It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Engineers Mulling over NASA's Newest Spacecraft's Landing Options

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
NASA has not yet made a decision as to whether its newest manned vehicle -- The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle -- will have a cpasule that returns to Earth like the Apollo capsule in a parachuted splashdown, or return the Earth on dry land with parachutes, retro-rockets, and airbags.


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....



...."The simple answer is we have not picked a landing mode for Orion yet. Both options are still on the table as we head into the coming year," Rick Gilbrech, NASA's associate administrator for exploration systems told reporters Dec. 10.


The Orion is the successor to the Space Shuttle (which is being retired in less than 3 years) and will be operational as soon as 2015. It will be NASA's primary means of getting humans into orbit and to the Space Station -- and is part of the plan to carry astronauts to the moon in the next 10 to 12 years.

But Engineers are still contemplating which landing mode is better -- meaning safer, more cost effective, and best choice for craft reusabilty.

There are pros and cons to each system. Here's the whole article:
Full Article from Space.com

[edit on 2/15/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Design the lander for both, if they have to go capsule.



I don't understand why a better designed space shuttle couldn't be made for the exact purpose of visiting the space station and carrying large cargo, designed with the idea of a future lunar runway, to which with lesser gravity and (depending on which you subscribe to) no or very little atmosphere, should be decent at taking off with minimum fuel (or set up magnetic launch systems both there on on earth to help lower fuel needed) and a powerful inboard rocket for returning to LEO.


Guess I just find it silly and a step backwards to be dropping from the sky in a capsule with a parachute instead of a controlled glide (or powered descent) to a landing on a runway. Not like those huge runways are not already there.

The Orion looks to be small, and not user friendly. Maybe the sketches don't do it justice.



Anyone else notice that the Shuttle stops in 2011, and the Orion isn't ready until 2015 ... suppose the Russians will be the only ones visiting the space station? Or do we have V5 rockets with capsules that can already meet up with the station?


It would be amusing if the Russians restart a new Shuttle program and NASA gets huffy and makes one again. Seems like that is what it takes for them to get inspired in any way ... well, since they are partners, maybe if Japan or China made a efficient, reliable shuttle (
thinking about Honda and Toyota teaming up to make a space vehicle
)


Whatever happened to the replacement shuttle ideas? The X-33 by Lockheed? I know it was flawed, but still, it should be feasible to create such a vehicle. I could design a working shuttle and launch vehicle given a 1.4 billion dollar budget that was spent on it.

I am smelling something fishy, and I just changed the water in my aquarium, so I know it isn't that.


What happened? They got to the moon in a very short time, now we can barely get off the ground and they can't decided how to get back on the ground once off of it? Sheesh.



Sorry about that rant, overall the capsule idea is ok, but I just think we shoud be further along than dropping off a bunch of pieces to fall back to earth or remain in LEO and try to dodge.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Yeah the dry land impact tesing for the Orion mockups didn't go so well and the weight issue is really a bit of an issue too because of the Ares I horsepower troubles... oscillation troubles... lack of throttling... high performance arc to orbit... the abort tower hassles... heat shield hassles... the whiole space suit umbilical fiasco. I blame Griffin and Horowitz (who has left to pursue other interests) primarily... and the Presidents "friends" who advised re-using some of the crappy design elements of shuttle tech... who else but friends in the MIC right? Oh well. No NASA manned presence in space on NASA vehicles for a while once ISS is complete.

I've been following the program since it was announced as part of the vision thing. Ares 1, it's a toad. A very, very, expensive toad. The Ares V on the other hand is pretty slick. Orion itself is pretty cool... just the weight hassles... some of the manufacturing techniques are truly awesome. The Altair is down the road a bit... but seems sound.

Ares I should be trashed and go to a different non-single-solid propulsion system. I'll cheer on the Astros always... but this system sucks. Launch tests for the Ares I "stick" are delayed but this year for sure. That's when we'd know for sure how bad the situation is... or perhaps isn't.

