Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Water based capsules

Water based capsules

Posted by: FerrisValyn - Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:47 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 8 posts ] 
Water based capsules 
Author Message
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post Water based capsules   Posted on: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:47 am
I was reading Jeff Foust's Bigelow article in this weeks Space Review, and near the end, Jeff tells how they are prefering to shy away from water landings. My suspcion is that this is based on the perception that when water landings are happening, you need an area the size of an ocean for safety margins - Im wondering if that is infact the case. For example, could a company plan water landings for a capsule in one of the Great Lakes, and still maintain a high level of safety? What about the Finger lakes? Or a smaller lake, like Houghton Lake, in Michigan? Or something even smaller?


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Tue Apr 17, 2007 2:50 am
To me water landing means parachute landing, and parachute landing means less accurate. How much less? It depends on how accurate reentry is. The shuttle can come in high on purpose and circle or extend downwind if needed to loose altitude, but a parachute equipped capsule can't really do that.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:22 am
I think that there are also issues with the cost of recovery at sea, special vessels etc and possibly water ingress into the vehicle or damage to its heatshield. All of which is likely to increase the turn-around time for the vehicle.

Also there is always the chance that your craft will sink which makes it IMO more safe to choose a solid landing site.

I think that it is more likely that the vehicles servicing Bigelow stations will be lifting-body type designs for these reasons rather than a capsule.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post    Posted on: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:48 am
Quote:
I think that there are also issues with the cost of recovery at sea, special vessels etc and possibly water ingress into the vehicle or damage to its heatshield. All of which is likely to increase the turn-around time for the vehicle.

Also there is always the chance that your craft will sink which makes it IMO more safe to choose a solid landing site.


With most of the current vertical launch vehicles, there will inherently be some level of specialized vehicles inherently. And damage can be had by run-way crafts as well. As for capsule crafts that land on land, well, don't tell me there aren't safety issues there. And we've seen that winged crafts can be expensive (although I don't think the shuttle is necassarily a good measure of the technology)

And the Dragon is being designed for a water landing.

Quote:
I think that it is more likely that the vehicles servicing Bigelow stations will be lifting-body type designs for these reasons rather than a capsule.

He's said he's in discussion with Kistler, and SpaceX (or at least, I'd be surprized if they weren't), both of which use capsules, and the Dragon is water landing.

Finally, as I said someplace else, he didn't mention safety or cost when he specifically mentioned ocean landing - he mentioned the experince - I read that as more of a time kind of thing.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:24 am
Has the recovery of water-landed capsules been ship-based up to now? Ships aren't as fast as airplanes - so what about basing the recovery on airplanes?

I am thinking about airplanes like White Knight 2 or t/Space's VLA that are enabled to land on water. They might be able to get to the capsule quickly in comparison to ships, recover them and return then. This also would avoid helicopters.

What about such ideas?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (POlitical Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:10 pm
campbelp2002 wrote:
To me water landing means parachute landing, and parachute landing means less accurate. How much less? It depends on how accurate reentry is. The shuttle can come in high on purpose and circle or extend downwind if needed to loose altitude, but a parachute equipped capsule can't really do that.


With a modern parafoil, landings cound be much more accurate - wasnt the X36 (or something - the space station escape craft) a lifting body with steerable parafoil for landing?

James


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:29 pm
Gemini was originally designed to land on dry ground using a parafoil, but that capability was never used in operational flights. If it is really feasible, then why has nothing been done with it in all those years? Anyway, the parafoil only gives you control in the last 10 or 20 thousand feet to landing. The Shuttle can maneuver all the way through reentry to landing. It was a military requirement to have enough cross range maneuverability to abort to launch site after one orbit.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:54 pm
Is corrosion and erosion by water a problem at water-based capsules?

If yes then an article under www.wissenschaft.de might be of interest perhaps - in particular if contact to oil etc. is problematic as well.

The article says that americam scientists have developed a new material that behaves to oil like some known materials behave to water: hydrophobe.

Might that be of interest? In particular if reusability is intended?

The article refers to Gareth McKinley (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambrige) et al.: PNAS ( www.pnas.org/ ), Online-Pre-Publication, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0804872105



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use