Let's try this again. The system is designed to use drogue parachutes in
certain flight regimes, to avoid tumbling. Whatever other design mods could
have been made to allow a complete drogue-less descent through all flight
regimes without tumbling, adding drogue parachutes was (I'm sure) clearly the
lightest weight solution. Part of the test was to stabilize the launch abort
system and crew module after reorientation, null the rates, and then have a
clean separation with low rates for a crew module heatshield forward coast
until the drogue parachutes would deploy. Check. Accomplished. And then the
test was complete. During the descent past what would have been the drogue
parachute deploy point, the crew module tumbled. Because no drogue parachutes
were deployed. Because in certain flight regimes, like the one the crew module
was passing through, drogue parachutes need to be deployed, to prevent
tumbling. As exactly per the design. High angular rate during tumbling?
Irrelevant. It wouldn't have been tumbling, because the drogue parachutes
would have been out. << To say that this is the end all to all Capsule Design
is ridiculous. Everything in front of the Heat Shield is fair game for making
changes to improve Subsonic Aerodynamics. Like SpaceX and Blue Origins did. >>
And like Orion did also. While similar to Apollo, there are changes on the
backshell (leeside) profile. But within reason, changes in the leeside shape
don't have strong effects on the aerodynamics, thus they can be made for other
reasons (more internal volume as an example), and not cause any major changes
in the aerodynamics. There was an incentive to keep the exact Apollo shape, as
there were hours and hours of wind tunnel test data and flight data. But in
the end, changes in the leeside profile were made. << Intermetrics, Averstar,
L3 or whoever is doing the IV&V on the Orion Capsule had better do some serious
soul searching before validating the Orion Capsule and it's horrendous subsonic
aerodynamics. >> Again, with the small leeside profile changes, Orion has very
Apollo-like aerodynamics. With the aerodynamics very similar to Apollo, you're
basically saying the Apollo crew module had horrendous subsonic aerodynamics.
All capsules have some inherently bad aerodynamic characteristics, but clearly
the Apollo crew module did not have horrendous subsonic aerodynamics. << To
me, it is highly unusual to terminate a test while the vehicle is still flying,
to stop collecting data before it gets really bad, to stop all the Engineering
video early. The only good view of the out of control tumble came from the
Veteran guy and his new tracking camera. They are ignoring a problem, ignore it
long enough and .... >> On AA-2 it was a fully representative launch abort
system, and every interface between between the launch abort system and the
crew module was fully representative. The crew module Outer Mold Line (OML)
was correct. The weight and CG were correct. The crew module though was a
boilerplate crew module; where it had to be accurate for the test objectives it
was, the rest was just boilerplate. Charles E. (Chuck) Rogers
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx>
To: arocket <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, Jul 10, 2019 11:55 am
Subject: [AR] Re: Orion Abort Test Failure...
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 12:25 PM Redacted sender crogers168 for DMARC
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To All: I’mreluctant to respond to some of Craig’s posts. But I’m against
moderation onthe list, and as others have noted some people may read some of
this stuff andbelieve it. It takes too much time to gothrough some of this
point by point, but I’ll hit a few highlights. The Orion shapeis based on the
Apollo shape with small changes. The center of gravity is also similar. Thus
it has many of the characteristics ofApollo capsule. I’m sure I can find
sometumbling Apollo capsule footage, I have footage of an Apollo capsule going
throughLaunch Escape System (LES) jettison with the LES nose forward, and
thenreorientating on the drogue parachutes. Somehow I don’tthink Apollo was a
deathtrap, non-“human rated”. There’s other trades on capsule configurations,
for Apollo acompeting proposal was similar to Soyuz. But it can't be argued
that the Apollo crew module wasn't successful.
Apologies for my initial Rant, really was just the shock of just how bad Orion
performed. I've calmed down. Sorry, I can get passionate about all things space.
By today standard tumbling at 100 RPM should be unacceptable, 50 years ago in a
Space Race it's just fine. It was successful, but Mercury or Gemini might
perform better.
Mercury Capsule, nice for-body nose, would change it's subsonic aerodynamics.
