|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Two Point Suspension for Gemini Parachute
Here is another of those "how come" questions. What is the reason for
the two point suspension used to attach the main recovery parachute to the Gemini spacecraft? I have googled and found descriptions of the system but no rationale for this apparent added complexity. Does anyone know what the anticipated consequences would have been if the main chute deployed but did not shift from a single point to a two point suspension? At first blush this doesnt seem to be a reason for the crew to consider ejecting because if single point was good enough for the first six (Mercury), seems it would sufficiently safe for a Gemini crew. Thank you in advance for any information that you might share. blue skies John |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
John,
In a word: "Grissom". 8^ ) You may recall that Gus Grissom flew in one of the Mercury flights (I believe it was the second). With the one point suspension holding up the "pointy" end of his spacecraft, Gus apparently became concerned that his craft was sinking when waves washed continually over his small view window. To get out, instead of waiting for the recovery crew as he was supposed to do, he blew his hatch (window) and climbed out onto the recovery inflated collar which was keeping it afloat and took off his helmet. Water began to wash into the craft (and into his space suit). The spacecraft went to the bottom, and only by the grace of God, the recovery helicopter was able to lift him with his suit also filled with water, into the chopper for the ride back to the recovery carrier. Else Gus would have been deep-sixed, as well. You may recall that for his next flight, he named his craft "Molly Brown" for the title character in the musical "The Unsinkable Molly Brown", starring Debbie Reynolds. AAMOF, Debbie Reynolds sent Gus one of her scarfs to carry onboard his Gemini flight. NASA went to the two point suspension to keep the escape hatch "on top" following an ocean landing, just to keep those spacecraft from sinking. My memory is just a little bit fuzzy on all the details, but I believe the two-point was a modification in the design AFTER Gus's near-disaster. But, it MAY have been on the drawing boards even before that happened. I was a broadcast news reporter at the Cape, beginning with the last Mercury flight and through Skylab, and as you know, that indeed IS history!!!. ~ art |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Andre Lieven wrote: Here is another of those "how come" questions. What is the reason for the two point suspension used to attach the main recovery parachute to the Gemini spacecraft? I have googled and found descriptions of the system but no rationale for this apparent added complexity. For starters, the twin hatches on the Gemini extended almost all the way back to the heatshield, so if you impacted heatshield first, you could have distorted the hatch frames enough that water could have started to come in. Another reason was that Gemini was at one time intended to land using an inflatable Parawing system, and that required the crew to be in a horizontal position so they could steer it down and land it on its skid landing gear: http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/model...i//parfl04.jpg Does anyone know what the anticipated consequences would have been if the main chute deployed but did not shift from a single point to a two point suspension? At first blush this doesnt seem to be a reason for the crew to consider ejecting because if single point was good enough for the first six (Mercury), seems it would sufficiently safe for a Gemini crew. Assuming it did hit heat shield first- and kept floating that way, you'd end up in a situation where the crew couldn't open the hatches without flooding the spacecraft, as the bottom end of the hatches would now be under water, that would mean unless the recovery crew could flip it onto its side, so that it could right itself with the hatches on the top, the crew would have to stay on board until it got hoisted onto the recovery vessel. Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On 21 Jun 2005 09:31:11 -0700, "John" wrote:
Here is another of those "how come" questions. What is the reason for the two point suspension used to attach the main recovery parachute to the Gemini spacecraft? I have googled and found descriptions of the system but no rationale for this apparent added complexity. Does anyone know what the anticipated consequences would have been if the main chute deployed but did not shift from a single point to a two point suspension? At first blush this doesnt seem to be a reason for the crew to consider ejecting because if single point was good enough for the first six (Mercury), seems it would sufficiently safe for a Gemini crew. Thank you in advance for any information that you might share. blue skies John The following NASA document gives one reason for the two point suspension system used on Gemini. Gemini spacecraft parachute landing system - Jul 1, 1966 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1966020968.pdf "...attenuation of the landing shock by positioning the spacecraft so that it enters the water on the corner of the heat shield, thus eliminating the need for built-in shock absorption equipment." Rusty |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Grissom "I did not blow the hatch!"...
Did he really do it? I thought that they never determined how the pyros blew. Matthew Ota |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Grissom "I did not blow the hatch!"...
Did he really do it? I thought that they never determined how the pyros blew. It is undetermined. Grissom insisted that the hatch blew by itself. The engineer insist that that is not possible. So my opinion is that a person in a spacecraft that he thought was sinking might want to get out. The two-point parachute attach was done in order to hold the spacecraft at the proper angle to produce minimal Gs upon hitting the water. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com,
John wrote: Here is another of those "how come" questions. What is the reason for the two point suspension used to attach the main recovery parachute to the Gemini spacecraft? The main reason was that Gemini's primary landing system was originally the Rogallo-wing paraglider, which (a) required that the astronauts have a forward view during landing, and (b) required horizontal touchdown on landing gear. The ordinary parachute and water landing was first meant as a stopgap until the paraglider was ready; only fairly late in development did it become clear that the paraglider wasn't *going* to be ready. The other, more minor, advantages could have been achieved in less drastic ways -- e.g., for corner-first splashdown it would have sufficed to rig the parachute suspension to bring the capsule down tilted, as indeed was done for Apollo. Does anyone know what the anticipated consequences would have been if the main chute deployed but did not shift from a single point to a two point suspension? At first blush this doesnt seem to be a reason for the crew to consider ejecting because if single point was good enough for the first six (Mercury), seems it would sufficiently safe for a Gemini crew. Remember that Mercury had an airbag for touchdown deceleration, which Gemini lacked. However, provided you were coming down on water as planned, that wasn't too important -- the Mercury airbag was mostly for abort cases involving land touchdown. A Gemini splashdown flat on the heatshield might have been a bit harsh, but probably not enough so to justify an abort. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Revision wrote: Grissom "I did not blow the hatch!"... Did he really do it? I thought that they never determined how the pyros blew. It is undetermined. Grissom insisted that the hatch blew by itself. The engineer insist that that is not possible. The engineers *originally* insisted that it was not possible, but a more thorough later investigation found that there were a couple of ways in which it could have happened. Actuating the hatch-blowing system manually almost invariably resulted in a conspicuous bruise on the astronaut's hand, which Grissom's hand lacked. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote: Does anyone know what the anticipated consequences would have been if the main chute deployed but did not shift from a single point to a two point suspension? ... Assuming it did hit heat shield first- and kept floating that way... It was balanced to float hatches-up. The only question would be whether the chute jettison system would still work after a failure in the suspension changeover, but my guess is that it would have. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spacecraft Doppler&Light Speed Extrapolation | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 91 | August 1st 13 01:32 PM |
The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures | kenseto | Astronomy Misc | 238 | June 12th 05 01:29 PM |
Pres. Kerry's NASA | ed kyle | Policy | 354 | March 11th 04 08:05 PM |
Question about the parachute on the Mars Rover. . . | Scott Ferrin | History | 65 | January 10th 04 11:10 AM |
Volunteer Accused Of Trying To Sell Apollo Parachute | Rusty B | History | 1 | January 7th 04 06:47 AM |