Splashdown

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 02/18/2016 at 11:05 • Filed to: planelopnik, spacelopnik

3

9

NASA/David C. Bowman

At NASA’s !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! in Virginia, NASA and Boeing engineers drop a full-scale test article of Boeing’s !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! into the the LRC’s Hydro Impact Basin. Unlike the earlier Apollo capsules, the Starliner is built to come down on dry land. But in the unlikely event of a water landing, the designers need to be sure that the capsule will float properly, and they also need to test crew rescue and recovery procedures.

NASA illustration

The Starliner is part of NASA’s !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , a joint venture between NASA and private industry to develop a sustainable and reliable way to send astronauts to the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and into low Earth orbit. After launching atop an !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! rocket, the Starliner will be capable of delivering and returning up to seven crewmembers and/or cargo to the ISS. It will also provide for crew return in case of emergency, function as a 24-hour safe haven should the need arise, and be able to remain docked to the ISS for up to 210 days (the Space Shuttle could only stay docked for up to 12 days). NASA and Boeing hope to start sending the Starliner to the ISS by the end of 2017.

StingrayJake > ttyymmnn 02/18/2016 at 11:15

0

So it’s our version of the Soyuz? Guess they decided not-so-gentley-landing was feasible since the Russians have done it for decades.

ttyymmnn > StingrayJake 02/18/2016 at 11:22

0

Back in 1961, Gus Grissom landed in the Pacific after the second Gemini mission, and the explosive bolts on the hatch misfired, blowing off the door and flooding the capsule with water. Grissom nearly drowned. You’d think NASA would have learned their lesson, but, for what I am sure is some sound technical reason, they stuck with water landings. It seems to me that coming down on land would be safer, without the risks of flooding, drowning, sharks, etc. But if the gimmicks go rotten with the chutes, it won’t matter if you’re coming down on water or land. It just depends on whether you want to be buried at sea or in the ground.

StingrayJake > ttyymmnn 02/18/2016 at 11:26

0

Yeah I’m familiar with the Grissom story.

I think the tricky thing has always been building a capsule that could spare the weight for any extra fuel/engines to slow the descent. Of course pretty substantial advancements have been made in propulsion and landing systems in the last 50 years. They just haven’t been done with humans aboard yet.

ttyymmnn > StingrayJake 02/18/2016 at 11:27

0

I would imagine that significant advances have also been made in weight saving of the capsule itself.

StingrayJake > ttyymmnn 02/18/2016 at 11:29

1

Also very likely true.

Of course I hear Starliner and I think...

ttyymmnn > StingrayJake 02/18/2016 at 11:38

1

I love the Art Deco look of that ship.

StingrayJake > ttyymmnn 02/18/2016 at 12:10

1

The Star Wars prequels might have sucked, but the Naboo starships were some of the most beautiful to ever appear in the entire series.

ttyymmnn > StingrayJake 02/18/2016 at 12:16

1

Very possibly inspired by the de Havilland DH.88

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn 02/18/2016 at 16:06

1

That is a pretty plane. It looks like it’s from the future but built with 1930's technology.