NASA Tests Heaviest Chute Drop Ever

Iddo Genuth writes "NASA and the US Air Force have successfully tested a new super-chute system aimed at reclaiming reusable Ares booster rockets. On February 28, 2009 a 50,000-pound dummy rocket booster was dropped in the Arizona desert and slowed by a system of five parachutes before it crashed to the ground. The booster landed softly without any damage. This was possibly the heaviest parachute drop ever, and NASA is planning to perform even heavier drops of up to 90,000 pounds in the next few months."

Comments

1 Question

[Karganeth]

When will America start using SI units as the standard? Pounds don't mean anything to me.

Re:1 Question

[Anonymous Coward]

What would you have us use in stories about the US?

Kilograms don't mean anything to us.

Re:1 Question

[quenda]

Sorry - unfair. NASA has been using SI units for many years. It was Lockheed Martin that fucked up on the Mars orbiter. Even the English do not use English units any more for anything more important than beer glass sizes. Actually, that is important. I've seen some sneaky Australian bars serve US-sized "pints", which are significantly smaller than Imperial pints.

Re:1 Question

[jaavaaguru]

As far as I'm concerned things like the units used in Gas/Petrol, glasses of beer, road signs, and the side of the road we drive on all are a part of a country's culture and there's no huge need to change them. Sure it would make things simpler for people visiting, but it's not a necessity.

Measurements used in scientific experiments on the other hand I feel should be standardized. The scientific community isn't just based in one country, and using a bunch of different measurements isn't only an inconvenience, it's dangerous. People will make conversion errors, things will go wrong. NASA should know this by now.

crashed softly?

[1u3hr]

it crashed to the ground. The booster landed softly...

WTF? If it "landed softly" it didn't "crash".

Re:crashed softly?

[Locklin]

You left out "Before it"

Re:Cool - now how much ...

[wisty]

Besides, most accidents are on takeoff, landing, or when the pilot didn't notice the mountain. No time to deploy parachutes.

Re:A good start

[d3ac0n]

More importantly, how can the submitted article say the rocket "crashed" yet then immediately afterward say it landed softly. Are those two terms not mutually exclusive?

On February 28, 2009 a 50,000-pound dummy rocket booster was dropped in the Arizona desert and slowed by a system of five parachutes before it crashed to the ground. The booster landed softly without any damage.

I suppose one could have a soft "crash landing" in an airplane, with the definition of a "crash landing" being: An unscheduled landing due to mechanical problems. But in this case, the parachute system apparently worked flawless ly, exactly as it was designed. So even the loosest definition of "crash" would not fit.

Can someone please fix the article?

Perhaps to this:

On February 28, 2009 a 50,000-pound dummy rocket booster was dropped in the Arizona desert and slowed by a system of five parachutes before it landed softly without any damage.

Thanks.