Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's Orion Mock-Up Fails Parachute Test

Posted by timothy on from the perhaps-skydiving-is-not-for-you dept.

leetrout writes "Fox News has the story on a parachute test failing on a mock up of the new Orion spacecraft. 'This is the most complicated parachute test NASA has run since the '60s,' said Carol Evans, test manager for the parachute system at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. 'We are taking a close look at what caused the set-up chutes to malfunction. A failure of set-up parachutes is actually one of the most common occurrences in this sort of test.' Space.com has the video."

163 comments

  1. Common occurances... by Cyrena · · Score: 4, Funny

    A more common occurance than success?

    1. Re:Common occurances... by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At this stage of development? Quite possible. If you read up on the history of the X- series and our early space launches, it's quite scary.

      --
      Clear, Dark Skies
    2. Re:Common occurances... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think about it, when you've got success, you probably only need to do another test to make sure it wasn't a fluke. But you might need to do multiple failing tests before you ever succeed. It's a little like the old truism "you always find something in the last place you look".

    3. Re:Common occurances... by tgatliff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, except it really is kind of a disappointment that they have to "relearn" what they did with Apollo. One would have hoped they would have kept the documents and engineering notes to allow them to basically duplicate the earlier effort, but apparently they did not.

    4. Re:Common occurances... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice another Apollo reference.

      Stop the comparisons to Apollo please, they are getting old and the old blue prints are not gonna solve anything.

      Too many haters of NASA around here and too much ass kissing of the EU and Space-X flights, most of what they are doing has been done by NASA and they still get better results than the others.

    5. Re:Common occurances... by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The documents and egineering notes from Apollo are both available and useless. I really wish the urban legend would die. Do you seriously imagine that we need to "relearn" how to make parachutes for fucks sake? Please stop parroting this BS.

      We're not doing things the way we did in the 60s for the simple reason that we know much better ways of doing things. Any large-scale engineering effort will run into significant problems here or there, and the problems are rarely tied to the underlying technology. Sometimes a supplier tries to get away with being cheap, and fails. Sometimes the written procedures are ambiguous in ways only obvious in hindsight. Sometime shit just goes wrong! There are always corner cases specific to a given complicated assemby of complicated pieces that you only find by testing.

      That's why engineers do testing. To find these problems.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Common occurances... by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should, instead, lament the fact that The Reagan administration got rid of practically all of the corporate knowledge base as NASA in hopes of reducing the number of civil servants in favor of contractors they felt they could simply scale up and down as needed. The actual effect was to push out anyone capable of holding their own in the private marketplace. Some stayed at contractors for a while, while others simply left for other lines of work. Those at contractors stayed until the work dried up, and were then laid off by said contractors. At that point, they went to find jobs elsewhere.

      When NASA needed to staff up for anything, the contractors were paid to go hire people. The problem is that they went and hired younger, cheaper engineers with no experience in spaceflight. The kind of work NASA does is, for the most part, pretty specialized. Many NASA engineers can find work in other industries and be productive fairly quickly because they (a) have core competency in very custom work and (b) industry has an old guard to give them the specific training in the new specialty. Conversely, bringing in an average engineer with "pick it out of a book" mentality is going to take forever to relearn the advanced basics (I call them that - it's the 4000/5000/6000 level stuff you learn in college; not hard, per say, but complex and _not_ part of a typical engineer's day to day life). Couple that with practically _no_ old guard to teach them the intricacies and anomalies of spaceflight work and you've destined to have a slow, painful, and failure-rich engineering process.

      While the "how" is written down many places, the "why" isn't as apparent from a stack of prints. And though there are huge books of "lessons learned" on many projects, it's not easy to capture decades of experience and apply them real time given the capacity of individual human brains. What they need is continuity, not librarians.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    7. Re:Common occurances... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      No, he is right. They need to start with the old design and look at how technology can improve it instead of re-inventing the wheel all over again.

    8. Re:Common occurances... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The problem is, there has been 40 years of advancement since Apollo - not just in technology, but also in materials science, production, quality etc. Basically, we don't have access to yesterdays methods because everything supporting them is basically dead.

      Let me tell you a little story about a project an airforce undertook to modernise their maritime patrol aircraft. Instead of brand new aircraft, it was decided that to reduce costs, the fuselage of the old aircraft would be refurbished and reused, along with new wings etc.

      So everything went swimmingly well, Airbus redesigned the wings using the original 40 year old designs and delivered the first set to BAE - at which point the problems started.

      See, 40 years ago tolerances were not high. They were simply 'good enough', and the assembly line adapted the parts to fit each and every aircraft. Basically, every aircraft in the current fleet could be said to have been 'hand built', because they were.

      So after significant delays and much drilling of new holes and mounting points, BAE manages to get the wings mated with the fuselage. Only to find that the 40 year old fuselage metals reacted badly with the brand new metals of the wings. Again, 40 year old tolerances in the metals composition had it downsides - no one quite knew what exactly was in the metal.

      The project is now 8 years over due and the first aircraft isn't yet in service.

    9. Re:Common occurances... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      That point gets lost under the ramblings of shallow pseudo-analysts far too often. Everything gets overly simplified by the media into a need for NASA to do supposed "relearning", and that is patently false. It only absolves the Reagan administration of the blame for their actions and that serves no purpose at this time. It is not just technology and manufacturing guidelines that are required or every single nation would be in space right now. These are gigantic projects, and that is why they are achievements for all humanity like great works of architecture were for civilizations. This isn't like a paper doll book where you just put tab A in slot B after all and pull a few tabs to make things work. This is truly complex industrial activity. Compare it to making war ships-if all of your shipyards were eliminated, all your skilled workers laid off, and a 20+ year gap thrown in for good measure how quickly do you think you could make an aircraft carrier of any significant size?

    10. Re:Common occurances... by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, he is right. They need to start with the old design and look at how technology can improve it instead of re-inventing the wheel all over again.

      Just like Ferrari should look at a '72 Fiat and try to learn from it?

      You might be surprised, but those NASA engineers working on that parachute do have a clue how parachutes work, even the Apollo ones. They are making _better_ parachutes, and if you've ever engineered anything you'd know that the first design is never the final design. Neither is the second.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    11. Re:Common occurances... by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

      Eh, what can you expect from an aircraft called "Nimrod?"

      Good story, though, about partially updating old old tech. (Anyone who's had to maintain large bodies of legacy software is probably already familiar with the effect, though.)

      Oooh, ooh, this discussion suddenly became even more on-topic. The US counterpart to the BAE MRA4 Nimrod is the Lockheed P-3C Orion. Eerie, isn't it?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    12. Re:Common occurances... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your car analogy that is full of utter fail. The reason I think NASA should go back to Apollo is threefold. First of all it is the last time the really used parachutes. Second of all it is a design similar to Apollo so much of the design can be re-used. And third of all their current design failed it's first test.

