 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / April 2008Why will Orion be landing at Edwards?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2 Surely, they'll be more accurate (parachute guidance?) than even the Gemini vehicles, which would allow a landing at Cape Canaveral. There are also rumours that the land-landing system will be removed if the weight keeps creeping up; if this is the case, then surely a waterborne landing near Cape Canaveral is more practical. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2 > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Cape > Canaveral is more practical. It will only land at Edwards if they keep "land landing" as the primary landing mode. From some articles I've read, they may switch to splashdowns as the primary landing mode (just as Apollo did) due to mass constraints imposed by the Ares I launch vehicle. Jeff  SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein There is a lot of water about, but not much land with nothing to hit on it I think. Are they really able to land by parachute really accurately? Brian SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jeff > There is a lot of water about, but not much land with nothing to hit on it > I think. Are they really able to land by parachute really accurately? As someone else pointed out, it's not so much landing accuracy as much as making sure the service module impacts somewhere safe, like the ocean. But yes, landing accuracy can be high for a capsule. The aerodynamic shape of the capsule provides quite a bit of hypersonic lift, which you can use for both G-load reduction and for adding crossrange. If you add a parafoil type parachute to the thing, you can land a capsule pretty much anywhere you want. Still, landing at Edwards is safer. Note that early shuttle flights landed at Edwards. There is *a lot* of empty, dry lakebed there. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >> There is a lot of water about, but not much land with nothing to hit on it >> I think. Are they really able to land by parachute really accurately? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >parachute to the thing, you can land a capsule pretty much anywhere you >want. Which brings up interesting questions regarding a 'short' landing as a backup mode. >Still, landing at Edwards is safer. Note that early shuttle flights landed >at Edwards. There is *a lot* of empty, dry lakebed there. The presence of the lake bed for the Shuttle is irrelevant, they didn't land on the lakebed. They _couldn't_ land on the lakebed. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>> There is a lot of water about, but not much land with nothing to hit >>> on it I think. Are they really able to land by parachute really [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The presence of the lake bed for the Shuttle is irrelevant, they > didn't land on the lakebed. They _couldn't_ land on the lakebed. Other than the shuttle that landed on the lakebed, right? Signature--- there should be a "sig" here >> The presence of the lake bed for the Shuttle is irrelevant, they >> didn't land on the lakebed. They _couldn't_ land on the lakebed. >> > Other than the shuttle that landed on the lakebed, right? Which mission was that? d. > >>> The presence of the lake bed for the Shuttle is irrelevant, they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which mission was that? Enterprise - the landing tests Signature--- there should be a "sig" here > > >> The presence of the lake bed for the Shuttle is irrelevant, they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which mission was that? There were 19 lakebed landing, which is too many to key in. That doesn't count ALT. Mary "There for most of them, too" SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. reunite.gondwana@gmail.com or miliff@qnet.com Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/ >>>Still, landing at Edwards is safer. Note that early shuttle flights >>>landed at Edwards. There is *a lot* of empty, dry lakebed there. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Other than the shuttle that landed on the lakebed, right? I thought there was at least one mission that landed at Edwards where they were on either the under-run or over-run for the runway, not on the lakebed itself. Still, if you were going to run off the end of the runway (including the over-run), I'd rather do it at Edwards than at KSC. For a capsule, that dry lakebed is a lot more attractive than the swamps at KSC. A capsule sitting on its side on the dry lakebed would be better than one upside down in swamp. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > >Still, landing at Edwards is safer. Note that early shuttle flights landed > >at Edwards. There is *a lot* of empty, dry lakebed there. > > The presence of the lake bed for the Shuttle is irrelevant, they > didn't land on the lakebed. They _couldn't_ land on the lakebed. Say what? They landed on every lakebed runway there is. Even ALT landed mostly on the lakebed. Mary "Really surprised at you" SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. reunite.gondwana@gmail.com or miliff@qnet.com Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > creeping up; if this is the case, then surely a waterborne landing near Cape > Canaveral is more practical. Don't forget the service module. Its debris footprint will be short of the crew module landing zone, and NASA wants to keep that debris footprint offshore. Hence, a west coast landing for the crew module, if NASA sticks to land touchdown. