why didn't they use double mechanisms? They can install a small jet propulsion component in addition to the parachute. When one fails, activate the other.
Ok, you only actually used the word incompetent once if you wantr to be an ass about it. At least 3 times you described them incompentent, twice without actually using the word incompetent. :roll:
Anyway, this may be hard to believe, but sometimes nobody is actually to blame. A piece of space debris could have hit some vital component. Some component failed despite rigorous preflight testing & quality control. Who knows at this point.
I've read that that issues had developed with a battery during the flight that could have jeapordized the deployment of the recovery system. Spacecraft batteries are difficult things, and you can't possibly test them in the environment they will experience.
How small can your jet propulsion system be and still be expected to accelerate a 400lb object (plus the mass of the jet & fuel) from 100 MPH to 0. Including guidance, control, etc. Bear in mind that it has to survive launch, 3 years in space, reentry stresses, and still work reliably the very first time it's ever fired.
What got your panties in a bunch? Seriously, do you work for NASA or something? You're acting like nothing happened and that oops, something happened, oh well.
And how do I not know "WTF I'm talking about?" Something screwed up, something (or someone is to blame), it's a difficult task with lots of risk involved, but the bottom line is that it crashed, we may have lost all the data, and those millions of dollars have gone to waste. Please go through that last sentence and tell me where I went wrong.
hmmm. no back up chute? seems like a no brainer to me. and im stupid.
seriously, it sucks that it crashed. but wouldnt you plan from the beginning to be prepared and have a back up just for this reason?
DOH!
seriously, it sucks that it crashed. but wouldnt you plan from the beginning to be prepared and have a back up just for this reason?
DOH!
I was wondering if anybody could explain this part of the NBC article,
"NASA officials believed the disks would shatter even if the capsule hit the ground with a parachute"
So does that mean, they really never bothered to design a system to get the disks back safely. Because it seems to me that the parachutes working wouldn't have helped either.
"NASA officials believed the disks would shatter even if the capsule hit the ground with a parachute"
So does that mean, they really never bothered to design a system to get the disks back safely. Because it seems to me that the parachutes working wouldn't have helped either.
Slow down there kiddo...
I did not say that I could do better, I said that "I really have a hrd time beleiving that that is the best that NASA could come up with.." Seriously... no redundancy at all?? On something this important to them (5 years worth of Funding for studies at least) and they botch it by using a system that wouldn't even give them a reasonable degree of confidence in the integrity of the data if the system deployed as anticipated? Maybe I bloody well should apply, if I was a) American, and b) endowed with an Astrophysics degree
Really... you can't give me a better retort then that? Maybe you should learn how to "flame"...
A jet propulsion system is no good unless this flying fridge is stable, and you can be sure that the jets are on the bottom...
Not to meantion the added weight to an already heavy object.
That's why they were going to catch it with the helecopters. They have done similar things in the past w/o problems.
*sigh* How do you know there was no redundancy? Recall that redundant systems mean more weight. I'm sure they had a very strict weight budget, so a fully redundant system may not have been feasible at all.
I have no idea what you're getting at here. If everything had worked (system deployed, helicopters retrieved), what risk was there to the samples?
I understand some of the technicalities involved, as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the basics (case in point). There more then likely WAS a weight limit, and I'm sure it was adhered to. My beef was why they were using a ssytem that caouldn't guarantee delivery to something they were so dearly dependant on. You would figure that at some point, SOMEONE had to have the idea that if the chutes didn't open and the copters weren't able to snag the box, then perhaps another failsafe might need to be employed.
Its too bad that the discs were so fragile.. I thought diamond based might have mad it a wee bit more resistant to impact, but I guess at the velocity it travelled, it wouldn't be impervious..
But enough conjecture... none of us works at NASA (otherwise, we wouldn't post here..) and as such, we really have no say as to the cause or results..