Not sure, but would probably settle out at some attitude that isn't above 100
RPM.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Mercury+capsule&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS847US847&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisiYiU8qrjAhUMbc0KHc_-CS0Q_AUIECgB&biw=1872&bih=1090
Gemini Capsule, again nice long nose. Probably ok subsonic aerodynamics. Not
sure how it behave subsonically
either.https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS847US847&biw=1872&bih=1090&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=bCImXfD-GMmqtQa_p524DQ&q=gemini+capsule&oq=gemini&gs_l=img.3.0.0i67j0l2j0i67l2j0l3j0i67j0.187412.189007..190714...0.0..0.93.483.6......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39.qArPi5kebr8
Apollo need a Docking Hatch, the decision was probably a quick one and made
sense at the time, remove the for-body nose and put a hatch there. To say that
this is the end all to all Capsule Design is ridiculous. Everything in front of
the Heat Shield is fair game for making changes to improve Subsonic
Aerodynamics. Like SpaceX and Blue Origins did.
ChristopherBurnside(christopher.g.burnside@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
I really don't care about what Chris has to say. He is in the SPAM folder now
and I will consider taking him out some time in the future.Put me in your SPAM
folder if you wish, I don't care.
Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: << I would haveexpected to see a nice
STABLE Capsule smash into the ground, giving theAstronaut plenty of time to
"Work the Problem", fix the Parachute orBlow the Hatch and jump out . Instead,
I was treated to a high RPM gyroride that Disneyland wouldn't touch. The
Simulated Astronauts may haveeven 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?
Yes, Seriously! A Capsule does not reach 1 gee at the ground. It achieves 1 gee
at Terminal Velocity, Astronauts can get up and walk around for a minute or so,
if the Capsule is stable and falling at terminal velocity. On the Space
Shuttle we added a pole to allow the Astronauts to bail out, if the wing
doesn't fall off. Seriously, bail out if the main parachute fails.
Again, you have a system where the design trade was made toadd an attitude
control motor. With theattitude control motor there anyway, it can be used to
damp the rates beforethe launch abort system is jettisoned from the capsule.
Attitude Control Jets vs Bad Subsonic Aerodynamics. Attitude Control Jets
"control authority" decrease with altitude, Aerodynamics increasing. Are
Orions attitude control jets rated to run at Sealevel? Don't answer that, it's
irrelevant.
And since you designed it this way, yes, if you let thecapsule coast and coast
it will eventually tumble without the drogueparachutes. That might not have
been the design trade you would havechosen, but it’s a consistent system design.
See comments above about design choices.
Saying the drogue parachutes might not deploy, is likesaying the main
parachutes might not deploy. Or the parachute system may get fouled, as
happened on the first Soyuzflight. Loss of the crew is the result.
Some crews didn't even have pressure suits. Standards like what it means to be
"Human Rated" change with time.
Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: << I'm the Independent
Verification andValidation (IV&V) guy who just gave NASA's Orion Capsule a
Failed to meetminimum standards to be "Human Rated", due to subsonic
aerodynamicinstability. 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
beautifulaerodynamic Tail broke off under the loads of the landing rocket.
Nexttime, NASA forgets to put Parachutes onboard, have the Simulated
Astronautthrow the pyro separation breaker to prevent the beautifully
aerodynamic Tailfrom falling off and use the last solid rocket burn to soften
the landingimpact. Maybe, NASA accidentally sized the motor correctly for a
landing burn.I'm about as Independent as it gets. >> I’ll let the last
fewsentences of this paragraph speak for themselves. If you’re joking, it’s
hard to tell fromwhether you’re trying to make a serious point.
Just one man's opinion, you have another fine but don't expect me to change
mine anytime soon. Don't like my opinion fine.
As for the “IndependentVerification and Validation (IV&V) guy”, and “I’m about
as Independent asit 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.
I have always taken IV&V very very seriously.
Intermetrics, Averstar, L3 or whoever is doing the IV&V on the Orion Capsule
had better do some serious soul searching before validating the Orion Capsule
and it's horrendous subsonic aerodynamics. To me, it is highly unusual to
terminate a test while the vehicle is still flying, to stop collecting data
before it gets really bad, to stop all the Engineering video early. The only
good view of the out of control tumble came from the Veteran guy and his new
tracking camera. They are ignoring a problem, ignore it long enough and ....
I asked my wife about what she thought of the video, she was shocked. Doesn't
take a Rocket Scientist to figure out they wouldn't want to go along for that
ride.
Drogue and Parachutes do fail. The Experiment survived the
crash.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_P09vLnYMo
Pyro-bolts do malfunction .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-11
-----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 thishttps://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
It's just my opinion.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
