Did the manned NASA capsules rotate during descent?Was the Apollo 13 CM guidance computer fully shut down?Would Soyuz meet NASA current rating standards for manned spaceflight?Could Orion capsules be reused?How do the sizes of the various proposed manned capsules differ?Why was Dragon sent to the isolation room?Early high-inclination crewed flightsWhy were ejection seats used in Project Gemini instead of a tower escape system?Why does NASA not replicate existing manned launch systems?Did early Russian capsules really have “Human Inside” labels?What attitude have past and modern manned spacecraft maintain(ed) relative to Earth?
Emotional immaturity of comic-book version of superhero Shazam
Adjacent DEM color matching in QGIS
Is there an idiom that support the idea that "inflation is bad"?
exec command in bash loop
Why are UK Bank Holidays on Mondays?
How to use dependency injection and avoid temporal coupling?
How can internet speed be 10 times slower without a router than when using a router?
How can I support myself financially as a 17 year old with a loan?
How should I tell my manager I'm not paying for an optional after work event I'm not going to?
SafeCracker #3 - We've Been Blocked
Why do people keep telling me that I am a bad photographer?
Causes of bimodal distributions when bootstrapping a meta-analysis model
How can I get people to remember my character's gender?
Should I dumb down my writing in a foreign country?
How can I roleplay a follower-type character when I as a player have a leader-type personality?
Target/total memory is higher than max_server_memory
Uniform boundedness of the number of number fields having fixed discriminant
Are pressure-treated posts that have been submerged for a few days ruined?
Are Finitely generated modules over a ring also finitely generated over a subring containing the identity?
Where is the documentation for this ex command?
Can my company stop me from working overtime?
In Russian, how do you idiomatically express the idea of the figurative "overnight"?
How I can I roll a number of non-digital dice to get a random number between 1 and 150?
What exactly are the `size issues' preventing formation of presheaves being a left adjoint to some forgetful functor?
Did the manned NASA capsules rotate during descent?
Was the Apollo 13 CM guidance computer fully shut down?Would Soyuz meet NASA current rating standards for manned spaceflight?Could Orion capsules be reused?How do the sizes of the various proposed manned capsules differ?Why was Dragon sent to the isolation room?Early high-inclination crewed flightsWhy were ejection seats used in Project Gemini instead of a tower escape system?Why does NASA not replicate existing manned launch systems?Did early Russian capsules really have “Human Inside” labels?What attitude have past and modern manned spacecraft maintain(ed) relative to Earth?
$begingroup$
Watching the NS-11 launch, I noticed that during descent when the main chutes were deployed, the capsule rotated quite a bit, and would rotate back. Was this an issue as well during the Mercury/Apollo/Gemini missions as well? Did they have something to counter it?
crewed-spaceflight
asked 5 hours ago
CBredlowCBredlow
802717
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Watching the NS-11 launch, I noticed that during descent when the main chutes were deployed, the capsule rotated quite a bit, and would rotate back. Was this an issue as well during the Mercury/Apollo/Gemini missions as well? Did they have something to counter it?
crewed-spaceflight
asked 5 hours ago
CBredlowCBredlow
802717
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Watching the NS-11 launch, I noticed that during descent when the main chutes were deployed, the capsule rotated quite a bit, and would rotate back. Was this an issue as well during the Mercury/Apollo/Gemini missions as well? Did they have something to counter it?
crewed-spaceflight
asked 5 hours ago
CBredlowCBredlow
802717
$endgroup$
Watching the NS-11 launch, I noticed that during descent when the main chutes were deployed, the capsule rotated quite a bit, and would rotate back. Was this an issue as well during the Mercury/Apollo/Gemini missions as well? Did they have something to counter it?
crewed-spaceflight
crewed-spaceflight
asked 5 hours ago
CBredlowCBredlow
802717
asked 5 hours ago
CBredlowCBredlow
802717
asked 5 hours ago
CBredlowCBredlow
802717
asked 5 hours ago
CBredlowCBredlow
802717
asked 5 hours ago
CBredlowCBredlow
802717
802717
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I can't speak for Mercury or Gemini missions, but the Apollo parachute system is documented in NASA Technical Note D-7437, Apollo Experience Report: Earth Landing System. It appears that they designed the parachute system to reduce this phenomenon.
