Return of Apollo

"Joseph S. Powell, III" wrote in message

God, I hope not - I'd rather we develop a robust, reliable OSP - we don't
want to go back to spashdowns.

Is there any reasoning behind this hope?

Jon

In article ,
Jon Berndt wrote:
God, I hope not - I'd rather we develop a robust, reliable OSP - we don't
want to go back to spashdowns.

Is there any reasoning behind this hope?

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.

Routine operations just get a whole bunch easier if a normal return ends
in a land touchdown, with a splashdown strictly an emergency procedure.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

In article ,
Jon Berndt wrote:
God, I hope not - I'd rather we develop a robust, reliable OSP - we don't
want to go back to spashdowns.

Is there any reasoning behind this hope?

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.

Routine operations just get a whole bunch easier if a normal return ends
in a land touchdown, with a splashdown strictly an emergency procedure.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message

Jon Berndt wrote:

Is there any reasoning behind this hope?

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.

Routine operations just get a whole bunch easier if a normal return ends
in a land touchdown, with a splashdown strictly an emergency procedure.

A valid concern. My question referred also to the subtle suggestion by the
poster that a *capsule* was undesirable - but maybe I read too much into the
statement. I agree that a land touchdown is probably preferable.

Jon

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message

Jon Berndt wrote:

Is there any reasoning behind this hope?

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.

Routine operations just get a whole bunch easier if a normal return ends
in a land touchdown, with a splashdown strictly an emergency procedure.

A valid concern. My question referred also to the subtle suggestion by the
poster that a *capsule* was undesirable - but maybe I read too much into the
statement. I agree that a land touchdown is probably preferable.

Jon

Henry Spencer 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.

Routine operations just get a whole bunch easier if a normal return
ends in a land touchdown, with a splashdown strictly an emergency
procedure.

How about getting all the *fresh* water out? Why not spash down in
one of the Great Lakes?
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

Henry Spencer 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.

Routine operations just get a whole bunch easier if a normal return
ends in a land touchdown, with a splashdown strictly an emergency
procedure.

How about getting all the *fresh* water out? Why not spash down in
one of the Great Lakes?
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

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.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

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.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

(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.

A steerable parachute like X-38's, and you could set it down right next to
the pier (almost).


--
Reed