Orion Drop test

[Brad]

Errr...not a good start for Orion...

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1513658585?bctid=1745075221

Can you say "lawn dart"?

 

[eveningsky339]

This whole project is looking more and more ridiculous...

 

[Urwumpe]

That was no lawn dart, that was the new army ground pounder.

 

[Woo482]

its a experimental earth quake bomb

 

[Pilot7893]

Parachutes: Oh, you wanted us to OPEN?

 

[Woo482]

really ? I thought they wear meant to stay shut

 

[Kyle]

Reminds me of testing for Spirit Rover's parachute. That was a certainly annoying thing to do.

 

[Moonwalker]

The drop test is not a news anymore actually.

This whole project is looking more and more ridiculous...

Well, since a lot of people seem to think that way, let NASA administrator Michael Griffin respond to such thinking: "I hope no one was so ill-informed as to believe that we would be able to develop a system to replace the shuttle without facing any challenges in doing so."

People wrongly assume no problems and errors of developing a new spacecraft and launch vehicle, obviously just because it is 2008 and not 1960 anymore. Orion is in its early stages still like Ares as well and all other previous systems were once before they entered operational status. Problems and failed tests are common when designing and testing new systems. But also during operational status, systems can't be assumed 100% safe and reliable all along.

In the early 1960's the Atlas rockets at Cape Canaveral blew up one after another. James Lovell: "It looked like a very, you know, quick way to have a short career".

The problems encountered during development and testing of the Space Shuttle didn't look promising as well. The main engines blew up during tests. And not to mention the massive tile loss of the thermal protection system during early tests. Even astronauts were not very convinced. Robert Crippen: "The very first time I saw the Shuttle sitting on the back of a 747, I thought we have screwed up bad, this is never going to work".

After all, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the Space Shuttle as well were successes. Ares won't make a difference. The only difference is that today people are able to follow the progresses of spacecraft development in detail based on the internet which results in lots of hobby NASA-experts. Also, people are easy negatively influenceable by subjective articles and blogs on the web.

 

[Bluefinger]

Looks like another hiccup. No biggie, as this often happens with development of new things. If stuff like this didn't happen, then the problems with the craft would never get solved.

Still, funny how it plowed into the ground...

 

[Brad]

Well according to SpaceRef it wasn't NASA's fault at all but some "programmer parachute" issue.

See http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1301 for a good response from NASA PAO.

In relooking at the video, it looks like the drogue chute were literally ripped from there settings as the capsule spun out of control.

 

[Capt. Speirs]

Your kidding me, right?:blink: This looked like the first time they have done this, dropping thing, what the heck was that. I would expect that from a 3rd world country. That better not have been my tax dollar, or my congressman is getting an ear full to stop this project right now, dumb. You can't tell me that they ran this through a computer simulator first. I was just watching a program how they were testing the design in a wind tunnel for stability, what the did they do between that and dropping it?

Brad, I love your avatar.

 

[to be]

Your kidding me, right?:blink: This looked like the first time they have done this, dropping thing, what the heck was that. I would expect that from a 3rd world country. That better not have been my tax dollar, or my congressman is getting an ear full to stop this project right now, dumb. You can't tell me that they ran this through a computer simulator first. I was just watching a program how they were testing the design in a wind tunnel for stability, what the did they do between that and dropping it?

Brad, I love your avatar.

Hopefully you aren't serious. Dropping a capsule out of a plane is nothing like reentering the atmosphere with it. One of the chutes designed to get it into those design parameters failed, meaning that the capsule wasn't flying in the orientation it would be on reentry, meaning the test failed. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1301

 

[MajorTom]

FAIL





(But I'm sure they'll succeed...soon enough)

Edit:
Thinking about what I saw, I was saddened to be reminded of Komarov.

 

[Yoda]

What happened to all the data leading up to succesfull re-entry, parachute deployment and landing from the Apollo capsule's ???

Sure, this thing is probably a bit heavier and bigger, but haven't we learned anything from past successes ( and failures)?

What a waist of money !

This whole "copy-cat" Apollo style spacecraft we are getting rammed down our throats is a joke !

 

[JamesG]

Ooooh. That looked like a rough ride.

That better not have been my tax dollar...

Yup. About one hundred million of them. Smashing into the desert floor. :blink:


I agree that failures are going to happen in any development program (but you'd think that NASA would have static tested and otherwise proofed and documented six ways to Sunday before hand). But the fact remains that this whole project is a reversion to dead-end technology, no matter how much you scale it up or throw advanced materials at it. Thats not being negative or "arm chair quarterbacking", its a pretty obvious fact to me. Thirty years ago NASA was on the cutting edge, now they are just being retro.
:sorry:

 

[Urwumpe]

The problem I see is, that a set of parachutes deployed already too early and had been placed at a bad spot, causing the capsule to tumble. And once a capsule tumbles, deploying parachutes is very very hard, that's why you need usually small pilot chutes for stabilization for capsules - but the two pilot chutes of this capsule had been cut or broke by the massive loads.

 

[JamesG]

The drogue 'chutes were there to extract the payload from the plane and were actually attached to the skid pad. When this separated, you can see that it pulled the first set of 'chutes out but they stuck to the side momentarily for some reason. This induced the wobble and the 'chute didn't deploy correctly. This mean that each subsequent set of 'chutes deployed at too high an airspeed. The middle yellow ones' shroud lines completely failed. Not enough over-design me thinks.
The thing is, cone shaped re-entry vehicles are naturally stable. It should have been able to damp out the oscillation. I guess they wanted to make this one a little to flying saucer looking...

 

[Urwumpe]

The drogue 'chutes were there to extract the payload from the plane and were actually attached to the skid pad. When this separated, you can see that it pulled the first set of 'chutes out but they stuck to the side momentarily for some reason. This induced the wobble and the 'chute didn't deploy correctly. This mean that each subsequent set of 'chutes deployed at too high an airspeed. The middle yellow ones' shroud lines completely failed. Not enough over-design me thinks.
The thing is, cone shaped re-entry vehicles are naturally stable. It should have been able to damp out the oscillation. I guess they wanted to make this one a little to flying saucer looking...

Well, I have not been in the air-mobile infantry, but what I gathered about dropping payloads by a pallet, you attach a drag chute on the pallet to extract it from the plane.

Now, for releasing the pallet from the capsule, I would just release the capsule and use the higher drag of the chute on the pallet to separate them. Not much more, unless I want to create more instability.

 

[Moonwalker]

Thirty years ago NASA was on the cutting edge, now they are just being retro.
:sorry:

Any realistic and serious suggestions you have for NASA?

 

[Urwumpe]

Any realistic and serious suggestions you have for NASA?

Finally, once in their history, kill their dogma against all stuff "not invented here" and adopt the US Airforce project structure?