It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA's Shuttle Successor Fails Parachute Test

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

NASA's Shuttle Successor Fails Parachute Test


www.foxnews.com

A mock-up of NASA's Orion space shuttle successor twisted, tumbled and fell from thousands of feet up after a parachute failed to inflate properly during a July 31 test.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
It seems as if there is nothing that NASA can get right these days. Is it total incompetence on the part of those who select the contractors and developers for NASA projects, or is it an intentional ruse to generate more money in the pockets of business as recipients of those funds?

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Here is a picture of the unfortunate craft -



I often wonder if it is trully the complexity of NASA's new projects that cause these seemingly constant failures in their tests or if it is indeed a way to pump up the bank accounts of the contractors and developers through delays and budget overruns.


Second Source

As previously reported on the Universe Today, recent parachute test-drops for the Constellation Project have brought mixed results. The Ares I drogue parachute test appeared to perform flawlessly on July 24th, but the July 31st Orion test drop was a different story. Very early on in the parachute test, the "programmer parachute" (the first small parachute to be deployed, righting the descending crew module, setting Orion up for drogue deployment) failed after not inflating in the turbulent wake of the vehicle. This event set in motion complete parachute failure, ultimately forcing a hard-landing (crash) into the Arizona desert. Now NASA has released a video and pictures of the test…



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   


A video of the event released by NASA. I hope this works I've not figured out yet how to get these links to always work.

How much of the budget is wasted on these seemingly constant failures and how much more does this pump into the pockets of the incompetent people constructing these craft?

[edit on 8/22/2008 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 8/22/2008 by Blaine91555]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Yet another NASA failure that makes one wonder.

Nasa engineers knew about a fatal design flaw with the Mars Polar Lander's braking thrusters but kept it secret, leaked information claims.

It follows persistent rumours that the disappearance of the MPL spacecraft last December was no surprise to Nasa officials.


In this case what was the point in even launching the mission unless it was to enrich someone or save someones financial future and behind?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
In the Columbia Disaster (Wiki Source) it is made even worse due to the loss of human life.


The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster occurred on February 1, 2003, when the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas during re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, with the loss of all seven crew members, shortly before it was scheduled to conclude its 28th mission, STS-107.

The loss of Columbia was a result of damage sustained during launch when a piece of foam insulation the size of a small briefcase broke off the Space Shuttle external tank (the main propellant tank) under the aerodynamic forces of launch. The debris struck the leading edge of the left wing, damaging the Shuttle's thermal protection system (TPS). While Columbia was still in orbit, some engineers suspected damage, but NASA managers limited the investigation on the grounds that little could be done even if problems were found.[1]


How could NASA not have known of this obvious design flaw and why was nothing done. I know this has been discussed but I post it here as part of the seeming pattern of behavior on the part of NASA.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
well i'm not really worried about it. i'd rather they have a lot of failures now while testing to weed out as many if not all problems, than have another disaster like a shuttle exploding and killing it's crew. basically, they're tests they aren't supposed to all go perfect.

and secondly failed tests are a small price for the advancement of space travel and all the new technologies and benefits that come with these programs.


just my take on it.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Its embarrassing.

They should give this stuff to people like Burt Rutan, and let him have a go, rather than waste millions without seemingly having a clue.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 22/0808/08 by neformore]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
This "Space Daily" article mirrors a lot of the thoughts I've had on this topic.


One of the most annoying things about NASA is that its dysfunctional management wastes a huge amount of effort on projects long after they are clearly doomed.
By "effort" I don't mean just public money, but the time of lots of very intelligent people. People who are often intelligent enough to know that they are working on a lost cause...

...This is a pretty scary list of disasters. The combined impact of these failures and cancellations in the next year or so could be disastrous, on top of the Columbia, OSP, and Genesis fiascos. Possibly NASA needs an "Associate Administrator for Early Warning".



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Wow! Good thing they do testing before putting people in it. Too bad they aren't 100% perfect like Blaine thinks he is. Being an armchair quarterback isn't the same thing as actually being one.