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > footprint offshore. Hence, a west coast landing for the crew module, if > NASA sticks to land touchdown. That suggests long-term reliance on DOD (Edwards and/or Vandenberg). The constraint you mention apparently rules out White Sands. What is the planned landing capability (if any) of the site Governor Richardson is pushing? (Obviously I favor maintaining a civilian future for humans in space, to the maximum extent possible. Hopefully the military won't continue to consume our GNP,) JTM > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2 > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > footprint offshore. Hence, a west coast landing for the crew module, if > NASA sticks to land touchdown. See what you get when you you come from the 'shuttle era'? Thanks Jorge; seems obvious when it's pointed out to me! <duh> But, didn't Gemini land in the Atlantic? I seem to remember the G-8 emergency was nearer the Cape or was that simply because it was an emergency? > But, didn't Gemini land in the Atlantic? I seem to remember the G-8 > emergency was nearer the Cape or was that simply because it was an > emergency? Actually the reverse--all but G-8 were in the Atlantic. G-8 splashed down near Japan--the only manned Gemini mission to land outside the Atlantic. As for why Orion would go West Coast instead--I suspect service module on the Orion to be much more massive than the Gemini equipment module and susceptible to having bits reach the ground... Plus it gives you a bigger target into which you can drop stuff with less chance of getting sued :-) > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > footprint offshore. Hence, a west coast landing for the crew module, if > NASA sticks to land touchdown. http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26290 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2 > > Surely, they'll be more accurate (parachute guidance?) than even the Gemini > vehicles, Gee; that's really good Since that CEV thing isn't reusable, does it really matter where it lands ? Since it won't require complex 747 and cranes to lift the burned out capsule onto some ship or cargo aircraft, it doesn't really need to land as near to launch site as possible. If they're only going to attempt to recycle a few components inside, perhape the capsule can be emptied on site and the remains sent to a local recycling firm nearest to where the capsule fell. Or they could target any body of water near US warships. The warships can recover the capsule, remove the recoverablke devices from the capsule, and then stow the remains in some dark corner of the ship until it next docks at a port with aluminium recycling facility. > Since that CEV thing isn't reusable, does it really matter where it lands ? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > capsule, and then stow the remains in some dark corner of the ship until > it next docks at a port with aluminium recycling facility. I think the only non-reuseable component is the heat shield (base) - it's made of phenolic carbon fibre. From memory, the Orion capsule is re-useable 10 times. Also, sea or air landing, they still have to transport the crew and experiment results back to the Cape; that means aircraft and probably jets at that. If they land near the Cape, they might be able to do recovery with helicopters. But, as has been pointed out, the SM's the real kicker to all this; due to its mass, it must be de-orbited to the east of any land. > I think the only non-reuseable component is the heat shield (base) - it's > made of phenolic carbon fibre. From memory, the Orion capsule is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > recovery > with helicopters. Reusability is a bit up in the air. With Orion's problems (many of which are caused by Ares I's performance problems), I'm guessing that reusability is one of the many things they'll drop from the design. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > Reusability is a bit up in the air. With Orion's problems (many of which > are caused by Ares I's performance problems), I'm guessing that reusability > is one of the many things they'll drop from the design. If they just used the Delta IV Heavy like I told 'em.... >> Reusability is a bit up in the air. With Orion's problems (many of which >> are caused by Ares I's performance problems), I'm guessing that > reusability >> is one of the many things they'll drop from the design. > > If they just used the Delta IV Heavy like I told 'em.... NASA thinks it has a mandate to keep as many shuttle workers employed as possible. This includes workers at ATK currently making/refurbishing shuttle RSRM's and workers at Michoud who are currently building shuttle ET's. To say nothing of the infrastructure at KSC like the VAB, pads, crawlers, and etc. I'm hoping that the $#!^ hits the fan after the presidential election is over and the politicians wake up and realize what an expensive dog Ares I is turning out to be. The space station program was shaken up several times over the years due to excessive spending and program delays. Ares/Orion looks to be headed down the same path. