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.
Astronauts

Orion Parachute Test Success

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
July 24, 2013
Filed under

Tenth Parachute Test for NASA’s Orion Adds 10,000 Feet of Success [Watch], NASA
A complicated, high-altitude test Wednesday demonstrated NASA’s new Orion spacecraft could land safely even if one of its parachutes failed.
The 10th in a series of evaluations to check out the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle’s parachute system dropped the test capsule from a C-17 aircraft at its highest altitude yet, 35,000 feet above the Arizona desert. One of three massive main parachutes was cut away early on purpose, leaving the spacecraft to land with only two. The test at the U.S. Army’s Yuma Proving Ground was the highest-altitude test of a human spacecraft parachute since NASA’s Apollo Program.

Marc’s note: Unfortunately the broadcast quality was subpar and barely worth watching.

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

18 responses to “Orion Parachute Test Success”

  1. BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
    0
    0

    Can someone explain to me why 10 tests have been required? Seems like overkill to me. After all, parachute landings have significant history and are used by Soyuz and now Dragon. Nothing new here, move along.
    Alternatively, just keeping people employed thinks the cynic.

    • Bennett In Vermont says:
      0
      0

      Three billion a year, you have to spend it on something.

      Useful is not a requirement.

    • SomeGuy42 says:
      0
      0

      One test is not statistically significant. Also, these are different chutes than Soyuz, Dragon or even Apollo, and they need to be tested. New vehicle = new design = new set of tests.

      There were multiple tests to ensure the baseline/normal chutes work as design, and now some testing to verify it works when one of the chutes fails.

      That’s just like saying we’ve flown a bunch of airliners before, so the 787 or A380 should have skipped most of it’s test flights. Skipping testing on the “simple” thing often comes back to bite a project.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        So how many are statistically significant. 3, 10, 100?
        Dragon drop-tested their chutes once, then went to orbit and have not had a failure. There will be unmanned opportunities for testing from orbit so if it’s worked as a system once or twice in drop tests, there’s no point doing any further testing until you get to orbit. It’s just a waste of time and effort and money.
        To reiterate, the testing is really about the system and not individual capsules or chutes since MPCV isn’t slated for reuse.

        • Mark_Flagler says:
          0
          0

          SpaceX’s unmanned re-entries give them the sample size they need to qualify the parachute system for manned operation (assuming no changes).

    • Jeff Smith says:
      0
      0

      We crash tested Toyotas and Fords in the 80s, why do we have to crash test cars now?

      Did they have the SAME manufacturer with the SAME processes and SAME materials packing the SAME parachute into the SAME container and used on the SAME vehicle in the SAME way it used in the past? If you change things, and you want to be sure it works, you have to retest. Just as you retest a new 4 door passenger car when you change the design or materials, you have to retest a new parachute when it’s made by a new company on a new vehicle.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        Ok so we don’t test every car before it’s sold do we. Basic changes to models don’t require retests. Only new models or changes to manufacturing techniques so we agree on this.
        But what are they changing about the MPCV that requires continued chute system testing? Have they not got the basic system sorted out after all this time? How long have they been designing and building this vehicle?

  2. Redgy Devos says:
    0
    0

    The first manned soyuz flight in 1967 ended in disaster when both parachutes failed resulting in the death of Komarov.On Apollo 15’s return from the moon in 1971 one of the three main parachutes failed,(An Apollo could land safely with two chutes,the third was for redundancy) ,the crew splashed down safely. Human spaceflight leaves no room for error .The Soyuz and Dragon parachutesystems have been designed for entry from earth orbit. Orion reenters at a much higher velocity from let’s say the moon and weighs much more.The last time something like this was done was 41 years ago with Apollo 17.

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      Logic lacking in this response. 10,000 feet doesn’t provide a velocity equal to or anywhere near re-entry velocity so there goes that argument. Your weight argument is no more useful since this is irrelevent to the velocity of reentry.
      All the test proves is that all 3 chutes open when required in this particular instance.

  3. Jeff Havens says:
    0
    0

    No matter how much it has been proven, how old the tech is, etc, etc… it has to be re-tested and re-qualified. Can you imagine the heat NASA would take if something failed during an Orion mission and the excuse was “Well, it worked on Apollo, we just assumed…”? That would either kill NASA at least, HSF at most.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      It wouldn’t kill human space flight. Just PUBLIC human space flight.

      • david says:
        0
        0

        ok Tom Swift, how about giving us a ride on your private spaceship?

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Spacex will test their launch escape on dragon at the end of the year. Dragons will be flying humans, privitely as well as publicly every soon.

          Oh that’s George Swift lolol

          PS Spacex’s system will push the capsule off the booster at Max q No dangerous old fashion escape tower that MUST be safely jettisoned each flight or the passengers die!

  4. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Any damage to the capsule on the land impact? What about max crew seat impact acceleration? Maybe they could switch to land recovery and save a few dollars.

    • Marc Boucher says:
      0
      0

      It was designed for a water landing and they have stated that won’t change.

      • Mark_Flagler says:
        0
        0

        Rather sad, actually, as apparently they expect salt-water damage to some parts of Orion, and seem to be content with that, despite its major impact on re-usability…

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        That was under the assumption that airbags would be needed for land recovery, and the airbags exceeded with launch weight limit for the Ares I. Unless they plan to switch to the Delta for human launch, the added mass of the airbags would not be much of a problem for SLS. However they may not even be needed if the peak acceleration loads on the crew seats are tolerable without them. Ocean landing of a NASA crew is very expensive and contributes to the unaffordability of the Orion. I accept your point that they won’t change, but that doesn’t mean it is the correct decision.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Maybe spacex can sell them some super dracos