[/moral high ground]
NASA has used parachutes for decades. It's a tried and true technology they were confidante in. In this case it just didn't work. Given the fragility of the cargo chutes and the copter grab was probably the best option. Sucks that it didn't work, but oh well $hit happens.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
Originally posted by: blakeatwork
It's not easy at all... however, after how many years sending shyte up into space, you'd figure they'd have developed something that's a little more fail-proof, or at the very least, resistant...
And simple does NOT involve a mid-air catch by a helicopter using a pole...
The whole reason why they needed the parachute with helicopter catch was because the sample was so delicate that it would be ruined with a slight jolt.
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: blakeatwork
It's not easy at all... however, after how many years sending shyte up into space, you'd figure they'd have developed something that's a little more fail-proof, or at the very least, resistant...
And simple does NOT involve a mid-air catch by a helicopter using a pole...
The whole reason why they needed the parachute with helicopter catch was because the sample was so delicate that it would be ruined with a slight jolt.
?? I'm unsure how something travelling at about 200KM/h, caught by a catchpole at about 3050m would not experience a slight jolt...
Don't mind me... I'm just curious about something I don;t know a whole lot about, and noone here has the credentials to back up any statements...
Originally posted by: blakeatwork
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: blakeatwork
It's not easy at all... however, after how many years sending shyte up into space, you'd figure they'd have developed something that's a little more fail-proof, or at the very least, resistant...
And simple does NOT involve a mid-air catch by a helicopter using a pole...
The whole reason why they needed the parachute with helicopter catch was because the sample was so delicate that it would be ruined with a slight jolt.
?? I'm unsure how something travelling at about 200KM/h, caught by a catchpole at about 3050m would not experience a slight jolt...
Don't mind me... I'm just curious about something I don;t know a whole lot about, and noone here has the credentials to back up any statements...
Well, if the parachute had opened as planned, it wouldn't be traveling at "200KM/h" when the helicopter caught it. I think the expected rate of descent was to be on the order of 14 KM/h
And I have a few credentials to back it up including degrees in Aerospace engineering, and some experience in reentry modeling.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
I'm an astrophysics major too. I know a bit about this myself. Furthermore, Daily Planet on the Discovery Channel did a piece about it yesterday, and is doing another one today on the crash.
Anyways, the thing is this: The probe contains some very fragile disks onto which the solar wind material has impregnated itself. These disks must remain intact in order to be studied. The jolt of hitting the ground even with a parachute open would likely have shattered them, so they decided on the parachute + helicopter grab. This would allow the probe to decelerate at a reasonable rate, and then be caught in the air causing a much smaller jolt than would be experienced if it had just hit the ground. The helicopter would have caught the chute, then an extra length of bungee would have been released to further cushion the catch. After decending, the probe would be gently landed on a tarp where the parachute was to be cut away, and then the helicopter would take off again and fly the probe to a proper facility.
Anyways, the thing is this: The probe contains some very fragile disks onto which the solar wind material has impregnated itself. These disks must remain intact in order to be studied. The jolt of hitting the ground even with a parachute open would likely have shattered them, so they decided on the parachute + helicopter grab. This would allow the probe to decelerate at a reasonable rate, and then be caught in the air causing a much smaller jolt than would be experienced if it had just hit the ground. The helicopter would have caught the chute, then an extra length of bungee would have been released to further cushion the catch. After decending, the probe would be gently landed on a tarp where the parachute was to be cut away, and then the helicopter would take off again and fly the probe to a proper facility.
Originally posted by: blakeatwork
I understand some of the technicalities involved, as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the basics (case in point). There more then likely WAS a weight limit, and I'm sure it was adhered to. My beef was why they were using a ssytem that caouldn't guarantee delivery to something they were so dearly dependant on. You would figure that at some point, SOMEONE had to have the idea that if the chutes didn't open and the copters weren't able to snag the box, then perhaps another failsafe might need to be employed.
Its too bad that the discs were so fragile.. I thought diamond based might have mad it a wee bit more resistant to impact, but I guess at the velocity it travelled, it wouldn't be impervious..