Rotation of the spacecraft during descent is undesirable. It's a landing hazard, and it can cause motion sickness in the astronauts. It also puts extra loads on the parachute system. As development of Apollo continued, the landing system team was asked to design for an ever-increasing weight of the spacecraft, while simultaneously making the parachutes have less weight and volume. During drop testing, the team noted that when
The three ringsail parachutes inflated in a nonsynchronous manner, that is, one canopy inflated rapidly and inhibited the inflation of the lagging parachutes. This behavior was most pronounced during the inflation following disreef. This crowding effect and nonsynchronous inflation, often referred to as cluster interference, was not a new phenomenon but was unusually pronounced with the ringsail design. This uneven load sharing resulted in abnormally high opening loads on the leading parachute of the cluster.
They redesigned the parachute system to ensure that all three parachutes opened at the same time. One pleasant side effect of this change was
The open-ring-configuration main parachutes also reduced the system oscillations of the two-parachute cluster from approximately ±20° to ±6°, causing a reduction in landing hazards.
Dumping the RCS propellant during landing can also directly rotate the spacecraft, as well as potentially lead to a parachute failure as seen in Apollo 15. Such a dump was standard procedure: after confirming that all three main parachutes were fully open, the astronauts would dump the remaining RCS propellant so the hazardous material would be gone during recovery. However, the RCS fuel ignited during Apollo 15, burning through some of the parachute support lines and collapsing one of the already-inflated main parachutes. Later missions skipped the dump, and the propellant was drained after spacecraft recovery.
answered 2 hours ago
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
5,47612054
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35888%2fdid-the-manned-nasa-capsules-rotate-during-descent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I can't speak for Mercury or Gemini missions, but the Apollo parachute system is documented in NASA Technical Note D-7437, Apollo Experience Report: Earth Landing System. It appears that they designed the parachute system to reduce this phenomenon.
Rotation of the spacecraft during descent is undesirable. It's a landing hazard, and it can cause motion sickness in the astronauts. It also puts extra loads on the parachute system. As development of Apollo continued, the landing system team was asked to design for an ever-increasing weight of the spacecraft, while simultaneously making the parachutes have less weight and volume. During drop testing, the team noted that when
The three ringsail parachutes inflated in a nonsynchronous manner, that is, one canopy inflated rapidly and inhibited the inflation of the lagging parachutes. This behavior was most pronounced during the inflation following disreef. This crowding effect and nonsynchronous inflation, often referred to as cluster interference, was not a new phenomenon but was unusually pronounced with the ringsail design. This uneven load sharing resulted in abnormally high opening loads on the leading parachute of the cluster.
They redesigned the parachute system to ensure that all three parachutes opened at the same time. One pleasant side effect of this change was
The open-ring-configuration main parachutes also reduced the system oscillations of the two-parachute cluster from approximately ±20° to ±6°, causing a reduction in landing hazards.
Dumping the RCS propellant during landing can also directly rotate the spacecraft, as well as potentially lead to a parachute failure as seen in Apollo 15. Such a dump was standard procedure: after confirming that all three main parachutes were fully open, the astronauts would dump the remaining RCS propellant so the hazardous material would be gone during recovery. However, the RCS fuel ignited during Apollo 15, burning through some of the parachute support lines and collapsing one of the already-inflated main parachutes. Later missions skipped the dump, and the propellant was drained after spacecraft recovery.
answered 2 hours ago
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
5,47612054
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I can't speak for Mercury or Gemini missions, but the Apollo parachute system is documented in NASA Technical Note D-7437, Apollo Experience Report: Earth Landing System. It appears that they designed the parachute system to reduce this phenomenon.
Rotation of the spacecraft during descent is undesirable. It's a landing hazard, and it can cause motion sickness in the astronauts. It also puts extra loads on the parachute system. As development of Apollo continued, the landing system team was asked to design for an ever-increasing weight of the spacecraft, while simultaneously making the parachutes have less weight and volume. During drop testing, the team noted that when
The three ringsail parachutes inflated in a nonsynchronous manner, that is, one canopy inflated rapidly and inhibited the inflation of the lagging parachutes. This behavior was most pronounced during the inflation following disreef. This crowding effect and nonsynchronous inflation, often referred to as cluster interference, was not a new phenomenon but was unusually pronounced with the ringsail design. This uneven load sharing resulted in abnormally high opening loads on the leading parachute of the cluster.
They redesigned the parachute system to ensure that all three parachutes opened at the same time. One pleasant side effect of this change was
The open-ring-configuration main parachutes also reduced the system oscillations of the two-parachute cluster from approximately ±20° to ±6°, causing a reduction in landing hazards.