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > NASA thinks it has a mandate to keep as many shuttle workers employed as > possible. This includes workers at ATK currently making/refurbishing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > over the years due to excessive spending and program delays. Ares/Orion > looks to be headed down the same path. As long as it doesn't cost 'us' (not just Americans) access to space. One thing Orion will do is increase competition; along with Dragon and Soyuz. I'm starting to think along the lines that Orion will only be used for 'high Earth orbits' - Moon missions, while Dragon is used for ISS etc. Even with that, once Dragon's proved itself, it would be easy to adapt it for Lunar use; which means Orion will be out of business. re: Service module issue After de-orbit burn, couldn't the capsule use its little thrusters to distance itself from the SM, and then press a second big red button that would cause the SM to perform a second de-orbit burn ? Wouldn't that ensure the SM falls down much faster than the capsule, enabling capsule to land on ground while the SM would fall far away west into the ocean ? > As long as it doesn't cost 'us' (not just Americans) access to space. One > thing Orion will do is increase competition; along with Dragon and Soyuz. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that, once Dragon's proved itself, it would be easy to adapt it for Lunar > use; which means Orion will be out of business. I'd actually like to see NASA drop Orion development and instead rely con commercial providers. Having the government competing with you is not a good thing! I think COTS concepts like Dragon are going to have a hard time attracting funding when NASA has Orion as a back-up. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >>> Reusability is a bit up in the air. With Orion's problems (many of which >>> are caused by Ares I's performance problems), I'm guessing that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ET's. To say nothing of the infrastructure at KSC like the VAB, pads, > crawlers, and etc. Gee, I wonder where NASA could have possibly gotten the idea they have a "mandate" to do that...? <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.1281.enr:> S.1281 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) SEC. 502. TRANSITION. (a) In General- The Administrator shall, to the fullest extent possible consistent with a successful development program, use the personnel, capabilities, assets, and infrastructure of the Space Shuttle program in developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Crew Launch Vehicle, and a heavy-lift launch vehicle. (b) Plan- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a plan describing how NASA will proceed with its human space flight programs, which, at a minimum, shall describe-- (1) how NASA will deploy personnel from, and use the facilities of, the Space Shuttle program to ensure that the Space Shuttle operates as safely as possible through its final flight and to ensure that personnel and facilities from the Space Shuttle program are used in NASA's exploration programs in accordance with subsection (a); >> NASA thinks it has a mandate to keep as many shuttle workers employed as >> possible. This includes workers at ATK currently making/refurbishing [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > program in developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Crew Launch Vehicle, > and a heavy-lift launch vehicle. This is rather explicit, to the point of dictating Orion, Ares I, and Ares V. This appears to be nothing more than an endorsement of Griffin's chosen architecture. The House and Senate certainly didn't chose this architecture, it's the one recommended to them by the current NASA Administrator. I'm still hoping the Ares I program dies a horrible death. At the very least, ATK's large, segmented solids ought not to have anything to do with a manned launch vehicle. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > I'm still hoping the Ares I program dies a horrible death. At the very > least, ATK's large, segmented solids ought not to have anything to do with a > manned launch vehicle. It's gunna be a rough ride into orbit if they do use Ares 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I#Development_problems and http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5467711.html talk about the vibration problem. I still think it's Pogo - just a different source of the same problem - instead of propellant lines, it's the actual rocket - a much more difficult problem to solve. I'm all for Delta IV Heavy - it's already been tested; it's due for its second mission this year (a couple of weeks - an NRO payload) and its performance is quite well known (problems have been solved). That then leads to the Delta V concept replacing Ares V. >I'm all for Delta IV Heavy - it's already been tested; it's due for its >second mission this year (a couple of weeks - an NRO payload) July 25. Brian >> I'm still hoping the Ares I program dies a horrible death. At the very >> least, ATK's large, segmented solids ought not to have anything to do [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > much > more difficult problem to solve. It's not Pogo. Pogo is a different thing entirely. Pogo is a coupling of the longitudinal compression mode of the launch vehicle and *liquid* fueled engine oscillations caused by varying inlet pressures. The inlet pressure is (obviously) impacted by the longitudinal compression mode of the launch vehicle. Pogo actually increases the thrust variation of liquid engines, to the point that it can cause structural failure of the vehicle. However, there are techniques to dampen the inlet pressures on liquid fueled engines which pretty much eliminates the thrust oscillation and Pogo problem entirely. On a large, segmented, solid rocket booster, the vibrations are caused by the SRB itself, since the entire SRB casing *is* the engine. From the payload's point of view, you can do a lot to dampen these vibrations, but you'll *never* eliminate them in a SRB. This is a key difference between liquids and solids that should not be ignored or hand-waved away like Griffin wants to do with Ares I. > I'm all for Delta IV Heavy - it's already been tested; it's due for its > second mission this year (a couple of weeks - an NRO payload) and its > performance is quite well known (problems have been solved). That then > leads to the Delta V concept replacing Ares V. Yea, well if NASA started buying EELV launches, maybe there would be enough of a market that we would be able to keep both Delta and Atlas without worrying so much about duplication of effort. Instead, Griffin wants to create *yet another* launch vehicle in this same class. :-P Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > "Alan Erskine" <alan.erskine@bigpond.com> wrote in message > On a large, segmented, solid rocket booster, the vibrations are caused by > the SRB itself, since the entire SRB casing *is* the engine. From the > payload's point of view, you can do a lot to dampen these vibrations, but > you'll *never* eliminate them in a SRB. You want to damp the vibrations, not dampen them. Mary "Getting things wet doesn't help with vibrations" SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. reunite.gondwana@gmail.com or miliff@qnet.com Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/ > This is rather explicit, to the point of dictating Orion, Ares I, and Ares > V. This appears to be nothing more than an endorsement of Griffin's chosen > architecture. The House and Senate certainly didn't chose this > architecture, it's the one recommended to them by the current NASA > Administrator. And they took that recommendation and codified it into law, thus making it a mandate for Griffin. >> This is rather explicit, to the point of dictating Orion, Ares I, and >> Ares V. This appears to be nothing more than an endorsement of Griffin's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And they took that recommendation and codified it into law, thus making it > a mandate for Griffin. Griffin could go back to them and say, Ares I just isn't working out, how about Ares II (the Direct LV with two four segment SRB's and two liquid fueled engines under an ET diameter liquid stage)? The Direct supporters seem to think this would go well since it's much more of a "direct" use of shuttle hardware than the Ares I approach, requiring (hopefully) less development and hopefully less changes to ground processing equipment, hopefully resulting in less of a "gap" between shuttle and Ares/Orion flights. Since congress and the administration seem to desperately want to keep as many shuttle jobs as possible, I'm starting to think that the Direct supporters have a better approach than the current Ares I and Ares V approach. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >>> This is rather explicit, to the point of dictating Orion, Ares I, and >>> Ares V. This appears to be nothing more than an endorsement of Griffin's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >about Ares II (the Direct LV with two four segment SRB's and two liquid >fueled engines under an ET diameter liquid stage)? He doesn't have to ask Congress to do that. It is well within what Congress mandated. Griffin could go the Direct route tomorrow, if he wanted to. Some contracts would have to be tweaked (Ares I US become Direct Stage II, etc.) and the ATK lobby would be screaming louder than Boeing's fans are about the KC-45 loss, but... Brian > He doesn't have to ask Congress to do that. It is well within what > Congress mandated. Griffin could go the Direct route tomorrow, if he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Brian I would think, under the terms of the legislation (says something about using as much STS equipment as possible), that NASA could simply say it's not possible to use the SRB's due to the configuration. Then, either the config changes, or the SRB is dropped from Ares 1 and Orion becomes a Delta IV Heavy payload. >> He doesn't have to ask Congress to do that. It is well within what >> Congress mandated. Griffin could go the Direct route tomorrow, if he [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Delta > IV Heavy payload. Unfortunately, this is politically difficult (may be impossible) to do since EELV's would not preserve as many shuttle jobs as Ares or Direct. Direct seems to be a much more sensible approach to reusing shuttle hardware than Ares I and V. The Jupiter family of launch vehicles is similar to the Saturn INT-21. The only Saturn INT-21 launched was used to launch Skylab. Essentially that version is a Saturn V, minus the upper stage. Other Saturn INT-21 variants are made by deleting engines from the S-IC and S-II stages. This creates a "family" of launch vehicles that are essentially identical, except for number of engines on the stages. