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?
Quote from Leibniz
Labeling matrices/rectangles and drawing Sigma inside rectangle
How do employ ' ("prime") in math mode at the correct depth?
Wireless headphones interfere with Wi-Fi signal on laptop
Conditional probability - sum of dice is even given that at least one is a five
How can dragons propel their breath attacks to a long distance
What to do if SUS scores contradict qualitative feedback?
Do I need to say 'o`clock'?
51% attack - apparently very easy? refering to CZ's "rollback btc chain" - How to make sure such corruptible scenario can never happen so easily?
Can someone explain homicide-related death rates?
Tikz draw contour without some edges, and fill
Determine the slope and write the Cartesian equation of the line.
Can I say: "When was your train leaving?" if the train leaves in the future?
Why is it harder to turn a motor/generator with shorted terminals?
In books, how many dragons are there in present time?
Jumping frame contents with beamer and pgfplots
What was the significance of Varys' little girl?
When a land becomes a creature, is it untapped?
Trim trailing zeroes off a number extracted by jq
Does a Rogue using one handed fire arm and Flick of the Wrist feat allow him to use his Sneak Attack?
Why did the metro bus stop at each railway crossing, despite no warning indicating a train was coming?
How to distinguish PICTURE OF ME and PICTURE OF MINE in Chinese?
What's the difference between "за ... от" and "в ... от"?
Entering the UK as a British citizen who is a Canadian permanent resident
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 rotation entry-descent-landing
edited May 2 at 22:59
Dr Sheldon
6,43722359
asked May 2 at 17:39
CBredlowCBredlow
817717
$endgroup$
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 rotation entry-descent-landing
edited May 2 at 22:59
Dr Sheldon
6,43722359
asked May 2 at 17:39
CBredlowCBredlow
817717
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
As much as I appreciate my answer being selected as the accepted answer, in the future, could you please wait 24 hours after posting your question before accepting an answer? This gives other users a chance to answer the question. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
May 2 at 22:54
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 rotation entry-descent-landing
edited May 2 at 22:59
Dr Sheldon
6,43722359
asked May 2 at 17:39
CBredlowCBredlow
817717
$endgroup$
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 rotation entry-descent-landing
crewed-spaceflight rotation entry-descent-landing
edited May 2 at 22:59
Dr Sheldon
6,43722359
asked May 2 at 17:39
CBredlowCBredlow
817717
edited May 2 at 22:59
Dr Sheldon
6,43722359
asked May 2 at 17:39
CBredlowCBredlow
817717
edited May 2 at 22:59
Dr Sheldon
6,43722359
edited May 2 at 22:59
Dr Sheldon
6,43722359
edited May 2 at 22:59
Dr Sheldon
6,43722359
6,43722359
asked May 2 at 17:39
CBredlowCBredlow
817717
asked May 2 at 17:39
CBredlowCBredlow
817717
asked May 2 at 17:39
CBredlowCBredlow
817717
817717
1
$begingroup$
As much as I appreciate my answer being selected as the accepted answer, in the future, could you please wait 24 hours after posting your question before accepting an answer? This gives other users a chance to answer the question. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
May 2 at 22:54
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
As much as I appreciate my answer being selected as the accepted answer, in the future, could you please wait 24 hours after posting your question before accepting an answer? This gives other users a chance to answer the question. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
May 2 at 22:54
1
1
$begingroup$
As much as I appreciate my answer being selected as the accepted answer, in the future, could you please wait 24 hours after posting your question before accepting an answer? This gives other users a chance to answer the question. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
May 2 at 22:54
$begingroup$
As much as I appreciate my answer being selected as the accepted answer, in the future, could you please wait 24 hours after posting your question before accepting an answer? This gives other users a chance to answer the question. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
May 2 at 22:54
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 May 2 at 19:50
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
6,43722359
$endgroup$
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 May 2 at 19:50
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
6,43722359
$endgroup$
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 May 2 at 19:50
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
6,43722359
$endgroup$
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 May 2 at 19:50
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
6,43722359
$endgroup$
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 May 2 at 19:50
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
6,43722359
answered May 2 at 19:50
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
6,43722359
answered May 2 at 19:50
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
6,43722359
answered May 2 at 19:50
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
6,43722359
6,43722359
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
1
$begingroup$
As much as I appreciate my answer being selected as the accepted answer, in the future, could you please wait 24 hours after posting your question before accepting an answer? This gives other users a chance to answer the question. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
May 2 at 22:54