Cheers,

Vic

[edit on 15-2-2008 by V Kaminski]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist

I don't understand why a better designed space shuttle couldn't be made for the exact purpose of visiting the space station and carrying large cargo, designed with the idea of a future lunar runway, to which with lesser gravity and (depending on which you subscribe to) no or very little atmosphere, should be decent at taking off with minimum fuel (or set up magnetic launch systems both there on on earth to help lower fuel needed) and a powerful inboard rocket for returning to LEO.


It would be very inefficient to send your entire space shuttle craft to the Moon. The tail and wings are just useless appendages in space, and the extra mass they add would make for a craft that needs much more fuel to move that extra useless mass.

The shuttle doesn't have the heavy lift capability NASA needs to move forward with plans to build a moon base and eventually go to Mars. The shuttle can only lift 24,400 kg to low Earth orbit (LOE), and has no way of delivering a payload to the Moon. NASA's new Ares V Heavy Lift Vehicle (which is under development) will be able to lift over 5 TIMES that weight (130,000 kg) into Low Earth orbit, and can send a payload of 65,000 kg to the Moon -- that's 2 1/2 times what the shuittle can only get to LOE.

NASA has (very) tentative plans to build a Manned Mars Ship in orbit from component pieces launched with approximately 4 Ares V flights. Using the 30-year old shuttle would take about 20 launches, which would be out of the question.


Guess I just find it silly and a step backwards to be dropping from the sky in a capsule with a parachute instead of a controlled glide (or powered descent) to a landing on a runway. Not like those huge runways are not already there.

The Orion looks to be small, and not user friendly. Maybe the sketches don't do it justice.


But Orion is not a step backward. Just because it is shaped like the Apollo and may possibly land like the Apollo doesn't mean it performs like the Apollo. It's much larger than Apollo, uses advanced computerized controls, and is mostly reusable.


Anyone else notice that the Shuttle stops in 2011, and the Orion isn't ready until 2015 ... suppose the Russians will be the only ones visiting the space station? Or do we have V5 rockets with capsules that can already meet up with the station?


NASA will need to use the Russian Soyuz for a while between the retirement of the shuttle and the time Orion comes online, at least for manned flights. For unmanned supply missions to the ISS, NASA could continue to use the Russians or the European's new unmanned Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV).

NASA is also hoping that private space firms will help fill the shuttle-to-Orion gap. NASA and private industry have teamed up for the Commercial Orbital Transport Services (COTS) program which will hopefully utilize private industry to send supply ships -- and possibly someday astronauts -- to the space station and into orbit.


Whatever happened to the replacement shuttle ideas? The X-33 by Lockheed? I know it was flawed, but still, it should be feasible to create such a vehicle. I could design a working shuttle and launch vehicle given a 1.4 billion dollar budget that was spent on it.


The Shuttle idea may be "more futuristic looking" than rockets and capsules, but it is actually a very inefficient way of getting people and supplies into space. The new "Constellation Program" (consisting of many vehicles including the Orion, the Ares I Rocket, The Ares V Heavy-Lift Vehicle, and the Orion Service Module, and the Altair Lunar Surface Access Module) is actually more advanced than the shuttle and should get more and heavy payloads to orbit, the Moon, and beyond for less money than the shuttle -- in fact the shuttle can't get ANY payload beyond the Earth's gravity.

Don't forget, the shuttle was being designed while we were still walking on the moon over 37 years ago.


[edit on 2/15/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by V Kaminski
 

Yeah -- I heard of a few problems the Ares I was having...but there is still hope that they will work these problems out. That's what all of this testing is about anyway - isn't it?



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
If you want Ares V, you need Ares I. They need Ares I to develop the 5-segment SRB, The Ares V requires the 5-segment SRB design, and they need the cost savings of joint development. If they throw away Ares I, we'll never see Ares V.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
ares V = sweet its gigantic and anything that can take that much payload into leo has got my backing. the ares 1 isnt as "cool" but its still a relatively good idea. it uses modern technology from the space shuttle as far as the ascent phase goes and its def way more advanced than the apollo. also orion has significantly more interior room than the apollo's had and their isnt even a comparison as far as size goes with the soyez's crew compartment goes. just my thoughts

raptor1




top topics



 
2

log in

join