Genesis Capsule Crashes; Chutes Blamed 656
Cyclotron_Boy writes "The Genesis probe (reported here) has crashed to the ground, near a road in the Utah desert. The stunt chopper pilots were not to blame, though. The drogue chute didn't open on re-entry. NASA TV is covering it currently. The choppers have landed near the probe, but no word yet as to the condition of the space dust." Many readers have also pointed to CNN's coverage. Update: 09/08 16:39 GMT by J : MSNBC has more coverage and a sad photo of the half-buried capsule: "The capsule broke open on impact. It was not yet clear whether the $260 million Genesis mission was ruined."
On MSNBC Too! *sigh* (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:According to Nasa TV... (Score:2, Interesting)
That mission defied the odds, the chutes deployed (all of them!) and it landed. Looks like fate may have finally caught up.
Who? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pictures of it happening? (Score:3, Interesting)
Would be interesting to see from a physics standpoint how something looks impacting the earth when travelling at high speed.
And please, let's dispense with the "It looks like a blob going SPLUT! How do you think it looks?" comments.
Hilarity ensued. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the people at fark.com [fark.com] have all the angles covered.
"Genesis" projects... (Score:3, Interesting)
NASA's attempt this morning
Star Trek II
Why not use a shuttle? (Score:3, Interesting)
Couldn't they have possibly gotten that probe into an orbit that a shuttle could have matched, and recover the probe that way?
Granted, it could be a while before a shuttle could be tasked to such a recovery, but one could think they could put the probe into a reasonably stable orbit to wait until that time.
Re:Failure timeline (Score:5, Interesting)
There is absolutely no indication that the sequence ever started. The heat shield is still attached, and none of the recovery system covers separated before impact.
Brett
I just watched the video. (Score:2, Interesting)
Spacecraft tumbling -- old mistake? (Score:5, Interesting)
If true, it would not be the first time -- by a long shot -- that the strange behavior of spinning objects caused trouble for a spacecraft. Some of the early three-axis-stabilized satellites were made into inadvertent spinners after their launch stabilization spin made them flip upside down (so that their de-spin rockets made them go faster instead of slowing them down!). SOHO [nasa.gov] was nearly lost in 1998, in part because rotational precession rotated the craft so that the solar panels were in long-term twilight.
Here's hoping there's something left for the team to analyze. Three years in space plus ten years of planning and lobbying is a long time to wait.
Re:Failure timeline (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought it was interesting that the acceleration has to go past 3 gees to *arm* the device, then back below three gees to actually *deploy* it. Miss #1 and you don't get armed, and you leave a crater. Miss #2 and you get armed, leave a crater, *and* a little surprise for the recovery crew. Is this a new design, I wonder, or is this a tried-and-true method that's worked better than anything else so far?
By the way, "Brett", why not go ahead and log in? It's (virtually) painless!
Re:Another priceless moment. (Score:2, Interesting)
Another NASA probe named Stardust is due to return to the Utah Test and Training Range in 2006, bearing samples of cosmic dust from a comet's wake. Stardust uses a similar parachute system to brake its descent. However, the Stardust capsule is designed to be cut loose from its parachute and survive impact.
"Yeah, let's just put that failsafe on one of the two probes." - Good call NASA
Re:Failure timeline (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was watching the thing via the long-range camera on NASA TV, it looked to me that, even when the capsule was just a bright dot with changing luminosity, it was spinning at much higher than 15 rpm. More like 60 - 80 rpm. At that point, I figured what I'd see next...
I'm just surprised the crater wasn't bigger, and that the impact was at only 100 mph. --Rob
Re:Pictures of it happening? (Score:5, Interesting)
Shot of sky. They're saying there's a dot in the sky, but it just looks like sky to me.
Shot of sky. One of the static bits seems to stay put more that the rest of the static.
Shot of sky with dot.
Dot becomes triangle thingy, looks like it's spinning
Spinning thing gets bigger, more in focus.
Spinning thing has a saucer-ish shape, is now seen to be tumbling, not just spinning. (voice over at this point is saying something to the effect that the parachute hasn't deployed.)
Bigger, better focus.
Even bigger, still better focus.
Ground.
It was obvious that the camera operator was focused on the craft, getting the best shot possible of it for as long as possible. As a result, the ground was very surprising when it flashed into the frame.
--
GMail invites for iPod referrals [slashdot.org]
Re:Hold off on blame (Score:4, Interesting)
This mission was NOT cheap, it was infinitely expensive on the cost/benefit scale. That is NOT a good thing, it's a bloody tragedy.
Having accountability is a good thing. How tricky is it to deploy a frikin parachute? Missions been doing this for years on all sorts of craft, I do it a dozen times on the weekend, and NASA can't get this right? I'm frustrated and annoyed. A quarter of a billion dollars down the Swanee because they can't get a frikin pyro to fire. Damned idiots, what happened to checking/testing mission critical systems?
NASA seemse to be continuously outdoing itself these days in it's level of incompetence.
Re:Failure timeline (Score:4, Interesting)
The stunt team could have hit a big red button, causing the probe's parachute to deploy, then swoop down for the capture. The whole mission seemed kinda wacky in the first place, with the helicopter and all. I wonder who sat down and decided it'd be a good idea.
Also you have to wonder HOW the damn thing hit land to begin with. Isn't 70% of the Earth's surface covered with water? You have a 3 in 10 chance of hitting land if this is true.
LockMart owes me a dollar (Score:5, Interesting)
"Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Denver, Colo., designed, built and operates the spacecraft, and is overseeing the capture and return of the Genesos sample capsule."
I say that, since we're all about accountablity, that Lockheed Martin pony up the cash they lost through insufficient engineering. It doesn't matter whether is shipped on time, in budget, with purple wings, whatever - the fact is that it failed. If we pay L-M, it will be an indication that the Federal Government is simply handing checks over to corporations.
On a side note, I happen to know both Alphonzo Diaz and Orlando Figueroa, though I was sufficiently separated from them by management layers that I'm sure they don't remember me. They were both pretty nice guys. It's a shame this didn't work out for them.
missing money (Score:4, Interesting)
Compared to the 2.3 trillion dollars that the Pentagon can't find [cbsnews.com], I'd say NASA is one of our more efficient agencies.
Re:Failure timeline (Score:4, Interesting)
It's because of Apollo.
Even without considering the technology difference between now and 1960's, this is a relative cakewalk to the miracles they performed in getting Men to and from the moon several times without a single fatality.
And when you consider the difference in materials and instrumentation, it's an even worse comparison.
NASA maybe be underfunded, but they are still screwing up on the things they are doing. We are beyond the point at which bringing an unmanned satellite down from orbit should be troublesome.
Re:Dumbest Option Possible? (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if someone forgot to remove a safety device? It could be something as absent-minded as that. What's worrying is that that the Stardust mission has the same chute system...
The only thing to do now is to build Genesis II. It will cost less than the first.