Photos of crashed Orion test capsule

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:07:28 -0500, Pat Flannery wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28907
Ouch! It's not as bad as Soyuz 1, but it's not good by any means.

Pat

Ah HAHAH that beyotch got pwned! LOLZORZ!

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
I will say up front that I believe this is purely teething problems and
they'll get this fixed.

Most likely. Apollo had some problems with chutes, but nothing terribly
serious during actual flights.

But for all those that claims chutes are inherently safer than wings, I
think this provides a dramatic counter-example.

To be fair, the failure was with the chutes used to set up the test, not the
Orion chutes. So this wasn't so much an Orion failure as it was a failure
to test properly.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
I will say up front that I believe this is purely teething problems and
they'll get this fixed.

Per Henry Spencer, it was caused by a flaw in the test setup rather than a
flaw in the design of the Orion parachute system:

snipping

This was my guess also. It looks like it never properly left the vehicle in
the first place.

(to be clear, I'm not changing my position, since I think designing adequate
tests is part of teething problems :-)

That said, I still stick by my comments that capsules with chutes are not
necessarily any safer than spacecraft with wings.


--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...
That said, I still stick by my comments that capsules with chutes are not
necessarily any safer than spacecraft with wings.

True. But spacecraft with wings are almost always more complex than
spacecraft with parachutes (which tend to be capsules). Complexity almost
always drives up development and operational costs, so spacecraft with
parachutes are likely to be cheaper than those with wings.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:07 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28907 Ouch! It's not as
bad as Soyuz 1, but it's not good by any means. PatIt was unstable
from the time it left the drop. Watch the the whole drop video.


That still wasn't as bad as Soyuz 1 going into the ground at few hundred
mph, and exploding on impact:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/s/soy1crsh.jpg
In that case you couldn't even tell it was a spacecraft at one time.
Still, the Orion drop was a major mess when you watch the video of it.
That's odd, as the military got competent at dropping Sheridan tanks out
of aircraft and having them stay right-side up till their main chutes
deployed and they landed.

Pat

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...
That said, I still stick by my comments that capsules with chutes are not
necessarily any safer than spacecraft with wings.

True. But spacecraft with wings are almost always more complex than
spacecraft with parachutes (which tend to be capsules). Complexity almost
always drives up development and operational costs, so spacecraft with
parachutes are likely to be cheaper than those with wings.

Cheaper to build, yes.

Cheaper to operate? Depends on flight rate.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone make such a claim.

Right. But there are quite a few claiming capsules are safer than
spaceplanes.

They are certainly a lot lighter for a given payload that you want to
orbit and return.
They also tend to be tougher if the Soyuz is anything to go by...despite
several abnormal returns, only one cosmonaut ever got killed during
reentry of a Soyuz (the Soyuz 11 crew died prior to reentry).
As Columbia showed, even small abnormalities in a Shuttle reentry can
lead to fatalities.
God help you if it ever came in wrong-end first like Soyuz 5.

On Aug 19, 5:07 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28907
Ouch! It's not as bad as Soyuz 1, but it's not good by any means.

Pat

Are we good at this kind of splat, or what.

Say again, as to where our physics and science smart wizards of our
Zionist/Nazi DARPA are these days.

Why not simply use a well proven fly-by-rocket method of soft-landing
Orion?

How about we outsorce our complex Orion to China, or India?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Pat Flannery wrote:

Still, the Orion drop was a major mess when you watch the video of it.
That's odd, as the military got competent at dropping Sheridan tanks out
of aircraft and having them stay right-side up till their main chutes
deployed and they landed.

I find it very unlikely the military designed the test equipment for
Orion.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Pat Flannery wrote:

Still, the Orion drop was a major mess when you watch the video of it.
That's odd, as the military got competent at dropping Sheridan tanks out
of aircraft and having them stay right-side up till their main chutes
deployed and they landed.

I find it very unlikely the military designed the test equipment for
Orion.

Or that the military got it right on the first try.



D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html