NASA and JPL are testing a supersonic parachute under Mars-like conditions for future exploration. LDSD: We Brake for Mars (Part 2): • LDSD: We Brake for Mar...
Video was given a bit of a modern gloss with the music and production, but Mr. Meacham was a clear and thorough communicator, and all the good factual content was still there. Good job.
Brilliant, I never would have ever thought of using a weight/winch combo AND a solid rocket motor for testing a parachute! It's just a huge balance of forces equation! Great work!!
I think that they just had their staging wrong... It's okay JPL, everyone's been there. Sometimes you just mess up your staging and the parachutes deploy during liftoff... In KSP at least.
navic209 I'd like to discuss contracting you for a custom job. {if not more) I need to know if it's even possible and a very rough estimate of how much you would ask for its completion. contact me via G+ chat or through my youtube profile please.
Na parte 1, o engenheiro JPL Mike Meacham explica como a NASA e JPL estão testando um pára-quedas supersônico em condições de Marte, como parte para exploração futura.
I want to who decided that every video needs to be edited for the ADD generation. I don't need EXTREME music or fast editing to keep my interest in this topic.
I love the idea - and assume it's cheaper than firing a rocket with a simulated load to the point where pressure in the earth's atmosphere is equal to Mars. How does NASA simulate the CHEMICAL load? The atmosphere is different there than earth, mandating a differently shaped re-entry vehicle.
As an engineering student who remembers this particular bit of fluid dynamics: due to the way the maths works, you can simulate a different atmosphere through a combination of changing the scale of the model, and the windspeed it's being tested in. They use this when they're trialling aircraft and car body shapes - they'll use a scale model, then use the math to get the wind tunnel's variables at the right point that they can get a fairly accurate simulation of the full-sized version.
This is a test to see if the parachute can take the aerodynamic loads it will see at Mars. To match the load, you need to match the dynamic pressure times the drag coefficient, q Cd. q is 1/2 rho v^2, so as you scale rho up by a factor of 100, you have to scale v down by about a factor of 10. "About" since you also need to adjust for the Cd at Mars Mach vs. Cd at the scaled Earth (subsonic) Mach -- they are different. Then you have your test velocity at Earth, about 65 mph, to match the loads at Mars at Mach 2.5.
Now make a parachute that will fit in my pocket instead of in a backpack, yet still allow steerable base jumping. I'm too old for that now but I'd like to see more base jumping.
Flaw: The parachute is deployed before the rocket kicks in. Why not simply deploy the parachute from a container dropped from a Rockwell B1 supersonic bomber or similar?
I see a couple problems with this test. First of all, with the winch and nylon line, the parachute is allowed to expand slowly and gracefully before the rocket sled ever takes off. This doesn't test how the parachute might open while attached to something going the speeds the Martian landing craft will be. Second, this is being tested in Earth's atmosphere, which is more than 20x as dense as Mars' atmosphere. Hardly a comparable analog.
Why don't you just use a sounding rocket to test the parachute? At high altitudes you'd also get similar pressures to what you get on Mars so no rescaling is needed.
Because you need to be able to test the parachute in a controlled environment, in front of dozens of cameras. There's no point in testing if you aren't going to be able to document what happens.
A sounding rocket is not big enough to carry the parachute up. And in this case, it was just to get the same dynamic pressure, so we didn't need or want low density air for this particular test. We will go to high altitude for the test of SIAD, as described in video 2. But we are going by balloon and have a large rocket to accelerate the payload to the intended test conditions. That rocket is quite a bit larger than a sounding rocket.
i don't understand how they tested the parachute on the ground it's been tested the wrong way i think what happened during the ground test was not like what happened in the upper atmosphere today on the second test(06/08/15) on the ground the parachute was already fully inflated and descending slowly and then dragged by the booster in the upper atmosphere the parachute was folded at mach 4 then inflated the ground test conditions were no way near what happened today what i want to say is that the test should have been made with the parachute folded and at a higher speed not at mach 4 because of the denser atmosphere but at least behind a rocket going down then inflated at the optimal speed. this test is valid only for non existent binary parachute that are either folded or inflated. OR they thought the deployment transition was not an issue, that the only matter was the drag load.
A Parachute is effectively a massive airbreak. Mars's atmosphere is only 1% of earths, and so slowing down from a few kilometers per second requires a very very large parachute.
It would have to be a large air brake, and would weigh more than the parachute. A great parachute is just more conventional and practical for this purpose.
Where's the "Low Density" part? I thought the point of not using a wind tunnel was to test a full-size device (which wouldn't fit), but then Earth's atmosphere is a much thicker soup?
"Low density" is in reference to Mars' low-density atmosphere. Landing on Mars is not like landing on Earth, which has a dense atmosphere, or on the moon, which has no atmosphere. Mars has a tricky environment somewhere in-between: it has too much atmosphere to allow rockets alone to land heavy vehicles, as is done on the moon, but too little atmosphere to land vehicles from space purely with friction and parachutes, as is done on Earth.
This doesn't make any sense because, despite falling faster, there would be less resistance on mars with less atmosphere, so the drag/forces acting upon the chute would necessarily be less... or am i missing something??
The higher we ascend from Earths Sea level, the less dense is the Atmosphere, and at some point the density would be much the same as Mars density. Having said that I am wondering why NASA doesn't construct a more durable neutrally buoyant saucer shaped craft replacing the currently relied upon balloon which lifts up a simulated "Mars Destined Craft", I mean if the balloon can lift up the simulated craft, then why not take advantage of that for the actual mission as well or even better yet if the craft is made neutrally buoyant, it could then rely on Rail "Gun Propulsion" as per my previous post above..
