All previous American capsules (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) splashed down in the ocean when returning. The U.S. navy provided recovery operations to NASA. The system was extremely simple, practical and completely passive with ocean water providing cooling to the heat shield, a soft “cushion” on which to land, shock absorption and a near infinite landing area free of obstacles. For the Orion NASA has adopted the far more complex and dangerous Russian approach of landing capsules on solid ground. Landing will require larger parachutes for a slower descent, a large crumple zone underneath for shock absorption, a dangerous solid-fuled retro-rocket system within the capsule to further slow descent plus jettisoning the massive heat shield to further lighten impact. Failure of any part of the system would almost certainly mean injury or loss of the crew. NASA claims the move will save enormous recovery cost $$. But the navy could provide all that free of charge. What savings?
never say never
never say never
















2 Comments Received
June 16th, 2010 @9:15 am
The Navy can’t provide that service free of charge because it costs them money. And it takes them off of whatevery other mission they have to do. Ocean recovery is actually pretty difficult and dangerous, too. The second US man in space (Gus Grissom) nearly drowned when his capsule sunk.
I think that guidance and control systems are a lot more advanced than they were in the 60s so they pretty much pin point ground landings. The shuttle is incredibly complicated to land but they manage unpowered decents pretty well and incredibly accurately.
June 16th, 2010 @4:42 pm
design for re-use
Leave A Reply