But enough conjecture... none of us works at NASA (otherwise, we wouldn't post here..) and as such, we really have no say as to the cause or results..
[/moral high ground]
Hey I work for NASA!!
In fact I saw the "landing" live at JPL (where all the operations guys were) this morning at work. I wasn't a part of the genesis project, so I don't know much about what kind of failsafes were planned. What I do know is that this was a JPL managed project. It was contracted out to Lockheed Martin to build. IMO the government needs to quit pressuring nasa to contract out jobs to the private sector because this is what you get. Anyone remember the Mars Climate Orbiter a few years ago (the one that crashed because of the different units). No surprise that was also built by Lockheed Martin...
Anyways to those rocket scientists in this thread slamming nasa for coming up with such a "ludacris" plan for reentry, get off it unless you can come up with something better. It's actually a pretty good plan if you consider the contraints they had for landing the capsule. There are a million reasons the parachute didn't deploy, and given the nature of such a mission there is always going to be some risk, as with any mission. There will never be a contingency plan that is 100% failsafe.
Look at the bright side of things, there still might be some science to be recovered.
Originally posted by: bpctech
Hey I work for NASA!!
In fact I saw the "landing" live at JPL (where all the operations guys were) this morning at work. I wasn't a part of the genesis project, so I don't know much about what kind of failsafes were planned. What I do know is that this was a JPL managed project. It was contracted out to Lockheed Martin to build. IMO the government needs to quit pressuring nasa to contract out jobs to the private sector because this is what you get. Anyone remember the Mars Climate Orbiter a few years ago (the one that crashed because of the different units). No surprise that was also built by Lockheed Martin...
Anyways to those rocket scientists in this thread slamming nasa for coming up with such a "ludacris" plan for reentry, get off it unless you can come up with something better. It's actually a pretty good plan if you consider the contraints they had for landing the capsule. There are a million reasons the parachute didn't deploy, and given the nature of such a mission there is always going to be some risk, as with any mission. There will never be a contingency plan that is 100% failsafe.
Look at the bright side of things, there still might be some science to be recovered.
lol talk about from the horses mouth,
btw how did the team in ops react? Anyone throw up or exclaim profanities? Did the manager proceed to the back to hang himself? Juicey details man details!!
Originally posted by: JoeKing
Originally posted by: bpctech
Hey I work for NASA!!
In fact I saw the "landing" live at JPL (where all the operations guys were) this morning at work. I wasn't a part of the genesis project, so I don't know much about what kind of failsafes were planned. What I do know is that this was a JPL managed project. It was contracted out to Lockheed Martin to build. IMO the government needs to quit pressuring nasa to contract out jobs to the private sector because this is what you get. Anyone remember the Mars Climate Orbiter a few years ago (the one that crashed because of the different units). No surprise that was also built by Lockheed Martin...
Anyways to those rocket scientists in this thread slamming nasa for coming up with such a "ludacris" plan for reentry, get off it unless you can come up with something better. It's actually a pretty good plan if you consider the contraints they had for landing the capsule. There are a million reasons the parachute didn't deploy, and given the nature of such a mission there is always going to be some risk, as with any mission. There will never be a contingency plan that is 100% failsafe.
Look at the bright side of things, there still might be some science to be recovered.
lol talk about from the horses mouth,
btw how did the team in ops react? Anyone throw up or exclaim profanities? Did the manager proceed to the back to hang himself? Juicey details man details!!
hehe, sorry to mislead you from my first post. I wasn't actually in the ops lab, only mission related peoples are allowed in that facility. I was watching the landing in my own building on TV, which I believe was just the nasa tv stream.
I think the project manager (on Lockheed martin's side) was in Utah during the events. I'm sure the jpl ops team were all very shocked and upset. The events happened so fast, after they first said the parachute should've deployed it crashed like 30 seconds later. Additionally there's not a whole lot they can do as the sequence was automated and there was no contingency plan for a failed parachute.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter