A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sea or land landings?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 2nd 12, 08:18 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Sea or land landings?

What are the pros and cons of the two. From here, apart from the fact that
there is more sea than land, it seems to me that landing in the sea could be
far more problematical from the reuse point of view than a land landing,
and also historically its only been used for US landings presumably as it
was convenient when targeting was not that good. Maybe its just that the
need for a wilderness area is too great for other countries to achieve when
land is being considered.

However, I'd have thought nowadays a land landing should be possible with
much better understanding of the problems.
Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

Blind user, so no pictures please!


  #2  
Old July 2nd 12, 02:12 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default Sea or land landings?

In article ,
says...

What are the pros and cons of the two. From here, apart from the fact that
there is more sea than land, it seems to me that landing in the sea could be
far more problematical from the reuse point of view than a land landing,


This is true. Salt water and aerospace grade structures and electronics
don't mix well.

and also historically its only been used for US landings presumably as it
was convenient when targeting was not that good. Maybe its just that the
need for a wilderness area is too great for other countries to achieve when
land is being considered.


We've done it that way because we've always done it that way. Dragon
came down very close to its intended landing location. Add in
propulsive landing, which they plan to do, and it could make pinpoint
landings just about anywhere you want.

But if you're paranoid, there are large, flat, areas in the US which are
sparsely populated. I believe that Henry Spencer mentioned the Great
Plains as a possibility. Sure you might flatten a few crops, but paying
a farmer for that sort of damage ought to be cheaper than the ships
necessary for a recovery at sea.

However, I'd have thought nowadays a land landing should be possible with
much better understanding of the problems.


It is. It's just never been done in the US before. Note that the
Russians have *always* landed on land.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker
  #3  
Old July 2nd 12, 04:07 PM posted to sci.space.station
Chris Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 120
Default Sea or land landings?

Jeff Findley writes:

Note that the
Russians have *always* landed on land.


Except for the times they've hit a lake, at least twice, once with a
crew on board. At least that once didn't sink, unlike one of the
unmanned tests. Still, it was winter, and the combination of a
snowstorm restricting helicopter flights, ice making it hard to move the
spacecraft, and cold making for a dangerous night meant that the rescue
team was somewhat surprised to find the cosmonauts still alive when they
finally got the spacecraft to shore and the hatch open.
  #4  
Old July 2nd 12, 10:14 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jochem Huhmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Sea or land landings?

Chris Jones writes:

Jeff Findley writes:

Note that the
Russians have *always* landed on land.


Except for the times they've hit a lake, at least twice, once with a
crew on board. At least that once didn't sink, unlike one of the
unmanned tests. Still, it was winter, and the combination of a
snowstorm restricting helicopter flights, ice making it hard to move the
spacecraft, and cold making for a dangerous night meant that the rescue
team was somewhat surprised to find the cosmonauts still alive when they
finally got the spacecraft to shore and the hatch open.


The Soyuz capsule is qualified for a water landing in an emergency and
training for this is mandantory for the crew. It also carries survival
equipment like hydrosuits with a floatation vest.

Some photos:
http://www.africaninspace.com/home/g...ea/index.shtml
http://suzymchale.com/ruspace/soysurvive.html


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  #5  
Old July 4th 12, 04:09 AM posted to sci.space.station
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Sea or land landings?

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...



It is. It's just never been done in the US before. Note that the
Russians have *always* landed on land.


That's not quite true. We did land 100+ shuttle flights on land.

And Stardust and I believe some other missions have landed on land.


Jeff


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #7  
Old July 6th 12, 12:28 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Sea or land landings?

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:12:11 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:


What are the pros and cons of the two. From here, apart from the fact that
there is more sea than land, it seems to me that landing in the sea could be
far more problematical from the reuse point of view than a land landing,


This is true. Salt water and aerospace grade structures and electronics
don't mix well.

and also historically its only been used for US landings presumably as it
was convenient when targeting was not that good. Maybe its just that the
need for a wilderness area is too great for other countries to achieve when
land is being considered.


We've done it that way because we've always done it that way.


Because we started out more or less with no choice. The first Mercury
flights were suborbital and there's no suitable land downrange of the
launch site for suborbital hops.

Also, our launch sites are all coastal, and so have easy access to the
sea. Russian and China launch from deep inland.

Brian
  #8  
Old July 6th 12, 01:28 PM posted to sci.space.station
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Sea or land landings?


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...



It is. It's just never been done in the US before. Note that the
Russians have *always* landed on land.


That's not quite true. We did land 100+ shuttle flights on land.


True, X-38 and shuttle both land on runways. I should have specified
that the US has never done it with a manned capsule.

And Stardust and I believe some other missions have landed on land.


True. A few unmanned capsules have landed on land in the US.

Jeff


And in fairness Jeff, I was pretty sure you knew that. Just added more for
others reading along at home. :-)



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
moon landings Leff T Wright Amateur Astronomy 16 July 12th 08 09:55 PM
Apollo landings Hugh Janus Amateur Astronomy 22 July 14th 06 02:09 AM
best/worst landings [email protected] Space Shuttle 0 February 21st 06 01:03 AM
Meteroite Landings David A. Seiver UK Astronomy 7 November 28th 05 08:30 PM
Moon landings [email protected] Science 9 September 12th 05 10:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.