Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_camperdave t1_ixsqh3t wrote

Reply to comment by Your_Gonna_Hate_This in Orion snaps 'selfie' with the Moon as it prepares for distant retrograde orbit | Insertion burn scheduled to take place today then engineers have six days to see how spacecraft fares in deep space by chrisdh79

> Why do they look like they're the same quality as what we could get in the 70s?

Because NASA is using the technology of the 1970s. An Apollo style capsule splashing down into an ocean followed by a naval search and rescue op? I mean, really! What has NASA got against landing on land? I mean, they even forced the Crew Dragon to splash down instead of doing a civilized landing.

−4

OpinionBearSF t1_ixsvnln wrote

> What has NASA got against landing on land? I mean, they even forced the Crew Dragon to splash down instead of doing a civilized landing.

Water covers around 2/3 of the earth's surface to land covering around 1/3. That immediately gives a vessel looking for a water landing an advantage in having more suitable landing spots.

Water is also a softer and less complex landing than a land landing, which is important when squishy fragile humans are onboard, especially if the return is hampered by crew health or vehicle health issues.

7

The_camperdave t1_ixt08za wrote

> ...a vessel looking for a water landing...

Why is the vessel looking for a water landing? Why can't it land on the ground? The Russians have been doing it for over 50 years, with hundreds upon hundreds of successful missions.

−2

WarNewsNetwork t1_ixt253i wrote

He just answered: water is softer and less complex for squishy humans. And USA has a navy that is well prepped to catch space faring sailors as they descend back to their fertile marble.

4

The_camperdave t1_ixt9sm4 wrote

> He just answered: water is softer and less complex for squishy humans.

So NASA astronauts are soft,and NASA can't handle "complex"? I don't buy it. There must be a better reason.

−3

wow360dogescope t1_ixtbeie wrote

Did the other reason completely go over your head? The US Navy.

I have another for you. Weight reduction.

SpaceX opting for splashdown wasn't forced on them by NASA.

3

OpinionBearSF t1_ixtzd2q wrote

> Why is the vessel looking for a water landing? Why can't it land on the ground? The Russians have been doing it for over 50 years, with hundreds upon hundreds of successful missions.

Water is softer and easier/safer for squishy humans to land on (especially if sick or injured) than land, and there is much more water than land.

Russia opted not to do water landings because they did not and do not have an extensive Navy to provide recovery services.

1

The_camperdave t1_ixvn454 wrote

> Water is softer and easier/safer for squishy humans to land on (especially if sick or injured) than land, and there is much more water than land.

I understand a splashdown as an emergency contingency, but Orion was being designed to land on the ground. I've seen pictures.

1

OpinionBearSF t1_ixvql5y wrote

> I understand a splashdown as an emergency contingency, but Orion was being designed to land on the ground. I've seen pictures.

Previous spacecraft (such as Apollo) could also land on land as an emergency contingency, but there were serious risks to both the spacecraft and its occupants if that were done.

Overall, a water landing is gentler to people and machinery.

1