NASA's Orion Mock-Up Fails Parachute Test 163
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."
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.
Re:This is not even news... (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 successful.
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.
Re:This is not even news... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why the parachute? (Score:1, Informative)
I dunno about 'incredibly exacting care', I used to skydive and just jam that joker in there to get my 10 jumps a day in, but you better believe that the reserve was packed with 'exacting care' by an FAA certified rigger.
But the main? Nah. Hard to make it malfunction even if u stuff it in the container tho.
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.
Re:Incompetent andaerodynamically unstable to boot (Score:2, Informative)
You are aware that, per TFA, this IS basically the same parachute system as on Apollo.
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]
Re:Remember this, NASA (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 jump up, grab Lois, and *decelerate* her.
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]
Re:Remember this, NASA (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.
Not much like skydiving, except Walter Hudson (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re:This is not even news... (Score:3, Informative)