Another NASA waste of money, it would be better if they could recover the capsule. The capsule could be checked for structural damage. Now NASA will have to do another test with the parachutes activated. I do not think that drop tests equal a deployment of the parachutes in an abort situation.
{snip}4. The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.{snip}
Quote from: woods170 on 02/12/2019 08:43 am{snip}4. The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.{snip}There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.
They have already done an abort test with parachutes: PA-1
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/12/2019 11:36 amQuote from: woods170 on 02/12/2019 08:43 am{snip}4. The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.{snip}There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.Emphasis mine.Has already been done thru the PTV drop tests.
Quote from: woods170 on 02/12/2019 12:33 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/12/2019 11:36 amQuote from: woods170 on 02/12/2019 08:43 am{snip}4. The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.{snip}There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.Emphasis mine.Has already been done thru the PTV drop tests.I do not require a full capsule with life support just equip the abort boilerplate with the latest CPAS (Capsule Parachute Assembly System). The two things are meant to work together in the correct sequence.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/13/2019 12:24 pmQuote from: woods170 on 02/12/2019 12:33 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/12/2019 11:36 amQuote from: woods170 on 02/12/2019 08:43 am{snip}4. The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.{snip}There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.Emphasis mine.Has already been done thru the PTV drop tests.I do not require a full capsule with life support just equip the abort boilerplate with the latest CPAS (Capsule Parachute Assembly System). The two things are meant to work together in the correct sequence.Emphasis mine.It seems to me that you think you know better than the engineers that are actually involved in the development of Orion.
Having said that I will add a bit more explanation to aid in your education. CPAS working in the correct sequence with the LAS has already been proven on PA-1.The two systems work in a specified sequence, but activation of the second system (CPAS) is not triggered by jettison of the first system (LAS).That applies to both pad abort and ascent abort.This disconnect is exactly one of the reasons why testing of the CPAS under in-flight-abort conditions can be decoupled from flying an in-flight abort test.
A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/13/2019 03:03 pmA drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.Why?
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 02/13/2019 03:08 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/13/2019 03:03 pmA drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.Why? The LAS covers the top of the vehicle so the parachutes cannot deploy until the LAS has separated from the capsule. Plenty of ways things can go wrong, or slowly, there.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/13/2019 11:24 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 02/13/2019 03:08 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/13/2019 03:03 pmA drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.Why? The LAS covers the top of the vehicle so the parachutes cannot deploy until the LAS has separated from the capsule. Plenty of ways things can go wrong, or slowly, there.Emphasis mine.That has already been flight-tested twice: PA-1 and EFT-1. And will flight-tested again on AA-2. It is not a concern for deployment of chutes under ascent-abort conditions.Again: if there was any validity in your concerns regarding no-chutes on AA-2 than NASA would be doing the test with chutes.The fact that NASA chooses to do the test without chutes serves to invalidate your concerns.