumptive next phase, Mars. NASA has two major stumbling blocks that it will never overcome. The first is a budget subsidized by taxpayers. The second is perception–very few if any in congress understand science and consistently view NASA as an easy target for budget cuts. Even if NASA develops Orion and Ares, who's to say that the next round of so-called public servants won't change their minds and decide to rearrange NASA's priorities? It's happened in every modern presidential administration. I'm all for going back to the moon and eventually to Mars, but I'd rather see it done privately–at least we would have a better chance of seeing it happen.