#31
|
|||
|
|||
Return of Apollo
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Return of Apollo
In article , Reed
Snellenberger wrote: (Henry Spencer) wrote in : It's unfortunate that the Great Lakes are so far north, which would hamper winter operations. Maybe you could use Lake Okeechobee, although that'll require greater accuracy. Not sure how much more accuracy isi required -- all of the Apollo landings (and most of the Gemini) occured within visual range of the recovery carriers. I suppose you'll want a body of water that's oriented east/west since under/overshoot would be more likely due to variations in retro times & retro-fire performance. Lakes like Conroe & Livingston (in Texas) might also be suitable, in that case -- and possibly more accessible. Apollo 11 was, I think, the largest dispersal [1] - 11nm from the ship. Closer to the target point, though - averages were 1.6nm from the target, 4.6 to the ship. Lake Unpronounceable seems to be roughly circular and about 40km (I'm eyeballing it on a large map, could be off) acrss, which seems more than good enough. It's also virtually next door to KSC, both of which are mitigating in its favour. It's also worth noting that if a craft can land in fresh water, there's no reason it can't land in salt water (assuming it's reasonably calm) as a backup - it's be a bitch to get it in prime condition again, but it's not something militating against it landing safely. The overshoot for Unpronounceable (assuming you have a few tens of miles crossrange) would be just off the Atlantic coast; the undershoot would be in the Gulf of Mexico. Both areas where you can get a rescue helicopter out quickly... [1] I played with the numbers a while back, talking about Apollo 13 - http://google.com/groups?selm=slrnbl...oc.d ur.ac.uk -- -Andrew Gray |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Return of Apollo
In article , Reed
Snellenberger wrote: (Henry Spencer) wrote in : It's unfortunate that the Great Lakes are so far north, which would hamper winter operations. Maybe you could use Lake Okeechobee, although that'll require greater accuracy. Not sure how much more accuracy isi required -- all of the Apollo landings (and most of the Gemini) occured within visual range of the recovery carriers. I suppose you'll want a body of water that's oriented east/west since under/overshoot would be more likely due to variations in retro times & retro-fire performance. Lakes like Conroe & Livingston (in Texas) might also be suitable, in that case -- and possibly more accessible. Apollo 11 was, I think, the largest dispersal [1] - 11nm from the ship. Closer to the target point, though - averages were 1.6nm from the target, 4.6 to the ship. Lake Unpronounceable seems to be roughly circular and about 40km (I'm eyeballing it on a large map, could be off) acrss, which seems more than good enough. It's also virtually next door to KSC, both of which are mitigating in its favour. It's also worth noting that if a craft can land in fresh water, there's no reason it can't land in salt water (assuming it's reasonably calm) as a backup - it's be a bitch to get it in prime condition again, but it's not something militating against it landing safely. The overshoot for Unpronounceable (assuming you have a few tens of miles crossrange) would be just off the Atlantic coast; the undershoot would be in the Gulf of Mexico. Both areas where you can get a rescue helicopter out quickly... [1] I played with the numbers a while back, talking about Apollo 13 - http://google.com/groups?selm=slrnbl...oc.d ur.ac.uk -- -Andrew Gray |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Return of Apollo
Reed Snellenberger
wrote: (Henry Spencer) wrote in : It's unfortunate that the Great Lakes are so far north, which would hamper winter operations. Maybe you could use Lake Okeechobee, although that'll require greater accuracy. Not sure how much more accuracy isi required -- all of the Apollo landings (and most of the Gemini) occured within visual range of the recovery carriers. Most all of the Apollo and Gemini craft did land close to their aimpoints, but the aimpoints were *not* fixed, but calculated postlaunch and updated across the duration of the mission. It's easy to hit your target when you can move the target to suit the path of the projectile. 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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Return of Apollo
Reed Snellenberger
wrote: (Henry Spencer) wrote in : It's unfortunate that the Great Lakes are so far north, which would hamper winter operations. Maybe you could use Lake Okeechobee, although that'll require greater accuracy. Not sure how much more accuracy isi required -- all of the Apollo landings (and most of the Gemini) occured within visual range of the recovery carriers. Most all of the Apollo and Gemini craft did land close to their aimpoints, but the aimpoints were *not* fixed, but calculated postlaunch and updated across the duration of the mission. It's easy to hit your target when you can move the target to suit the path of the projectile. 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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Return of Apollo
In article ,
Henry Spencer wrote: In article , Keith F. Lynch wrote: Spacecraft don't make good boats. Getting *all* the seawater out of a used Apollo CM was actually quite difficult. And you don't really want seawater anywhere in a spacecraft you plan to re-use... How about getting all the *fresh* water out? Why not spash down in one of the Great Lakes? It's been suggested. It's not as good as not having to get *any* water out, of course, but it's a lot better than seawater... It's unfortunate that the Great Lakes are so far north, which would hamper winter operations. Maybe you could use Lake Okeechobee, although that'll require greater accuracy. I believe that Lake Titicaca is larger than some of the Great Lakes; if not, it is next in fresh water bodies, and it is close to the equator. However, it is at a rather high altitude. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Return of Apollo
In article ,
Henry Spencer wrote: In article , Keith F. Lynch wrote: Spacecraft don't make good boats. Getting *all* the seawater out of a used Apollo CM was actually quite difficult. And you don't really want seawater anywhere in a spacecraft you plan to re-use... How about getting all the *fresh* water out? Why not spash down in one of the Great Lakes? It's been suggested. It's not as good as not having to get *any* water out, of course, but it's a lot better than seawater... It's unfortunate that the Great Lakes are so far north, which would hamper winter operations. Maybe you could use Lake Okeechobee, although that'll require greater accuracy. I believe that Lake Titicaca is larger than some of the Great Lakes; if not, it is next in fresh water bodies, and it is close to the equator. However, it is at a rather high altitude. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Return of Apollo
"Andrew Gray" wrote in message . .. In article , Reed Snellenberger wrote: (Henry Spencer) wrote in : % snip % Hate to be the buzzkill, but as I understand it, hitting the water at any speed over about 20 mph is essentially the same as landing on brick. After slowing down from 17,000 mph, I wouldn't think that it'd be a big problem shaving off the last 20 so that you can land on solid ground. I beleive the Gemini and Apollo mission designs called for water landings because they wanted to be able to deorbit almost immediately if anything went wrong (the majority of an equatorial ground track is over water), and it gave them a lot more flexibility to deal with weather - I beleive one Gemini mission landed in the Indian ocean because there was a storm in the primary landing area in the Pacific. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA updates Space Shuttle Return to Flight plans | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 20th 04 05:32 PM |
Apollo 1 Fire Jokes | Nomen Nescio | Space Shuttle | 5 | January 30th 04 01:18 AM |
NASA Names Return To Flight Task Group Members | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 25th 03 11:16 PM |
NASA Names Return To Flight Task Group Members | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 0 | July 25th 03 11:16 PM |