      Ferrari DOES look back at its previous generations cars to improve upon the new ones. They don't look that far back though when they have learned so much since then. NASA hasn't learned squat since then on parachutes because they didn't use them. Really I wish they wouldn't use parachutes at all but whatever.

    13. Re:Common occurances... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      1) TFA says that this system IS Apollo-based
      2) In the test, it was not the 'chute that failed under design conditions, but rather the test was outside design bounds. In other words, just like the title of this page says, the mock-up was a failure, the parachute being mocked up did not fail.
      3) The test was a success: data was learned from it.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    14. Re:Common occurances... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why you need to maintain the momentum with massively complex technical endeavors like spaceflight, mathematics, and science in general. You can't just take a little break (i.e. screw around in LEO for a couple decades) and expect to pickup right where you left off.

    15. Re:Common occurances... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will someone please karma-rape this asshole? This is a vicious urban myth that has been shown to be a lie hundreds of times here on Slashdot. Anyone who still spreads this disinformation is a troll.

    16. Re:Common occurances... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Except that particular Orion works and is pretty easily modified. :\

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    17. Re:Common occurances... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he is right. They need to start with the old design and look at how technology can improve it instead of re-inventing the wheel all over again.

      Do you work in management? It seems to me that the only people who use these ridiculous generalities and cliches ("re-inventing the wheel") are the people who aren't doing the engineering and don't have a fucking clue what the real issues are.

      Realistically, these engineers do know the past, you little fuckwit. NASA has been building probes with parachutes for decades and they have taken the designs of their older spacecraft and put them in textbooks. The information isn't magically lost.

      Here is what was supposed to happen on the test: the spacecraft was released by airplane and put into a stable testing position with a special parachute rig. Then this rig wold detach and allow the spacecraft's own parachute recovery system to take over (the one that you would actually use). Instead, the testing parachute rig failed. The spacecraft was then out of spec for its main parachute system to operate. There is no indication whatsoever that the parachute recovery system would have failed if the test rig wasn't screwed up. There isn't some systematic flaw that could have been solved by looking at the Apollo docs. Instead, they need to fix their test rigs. And you need to lay off the hyperbole.

    18. Re:Common occurances... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not doing things the way we did in the 60s for the simple reason that we know much better ways of doing things.

      Have you seen the video?

    19. Re:Common occurances... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You know why they're going back to the moon the way they are, don't you?

      Because the current generation of NASA workers and admin look back on the shuttle as a failure, not because it IS (tho it could have done a lot more) but because they can't see the successes against the horror of the two lost crews. Nobody remembers the good things, just the video of the two accidents.

      So those admins look back to when NASA could do no wrong and the flatware was golden and things just worked, and that was the Apollo era in their minds, even though Apollo had its share of tragedy and accidents and things that barely worked. But mostly it did work and that's the part people remember. They don't remember the early problems.

      SO when they wanted to "do the next" thing, the current generation said, we should go and do again what the previous generation did that was so successful (even though it wasn't all success).

      It's like the teenager who is determined to get and fixup the same sports car dad owned when he was younger, only the teenager will have ALL the tricked out stuff dad could only dream about.

      So they are determined not only to redo it but to do it again with a ship just like the Apollo only better (in their minds, they know they can do it better just like every kid thinks it can do better than the parents at everything).

      They'll even land the same way, collect rocks (again) and do damn near nothing to advance science.

      We learned all this stuff in the 70's but the current generation has to learn it for themselves and there's no stopping them.

      What Orion is doing is not advancing NASA or space science or anything. It's just some kids trying to prove to dad that they can do what he did, only better. And that often ends up with dad bailing junior out of jail.

      The generation that follows, if the human race lives that long, will no doubt redo the shuttle "to get it right THIS time" and the cycle will repeat.

      We are doomed to never leaving this planet. I am convinced of it.

    20. Re:Common occurances... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they went and hired younger, cheaper engineers with no experience in spaceflight

      But that's OK, 'cause younger, cheaper engineers with no experience had computers and software instead of sliderules, pencils and paper! Problem solved.

    21. Re:Common occurances... by tgatliff · · Score: 1

      Nasa no doubt has any special love for the shuttle fleet. They were built under a promise that everyone realized was not achievable for a government institution to do, which is to function cheaply and efficiently..

      Now, after 3 decades, and having their chairman admit that the shuttle program was a mistake, they are going back to their roots and re-building Apollo and Saturn 5.

      So yes... The Shuttle was a very expensive mistake and even Nasa admits this... If the Saturn 5 would have ever been produced in volumes, its costs per mission would have been considerably cheaper than a shuttle mission...

    22. Re:Common occurances... by Migity · · Score: 1

      No, but I read the book. Geesh...you'd think in this day and age they'd put it on DVD or Blueray.

    23. Re:Common occurances... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you seriously imagine that we need to "relearn" how to make parachutes for fucks sake? Please stop parroting this BS.

      Yes I do. They didn't even bother releasing the data for the first two tests because they were just ridiculous. They tried using a steel anvil and a grand piano for a parachute and neither slowed down the spacecraft.

    24. Re:Common occurances... by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Apollo 15 snap:

      http://www.freebase.com/view/wikipedia/images/commons_id/2076065

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    25. Re:Common occurances... by a6intruder · · Score: 1

      Totally agree, way too many stupid people. In the past Joe Schmuck would be enthralled with what it takes to put a rocket up and appreciate the feat for what it is. Today eveyone thinks everything is a toaster and far too many stupide people are living to child bearing age. If we dplicated Apollo the way some of these people think we should and it goes wrong they would have a fit. Let us let the engineers do there jobs.

    26. Re:Common occurances... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I presume you're being sarcastic, in which case I agree. A computer is fantastic at solving complex problems to a very high precision - far higher than possible by humans. The problem is that computers - and many who operate them - don't know whether the answer is correct, just that the answer has forty significant figures. You need pencil and paper (and a sliderule or a calculator) to find out of the answer is correct. The more complex a problem you set out to solve, the more important is is to know approximately what the answer _should_ be before you get the computer's solution.

      Good engineers can perform detailed calculations to within 5%, with computers to within 0.1% or better. The best engineers can tell you the answer to within 10 or 15% with nothing more than a pencil and a 3x3 post-it. The good thing about engineering is that 10% is accurate enough for most calculations. If your margin of safety is less than 10%, you're just asking for failure.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    27. Re:Common occurances... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      The transition from drafting table to computer 15 years ago was a difficult one for me. I'm still not convinced that the change is less expensive, more efficient or produces a better quality result for what I do (process plant design).

      In many ways it makes things more complicated and enables less qualified people to get into the industry.