Dumping the RCS propellant during landing can also directly rotate the spacecraft, as well as potentially lead to a parachute failure as seen in Apollo 15. Such a dump was standard procedure: after confirming that all three main parachutes were fully open, the astronauts would dump the remaining RCS propellant so the hazardous material would be gone during recovery. However, the RCS fuel ignited during Apollo 15, burning through some of the parachute support lines and collapsing one of the already-inflated main parachutes. Later missions skipped the dump, and the propellant was drained after spacecraft recovery.
answered 2 hours ago
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
5,47612054
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I can't speak for Mercury or Gemini missions, but the Apollo parachute system is documented in NASA Technical Note D-7437, Apollo Experience Report: Earth Landing System. It appears that they designed the parachute system to reduce this phenomenon.
Rotation of the spacecraft during descent is undesirable. It's a landing hazard, and it can cause motion sickness in the astronauts. It also puts extra loads on the parachute system. As development of Apollo continued, the landing system team was asked to design for an ever-increasing weight of the spacecraft, while simultaneously making the parachutes have less weight and volume. During drop testing, the team noted that when
The three ringsail parachutes inflated in a nonsynchronous manner, that is, one canopy inflated rapidly and inhibited the inflation of the lagging parachutes. This behavior was most pronounced during the inflation following disreef. This crowding effect and nonsynchronous inflation, often referred to as cluster interference, was not a new phenomenon but was unusually pronounced with the ringsail design. This uneven load sharing resulted in abnormally high opening loads on the leading parachute of the cluster.
They redesigned the parachute system to ensure that all three parachutes opened at the same time. One pleasant side effect of this change was
The open-ring-configuration main parachutes also reduced the system oscillations of the two-parachute cluster from approximately ±20° to ±6°, causing a reduction in landing hazards.
Dumping the RCS propellant during landing can also directly rotate the spacecraft, as well as potentially lead to a parachute failure as seen in Apollo 15. Such a dump was standard procedure: after confirming that all three main parachutes were fully open, the astronauts would dump the remaining RCS propellant so the hazardous material would be gone during recovery. However, the RCS fuel ignited during Apollo 15, burning through some of the parachute support lines and collapsing one of the already-inflated main parachutes. Later missions skipped the dump, and the propellant was drained after spacecraft recovery.
answered 2 hours ago
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
5,47612054
$endgroup$
I can't speak for Mercury or Gemini missions, but the Apollo parachute system is documented in NASA Technical Note D-7437, Apollo Experience Report: Earth Landing System. It appears that they designed the parachute system to reduce this phenomenon.
Rotation of the spacecraft during descent is undesirable. It's a landing hazard, and it can cause motion sickness in the astronauts. It also puts extra loads on the parachute system. As development of Apollo continued, the landing system team was asked to design for an ever-increasing weight of the spacecraft, while simultaneously making the parachutes have less weight and volume. During drop testing, the team noted that when
The three ringsail parachutes inflated in a nonsynchronous manner, that is, one canopy inflated rapidly and inhibited the inflation of the lagging parachutes. This behavior was most pronounced during the inflation following disreef. This crowding effect and nonsynchronous inflation, often referred to as cluster interference, was not a new phenomenon but was unusually pronounced with the ringsail design. This uneven load sharing resulted in abnormally high opening loads on the leading parachute of the cluster.
They redesigned the parachute system to ensure that all three parachutes opened at the same time. One pleasant side effect of this change was
The open-ring-configuration main parachutes also reduced the system oscillations of the two-parachute cluster from approximately ±20° to ±6°, causing a reduction in landing hazards.
Dumping the RCS propellant during landing can also directly rotate the spacecraft, as well as potentially lead to a parachute failure as seen in Apollo 15. Such a dump was standard procedure: after confirming that all three main parachutes were fully open, the astronauts would dump the remaining RCS propellant so the hazardous material would be gone during recovery. However, the RCS fuel ignited during Apollo 15, burning through some of the parachute support lines and collapsing one of the already-inflated main parachutes. Later missions skipped the dump, and the propellant was drained after spacecraft recovery.
answered 2 hours ago
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
5,47612054
answered 2 hours ago
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
5,47612054
answered 2 hours ago
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
5,47612054
answered 2 hours ago
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
5,47612054
5,47612054
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35888%2fdid-the-manned-nasa-capsules-rotate-during-descent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
