Alan Erskine wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2

Surely, they'll be more accurate (parachute guidance?) than even the Gemini
vehicles, which would allow a landing at Cape Canaveral.  There are also
rumours that the land-landing system will be removed if the weight keeps
creeping up; if this is the case, then surely a waterborne landing near Cape
Canaveral is more practical.

Don't forget the service module. Its debris footprint will be short of
the crew module landing zone, and NASA wants to keep that debris
footprint offshore. Hence, a west coast landing for the crew module, if
NASA sticks to land touchdown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2

Surely, they'll be more accurate (parachute guidance?) than even the
Gemini
vehicles, which would allow a landing at Cape Canaveral. There are also
rumours that the land-landing system will be removed if the weight keeps
creeping up; if this is the case, then surely a waterborne landing near
Cape
Canaveral is more practical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2

Surely, they'll be more accurate (parachute guidance?) than even the Gemini
vehicles, which would allow a landing at Cape Canaveral. There are also
rumours that the land-landing system will be removed if the weight keeps
creeping up; if this is the case, then surely a waterborne landing near Cape
Canaveral is more practical.

Alan Erskine wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2

Surely, they'll be more accurate (parachute guidance?) than even the
Gemini
vehicles, which would allow a landing at Cape Canaveral. There are also
rumours that the land-landing system will be removed if the weight keeps
creeping up; if this is the case, then surely a waterborne landing near
Cape
Canaveral is more practical.

Don't forget the service module. Its debris footprint will be short of
the crew module landing zone, and NASA wants to keep that debris
footprint offshore. Hence, a west coast landing for the crew module, if
NASA sticks to land touchdown.

"Alan Erskine" <alan.erskine@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:kTEKj.7181$n8.6667@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2

Surely, they'll be more accurate (parachute guidance?) than even the
Gemini
vehicles, which would allow a landing at Cape Canaveral. There are also
rumours that the land-landing system will be removed if the weight keeps
creeping up; if this is the case, then surely a waterborne landing near
Cape
Canaveral is more practical.

It will only land at Edwards if they keep "land landing" as the primary
landing mode. From some articles I've read, they may switch to
splashdowns as the primary landing mode (just as Apollo did) due to mass
constraints imposed by the Ares I launch vehicle.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

But, didn't Gemini land in the Atlantic? I seem to remember the G-8
emergency was nearer the Cape or was that simply because it was an
emergency?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2

Surely, they'll be more accurate (parachute guidance?) than even the Gemini
vehicles,

Since that CEV thing isn't reusable, does it really matter where it lands
?

Since it won't require complex 747 and cranes to lift the burned out
capsule onto some ship or cargo aircraft, it doesn't really need to land
as near to launch site as possible.

If they're only going to attempt to recycle a few components inside,
perhape the capsule can be emptied on site and the remains sent to a
local recycling firm nearest to where the capsule fell.

Or they could target any body of water near US warships. The warships
can recover the capsule, remove the recoverablke devices from the
capsule, and then stow the remains in some dark corner of the ship until
it next docks at a port with aluminium recycling facility.

There is a lot of water about, but not much land with nothing to hit on it
I think. Are they really able to land by parachute really accurately?

I think the only non-reuseable component is the heat shield (base) - it's
made of phenolic carbon fibre. From memory, the Orion capsule is
re-useable
10 times. Also, sea or air landing, they still have to transport the crew
and experiment results back to the Cape; that means aircraft and probably
jets at that. If they land near the Cape, they might be able to do
recovery
with helicopters.

Reusability is a bit up in the air. With Orion's problems (many of which
are caused by Ares I's performance problems), I'm guessing that
reusability
is one of the many things they'll drop from the design.

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:3ed5e$47fcc34e$927a2cda$13031@FUSE.NET...
Reusability is a bit up in the air. With Orion's problems (many of which
are caused by Ares I's performance problems), I'm guessing that
reusability
is one of the many things they'll drop from the design.

If they just used the Delta IV Heavy like I told 'em....

NASA thinks it has a mandate to keep as many shuttle workers employed as
possible. This includes workers at ATK currently making/refurbishing
shuttle RSRM's and workers at Michoud who are currently building shuttle
ET's. To say nothing of the infrastructure at KSC like the VAB, pads,
crawlers, and etc.

I'm hoping that the $#!^ hits the fan after the presidential election is
over and the politicians wake up and realize what an expensive dog Ares I
is
turning out to be. The space station program was shaken up several times
over the years due to excessive spending and program delays. Ares/Orion
looks to be headed down the same path.