[edit on 8/22/08 by CO Vet]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal
well i'm not really worried about it. i'd rather they have a lot of failures now while testing


But are these failures really necessary? Are some perhaps planned to extend time periods and budgets. It seems some are purposely kept going even though they know they will fail as the article from Space Daily I just posted implies?

I'm having a hard time coming to grips with the number of failures. I seems like instead of getting better and better at what they do like nearly all other industry does, they are getting progressively worse.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CO Vet
Wow! Good thing they do testing before putting people in it. Too bad they aren't 100% perfect like Blaine thinks he is. Being an armchair quarterback isn't the same thing as actually being one.

[edit on 8/22/08 by CO Vet]


You missed the whole point I'm making as the perfect person you are my friend
What I'm getting at is that these may be purposeful failures to increase the costs and pump more millions into the developers pockets?

I should have been clearer maybe, but I thought my point was more obvious than it was.

You seem way too offended? Do you work for NASA or a contractor?

[edit on 8/22/2008 by Blaine91555]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


ahh, i must have misunderstood you as well then.
well it's quite obviously fact that nasa's budget for such things has been curtailed in the last two terms of presidency. it wouldn't suprise me if a few "failures" just happened to be for monetary gain. i've long believed that if we spent even 15% of what's going to iraq right now, on nasa and private space ventures, we'd already be on mars with manned missions and our level of technology would be far greater than it is now.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Even more reason for what I suspect as the competition for NASA $'s grows.

A better example might be the Hubble. The flaws were infantile to say the least and imagine the amount of funds generated to fix them.

I'm far from an expert on this topic, but it seems to me that an intentional flaw here and there to increase the size and scope of the project is not exactly an impossibility where such huge sums of money are involved.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I would like to see the other tests for a comparison. It seems like they had a few back up chutes that didn't work either. The shape of this craft didn't seem right either as if too flat on the bottom. I would think a cone shape would be better. Weren't these typically dropped into the water rather than hard landings? it's as if we never went to the moon before by our own designs.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by aleon1018]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
You missed the whole point I'm making as the perfect person you are my friend
What I'm getting at is that these may be purposeful failures to increase the costs and pump more millions into the developers pockets?

I should have been clearer maybe, but I thought my point was more obvious than it was.

You seem way too offended? Do you work for NASA or a contractor?

[edit on 8/22/2008 by Blaine91555]


I don't work for NASA or any of it's contractors. I just don't believe in crying wolf with absolutely no credible evidence to back it up. Are you an aerospace engineer?

[edit on 8/22/08 by CO Vet]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CO Vet
Are you an aerospace engineer?

[edit on 8/22/08 by CO Vet]


Of course I'm not. ATS is a Conspiracy Theory board with the emphasis on theory. See a pattern and follow it to see if there is a there, there. Both sides argue and hopefully the truth of it emerges at the end.

It would be very hard to find a beuarocracy that does not include a history of manipulation to line peoples pockets, making this not such an outlandish thought I believe. The infamous framing hammers and toilet seats come to mind.

My thoughts are not engineering related in fact. I'm just following the money.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by aleon1018
 


It is really odd that such a simple device with so many years of use is so unreliable? A mystery for sure.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I agree that it seems strange... we are talking about a parachute failing to inflate. This technology has been in use for decades, we are not exactly talking about experimental propulsion techniques or anything.
There's also the absurd number of Mars probes that have gone missing over the years, which I also find quite odd.
Whether it's due to bad management, budget cuts, the general uncertainties of the field or something more sinister is hard to say. My guess would be that a bit of everything is at play. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these missions were fronts for something else or were meant to fail for whatever reason.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 
That this entire sequence was run in simulation on NASA computers is extemely likely, a failure probably would have been one of several possible outcomes, based on a huge varity of variables. But what I do not understand is how the engineers could have missed the fact that the air stream and turbulence generated by the craft would not allow for proper deployment of several different parachute configurations. This looks like either gross negligence(really bad math) or an intentional foul up to me. This kind of stuff just should not be happening.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join