testtest

Godspeed, Artemis (which is filled with Hornet drivers)

Dry land returns require a much heavier capsule to withstand the shock and multiple retro rockets to cushion the impact in addition to parachutes. There are cons to ocean landings also, but we've opted for less weight and no retros. Note that with new technology we can now put four crewmembers in the capsule instead of three. I foresee continuing water landings to make room for people and equipment for an eventual moon base.

Just to piggy-back on @Cedric 's comments,

I'm still a fan of the Space Plane. NASA/Space Force has been using two X-38Bs for many years and Sierra Space has developed the Dream Chaser, both which are smaller vehicles but with better heat shield tech and simpler launchers.


1776107158247.png



1776107108360.png



1776107201588.png



1776107360340.png



1776107254522.png


1776107300547.png


But because of the Space Shuttle issues/disasters NASA seems to have a phobia about space planes and is relying on the capsule method for both Artemis & ISS visits. But the capsules are really one-use only crew vehicles vs. multiple use abilities and broader landing capabilities of spaceplanes.

I think space planes will eventually be more useful.

My .02
 
‘Integrity, Arriving’: How a Navy Crew Recovered Four NASA Astronauts and their Ship After a Historic Lunar Mission

With NASA’s approval, a fleet of small craft carrying several dozen Navy and NASA recovery and medical personnel sprang into action as Murtha — Artemis II’s recovery ship and at-sea base for the joint mission — sailed about a mile away. Its mission: Stabilize the capsule, open the hatch, assess the astronauts, get them on a raft and hoist them up and then fly back to ship.


1776139220716.png
 
Back
Top