    28. Re:Common occurances... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      think backward, that's NASA for you (anything run by the gov't will be less than efficient) now we have a reusable space craft, seems the saturn v way is old news take the supplies up and build in orbit (iss with rocket power aka a starship

  2. Remember this, NASA by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The fall isn't the problem. It's that sudden stop at the end that you should avoid.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Remember this, NASA by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      It drives me nuts when movie/television superheroes (Smallville, Hancock, etc) catch a falling victim. Lois Lane falls from the top of the the Daily Planet building. Superman is busy battling foes. We see a shot of Lois Lane still falling. Back to Clark Kent, who suddenly see's Lois' peril. He rushes over and catches her... and her brains splatter all over his arms! She was falling at terminal velocity, and landing on Superman's forearms isn't going to be any softer than landing on concrete. Clark needs to jump up, grab Lois, and *decelerate* her.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:Remember this, NASA by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      You just don't know enough about Superman.

      Super Catching, allowing him to safely decelerate objects he catches, is just one of his lesser-known powers, along with Super Ventriloquism and Super Hunches.

      He has an unrelated power which is also called Super Catching, but we won't talk about that.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Remember this, NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that Superman just stands there and lets you shoot at him, but he ducks when you throw the empty gun at him?

    4. Re:Remember this, NASA by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      The villain asked for a kryptonite gun when he meant he wanted kryptonite bullets.

    5. Re:Remember this, NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soft Hands.

      It could be done mid catch if done properly, like taking a pass in hockey. Just requires some give in the arms when catching.

      And given that it's superman, i'd guess that he's be strong enough and fast enough to perform the catch as the bottom of an arc rather than an abrupt stop

    6. Re:Remember this, NASA by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Why is it that Superman just stands there and lets you shoot at him, but he ducks when you throw the empty gun at him?

      Maybe because getting hit with a thrown gun hurts?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    7. Re:Remember this, NASA by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 1

      It drives me nuts when movie/television superheroes (Smallville, Hancock, etc) catch a falling victim

      (and the person who was falling isn't killed by the sudden deceleration of being caught by the superhero)

      Yeah, that drives me and my friend Gwen Stacy nuts too!

      That said, maybe you didn't get the memo. It turns out superhero movies and TV shows are not documentaries.

      Click here for a little background if who don't know why I mentioned my friend Gwen Stacy.

      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    8. Re:Remember this, NASA by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Why is it that Superman just stands there and lets you shoot at him, but he ducks when you throw the empty gun at him?

      He doesn't. Come on, cite an example. Even in the old George Reeves TV series he didn't.

      --
      -- Alastair
    9. Re:Remember this, NASA by rtechie · · Score: 1

      She was falling at terminal velocity, and landing on Superman's forearms isn't going to be any softer than landing on concrete. Clark needs to jump up, grab Lois, and *decelerate* her.

      It's been hypothesized, in the comics, that Superman's powers are somewhat psychokinetic in nature. For example, Superman can carry more weight in flight than he can standing. So in your example Superman is unconsciously using his psychokinesis to slow Lois down before he catches her.

    10. Re:Remember this, NASA by Teancum · · Score: 1

      One of Superman's special abilities is to locally modify the universal gravity constant... hence the reason he is able to "fly", pick up incredibly heavy things, and to catch stuff like our sweet little damsel in distress (read Lois Lane).

      Kryptonite, unfortunately, has some properties that counter this gravitational distortion and makes space "normal" for Superman, sort of like another physical property like electrical charge that has a polar opposite in Superman's blood vs. Kryptonite.

      Of course this ability is non-cannonical so it obviously hasn't been completely explored by the comic book guys. Still, it explains a whole bunch :o)

  3. Why the parachute? by RemoWilliams84 · · Score: 1

    "A failure of set-up parachutes is actually one of the most common occurrences in this sort of test." Isn't it crazy for all the things to go wrong, it would be a parachute that is the most common.

    --
    "I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
    1. Re:Why the parachute? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Informative

      Isn't it crazy for all the things to go wrong, it would be a parachute that is the most common.

      Not really; parachutes are actually pretty finicky pieces of equipment. Parachutes for people are something we've been doing for about 80 years now, they are produced and packed with incredibly exacting care, and every parachutist actually carries two parachutes, just in case. And you *still* occasionally hear about parachute accidents where the parachute didn't work right. The main problem is that it is very easy for the rigging to get tangled, and when that happens the parachute doesn't open correctly and the whole deal drops like a rock.

    2. Re:Why the parachute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I dunno about 'incredibly exacting care', I used to skydive and just jam that joker in there to get my 10 jumps a day in, but you better believe that the reserve was packed with 'exacting care' by an FAA certified rigger.

      But the main? Nah. Hard to make it malfunction even if u stuff it in the container tho.

    3. Re:Why the parachute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a 16 yr old pack my main once and the damn pilot chute monkey fisted on me at pull time. Took a couple seconds to free it and then had one hell of a teeth shattering opening.

      I wouldn't call that exacting care, but I didn't use that kid for packing my main anymore. lol

    4. Re:Why the parachute? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I had a 16 yr old pack my main once and the damn pilot chute monkey fisted on me at pull time. Took a couple seconds to free it and then had one hell of a teeth shattering opening. I wouldn't call that exacting care, but I didn't use that kid for packing my main anymore.

      You *both* deserve a Darwin Award.
               

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    5. Re:Why the parachute? by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had a 16 yr old pack my main once and the damn pilot chute monkey fisted on me at pull time. Took a couple seconds to free it and then had one hell of a teeth shattering opening.

      Wow, you make skydiving sound so exciting. I just love sports where I wonder for "a couple of seconds" whether I'm going home in a bus or a bag. ever try open warfare?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re:Why the parachute? by blueZ3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ain't it the truth.

      When I was in the 82nd Airborne, we'd get a jump or two every month. In big operations (where a full regiment jumps together) you'd pretty much see at least one mae west and sundry other "minor" screw-ups.

      When you have a trained parachutist on the end of the risers who can tweak them or decide to pull his reserve, it's a lot less dicey than when some "mock up" that's unable to respond to the situation drills in from 20,000 ft.

      --
      Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    7. Re:Why the parachute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, to create a skydiving safety video, the guy simulating the malfunctions had to, at times, tie lines together because he couldn't get the malfunction to reliably happen just by mispacking. You can stuff a modern parachute into the container and not get a malfunction most of the time. It will open really bad/weird/hard, but usually works.

      Body position upon opening often matters the most.

      It's not exactly 'finicky. Clearly you don't know anything about this.

    8. Re:Why the parachute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical Slashdot. +5 moderation on misinformation and no moderation on valid information.

    9. Re:Why the parachute? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        First rule of chute packing: Pack your own.

        Corollary to First Rule: Nobody else gets blamed for the fuckup if it malfunctions.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  4. Wow by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

    The thing tries like two reserve chutes after the first flops and neither works too.

