Slashdot Mirror


Chopper Pilots Train to Catch Space Probe

mav[LAG] writes "Hollywood helicopter pilots have been training for a unique catch planned for September: they will hopefully snag in midair the parachute of a capsule dropped by the Genesis project before it touches down in the Utah desert. The capsule will contain collector arrays of solar particles that should, er, shed some light on the origins of the solar system."

44 comments

  1. Another Article by ewithrow · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Here is another article (along with a huge picture!) at the official JPL NASA website.

    1. Re:Another Article by bbuchs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it just me, or does that photo look fake? It looks like someone made a (crappy) mask of the parachute from another image, drew in a red line for the pole coming out the side of the chopper, and plopped it all together.

    2. Re:Another Article by p4ul13 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It does look very fake. Even stranger is the fact that the thumbnail on the left shows the same picture with a red/white/blue parachute as described in the article. The large picture shows yellow/green/red.

      Very very odd.

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    3. Re:Another Article by Frennzy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Er...look at the date. Those are artist's renditions of the recovery. It hasn't happened yet.

    4. Re:Another Article by p4ul13 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Err, I'm quite aware of the date. The article was also discussing the test-run whish *has* happened already, and could easily have yielded real photos.

      Since they decided to use an artists rendition, the question still remains, who was the blind, armless, computer-illiterate who put that pic together?

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    5. Re:Another Article by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It does look very fake. Even stranger is the fact that the thumbnail on the left shows the same picture with a red/white/blue parachute as described in the article. The large picture shows yellow/green/red.

      Actually, it looks like it's missing the blue channel from the entire picture for some reason. That explains the color discrepancy, and why the helicopter is such a wonderfully eye-hurting shade of red.

    6. Re:Another Article by kekoap · · Score: 1
      Actually, it looks like it's missing the blue channel from the entire picture for some reason.

      That does not explain the color descrepancy. If there were no blue in the larger picture, then there would be no white either! The background would be yellow if there were no blue in the larger image. Also, the blue of the red-white-blue parachute would be black, not green, after taking out the blue.

      It looks photoshopped to me, but what do I know.

    7. Re:Another Article by Alsee · · Score: 1

      it looks like it's missing the blue channel

      Interesting guess, but no.

      They are actually two different parachutes. Look at the bottom-left corner of the chutes. The blue/white shute has a nice square corner and straight bottom. The yellow/green chute has stair-step shape fold in the corner, and the bottom is anything but straight.

      A close inspection of the large image reveals that a segment of the hook-line is invisible. It runs from the chpper to the top-right corner of the chute and dissapears "behind" it and reappears at the hook at the bottom, but it is quite clear in close-up that the line should reappear in that notch in the chute between the top and the hook.

      It is clearly a single full color photo of a chopper in the mountains. The chute and payload are definitely added.

      I'd give good odds that the hook-line is added as well. If you rotate the large image 35.4 degrees you can see the hook-line is, to the limit of the resolution, perfectly straight. Unless I am mistaken, a weighted rope blown at that angle by the wind should have a perceptable curve to it.

      Chuckle, you can only get this stuff at Slashdot :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  2. Maybe it's just me ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... but it seems like putting a little more engineering into the thing to make a softer ground landing would have been easier, and safer, than relying on this bizarre mid-air catch. The article says it will probably survive the landing even if the pilot misses; how much extra material would have been required to soften the landing enough for them to be sure?

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:Maybe it's just me ... by WyerByter · · Score: 5, Informative

      They have been doing bizarre mid-air catches for decades. Early spy satalites got their film to the ground by dropping them. Specially modified bombers with nets on poles sticking out of their noses would catch them in mid-air. Though I don't know why it doesn't have air-bags.

      --

      This signiture copied from somewhere.
    2. Re:Maybe it's just me ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll be damned -- I had no idea. Thanks for the info.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Maybe it's just me ... by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      They have been doing bizarre mid-air catches for decades

      My failing memory is trying to tell me about a spy extraction technique I once saw on some TV show (History? Discovery?). I Googl...oops, searched but couldn't find a reference.

      Two high (25'?) poles would be set up with a cable between them, and the secret agent would don a harness and attach the harness via another cable to the "highwire". Along would come a low-flying (under the enemy radar) plane with a tailhook and essentially spring the person away.

      Now, assuming that I didn't just imagine seeing this technique or misremembered that it actually "happened" in a Bond movie or spy novel, the poor shmoe on the ground would have to have been wearing some kind of head brace, otherwise his neck would be snapped.

    4. Re:Maybe it's just me ... by hubie · · Score: 3, Informative
      You are correct about the spy extaction. It used Robert Fulton's SKYHOOK (he was the grandson of the fameous Robert Fulton). It was used in Thunderball as well as John Wayne's The Green Berets.

