This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
SLS and Orion

Maximum Parachute Test For Orion Completed

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 29, 2012
Filed under , ,

NASA Completes Maximum Parachute Test For Orion Spacecraft
“During the test, a C-130 airplane dropped a dart-shaped test vehicle with a simulated Orion parachute compartment from an altitude of 25,000 feet. Orion’s drogue chutes were deployed at approximately 20,000 feet, followed by small pilot chutes, which then deployed the three main parachutes. Each of the main parachutes is 116 feet wide and weighs more than 300 pounds.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

22 responses to “Maximum Parachute Test For Orion Completed”

  1. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    Each of the main parachutes is 116 feet wide and weighs more than 300 pounds.

    That’s a big parachute; it’s practically a circus tent.  It looks to me like we’re maybe reaching the end of this technology’s ability, and to land loads any more massive will take either a newer technology or combination of technologies, like MSL needed for Mars.

    Steve

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Circus tent? Interesting choice of words.

    • Augusto Furtado says:
      0
      0

       You’re absolutely right! Actually, in every field of space exploration there will be the need for the development of new rechnology, starting by the propulsion systems which are completely obsolete. If we are meant to go further and deeper into outer space, there ‘s a lot to be changed! And it seems that NASA is pretty aware of that! As human race we have to understand that Space is our future and destiny!

    • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
      0
      0

      It looks to me like we’re maybe reaching the end of this technology’s
      ability, and to land loads any more massive will take either a newer
      technology

      Yeah.  Like maybe some kind of big “space plane” with wings that can land on a runway or a flat desert bed.  And maybe even store payloads in the fuselage.

      I know, that’s wild and wacky thinking.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        You sill, twisted boy!  Why would they drop SLS to do something useful and sensible?  If you start NASA down the path of something that can actually be finished and then used you’ll end up putting all of those thousands of hardware building contractors out of jobs.  Do you think for a second that Congress would allow that?

        Steve

  2. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    Six years ago, in September 2006, NASA awarded Lockheed Martin the contract to build Orion. The first Orion test splashdown in a pool happened in 2011, five years later. Orion is scheduled to travel to space in 2014, eight years after contract award. The total contract value is $6.4 billion with an additional $375 million for the Delta IV test flight.

    Is this a good return on investment for NASA given the Agencies objectives for the human exploration of deep space?

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      The Orion is scheduled for flying an unmanned test in 2014. The first manned test is scheduled in 2021 (maybe repeating the 1968 around the Moon loop) and anything else just penciled in.
      This is simply a dead-end money-burner that will die of a thousand cuts of funding. 

      Private companies (particularly SpaceX) are going to eat NASA’s (and China’s) lunch and roar past this boondoggle.

    • James Lundblad says:
      0
      0

      It’s interesting to compare, the CSM contract was awared in 1961 and flew men in Apollo 7 in 1968. Could Dragon do a lunar landing without the need for lunar orbit rendezvous?

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        First, Dragon would need to be designed for deep space. This includes paying close attention to thermal concerns as well as a good inertial guidance system and the radiation environment and high speed re-entry and the required tight entry specs.

        I’m sure SpaceX can do this and probably cheaper, but the current design likely does not support this and it will take time and money. SpaceX has been working on the LEO crew design for many years and it will take at least 3 more years.

      • mattmcc80 says:
        0
        0

        I wonder if it’s even practical to land the Dragon on the Moon.

        First, a single SuperDraco has 50% more thrust than the LEM descent engine, but a fully loaded Dragon appears to weigh 50% less than the LEM did.  So as far as “can it land?”, sure, provided it can be throttled down enough to not burn through its fuel too fast.

        Then there’s the heat shield that serves no purpose in a moon landing.  Get rid of that and you can thrust straight down instead of at angles.  But now you’re attaching some sort of additional bus to the bottom of the capsule and wondering why you wouldn’t just make a new (bigger) LEM.

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          “Then there’s the heat shield that serves no purpose in a moon landing.”

          However if you can double up by using the CM as the ascent stage of the LM, you might reduce your overall launch mass. At the least, eliminating an extra launch. (Assuming modular, multiple-launch, orbital rendezvous mission profile.)

          “But now you’re attaching some sort of additional bus to the bottom of the capsule”

          Dragon already has a “bus” attached below its heat-shield, the trunk. Rebuilding the trunk as a descent stage would be less involved than rebuilding the whole capsule as an SSTO lander (or building a new Super-LM from scratch.)

          “but a fully loaded Dragon appears to weigh 50% less than the LEM did.”

