He is clearly qualified to post idiocy on the Internet.
On 2019-07-06 17:40, christopher.g.burnside@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Does anyone know what this guys qualifications are?
On Jul 6, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://youtu.be/zrq71ocWMcg?t=7
"1 A crew module sized and weighted to represent Orion will ..."
So, the Boilerplate is an accurate representation size, shape,
weight and center of gravity and therefore should fly the same as
the real thing. Orion, unstable in SubSonic Flight, will spin so
fast that it will incapacitate the Crew preventing them from taking
any actions to save their own lives.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 9:30 AM Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
PS
The smoke trail says it all,
https://youtu.be/2RbbSGrO_tY?t=247
Mickey Mouse has big balls if he is going to ride in this "unstable"
death trap.
Back in the Day, the Space Shuttle was designed to withstand two
failures. A concept of Fail Operational, Fail Safe. First Failure
causes an abort, ok, good. Second Failure no parachutes, ok, good.
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.
It's NOT hard to build a Stable Capsule, just look at a Soyuz
Capsule. Stable in hypersonic flight. Stable in supersonic flight.
Stable in transsonic flight. Stable in subsonic flight.
Comparing the changes made to Orion from the original Apollo design,
the "shape" changes would tend to make it more unstable. Orion may
even be more stable upside down, flying heat shield up.
https://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/orion-em1-feb18.jpg
Those High Temperature Tile are a great idea for a capsule that is
more stable Up-side-Down.
The Operation was a great success, but the Patient died.
PPSS
Assuming the Boilerplate had the correct shape, weight and cg.
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 9:34 PM Craig Fink <webegood@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Chuck,
Still not Human Rated! The Simulated Astronauts Died. Abort Test
Grade: Failed. That is unacceptable behavior for a SubSonic Capsule
... the rest of my words are redacted. Redacted, REDACTED. redacted.
https://youtu.be/2RbbSGrO_tY?t=200
"...And it would Appear, that,, the,,, test is complete."
--
Craig Fink
WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:34 PM Redacted sender crogers168 for DMARC
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig:
It was a boilerplate crew module, without a parachute recovery
system. Once the crew module separated and was out of the
near-field flow field behind the launch abort system, the test was
over.
The flight data was telemetered to the ground. As a back-up,
ejectable data recorders were used as a second means to get the
flight data if there was a telemetry system failure. The ejectable
data recorders were ejected after crew module separation.
After reentry from orbit, or after an abort, drogue parachutes are
deployed. (There are modes where you go direct to the main
parachutes.) As the boilerplate crew module had no parachute
system, it had no drogue parachutes.
The crew module has to be stable after separation from the launch
abort system for a short period of time before deployment of the
drogue parachutes. (Or for the short period of time before you go
direct to the main parachutes.) The crew module was stable for this
short period of time.
Tumbling later in the flight shows why drogue parachutes are used.
Drogue parachutes are lighter than other options of reconfiguration
of the outer mold line, Center of Gravity (CG) shift beyond what is
built into the capsule for a small Lift-over-Drag (L/D) ratio during
hypersonic reentry, or other options.
As I noted; after the crew module separated from the launch abort
system, the test was over.
Charles E. (Chuck) Rogers
-----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
