"Brian Gaff" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:73QKj.4514$yD2.3939@text.news.virginmedia.com...
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?

As someone else pointed out, it's not so much landing accuracy as much as
making sure the service module impacts somewhere safe, like the ocean. But
yes, landing accuracy can be high for a capsule. The aerodynamic shape of
the capsule provides quite a bit of hypersonic lift, which you can use for
both G-load reduction and for adding crossrange. If you add a parafoil type
parachute to the thing, you can land a capsule pretty much anywhere you
want.

Still, landing at Edwards is safer. Note that early shuttle flights landed
at Edwards. There is *a lot* of empty, dry lakebed there.

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.

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:25:57 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:

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.

I think the "removable heat shield" is the key to reusability, and
that almost certainly won't be going away, as it is a fundamental
design element.

Dunking in the ocean might hurt, but that didn't stop them from
reflying a Gemini, so I suspect that's more superstition than a factor
preventing reusability.

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:


"Brian Gaff" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:73QKj.4514$yD2.3939@text.news.virginmedia.com...
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?

As someone else pointed out, it's not so much landing accuracy as much
as making sure the service module impacts somewhere safe, like the
ocean. But yes, landing accuracy can be high for a capsule. The
aerodynamic shape of the capsule provides quite a bit of hypersonic
lift, which you can use for both G-load reduction and for adding
crossrange. If you add a parafoil type parachute to the thing, you can
land a capsule pretty much anywhere you want.

Which brings up interesting questions regarding a 'short' landing as a
backup mode.

Still, landing at Edwards is safer. Note that early shuttle flights
landed at Edwards. There is *a lot* of empty, dry lakebed there.

The presence of the lake bed for the Shuttle is irrelevant, they
didn't land on the lakebed. They _couldn't_ land on the lakebed.

Other than the shuttle that landed on the lakebed, right?

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.

The presence of the lake bed for the Shuttle is irrelevant, they
didn't land on the lakebed. They _couldn't_ land on the lakebed.

Other than the shuttle that landed on the lakebed, right?

As long as it doesn't cost 'us' (not just Americans) access to space. One
thing Orion will do is increase competition; along with Dragon and Soyuz.
I'm starting to think along the lines that Orion will only be used for
'high
Earth orbits' - Moon missions, while Dragon is used for ISS etc. Even
with
that, once Dragon's proved itself, it would be easy to adapt it for Lunar
use; which means Orion will be out of business.

fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in
news:47fdf94c.1772411312@news.supernews.com:

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Still, landing at Edwards is safer. Note that early shuttle flights
landed at Edwards. There is *a lot* of empty, dry lakebed there.

The presence of the lake bed for the Shuttle is irrelevant, they
didn't land on the lakebed. They _couldn't_ land on the lakebed.

Other than the shuttle that landed on the lakebed, right?

There's also the point that Gemini wasn't designed for re-useability; if
Orion is, then it should be OK.

On Apr 8, 3:10 am, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> 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.

Orion will be landing in the Gulf of Mexico.

Don't use wiki for space info

charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:53c23b3d-f4da-4146-a4d6-f7f4518e3811@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 8, 3:10 am, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> 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.

Orion will be landing in the Gulf of Mexico.

Don't use wiki for space info

So, where'd you get your information?

charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:4b63165b-523c-408f-95fe-eb7394abb59e@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 10, 11:31 am, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> wrote:
So, where'd you get your information?

CxP

What's that?

The presence of the lake bed for the Shuttle is irrelevant, they
didn't land on the lakebed. They _couldn't_ land on the lakebed.

Other than the shuttle that landed on the lakebed, right?

Which mission was that?

Enterprise - the landing tests

On Apr 10, 11:31 am, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> wrote:

So, where'd you get your information?

CxP