    Really NASA, I think COTS is the way to go. Keep that up. :-)

    --
    Send your spendthrift head of state this
    1. Re:Wow by cmat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, there were no reserve chutes; after the "setup" chutes cut away, two chutes are supposed to open to orient the craft, and then after they cut away three deployment chutes pop which pull out and deploy the three main chutes. Due to the craft not having been set up correctly (where "correctly" is in reference to the conditions that the craft should be flying under at that point in the descent), the craft's landing chutes could not do their job, and the test is essentially void.

      They mention that Orion uses the same basic chute system configuration as the Apollo craft did.

      --
      -- Humans, because the hardware IS the software.
    2. Re:Wow by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good summary, I was wondering why so many chutes deployed and failed. I was waiting for spare tires and pinatas to start streaming out...

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    3. Re:Wow by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good summary, I was wondering why so many chutes deployed and failed.

      If you like that kind of stuff, you might want to try reading TFA every now and then. Just a thought.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    4. Re:Wow by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        From the video it looks like the orientation("setup") chute shrouds got caught on something on the main body of the craft as it left it's delivery sled, and never fully deployed. The oscillations that produced ensured that none of the rest of the chutes deployed correctly, by the time the mains deployed the craft was in a tumble.

        I wonder if it isn't the way it was sledded out? It's orientation to the airflow from that sled is very very different than what it would be on a reentry (sideways to airflow vs heat shield facing down into airflow, hopefully, anyway.) Release malfunction?

        That's what it looks like to me. The craft wasn't in the proper orientation for the chutes to deploy the way they were designed, and since the first set didn't nothing else worked either as the craft was completely out of control at that point.

        Great video.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:Wow by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      you might want to try reading TFA every now and then. Just a thought.

      You're really new here, aren't you?

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    6. Re:Wow by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I didn't exactly suggest that it is the norm or anything!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  5. Wrong Orion! by clonan · · Score: 1

    I read the article and thought...

    Ohh they are doing Nuclear powered spacecraft tests!!

    Bummer...

    1. Re:Wrong Orion! by rdebath · · Score: 1

      Me too, old boom boom, AKA "Project orion" http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/orion3.gif, is just too much of an "OMFG they want to do WHAT!" to be forgotten.

      http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/orion.htm

    2. Re:Wrong Orion! by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      Ha! me too! I was worried about the Northwest coast residents for a sec...

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    3. Re:Wrong Orion! by clonan · · Score: 1

      I always thought the Orion project was a really elegant solution to interstellar travel considering the thechnology!

  6. Well There's Your Problem Right There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ever since the Coyote filed that lawsuit, Acme Corp's QC has gone down the shitter.

  7. What went wrong: by eepok · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, Lou, first that thing fell off. And then that thing fell off. And then that thing fell off. And before all those things fell off, they didn't slow the damn thing down enough to keep the brains of the passengers from splattering through their Dr. Scholl's on that otherwise gentle landing.

    That, Lou, is what went wrong.

  8. Complicated? by truthsearch · · Score: 1

    'This is the most complicated parachute test NASA has run since the '60s'

    Is any parachute test really that complicated? I RTFA (really) and it doesn't sound so bad. Can someone explain why this is the most complicated one in 40 years?

    --
    Developers: We can use your help.
    1. Re:Complicated? by avgjoe62 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is any parachute test really that complicated? I RTFA (really) and it doesn't sound so bad. Can someone explain why this is the most complicated one in 40 years?

      Yea! I mean come on folks, this is a PARACHUTE test. It's not like it's rocket sci... Oh. Wait. Never mind...

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    2. Re:Complicated? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Because they haven't done any (or almost any) in 40 years thus it is by definition the most complicated.

    3. Re:Complicated? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's simple: NASA hasn't designed a space capsule in 40 years. They've been flying refrigerators^W gliders instead. They need to get back into the groove of landing large objects with parachutes before these tests become routine again.

      And then there was the Genesis probe. That had to be the weirdest recovery scheme I've heard of yet. And on top of everything, the contractor installed the accelerometer backwards! Which tells you about how much experience NASA and its contractors has had with parachutes since the 60's.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    4. Re:Complicated? by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      Maybe because they did it wrong before?

      --

      Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity

    5. Re:Complicated? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then whos been doing the testing for all the mars landers with parachutes? I know some of them used the "airbag method" but unless my memory is faulty, NASA has been using parachutes for a while. Perhaps not in a manned application, which Im sure adds a lot of complexity to the project.

    6. Re:Complicated? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Is any parachute test really that complicated? I RTFA (really) and it doesn't sound so bad. Can someone explain why this is the most complicated one in 40 years?

      Yes. It's huge.

      Hugeness, as it turns out, creates complexity.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    7. Re:Complicated? by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why even use parachutes? Why not use a lifting body and have that have chutes you know just in case.

    8. Re:Complicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accelerometers are often used as triggers in the entry sequence. Aerial parachute recovery has been done since the 60's when the CIA used it to recover film canisters from early spy satellites. Neither are weird.

      Quality control is what caused the problem with Genesis. A mistake was made and not caught.

      Fortunately, according to wikipedia, the scientists were still able to get useful results from that mission.

    9. Re:Complicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is neither interesting or correct. Even though "NASA hasn't designed a space capsule in 40 years", they have designed and successfully used parachutes all over the solar system.

      Here's a picture of the Phoenix Lander with a deployed parachute on it's way to a successful landing this year: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/press/9227-PHX_Lander.html Here's how they landed the Mars Rovers using parachutes: http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_edl_parachute.html

      In fact, NASA has ongoing parachute development projects. Here's a link to research being done at Rice University that shows how the Orion parachute works: http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=11138

      To sum up, you are wrong and ignorant. The Genesis probe failure had nothing to do with parachutes. All you did was notice that two objects of roughly the same shape hit the ground too hard. This is about as intelligent as getting the round peg in the round hole.

      Then, showing that you stupidity is matched by your arrogance, you said that the people doing this work were incompetent. All you really showed is that you are a pathetic excuse for a human being, and the only way you can try and build yourself up is by saying nasty things about people who are far better then you. I would be completely unsurprised if you were the kind of jerk who kicks dogs and pushes around small children.

    10. Re:Complicated? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      The technology can get complicated. Much of today's parachute technology was originally developed in the 1950s to help deliver nuclear weapons by aircraft. The parachute slowed the descent of the weapon from supersonic speeds and could be used to gently (relatively) lay the weapon on the ground, where it would sit until detonated by a timer. Conventional parachutes were useless. They would just disintegrate when opened.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    11. Re:Complicated? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      "Falling Refrigerator" is the old NASA joke about the Shuttle's ability to glide. It is so heavy and its descent rate is so fast that the pilots often think of it more as controlled falling than gliding. No ill will intended by that remark.

      As for NASA not parachuting a craft of this size since the 60's, I stand by that statement. NASA's spokesperson said as much. I dare you to prove otherwise.

