Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Orion Mock-Up Fails Parachute Test
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."
A more common occurance than success?
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.
Ever since the Coyote filed that lawsuit, Acme Corp's QC has gone down the shitter.
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.
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!
It was a mockup!
...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.
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?
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
They found a bug! It was a good test.
Dunx
Converting caffeine into code since 1982
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.
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..."
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.
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!
Or, maybe, a "screamingallthewaydown" tag?
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
Why even use parachutes? Why not use a lifting body and have that have chutes you know just in case.
We might experience some turbulence, then explode.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
From an organization that always goes with the low bidder - this is not surprising....
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.