"gmw" wrote:
Once the shuttle is retired a shuttle free reusable capsule is also
possible. If memory serves the Apollo capsules were intended to be
reusable, they were to "thump" down on land and be refurbished.
Your memory fails. Gemini briefly was intended to come down on land
(under a parawing), but Apollo was targeted for a water landing from
the start.
Again, I ma working from memory, each Apollo capsule could have bee
flown up to five times. Political posturing about whose congressional district
the returning heroes would thump down in led to NASA to switch to a water landing.
Your memory fails. There never was any such thing considered.
Strongly, being heated to several thousand degrees before taking a sal****er
dunk did nothing for the capsules reusability.
Your knowledge fails. The interior of the capsule is exposed to
neither great heat, nor sal****er. The heatshield, which is so
exposed, would have to be replaced each time regardless of landing
mode.
One of the primary arguments against a capsule is the need to mount a full
scale search and rescue effort every time one lands.
Your knowledge fails. With few exceptions the capsules came down in
the intended area, and neither search nor rescue was required.
But, I have also seen drawing and notes for a controlled landing by an advance
Gemini capsule using a fabric based, hang glider like Rollo wing.
Your knowledge fails. That's the original intended landing mode for
Gemini, but the parawing was canceled when it had severe developmental
problems.
Putting the two together and a reusable capsule is a very doable
and much less expensive than many make it out to be.
That's an opinion, and a very debatable one at that.
D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:
Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to
, as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.