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satint21.htm There is also a great PDF on the web which contains the results of a study of Saturn derived launch vehicles. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > Unfortunately, this is politically difficult (may be impossible) to do > since EELV's would not preserve as many shuttle jobs as Ares or Direct. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > There is also a great PDF on the web which contains the results of a study > of Saturn derived launch vehicles. http://www.astronautix.com/data/satvint.pdf Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > > There is also a great PDF on the web which contains the results of a study > > of Saturn derived launch vehicles. > > http://www.astronautix.com/data/satvint.pdf I'll read it, but I think any talk of a 40-year-old launch vehicle is pointless (however, I think you're just making a point of a particular design's built-in payload capacity flexibility). If Direct is 'done', it would still have vibration problems; though not as severe as Ares 1. There's another reason for getting rid of Ares 1 and Ares V - pollution. If (when?) the dems win the presidential race, they might use any means possible to cancel both Ares 1 and V (I've also heard of an Ares IV, but it's not such a great deal). The SRB's aren't anywhere near as 'environmentally friendly' as an LV that uses LO2/LH2 and even LO2/RP1; that's another selling point in favour of the Delta/RS-68 combination (Delta IV Heavy for the ISS resupply and the RS-68 for my Delta V idea to replace Ares V). I've no doubt that Ares 1's a bad idea; I've thought that since it was suggested. Also, don't forget that production rates for the Delta IV components will be increased by using it for Orion and Delta V; that'll require more people with high skill levels like the ATK workers in Utah. Then there's the second/third (depending on the 'zero-stage idea) stage of Delta V - it'll have to be built somewhere, so why not Utah? <retorical question>. Also, the Delta V does lead to increased flexibility of the Delta IV components and its associated workforce, so where's the loss of employment that people keep mentioning? For a Delta V, all that needs to be designed from scratch is the structure for the New Core Stage (2x RS-68) and the structure for the second/third stage - even the engine for that is 'in the works' - the MB-60; Mitsubishi still has that on its website and it would be much better, and less expensive than the J-2X (afterall, 'X' means either 'unknown quantity' or 'experimental' - not an operational system) - the MB-xx would be available sooner and for much less than developing the J-2X and it would be more 'user-friendly' for other payloads - replacing two RL-10's for instance. >> > There is also a great PDF on the web which contains the results of a > study [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pointless (however, I think you're just making a point of a particular > design's built-in payload capacity flexibility). I found it interesting since the approach taken with vehicles like INT-21 is similar to what the Direct proposal does with the Jupiter launch vehicles. > If Direct is 'done', it > would still have vibration problems; though not as severe as Ares 1. True. The vibrations caused by the Jupiter launch vehicle (in the Direct proposal) ought to be the same order of magnitude that the shuttle experiences. At least NASA has a lot of experience dealing with that level of vibration when designing payloads. The big tank in the middle of shuttle and Jupiter does a lot to damp vibrations. Ares I's inline design doesn't help much with vibrations without sacraficing payload to address the problem. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > There's another reason for getting rid of Ares 1 and Ares V - pollution. If > (when?) the dems win the presidential race, they might use any means [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > IV Heavy for the ISS resupply and the RS-68 for my Delta V idea to replace > Ares V). That is a compete fallacy. LO2/LH2 isn't ecofriendly. Hydrocarbons are used to produce LH2. >> There's another reason for getting rid of Ares 1 and Ares V - pollution. >> If [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That is a compete fallacy. LO2/LH2 isn't ecofriendly. Hydrocarbons > are used to produce LH2. Don't confuse the boy with facts!?! Seriously though, you're right. It is a *very* common oversight of many people when they are touting the environmentally friendly aspects of hydrogen powered vehicles (like cars). If you're going to use hydrocarbons to produce LH2, why not burn *that* in your engine in the first place? For a first stage engine, LOX/kerosene makes a lot of sense. Kerosene is extremely dense when compared with LH2 and you avoid some of the cryogenic handling problems as well. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >Seriously though, you're right. It is a *very* common oversight of many >people when they are touting the environmentally friendly aspects of >hydrogen powered vehicles (like cars). If you're going to use hydrocarbons >to produce LH2, why not burn *that* in your engine in the first place? Because it's a hell of a lot easier to scrub the exhaust of a single continuously tuned and extremely well maintained burner system than it to do so across a couple of million burners. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>Seriously though, you're right. It is a *very* common oversight of many >>people when they are touting the environmentally friendly aspects of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > continuously tuned and extremely well maintained burner system than it > to do so across a couple of million burners. That helps reduce some of the emissions, but not all. NOx type emissions are actually created by combining N2 and O2 at high temperatures, which you don't eliminate by burning H2 instead of hydrocarbons. Fuel cells can eliminate this problem for cars, but not for a launch vehicle. But the bigger issue is that H2 is currently a renewable resource because it's far cheaper to extract it from fossil fuels than to generate it by renewable means (e.g. making it from water using electricity). Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein On Apr 17, 2:50 pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote: > Seriously though, you're right. It is a *very* common oversight of many > people when they are touting the environmentally friendly aspects of > hydrogen powered vehicles (like cars). If you're going to use hydrocarbons > to produce LH2, why not burn *that* in your engine in the first place? And that's why there is reasearch like that discussed here: <http:// www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080409170347.htm> or <http:// tinyurl.com/3veg5r> <quote> The process involves combining plant sugars, water, and a cocktail of powerful enzymes to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide under mild reaction conditions. They reported on the system, described as the world's most efficient method for producing hydrogen, at the 235th national meeting of the American Chemical Society. </quote> Dunno if you want sugar-powered rockets, though. /dps On Apr 17, 10:07 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote: > EELV's would not preserve as many shuttle jobs as Ares or Direct. By now it should be obvious to even the meanest intelligence that the Bush aim is NOT to preserve shuttle jobs. > Direct seems to be a much more sensible approach to reusing shuttle > hardware than Ares I and V. Obviously, so how does Ares (credibly) preserve shuttle jobs? JTM >Reusability is a bit up in the air. With Orion's problems (many of which >are caused by Ares I's performance problems), I'm guessing that reusability >is one of the many things they'll drop from the design. I think the "removable heat shield" is the key to reusability, and that almost certainly won't be going away, as it is a fundamental design element. Dunking in the ocean might hurt, but that didn't stop them from reflying a Gemini, so I suspect that's more superstition than a factor preventing reusability. Brian > >Reusability is a bit up in the air. With Orion's problems (many of which > >are caused by Ares I's performance problems), I'm guessing that reusability [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > reflying a Gemini, so I suspect that's more superstition than a factor > preventing reusability. There's also the point that Gemini wasn't designed for re-useability; if Orion is, then it should be OK. > There's also the point that Gemini wasn't designed for re-useability; if > Orion is, then it should be OK. I still think that's a big if. Designing for reusability can require more mass than if you don't design for reusability. Excess mass budget is one thing Orion is having trouble with (due to Ares I problems). Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > creeping up; if this is the case, then surely a waterborne landing near Cape > Canaveral is more practical. Orion will be landing in the Gulf of Mexico. Don't use wiki for space info > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2 > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Don't use wiki for space info So, where'd you get your information? > <charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So, where'd you get your information? CxP > > So, where'd you get your information? > > CxP What's that? > <charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What's that? Constellation Program > > <charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4b63165b-523c-408f-95fe-eb7394abb59e@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > > > So, where'd you get your information? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Constellation Program Right... from which source did you get the information? Do you work in the program itself and have 'hands-on' information? I got my information from the "Constellation Program" as well. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.