      As for the anti-criticism about experience with parachutes, I'll take that criticism. I was not aware that the CIA had done successful mid-air captures prior to Genesis. None the less, Genesis DID have a fault with its parachute systems, even if the fault ended up being as simple as a backwards component. However, I will point out that the parachutes "used across the solar system" don't reach the sort of complexity we're talking about with the Orion or Genesis chutes. Mars landers, for example, only use drogue chute to slow descent. Because of the thin atmosphere, the craft tend to use either a powered landing or a inflatable airbags for landing. Parachutes designed for landing would have to be much too large and complex.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    12. Re:Complicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mainly, it's the speed and size of the object being decelerated. Supersonic parachutes are a BITCH to design. Read "Roving Mars" -- the Mars rover parachute tests took a long time and had many failures as well.

  9. Surprising news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, a parachute failure in a parachute test is "one the most common occurrences in this sort of test"? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

  10. Of course it didn't work! by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 2, Funny

    It was a mockup!

  11. This is not even news... by xstonedogx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...parachute tests fail all the time. That's why they are tested. These aren't parachutes from Lucky's Parachute and Bait Shop for chrissake. They are custom designed and often cutting edge.

    1. Re:This is not even news... by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's why they are tested.

      Exactly, be thankful it broke during testing and not with people in it.

      Where I work, we do a lot of durability testing. Whenever something breaks during a durability test, somebody is always upset. We have to remind them that the whole point of the test is to break it.

      Granted, this wasn't a durability test, and breaking it wasn't the goal. The mock-up may have failed to perform as designed, but as long as they obtain enough information to figure out why it didn't perform as designed, the test was successful.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:This is not even news... by msbmsb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Additionally, what failed was not the parachute system destined for the actual mission, but instead the parachutes that are used to stabilize the capsule away from the delivery craft so that the real system can be accurately tested. The test didn't fail, the set-up for the test failed.

    3. Re:This is not even news... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But, I'd point out from TFS:

      A failure of set-up parachutes is actually one of the most common occurrences in this sort of test

      Well, duh. The set-up parachutes are one of the first things to happen in the parachute deployment path. Consider path A --> B --> C ---> D.

      Assuming equal probability of failure at any point, then of course failure at point A will be the most common; one cannot proceed to B (or C or D) unless A has happened successfully.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:This is not even news... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Well it is considered news, and not all news is sensational or controversial. Sometimes, people just want an update for those who actually follow NASA. Unfortunately most media outlets these days think that they have to be over the top to get attention.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:This is not even news... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      These aren't parachutes from Lucky's Parachute and Bait Shop for chrissake. They are custom designed and often cutting edge.

      I've read that they largely barrow from Apollo, 1960's technology.
           

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re:This is not even news... by Keebler71 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hope everyone here understands that this wasn't a failure of the parachute system actually to be used by the spacecraft. The parachutes that failed were those that were supposed to get the spacecraft to the correct initial conditions after the mock-up was deployed (free-fall) from a cargo aircraft. Because these set-up chutes failed (which again, would not even be present in the actual system) the actual drogues, pilots and mains were exposed to loads WAY out of limits for any entry that would be attempted on a real mission.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    7. Re:This is not even news... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Critical to the performance of parachutes is the folding of the fabric. Why did they not take advantage of distributed computing and use folding @ home?

  12. Wobble. by AJWM · · Score: 1

    Wow, look at the capsule oscillate. That can't be helpful -- or comfortable (even without the sudden stop).

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Wobble. by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      In actual use the capsule won't be yanked out of the back of a C-17...

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    2. Re:Wobble. by AJWM · · Score: 1

      True enough. Just so long as they don't add moveable weights to counter that vibration mode.

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re:Wobble. by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      If you look back at Apollo and Soyuz (and Corona and Yantar ... ) you'll see blunt-cone and blunt-hemisphere structures. These are shapes that have a preferential orientation in gas flow - essentially unconditional stability. The craft in the video shows a rotational resonance that allows it to maintain the rotation - something that's completely unacceptable in this kind of vehicle. Once the parachute helps it regain some measure of stability, the rocking oscillation persists ... on two different occasions. That's indicative of near-resonance or conditional-stability. During the free-fall period, the rotational rate increases. That's bad ... very bad.

      It doesn't matter that the vehicle got dumped out of the back of a C-17. The atmospheric conditions are an uncontrollable environmental variable, and need to be accounted for as such. Blaming "bad air" is no consolation when the mission fails.

  13. Acme Parachutes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silly NASA ...

    Never hire Wile E. Coyote as your project manager!

    1. Re:Acme Parachutes! by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

      Now if a furry limb grasping a sign stating "Not Again" emerged from the capsule with the classic descending whistle tone, oh, wait...

      As a gag, have the DePatie-Freleng Enterprises "spoon/spear" logo appear over the dirt cloud after impact.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
    2. Re:Acme Parachutes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yesterday we had an article about the vibrations from the NIKE rocket, now we have failure of the ACME parachute. Now all we need is a time bomb to hatch out into an exploding clock-work baby roadrunner. Stage separation motors anyone?

  14. A Successful Test! by Dunx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They found a bug! It was a good test.

    --
    Dunx
    Converting caffeine into code since 1982
    1. Re:A Successful Test! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      They found a bug! It was a good test.

      This project's got more bugs than a Taco Bell, they can't swing a dead cat without finding one.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    2. Re:A Successful Test! by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      True as well as witty.

      If you read TFA, you will see that the capsule was falling faster than the intended deployment speed, causing the drogue chutes to cut away before the main chute could be deployed.

      So this clearly a bug in the test procedure. The test procedure was testing outside the intended speed range. Whether this was at a speed the system should ultimately work at or not, we don't know from the information given.

      In other words, the test failure doesn't necessarily show the parachute design, fabrication or installation was faulty. Of course this must be sobering for anybody who's on the short list to be on the first team that relies on the system.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:A Successful Test! by gdog05 · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm never eating at Taco Bell again after reading that. I hope you're happy...

    4. Re:A Successful Test! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm never eating at Taco Bell again after reading that. I hope you're happy...

      Your GI tract will thank you.

      The last time I ate at Taco Bell? Ten years ago, had it for lunch. Driving home from work later I'm feeling kind of eh, then suddenly from out of nowhere I get a case of the technocolor yawns, projectile-style. Usually you have a bit of warning with food poisoning, you get the ill feeling in the back of your throat and you're like "Dude, I'm not going to vomit," your mouth starts to water in that horrible way you know means something is coming up right now and you're like "dude, I fucking hate vomiting" and then you're at the toilet opening wide and thinking "Ok, let's get this shit over with." None of that happened. Went from meh to splatters in a split second. On the interstate, no way to pull over, bits of tortilla and processed meats coming up. A horrid, disgusting mess.

      That's why I no longer eat at Taco Bell.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    5. Re:A Successful Test! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      they can't swing a dead cat without finding one.

            I suggest storing the cat in a freezer next time - it will get rid of the bugs.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  15. Incompetent andaerodynamically unstable to boot... by Invisible+Now · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What part of this fiasco worked? The craft itself is clearly unstable. And the rat's nest of chutes they deployed implies some contractor is getting paid by the chute. This program is starting to show how much engineering talent we've lost since the sixties.

    Bring back the geezers who designed Apollo's chutes, and give them a slide rule and million dollars each just to stuff it to the Orion Program Managers who are clearly more politically skilled than technical.

    In the long run this will be hundreds of times cheaper and safer for whoever draws the short straw and has to ride in this cow chip.

    --

    "Knowing everything doesn't help..."

  16. A word of advice for NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm no astrophysicist or a aerodynamic engineer but... I don't think parachutes where designed to slow objects down AFTER they hit the ground. Please disregard my statement if you NASA folks know something I don't.

  17. Confucius say by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Funny

    Confucius say "Parachute like girls legs. Best when open."

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  18. How do I add a "thud" tag to this? by kclittle · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or, maybe, a "screamingallthewaydown" tag?

    --
    Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    1. Re:How do I add a "thud" tag to this? by slashtivus · · Score: 1

      Click the little arrow next to the tags to add one.

  19. Did this video remind anyone by kd5zex · · Score: 1

    of the falling to hell scene from "Bill and Ted's Bougus Journey"?

  20. Mathematical Conversion error plauges NASA by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately they could not have made an error that would make it miss the ground on the way down.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:Mathematical Conversion error plauges NASA by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      According to Douglas Adams, the secret to flying is to aim at the ground and miss, but you have to be distracted to miss. I guess they weren't distracted enough.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  21. Help, Help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its fallen because it couldn't stay up?

    1. Re:Help, Help! by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      As the pilot used to say to the passengers on take-off
      "Do not worry, everything that goes up will come down."

      And please think of the future crew members of Orion having to watch that video.
      Ouch. Monday morning meeting.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  22. Proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...as to why we shouldn't be relying on systems with single points of failure for NASA's 'next generation' spacecraft. Having bureaucrats instead of engineers making design decision is resulting in mistakes of the shuttle program happening over again. Enter the decision to once again use shuttle-derived Morton Thiakol SRMs to lift a crew vehicle instead of an evolved liquid-based vehicle: now we hear from NASA what most experts had expected at the start of this lunacy--too much thrust resulting in POGO which is now necessitating retrofitting this piece of crap launch system with shock absorbers. Move forward to this debacle: instead of designing an elegant crew vehicle as a steerable lifting body or truncated delta wing that could land without a parachute, we have instead returned to the good old-fashioned human egg drop. Good job guys!

  23. still unclear but by hurfy · · Score: 1

    It sounded like one of the 3 (or 10 depending on how you read it) chutes added to clear the airplane failed. It takes a chute to clear the plane if you drop it out the back door?!? I don't really get that part and besides shouldn't you design a drop that doesn't add components that aren't going to be on the real deal?

    1. Re:still unclear but by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they considered the effect of the deploying plane's jetwash on the opening of the first chutes.

      I know, it sounds silly, but just remember the aircraft windshield tests that failed until someone remembered to thaw the turkeys that they were shooting at the mockups. Sometimes the obvious does get overlooked.

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    2. Re:still unclear but by jpellino · · Score: 1

      The capsule has same the horizontal momentum as the plane as it's leaving. It's like dropping a bomb. It's definitely leaving the plane vertically but not so much horizontally. The plane will likely outpace the capsule because the plane has engines running and the capsule is likely less aero' than the plane. But likely not by enough to get the whole thing clear of the engine wash and to get the bevy of observers closer to it. So you drop its velocity (both H and V) with a small chute.

      --
      "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    3. Re:still unclear but by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Are you volunteering to push it out the back by hand? The USAF commonly uses drogue chutes to airdrop pallets.

      I'd think a big-assed weather balloon type drop would make more sense, be more predictable. They didn't ask me though for some reason.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    4. Re:still unclear but by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

      It's like LAPSE (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System) if you've ever seen them do that: they can jerk a tank (well, OK, an APC) out the back of a flying C-5 at low level (REALLY low level--like 5-10 ft) by attaching a chute to the armor and throwing it out the back of the aircraft while it's flying.

      The plane is flying straight and level at altitude, they open the tail section and deploy the chutes which are supposed to pull the mock-up out of the cargo compartment. It's not completely clear to me from TFA but either these deployment chutes or the "orientation" chutes (that orient the capsule so it's right-side-up for the "real" chutes to deploy) failed.

      --
      Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    5. Re:still unclear but by TheHawke · · Score: 1

      LAPES is a fine comparison, but they also use drogues to extract very heavy items in airdrops, like hummers and light tanks. The C-17 has a motorized track that can extract payloads, but for something as weighty as a hummer, they cannot afford to have it hanging or hung at the end of the ramp. That kind of center of gravity displacement means big trouble for the aircraft if they can't get rid of it.

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    6. Re:still unclear but by a6intruder · · Score: 1

      It looks like the ocsillation started as it slid off the pallet. Then things got complicated by the stabilazation chutes (two small ones) blocking the airflow to the first test set up chute preventing it from opening. The rest as they say is history. Also note the shape of the capsule is not so clean as a bomb.

  24. Well... by Jedi+Holocron · · Score: 1

    ...that sucked.

    Back to the drawing board.

    1. Re:Well... by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 1

      Interesting you should use that phrase.

      Here's a link that shows the origin of the phrase.

      The included graphic seems particularly apt.

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
  25. Whatever by geekmansworld · · Score: 1

    Parachutes are for wimps.

  26. Re:Incompetent andaerodynamically unstable to boot by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are aware that, per TFA, this IS basically the same parachute system as on Apollo.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  27. Dear Insurance company by Maximus633 · · Score: 1

    Opps! That darn parachute just didn't open right. Caused that billion dollar aircraft to fall to the ground making a rather large whole. No crap man seriously.

  28. The old cliche needs to be revised... by xednieht · · Score: 1

    Instead of ... "it's not rocket science" maybe "it's not chute science" ??

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  29. Apollo chute test failed too by BadEvilYoda · · Score: 5, Informative
    January 11, 1968

    A Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV) test failed at El Centro, Calif. The PTV was released from a B-52 aircraft at 15,240 meters and the drogue chute programmer was actuated by a static line connected to the aircraft. One drogue chute appeared to fail upon deployment, followed by failure of the second drogue seven seconds later. Disreefing of these drogues normally occurred at 8 seconds after deployment with disconnect at deployment at plus 18 seconds. The main chute programmer deployed and was effective for only 14 out of the expected 40 seconds' duration. This action was followed by normal deployment of one main parachute, which failed, followed by the second main parachute as programmed after four-tenths of a second, which also failed. The main chute failure was observed from the ground and the emergency parachute system deployment was commanded but also failed because of high dynamic pressure, allowing the PTV to impact and be destroyed. Investigation was under way and MSC personnel were en route to El Centro and Northrop-Ventura to determine the cause and to effect a solution. TWX, George M. Low, MSC, to NASA Hq., Attn: Apollo Program Director, Jan. 11, 1968.

    Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/v4p2h.htm

    1. Re:Apollo chute test failed too by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This is WHY they do tests. There were other parachute problems with Apollo as well. It IS still rocket science. In flight A-001 (the 2nd abort test), a riser on one of the 3 main chutes snapped after rubbing against the command module. Apollo A-001

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  30. Well, they look like winners to me . . . . by madmac63 · · Score: 1

    Well, I think that are now the leading contender for winning the RedBull FlugTag Day here in Chicago!!! madmac

  31. Nothing to do with Orion... by tmc4inphilly · · Score: 1

    The parachutes that failed were responsible for extracting the capsule from the aircraft and separating it from the aircraft pallet. Sadly, the High-Velocity Airdrop is a basic procedure that the Air Forces has used for many years.

  32. Direct video link by teridon · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those that hate space.com:
    http://mfile.akamai.com/18566/wmv/etouchsyst2.download.akamai.com/18355/wm.nasa-global/Constellation/CDT2_256.asx

    See also:
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/pa_chute_test.html

    --
    I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Direct video link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, now how about alternate *article* for those that hate FOXNews? ;)

  33. Not much like skydiving, except Walter Hudson by Kitsune818 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The parachute system is so complex because they need to slow the capsule down in stages before full deployment. If you just popped the main parachutes after rentry, they'd tear clean off and the passengers/payload would continue unabated until they rejoin the surface. Permanently.

  34. Be nice to ruskies by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    We better be nice to the Russians, or else station Amerinauts will have no ride home.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  35. This is Your Captain Speaking: by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

    We might experience some turbulence, then explode.

    1. Re:This is Your Captain Speaking: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explode? I don't want to explode.

  36. Like you guys have any clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you work for NASA, quit talking with that air (pun intended) of "oh you silly people the reason this happened is..." or whatever. Please.

  37. Did they bother wind tunnel testing that thing? by ckaminski · · Score: 3, Informative

    Holy crap, the oscillation!!!!!

    From my comfortable armchair, it looked like at least one bunch of chutes might have been severed by the capsule rolling over the lines. I think they have to fix their CG and aeroshell problems before they try another drop test.

  38. Wrongo; it's based on the launch abort chutes by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Wrongo; it's based on the launch abort chutes from the Apollo program. Those chutes didn't have a lot of testing, and never in launch abort conditions.

    I am rather thinking that the parent poster thinks they should have started with chutes that were known to work, not chutes designed in the Apollo era, but never used on real missions. Those would be things like the three capsule chutes that anyone who saw the earth-returns of the Apollo capsules remembers from immediately preceeding splashdown.

    If you have ever jumped out of a perfectly good airplane on a chute you packed yourelf, it's pretty clear that the weight relative to the chute area caused the laminar airflow over the closed chute to kee the shroud lines from jockeying in and out enough for the chute to open. In othr words, it's because they used a larger version of an edge connected shroud set in the design, without stay-shrouds to force the center down and therefore the edges out so that they could catch air.

    They need to employ some riggers from a good sky-diving team in their design phase, or some umbrella manufacturers.

    -- Terry

    1. Re:Wrongo; it's based on the launch abort chutes by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      What were the Little Joe II shots if not tests of the entire abort package, including the escape tower and the chutes?

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  39. How many parachutes does that thing need? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just watched the video. That thing was shooting out parachutes all the way down. It was like some sort of NASA/nerd bukaki.

  40. why parachutes and not something simpler? by pz · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not an aeronautical engineer, so this is probably a really naive question that someone with more education and brains can answer:

    Why, under conditions when you need extreme reliability, do we use parachutes? I can imagine that a simpler design that has lower chance of failure (like just a long streamer) would be preferable. Is it a weight-to-performance issue?

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:why parachutes and not something simpler? by Napoleon+The+Pig · · Score: 1

      Streamers, while good for small model rockets, aren't very efficient at adding drag on larger objects since they experience diminishing returns fairly quickly (adding more surface area on the streamer won't increase the drag produced by as much). Parachutes on the other hand have a great drag to weight ratio even though they are more complicated than other possible systems.

    2. Re:why parachutes and not something simpler? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Why, under conditions when you need extreme reliability, do we use parachutes?

      Simple - because parachutes are extremely reliable.
       
       

      can imagine that a simpler design that has lower chance of failure (like just a long streamer) would be preferable.

      In the real world, a long streamer isn't going to be 'simple'. You need to be able to eject it from the craft, which is going to require a deployment bag for clean separation. Now you have to get the streamer out of the bag and cleanly deployed without exceeding either the structural margins of the capsule attach points or the fabric of the streamer itself. Decidedly non trivial.
       
       

      Is it a weight-to-performance issue?

      Pretty much - as a streamer doesn't have much capability of slowing things down.

  41. Apollo/Saturn WORKED! by p51d007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not refer to the Apollo/Saturn program? IT WORKED. Whey they canceled Apollo/Saturn, those on that program said it was the worst thing they could do. Those rockets were cutting edge, and WORKED. Not ONE Saturn launch vehicle ever failed (the CM doesn't count). The problem is that now, all of those engineers are either long gone or retired. Those engineers didn't have the "beauty" of a CAD/CAM system to design it. Those guys used slide rules and gray matter. I'm sure eventually they will iron it out, it's just a shame that they threw away 30 years of success in the Apollo/Saturn program with the disaster called the Shuttle Transportation System.

    1. Re:Apollo/Saturn WORKED! by bitrex · · Score: 1

      The Apollo program consisted of 17 manned missions on the Saturn V. Much of the success of the Apollo program can probably be attributed to dumb luck - the Saturn launch vehicle was by no means perfect and had many significant flaws including the well known pogo oscillations in multiple stages that might have cut Apollo 6 and Apollo 13 short before it had even left Earth orbit.

      I have no idea why people call the Shuttle Transportation system a disaster - the Shuttle program has had 123 flights, two of which resulted in catastrophic failure. Catastrophic failures in any system almost never occur in isolation; specifically to the Shuttle they were indeed related to flaws in the vehicle design that might have been rectified had the management of NASA and their contractors not become sedentary. They also occurred because of poor judgment calls, unfortunate timing, and just bad luck. Had Challenger not experienced severe wind shear on ascent, the SRB O-rings might not have failed. Had the SRB O-ring blown out away from the external tank, rather than towards, the vehicle might have been able to survive to SRB burnout and perform an abort RTLS or abort transatlantic. This is conjecture of course - but had the Saturn V been used for 123 manned launches instead of 17, there would have been catastrophic vehicle failures.

