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."

24 of 163 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    3. 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?
  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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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!
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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

  14. 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
  15. 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.

  16. This is Your Captain Speaking: by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

    We might experience some turbulence, then explode.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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