          I think you’re comparing with the fully fuelled LM, just over 14 tonnes.

          Assuming 7 tonnes for Dragon+Crew+Landing-trunk… then you’d need about 10 tonnes of fuel. Total mass around 17 tonnes, bit heavier than the LM. (And I’m not including the mass of the tanks, nor allowing for a loss of efficiency by not having the superdracos pointing directly down, nor …)

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            On a dragon moon lander wouldnt you move your dracos/super dracos out on a stem and  let them point straight down? Could just be a bolt on mount.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            I was looking at the idea of using the CM capsule as the ascent stage of a LM, and using the same capsule for reentry. (Answer: probably not.)

            Obviously you can theorise shoving a couple of superdracos directly underneath a heavily modified pressure vessel from a Dragon capsule, with a set of drop-tanks around the outside for the descent fuel. (Or superdracos on outrigger pods, fuel tanks in the centre under the capsule. Or use two stages…) But that’s just a generic description of any lander, there’s nothing special about Dragon. As Matt says, at some point you’re basically building a LM from scratch.

            [Another idea would be to modify a F9 upperstage with 90° mounted superdracos at the “corners”. So that it lands horizontally. Dragon capsule based ascent stage at one end, cargo bay near the other. Basically ULA/Masten’s “Dual Thrust Axis Lander”/Xues. Or if you prefer, an Eagle Transporter from Space1999.]

  3. Augusto Furtado says:
    0
    0

    All the technology will have to be reconsidered if we are meant to go further and deeper into outer space. Starting by the propulsion systems and the fuel they use! They can only take us to our backyard, and no more! If we are meant to seriously explore the space, this is the first change to be researched!

  4. Ralphy999 says:
    0
    0

    I think NASA is completely serious about Orion. Whether or not it will ever launch on the SLS I don’t know but I am betting it will be used somehow. According to one source I have read the capsule contains more room for the astronauts that the shuttle (per person) did. That doesn’t seem possible but that’s what I read.

    Oh, and the astronauts were intricately involved in the design of the interior of the capsule, from seating placment to instrument panels to pilot visablity through the window. This baby is A-1 custom delux.

    • HyperJ says:
      0
      0

      Yep, and we are paying the A-1 custom delux price for it as well. These babies won’t be cheap. $17-20 billion for development, and after that ~$1 billion a piece. (assuming the low flight rate)

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Whether or not NASA is serious about Orion (or SLS for that matter) isn’t really an issue.  They have been given no choice in the matter.  Congress has mandated it, the President didn’t intervene in any way, and therefore NASA is stuck doing it, no matter how they feel about it.  However, it is consistent with NASA’s past reputation that if they must do it, they will do it as well as they can, instead of giving it a half-hearted effort.  NASA has its problems, for sure, but the engineers and contractors have never skimped on safety (as opposed to some of their managers).  Orion is probably a waste, but if its finished, I feel confident it will be quality waste.

      Steve

      • Ralphy999 says:
        0
        0

        I have no idea what will survive congressional budget games later this year and next year. From my reading of current congressional intent, such as it is, congress intends for NASA to proceed with manned BEO missions of one sort or another. Congress practically never backs away from the political spoils system and Boeing and Lockmart are certified experts at the gaming there of.

        Orion is expressly designed and currently being built (so far) for BEO missions what ever they may be.

        If I read their intent correctly, it is inconceivable, I repeat inconceivable, that comgress will give up manned missions and the NASA space centers that support them. If I am wrong then it means that I do not really understand political spoils (which is basically about jobs and who can bring them and the political party that benefits) as it is constituted and the few political science classes I took in college were just a lot of marlarky.  However, I really don’t think so.

        • mattmcc80 says:
          0
          0

          A potentially useful data point is that Kay Hutchinson, one of the loudest Senate champions of SLS (And largest opponents of CCDev) is not running for re-election this year.  Not living in Texas, I don’t know much about who her likely replacements are.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Given how hard she’s been fighting for the cause in her last term, she might have been paying for her post-Senate directorships with ATK/ULA/etc. If so, she’ll be using her political favours to continue to damage her sponsors’ enemies.

      • Ralphy999 says:
        0
        0

        If you really want to know how difficult it s to go against the political spoils system, read the following article.

        http://tinyurl.com/cwhww8k
        I particuarly appreciate the last paragraph in the article.

  5. RogerStrong says:
    0
    0

    “In 2017, Orion will be launched by NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS)”

    I’ve marked my calendar.