Chopper Pilots Train to Catch Space Probe 44
mav[LAG] writes "Hollywood helicopter pilots have been training for a unique catch planned for September: they will hopefully snag in midair the parachute of a capsule dropped by the Genesis project before it touches down in the Utah desert. The capsule will contain collector arrays of solar particles that should, er, shed some light on the origins of the solar system."
Another Article (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is another article [nasa.gov] (along with a huge picture! [nasa.gov]) at the official JPL NASA website.
Re:Another Article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another Article (Score:4, Interesting)
Very very odd.
Re:Another Article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another Article (Score:3, Informative)
Since they decided to use an artists rendition, the question still remains, who was the blind, armless, computer-illiterate who put that pic together?
Re:Another Article (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it looks like it's missing the blue channel from the entire picture for some reason. That explains the color discrepancy, and why the helicopter is such a wonderfully eye-hurting shade of red.
Re:Another Article (Score:1)
That does not explain the color descrepancy. If there were no blue in the larger picture, then there would be no white either! The background would be yellow if there were no blue in the larger image. Also, the blue of the red-white-blue parachute would be black, not green, after taking out the blue.
It looks photoshopped to me, but what do I know.
Re:Another Article (Score:2)
Interesting guess, but no.
They are actually two different parachutes. Look at the bottom-left corner of the chutes. The blue/white shute has a nice square corner and straight bottom. The yellow/green chute has stair-step shape fold in the corner, and the bottom is anything but straight.
A close inspection of the large image reveals that a segment of the hook-line is invisible. It runs from the chpper to the top-right corner of the chute and dissapears "behind" i
It is a fake (Score:1)
Maybe it's just me ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Maybe it's just me ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe it's just me ... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe it's just me ... (Score:2)
They have been doing bizarre mid-air catches for decades
My failing memory is trying to tell me about a spy extraction technique I once saw on some TV show (History? Discovery?). I Googl...oops, searched but couldn't find a reference.
Two high (25'?) poles would be set up with a cable between them, and the secret agent would don a harness and attach the harness via another cable to the "highwire". Along would come a low-flying (under the enemy radar) plane with a tailhook and essentially spring the pe
Re:Maybe it's just me ... (Score:4, Informative)
The most exciting use of it, in my opinion, was in the Arctic for Operation COLD FEET. A summary is given here [cia.gov], and a good book on it is here [modelwarships.com] (or at least a review of the book---I've read the book, by the way, and I couldn't put it down until I finished it).
Re:Maybe it's just me ... (Score:2, Funny)
I especially liked the section labeled "The Skyhook System".
Apparently pigs not only have nervous systems much like humans but react with similar emotions to be being "volunteered".
Re:Maybe it's just me ... (Score:2)
Because those would have to survive liftoff and be light enough for there being enough fuel to accelerate and slow down the whole thing?
Even if possible at all, adding them to the probe would, likely, have costed more than a few dozens of new helicopters...
It is considered likely, that the results of the mission will survive the impact of the landing -- catching it in mid-air just adds some more protection. At a reasonable price.
Your intuition is wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
- putting more engineering into the thing would make it heavier, less reliable, and more expensive to launch.
little more engineering... (Score:2, Insightful)
remember that this particular object will have to have:
a) survived construction on earth
b) survived launch and liftoff, and subsequent separations of other stages of the vehicle,
c) gotten itself into the specific flightpaths and orbits and such that required it to complete its mission
d) stay in touch with earth
e) complete its mission
f) get back
and you want to add just 'a little more enginee
Re:Maybe it's just me ... (Score:2)
The point is that every extra gram of spacecraft mass required to "soften the landing" would had to have been launched, inserted into orbit, kickec out of orbit, and kicked back into the earth's atmosphere, along with the milligrams of actual solar wind material.
So, you add, say, 1 kilogram (a very low estimate) of spacecraft mass, to protect the aerogel panels, you've then got to add the extra propellant
Not exactly unique (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not exactly unique (Score:2, Interesting)
no military? (Score:2)
Re:no military? (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Because military pilots aren't trained to do crazy-ass stunt-type flying?
3. Liability issues?
4. PR?
5. Because stunt pilots log more flying hours than military pilots and are therefore slightly better trained?
6. Because no military pilot is stupid enough to do something like this?
Pick one. Or pull it out of your butt like I did. Personally, I think #2 is probably a good reason.
Re:no military? (Score:2)
Re:no military? (Score:1, Informative)
Kahn! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Kahn! (Score:1)
Did that in 1960. (Score:5, Informative)
I understand that the early spy satellites did not have CCD's, but only Cameras, and they'd drop the Films to earth (reentry and all) and those would be caught in flight by a modified plane, developed and looked at.
That was with Slide Rules and stuff, no serious computers then, and no helicopters, I think. Why is it hard today?
Quote: "A special feature of the Discoverer Program was that the satellites were to eject capsules after a certain number of orbits. The capsule was supposed to reenter the atmosphere and release a parachute so that the capsule could be recovered. Specially modified aircraft were fitted with two long booms which extended from the aircraft and had a rope stretched between the tips of the booms. If everything went according to plan, the rope would catch the shrouds of the parachute of the de-orbited capsule."
from
http://spacecovers.com/pricelists/categor
Re:Did that in 1960. (Score:5, Informative)
Quote: Catching a film capsule in midair after it was ejected from a CORONA spy satellite was like reeling in a fish, says retired Air Force Col. Tom Sumner.
"It was easy," says Sumner, one of the commanders of a clandestine Hickam task force of C-130s and helicopters assigned to catch the items in flight.
Re:Did that in 1960. (Score:4, Interesting)
"When a film canister was full, it was jettisoned back to earth
over Hawaii in a ceramic container that deployed a parachute.
These were retrieved in mid-air by Air Force C-119 airplanes
(the so-called "Flying Boxcars") that were outfitted with long
snag lines strung between twin tails. If the planes missed, the
canisters would splash down and float in the Pacific Ocean for
up to two days so the Navy could get to them. After two days,
salt plugs would dissolve and the canisters would sink into the
ocean depths to avoid unfriendly retrieval. Even so, at least
one canister is known to have gotten into enemy hands."
from http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/
Re:Did that in 1960. (Score:2)
Re:Did that in 1960. (Score:1)
Still the whole helocopter stunt does seem to be a complicated way to deorbit a payload...why not just make it waterproof, give it a bigger parachute, and have it splash down in the Pacific?
Re:Did that in 1960. (Score:2)
That was with Slide Rules and stuff, no serious computers then, and no helicopters, I think. Why is it hard today?
Because real engineering (not what Slashdot readers consider to be engineering) is all about being reasonable; I.E. not focusing on precision to the nth decimal point.
Beleive it or not, it is still possible to build very complicated things (except computers themselves) without the aid of computers.
However, this takes highly-skilled professionals working as a team, and they work together
Train to Catch Space Probe (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Train to Catch Space Probe (Score:1)
Chopper Dave, (Score:2, Funny)
Happy Hooker (Score:3, Informative)
As part of a university program that launched a joint venture sounding rocket from Wallops Island, this wasn't an available option for us. We constructed the payload to be watertight and boyant, and hired a tuna-boat to go out and pick the thing out of the Atlantic.
*cheers* to all SPIRIT teammates if they happen to read this. It was an outstanding success.