      The sine qua non of a permanent human presence in space is a single stage to orbit vehicle. Going back to Saturn V technology will get you to the moon again, sure, but aside from that it's nothing but a cold war dick-stretching contest. The Shuttle engineers should be commended for pushing the limits of the time, even though their reach exceeded their grasp.

    2. Re:Apollo/Saturn WORKED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too would say it was the worst thing to do if I got fired... You have no point.

  42. Did they cut the video short? by CaptDeuce · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was waiting for an anvil to fall on what was left of the spacecraft followed by a roadrunner zooming past in the foreground.

    --
    "Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
  43. Not surpising by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From an organization that always goes with the low bidder - this is not surprising....

  44. Wow, you got almost every point wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The pad abort parachutes were (Apollo) and are (Orion) the same as the re-entry parachutes. There are not two sets of parachutes. This was a precursor test to the Pad Abort 1 test scheduled for next year. After the abort system fires, the forward bay cover is removed and the same parachutes used for recovery after re-entry are used to save the capsule.

    The parachutes used for Orion are virtually identical to the Apollo parachutes except larger. The drogues and mains are the same types as used for Apollo, ribbon and ringsail, respectively.

    Your "explanation" of what went wrong is pure gibberish. There is no laminar airflow over a parachute. Every parachute has the suspension lines connected at the edge. Where else would you put them? Center pull-down lines are not used to help a parachute inflate, they are used to reduce the inflation forces by reducing drag during opening.

    And the company making the parachutes (hint: NASA doesn't make anything) has a VERY long history of parachute design and manufacture.

    1. Re:Wow, you got almost every point wrong by PizzaFace · · Score: 1

      You seem to have some involvement with the company making the parachutes, so I suggest you take tlambert's comment seriously. It was apparent to me, too, that the large chute never had a chance to open because the shroud lines were pulling with too much force, keeping the chute closed.

    2. Re:Wow, you got almost every point wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, either that, or I'm just very interested in space and took the time to actually research what I'm talking about rather than spout crackpot theories. Orion and Apollo parachute systems are pretty well documented on the web. Google is your friend.

      One also might think it's "apparent" that the sun revolves around the earth if one didn't know a damn thing about our solar system and only used a single day as your sole data point. Similarly, if you don't know squat about how parachutes operate, you might make an equally ignorant assumption about what went wrong in this test.

      This is what I love about /. - Bunch of people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about passing judgment on something they've read a three paragraph news summary on.

      BTW, just because you've jumped out of an airplane with a sport rig on your back, doesn't mean you know squat about parachutes.

  45. This is cute by TechwoIf · · Score: 1

    After doing a small hack to get the direct link to the video to play it in mplayer, I get this at the end: "Everything done. Thank you for downloading a media file containing proprietary and patented technology." I thought NASA was a public entity? And did I break a law downloading it? I didn't sign a license allowing me to use said technology.

  46. THE REAL QUESTION by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The REAL question, is:

    WHY, with NASA having so much larger budget than before (even accounting for inflation), and so much better engineering than before, and so much better design and simulation tools than before, and VASTLY more experience than before...

    WHY are we seeing so much more FAILURE than before???

    NASA of the 1960s kicked the current NASA's ass for success rate.

    So COME ON, folks! What is wrong???

    My suggestion: bureaucracy.

    1. Re:THE REAL QUESTION by a6intruder · · Score: 1

      It is amazing how so few words spoken can tell us how much someone does not now. 1. A large chunk of NASA's budget is dedicated to earth science now as opposed to human space flight to keep the tree huggers happy. And as you can see design simulation doesn't always deliver in the real world. 2. You are not seeing so much failure. You and all your relatives just think everything should work like a toaster because that is all your brain can handle. 3. I am guessing you are not a historian. Just another internet schmuck making up broad baseless statements and pretending they are factual. 4. This is one test early in the developement of a new launch system. This program is pushing the performance, safety, time and budget envelope like no other. It is not a toaster. Even toasters burn toast every now and then.

    2. Re:THE REAL QUESTION by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      WHY, with NASA having so much larger budget than before (even accounting for inflation), and so much better engineering than before, and so much better design and simulation tools than before, and VASTLY more experience than before...
       
      WHY are we seeing so much more FAILURE than before???

      Two reasons; First, today we have the internet, allowing failure to widely broadcast. Second because virtually of the books on Apollo skim over the millions of hours of tedious component and system research tests, development tests, proof tests, qualifications tests, verifications tests, etc. etc.
       
       

      My suggestion: bureaucracy.

      My suggestion: perception of a higher failure rate arising from near complete ignorance of how many failures NASA actually had back in the 60's.

  47. Re:Wrongo; Size is everything! by a6intruder · · Score: 1

    Designing chutes for large objects is no easy matter. You may be able to start with some data and design from apollo but then everything is new after that. This vehicle is much larger and heavier so the chutes will be larger which changes the way it works. It has to be as light as possible so the material is differerent which changes the way it reacts to the wind.

  48. It's early, normal stuff.... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    Normal stuff, that's what these tests are for. It's early yet in the program.

  49. Re:Incompetent andaerodynamically unstable to boot by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that the grandparent never seems to have studied the Apollo project and seen the varied and sundry test rigs they used back then.

  50. Or you don't know why circular parachutes inflate by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Or you don't know why circular parachutes inflate.

    It required non-laminar flow to generate sufficient wake turbulence that there is enough of a pressure differential to cause the inflation to occur.

    http://www.pcprg.com/inflate.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_flow

    Again, it's visibly obvious in the video that the chute is failing to inflate because there is not sufficient pressure differential to cause wake turbulence along the bottom edges of the chute body.

    -- Terry

  51. Whoops, I stand corrected by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Whoops, I stand corrected.

    I was aware of the Little Joe shots for the Mercury program, but had not heard of the Little Joe II shots. Learn something new every day! Thank you!

    -- Terry

  52. Re:Or you don't know why circular parachutes infla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've taken Dr. Potvin's brief simplified summary out of context, and made leaps of assumptions not supported by his text. You claimed laminar flow over the parachute kept it from inflating. That is completely and absolutely false.

    And I really don't care what you happen to think is "visibly obvious" There are other quite "visibly obvious" things you've missed completely, likely because you haven't a clue what you're talking about. There are also a large number of non-visibly obvious things that happened in that test.

    Here's one "visibly obvious" thing you missed: the parachute did, in fact, briefly inflate to it's first reefed stage but then collapsed. If you watch the video closely you can see this. But see, that brings up one of the those non-obvious things. You didn't know the parachute was reefed. I happen to know that it was.

    I'll leave it as an exercise to the student as to why the parachute collapsed. There are obvious and non-obvious reasons for that as well.