On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 12:25 PM Redacted sender crogers168 for DMARC <
dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To All:
I’m reluctant to respond to some of Craig’s posts. But I’m against
moderation on the list, and as others have noted some people may read some
of this stuff and believe it. It takes too much time to go through some
of this point by point, but I’ll hit a few highlights.
The Orion shape is based on the Apollo shape with small changes. The
center of gravity is also similar. Thus it has many of the
characteristics of Apollo capsule. I’m sure I can find some tumbling
Apollo capsule footage, I have footage of an Apollo capsule going through
Launch Escape System (LES) jettison with the LES nose forward, and then
reorientating on the drogue parachutes.
Somehow I don’t think Apollo was a deathtrap, non-“human rated”. There’s
other trades on capsule configurations, for Apollo a competing proposal was
similar to Soyuz. But it can't be argued that the Apollo crew module
wasn't successful.
I really don't care about what Chris has to say. He is in the SPAM folder
Christopher Burnside (*christopher.g.burnside@xxxxxxxxx*
<christopher.g.burnside@xxxxxxxxx>) wrote:
Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<< I would have expected to see a nice STABLE Capsule smash into the
ground, giving the Astronaut plenty of time to "Work the Problem", fix the
Parachute or Blow the Hatch and jump out . Instead, I was treated to a
high RPM gyro ride that Disneyland wouldn't touch. The Simulated
Astronauts may have even died before hitting the ground. There was no
"Manual Override" even possible, no Bailing out with a Personal Parachute,
no saying goodbyes. >>
Blow the hatch and jump out? Seriously?
Again, you have a system where the design trade was made to add an
attitude control motor. With the attitude control motor there anyway, it
can be used to damp the rates before the launch abort system is jettisoned
from the capsule.
And since you designed it this way, yes, if you let the capsule coast and
coast it will eventually tumble without the drogue parachutes.
That might not have been the design trade you would have chosen, but it’s
a consistent system design.
Saying the drogue parachutes might not deploy, is like saying the main
parachutes might not deploy. Or the parachute system may get fouled, as
happened on the first Soyuz flight. Loss of the crew is the result.
Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<< I'm the Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) guy who just
gave NASA's Orion Capsule a Failed to meet minimum standards to be "Human
Rated", due to subsonic aerodynamic instability. It's a Capsule, it's not
hard to design a stable capsule. Heck, the thing had great stability right
up to the point that beautiful aerodynamic Tail broke off under the loads
of the landing rocket. Next time, NASA forgets to put Parachutes onboard,
have the Simulated Astronaut throw the pyro separation breaker to prevent
the beautifully aerodynamic Tail from falling off and use the last solid
rocket burn to soften the landing impact. Maybe, NASA accidentally sized
the motor correctly for a landing burn. I'm about as Independent as it gets.
I’ll let the last few sentences of this paragraph speak for themselves. If
you’re joking, it’s hard to tell from whether you’re trying to make a
serious point.
As for the “Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) guy”, and “I’m
about as Independent as it gets”, IV&V is taken very seriously. But it
starts with a basic understanding of the particular system, and similar
systems, like the Apollo capsule. And it has to be from credible sources,
or it's just noise, and not of value. So I'm not really sure what formal
IV&V role you're really claiming here.
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx>
To: arocket <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri, Jul 5, 2019 7:56 am
Subject: [AR] Orion Abort Test Failure...
...Not Human Rated. Orion Abort Test was a complete and utter failure, yet
NASA calls it a success?
I can make some assumptions about what they did, like. The shape of the
Orion Capsule is correct. The Center of Gravity (CG) is correct. Given
these two assumptions, this Orion Capsule test was a complete and utter
failure. Back to the drawing board and re-design the entire Capsule, it's
not Human Rated.
NASA showed this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rfsDMGplZU
Yet, here is what the Orion Capsule flying through the atmosphere.
https://youtu.be/2RbbSGrO_tY?t=170
I would hardly call this "Stable" flight. Exactly how many RPM do NASA
Astronauts like to be spinning at, when they impact the water? Gees, can
you imagine what it would be like to "Work the Problem" tumbling at that
rate?
The Orion Capsule is unstable.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
