Return of Apollo

(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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

"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.