|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
« on: 08/05/2007 09:03 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alpha Control
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 08/05/2007 09:40 PM » |
|
That's a big change. It will reduce Orion's weight, but what about the added costs of the ocean recovery vessels (ships, helicopters, etc.)? Does the Navy provide those services for free, or will NASA have to budget for them?
|
|
|
|
texas_space
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 08/05/2007 09:43 PM » |
|
Do we know about how much weight removing the airbags will save?
|
|
|
|
Danny Dot
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 08/05/2007 09:46 PM » |
|
Breaking news. Thanks.
Has anyone asked the Navy if they can support water landings for the duration of the use of Orion? When I was working OSP and CEV this was a big driver to not land on water.
Danny Deger
|
|
|
|
hyper_snyper
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 08/05/2007 09:48 PM » |
|
This is pretty significant. Any word on where the landing will be? Pacific like in the Apollo days or right by the Cape?
|
|
|
|
Chris Bergin
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 08/05/2007 09:50 PM » |
|
texas_space - 5/8/2007 10:43 PM
Do we know about how much weight removing the airbags will save?
Article notes what we know via L2, which is the combined saving from Airbag deletion and the removal of green prop equates to 1200lbs saving. I don't have an individual breakdown, but that might be forthcoming when the next round of mass savings are made. These are the opening two changes with more to come.
|
|
|
|
rdale
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 08/05/2007 09:57 PM » |
|
hyper_snyper - 5/8/2007 5:48 PM
This is pretty significant. Any word on where the landing will be? Pacific like in the Apollo days or right by the Cape? The article says a water landing is planned for an unmanned test flight off the Australia coast.
|
|
|
|
hyper_snyper
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 08/05/2007 10:03 PM » |
|
rdale - 5/8/2007 5:57 PM
hyper_snyper - 5/8/2007 5:48 PM
This is pretty significant. Any word on where the landing will be? Pacific like in the Apollo days or right by the Cape?
The article says a water landing is planned for an unmanned test flight off the Australia coast. Yeah I read that, I'm talking about operationally. Also, do you really need the Navy? I wonder if Liberty Star and Freedom Star can be modified for this.
|
|
|
|
edkyle99
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 08/05/2007 10:27 PM » |
|
hyper_snyper - 5/8/2007 5:03 PM
rdale - 5/8/2007 5:57 PM
hyper_snyper - 5/8/2007 5:48 PM
This is pretty significant. Any word on where the landing will be? Pacific like in the Apollo days or right by the Cape?
The article says a water landing is planned for an unmanned test flight off the Australia coast.
Yeah I read that, I'm talking about operationally. Also, do you really need the Navy? I wonder if Liberty Star and Freedom Star can be modified for this. If NASA can't use the Navy, then it will need to build its own "fleet", because ships have to be stationed at multiple recovery zones around the globe to cover unplanned aborts, etc.. - Ed Kyle
|
|
|
|
Alpha Control
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 08/05/2007 10:27 PM » |
|
I think you probably would need the Navy. The Navy would provide a larger possible recovery area around the world. The SRB recovery ships are not big enough ships to provide deep ocean support, meaning that they can only travel so far from Cape Canaveral on a single load of fuel.
As Gemini 8 showed, an unplanned end-of-mission can put you far off the intended ocean landing area, and using Navy assets allows the wider range of recovery possibilities, both for the Atlantic as well as the Pacific.
|
|
|
|
TrueBlueWitt
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 08/05/2007 10:41 PM » |
|
Isn't Orion rapidly approaching a mass were it's an easy EELV heavy(Atlas 5) lift? Someone remind me again why we're building this underperforming dog called Ares I? oh wait we're fetching a STICK.
|
|
|
|
Bubbinski
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 08/05/2007 10:48 PM » |
|
Previously, wasn't Orion supposed to not only do land touchdowns as its prime recovery method, but also to be able to land in the ocean if needed? If you had a "Gemini 8" situation with the previous Orion you'd maybe still need the Navy if that was the case. But now you HAVE to have the Navy or some other source of ships, no questions asked, no chance for a land touchdown at all. I liked the land touchdown capability better, no chance of sinking or drowning, no need for ships, and spectators could watch, if it were at Edwards or KSC. I attended two shuttle landings and they were always great to watch, publicly viewable landings would be good for taxpayer support.
Also, it's too bad they took out the "green" propellant, it's good to have less toxic propellants if possible.
|
|
|
|
PaulL
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 08/05/2007 10:50 PM » |
|
These are signifcant changes which could make the Orion CM non-reusable due to exposure salt water at landing and toxic propellant during maintenance. It would be a shame if CM reusability had to be sacrified to accomodate the weak paylaod capacity of Ares-I.
PaulL
|
|
|
|
Danny Dot
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 08/05/2007 11:11 PM » |
|
PaulL - 5/8/2007 5:50 PM
These are signifcant changes which could make the Orion CM non-reusable due to exposure salt water at landing and toxic propellant during maintenance. It would be a shame if CM reusability had to be sacrified to accomodate the weak paylaod capacity of Ares-I.
PaulL Watching NASA trying to save the stick reminds me of the insanity I faced trying to convince NASA management a copy machine can be used to make a transparency. This happened in 1990. Nothing has changed. Once management make a decision.... Read all about it in my book you can download for free from my web site. Danny Deger http://www.dannydeger.net
|
|
|
|
SolarPowered
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 08/05/2007 11:26 PM » |
|
TrueBlueWitt - 5/8/2007 3:41 PM
Isn't Orion rapidly approaching a mass were it's an easy EELV heavy(Atlas 5) lift? Someone remind me again why we're building this underperforming dog called Ares I? oh wait we're fetching a STICK. The "STICK"...  I've never mentioned it here, but I've always thought that thing looks like an old Nazi hand grenade... :bleh:
|
|
|
|
