Slashdot Log In
NASA's Orion Mock-Up Fails Parachute Test
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Aug 22, 2008 01:09 PM
from the perhaps-skydiving-is-not-for-you dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
NASA Shows Off Mock-Up of Mars-Capable Spacecraft 247 comments
N!NJA writes with this snippet of a report from Reuters: "NASA gave visitors to the National Mall in Washington a peek at a full-size mock-up of the spacecraft designed to carry US astronauts back to the moon and then on to Mars one day. The design of Orion was based on the Apollo spacecraft, which first took Americans to the moon. Although similar in shape, Orion is larger, able to carry six crew members rather than three, and builds on 1960s technology to make it safer."
They're still working on the parachute.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Common occurances... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Common occurances... (Score:4, 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.
Parent
Re:Common occurances... (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.
Parent
Re:Common occurances... (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.
Parent
Apollo/Saturn WORKED! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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?
Remember this, NASA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:3, 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 [superdickery.com] and Super Hunches [superdickery.com].
He has an unrelated power which is also called Super Catching, but we won't talk about that.
Wrong Orion! (Score:2)
I read the article and thought...
Ohh they are doing Nuclear powered spacecraft tests!!
Bummer...
Well There's Your Problem Right There (Score:5, Funny)
What went wrong: (Score:5, 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.
Complicated? (Score:2)
'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?
Re: (Score:3, 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...
Re: (Score:2)
Because they haven't done any (or almost any) in 40 years thus it is by definition the most complicated.
Re:Complicated? (Score:4, 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 [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Surprising news (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!
Of course it didn't work! (Score:2, Funny)
This is not even news... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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 suc
Re:This is not even news... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wobble. (Score:2)
Wow, look at the capsule oscillate. That can't be helpful -- or comfortable (even without the sudden stop).
A Successful Test! (Score:4, Insightful)
They found a bug! It was a good test.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:A Successful Test! (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Incompetent andaerodynamically unstable to boot... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Confucius say (Score:5, Funny)
Confucius say "Parachute like girls legs. Best when open."
How do I add a "thud" tag to this? (Score:4, Funny)
still unclear but (Score:2)
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?
Well... (Score:2)
...that sucked.
Back to the drawing board.
Apollo chute test failed too (Score:5, Informative)
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 [nasa.gov]
Direct video link (Score:5, 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 [akamai.com]
See also:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/pa_chute_test.html [nasa.gov]
Not much like skydiving, except Walter Hudson (Score:4, Informative)
This is Your Captain Speaking: (Score:4, Funny)
We might experience some turbulence, then explode.
Did they bother wind tunnel testing that thing? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
why parachutes and not something simpler? (Score:3, 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?
Did they cut the video short? (Score:4, 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.
Not surpising (Score:3, Insightful)
From an organization that always goes with the low bidder - this is not surprising....
THE REAL QUESTION (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why the parachute? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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?
Re:Wow (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, 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...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, 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.