      The most exciting use of it, in my opinion, was in the Arctic for Operation COLD FEET. A summary is given here, and a good book on it is here (or at least a review of the book---I've read the book, by the way, and I couldn't put it down until I finished it).

    5. Re:Maybe it's just me ... by lgbarker · · Score: 2, Funny

      The summary is great.
      I especially liked the section labeled "The Skyhook System".
      Apparently pigs not only have nervous systems much like humans but react with similar emotions to be being "volunteered".

    6. Re:Maybe it's just me ... by mi · · Score: 1
      Though I don't know why it doesn't have air-bags.

      Because those would have to survive liftoff and be light enough for there being enough fuel to accelerate and slow down the whole thing?

      Even if possible at all, adding them to the probe would, likely, have costed more than a few dozens of new helicopters...

      It is considered likely, that the results of the mission will survive the impact of the landing -- catching it in mid-air just adds some more protection. At a reasonable price.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Maybe it's just me ... by fpga_guy · · Score: 1
      how much extra material would have been required to soften the landing enough for them to be sure?

      The point is that every extra gram of spacecraft mass required to "soften the landing" would had to have been launched, inserted into orbit, kickec out of orbit, and kicked back into the earth's atmosphere, along with the milligrams of actual solar wind material.

      So, you add, say, 1 kilogram (a very low estimate) of spacecraft mass, to protect the aerogel panels, you've then got to add the extra propellant necessary to shift that mass around...

      Mass = money in the spacecraft biz - much easier to do what's been done plenty of times before, and catch it on the way down. The only real difference is that this payload has been inserted back into earth orbit, rather than just coming from there like the spy sats others have talked about.

  3. Not exactly unique by Merlin42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Back in the early days of spy satelites this was common practice. After a spy sat finished a roll of film it would be ejected and caught somewhere over the Pacific by a Navy pilot. IIRC they used planes and not chopers.

    1. Re:Not exactly unique by Black+Rabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember reading about some early satellites that were retrieved using planes. The Discovery series comes to mind...satellite's name, not the TV channel...but I can't remember what the purpose was. This would have been somewhere around 1960 or thereabouts. The Discoveries were the first satellites to make successful reentries.

    2. Re:Not exactly unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russians were especially fond of this practice as well for their spy satellites.

    3. Re:Not exactly unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discovery ==> Project CORONA. Those pics have been declassified.

      Yes, they caught the capsules with planes.

  4. no military? by Drunken_Jackass · · Score: 1

    WTF - they can't have the military do this? I'm sure there are pilots that are more than capable.

    --
    There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
    1. Re:no military? by zangdesign · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. Because all the military pilots capable of doing this are tied up elsewhere?

      2. Because military pilots aren't trained to do crazy-ass stunt-type flying?

      3. Liability issues?

      4. PR?

      5. Because stunt pilots log more flying hours than military pilots and are therefore slightly better trained?

      6. Because no military pilot is stupid enough to do something like this?

      Pick one. Or pull it out of your butt like I did. Personally, I think #2 is probably a good reason.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    2. Re:no military? by Drunken_Jackass · · Score: 1

      Aw, cmon man. I did this kinda stuff when i was 10 in Defender. Honestly, it's not that hard. You just have to watch out for the mountains.

      --
      There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
    3. Re:no military? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, cmon man. I did this kinda stuff when i was 10 in Defender. Honestly, it's not that hard. You just have to watch out for the mountains.

      It's a lot harder in 3D, as I discovered when I tried flying my simulated Harrier jet into the simulated parachutes of enemy pilots whose planes I'd shot down...

    4. Re:no military? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because NASA is, first and foremost, a civilian agency.

  5. Kahn! by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 4, Funny

    The stakes are high, because if the probe touches down it will destroy all life on Earth before reterraforming the planet.

    --
    For great justice.
    1. Re:Kahn! by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it'll bring back spock...

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  6. Did that in 1960. by retostamm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why is this hard?

    I understand that the early spy satellites did not have CCD's, but only Cameras, and they'd drop the Films to earth (reentry and all) and those would be caught in flight by a modified plane, developed and looked at.

    That was with Slide Rules and stuff, no serious computers then, and no helicopters, I think. Why is it hard today?

    Quote: "A special feature of the Discoverer Program was that the satellites were to eject capsules after a certain number of orbits. The capsule was supposed to reenter the atmosphere and release a parachute so that the capsule could be recovered. Specially modified aircraft were fitted with two long booms which extended from the aircraft and had a rope stretched between the tips of the booms. If everything went according to plan, the rope would catch the shrouds of the parachute of the de-orbited capsule."

    from
    http://spacecovers.com/pricelists/categori es/categ ory_satellites.htm

    1. Re:Did that in 1960. by retostamm · · Score: 5, Informative
      Some better Links to how this was done:
    2. Re:Did that in 1960. by RabidMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      a good description:

      "When a film canister was full, it was jettisoned back to earth
      over Hawaii in a ceramic container that deployed a parachute.
      These were retrieved in mid-air by Air Force C-119 airplanes
      (the so-called "Flying Boxcars") that were outfitted with long
      snag lines strung between twin tails. If the planes missed, the
      canisters would splash down and float in the Pacific Ocean for
      up to two days so the Navy could get to them. After two days,
      salt plugs would dissolve and the canisters would sink into the
      ocean depths to avoid unfriendly retrieval. Even so, at least
      one canister is known to have gotten into enemy hands."

      from http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/m ay/m15-016.shtml

      --
      We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
    3. Re:Did that in 1960. by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      Looks like it only took them 14 tries.

    4. Re:Did that in 1960. by hopemafia · · Score: 1

      The difference here may be the weight of the object. I doubt the spy satellite film capsules weighed 420 pounds (but I couldn't find any data on what they did weigh).

      Still the whole helocopter stunt does seem to be a complicated way to deorbit a payload...why not just make it waterproof, give it a bigger parachute, and have it splash down in the Pacific?

      --
      If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
    5. Re:Did that in 1960. by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      That was with Slide Rules and stuff, no serious computers then, and no helicopters, I think. Why is it hard today?

      Because real engineering (not what Slashdot readers consider to be engineering) is all about being reasonable; I.E. not focusing on precision to the nth decimal point.

      Beleive it or not, it is still possible to build very complicated things (except computers themselves) without the aid of computers.

      However, this takes highly-skilled professionals working as a team, and they work together towards a common goal and put aside political bullshit and personality conflicts. It's pretty amazing to see in action, and dammit computers are not necessary for this to happen.

  7. Train to Catch Space Probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The hardest part of this is building the track REALLY FAST when you find out where the probe is going to land, so you can make sure that the train is there to catch it.

    1. Re:Train to Catch Space Probe by Scorchio · · Score: 1

      Damn you - I have coffee all over my keyboard now...

  8. Your intuition is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    - mid-air catch is a proven, reasonable technique
    - putting more engineering into the thing would make it heavier, less reliable, and more expensive to launch.

  9. Project Genesis could be a failure… by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if the lamb lays down on Broadway.

  10. Chopper Dave, by Tombstone-f · · Score: 2, Funny

    we have uh-oh.

  11. Happy Hooker by J_Omega · · Score: 3, Informative

    NASA has used an airplane to snag sounding rocket payloads on descent for years. Affectionately named the "Happy Hooker" because that's just what it did, latched a big hook onto the parachute.

    As part of a university program that launched a joint venture sounding rocket from Wallops Island, this wasn't an available option for us. We constructed the payload to be watertight and boyant, and hired a tuna-boat to go out and pick the thing out of the Atlantic.

    *cheers* to all SPIRIT teammates if they happen to read this. It was an outstanding success.


  12. Corona reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here is a PDF reference to Corona
    The only feasible retrieval scenario was determined to be aerial capture, shown in Figure 11. This method was used in the CIA's Corona program, the first successful spy satellite system. The photographs taken by the Corona satellites were deployed from the satellite in film canisters to be retrieved by aerial capture. Aerial capture was used so that no one would have the opportunity to access the spy photographs.
    Figure 11 in this PDF shows an airplane snagging a film "bucket".
  13. little more engineering... by torpor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you know, engineering is not always about what you do, its about what you don't do.

    remember that this particular object will have to have:

    a) survived construction on earth
    b) survived launch and liftoff, and subsequent separations of other stages of the vehicle,
    c) gotten itself into the specific flightpaths and orbits and such that required it to complete its mission
    d) stay in touch with earth
    e) complete its mission
    f) get back ... blah blah blah ... &etc.

    and you want to add just 'a little more engineering' to it, to make it easier for it to land on the ground.

    where, inevitably, the chances of the contents of the collector, a substance we know little about (yet), being dispersed to the winds of earth as a result of collision, will be much higher ...

    personally, i'd have preferred they put the engineering lab doing the analysis of this material in space, where it belongs and not bothered bringing stuff into the atmosphere ...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  14. It is a fake by LogosFerret · · Score: 1
    Hmm, perhaps the quotation on the small thumbnail could explain it?
    The Genesis spacecraft returns to the Earth on September 8, 2004 in a dramatic mid-air capture.
    Last I checked it was still May 2, 2004...