Did you know that the Physical principles that a rail guns relies upon could be used instead of the above rocket? oh and the rail gun could also be relied upon to propel a "Space Freighter Train" near to the Speed Of Light, and it could also be used to slow decent of significant payloads - mind you all the workings would have to be distributed amongst the four below sections. [+ -][+ -][+ -][+ -] I know - I know it sounds crazy, and one would think at first thought - it may need significant energy, but surprisingly its far more economical than the storage of chemical propellant/s! Example of a four Unit Space freighter. ---------------------------------------------------- Where sections are electromagnetically phase flipped.. [- ///// +]
Sorry but the actual working details of the winch-bullet-fishing-line business went right past me without waving hello. And why not just fire a rocket up 20-30 kilometers and let it drop until >mach 1 in something closer to Martian air-pressure?
Because on entering Mars's atmosphere, the craft will not be going just above mach 1. It will be going several kilometers per second, or about mach 10.
Because this is much cheaper than a rocket or even a high-altitude balloon drop. What's more, you can see what happens much more easily near the ground, with lots of really good cameras.
I do not understand, what happened with the "steel bullet". Is the solution "Top secret"? If not, please make another video, without talking head, without video clip style, but with described pictures. I hate such wouldbe popular, but non-explaining videos :-(.
150 million dollars could have brought proper affordable housing to the homeless in the US. It could have brought job opportunities, help pay off student debt, helped create real wages, could have help clean up radioactive soil in Iraq etc etc
Fine! March right over to General Electric headquarters and rip them a new one over their $3 Billion TAX REFUND due to tax loopholes their lobbyists create. Not the only one.
Eh? So you think parachutes aren't a good way to land on Mars? You do realize that they are only one part of the landing mechanism that lands the spacecraft safely. Besides, the facts speak clearly. 7 out of 8 NASA-JPL spacecraft have landed on Mars safely with the aid of parachutes. The one that didn't land safety? Mars Polar Lander. It had nothing to do with the parachute though.
***** Like what? Physics, a limited amount of funding, the limits surrounding engineering a spacecraft that has to run everything on an insanely amount of power make anything else seem impractical. Plus there is a reason NASA doesn't like to try new systems of landing on another planet unless they absolutely need to. Developing new engineering techniques is expensive, mostly because engineers are expensive. So if you can save a significant amount by keeping to a true and tested method of landing on the red planet, uh you better do so. Especially in this funding climate where NASA only gets .04 percent of of the nation's budget. With a vast majority of the population thinking that is enough. While NASA's budget has been falling more or less from 1 percent downward since the 1970's (With exception to the early 1990's). Oh, and new ideas are untested and that makes everyone nervous. You can test a sky crane all you want on earth, but there is really no substitute for Mars. We live in a world where a failure or two, might jeopardize our space program. So yeah, tried and true sometimes is the best solution unless you have an unlimited amount of funds/a people who are understanding of failure/accept it as part of the process of exploring.
***** Something tells me that NASA serves only as a Cover Up for some other Projects... So if Germans did have flying Saucers in 1945, so just imagine, what America has right now !!!
Just show a diagram instead of all this fast talking and head banger noise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAKE A POWERPOINT SLIDE . It is also unbelievable it is the 21st century and we use parachutes. That is 1960s tech.
I love the modern vibe I get from these videos. If they're more appealing, more people are gonna watch it.
Video was given a bit of a modern gloss with the music and production, but Mr. Meacham was a clear and thorough communicator, and all the good factual content was still there.
Good job.
Do you guys ever just sit back and ponder how awesome your job is
Yes, we do. Yeah.
Brilliant, I never would have ever thought of using a weight/winch combo AND a solid rocket motor for testing a parachute! It's just a huge balance of forces equation!
Great work!!
Excellent! Bottle this and distribute EVERYWHERE.
JPL always with the best videos
Excellent video! The information is very concise. I will use it to show my students in 2nd grade.
Man I love the technical details!
Thanks for giving me inspiration on making space exploration work... in Angry Birds / Bad Piggies lol :D
Great speaker
Interesting info
Thanks J P L !
NASA and their rockets.... hahah Good job guys, innovation at it's finest.
Very cool, nice work guys.
You know its JPL because they use rockets to test a parachute
I think that they just had their staging wrong... It's okay JPL, everyone's been there. Sometimes you just mess up your staging and the parachutes deploy during liftoff...
In KSP at least.
Niosus So true!!!
In KSP at least.
yiur all out their awesome job guys ime impressed!!! regards tc uk
Smart testing system! Thanks for sharing this with us :)
hes good in explanations. very basic and simple
That is as clever as it should be!
Loved the video!
Good job !!!
Excellent video, great info! Thanks!!!
navic209
I'd like to discuss contracting you for a custom job. {if not more)
I need to know if it's even possible and a very rough estimate of how much you would ask for its completion.
contact me via G+ chat or through my youtube profile
please.
Nicely explained.
Wow, that is amazing.
what a rad video
JPL gets the best toys!
Amazing!
Very cool!
So awesome.
No wonder the Jet Propulsion Lab finds a way to solve any problem with a jet engine :)
very good info
looks very good, who shot this?
Na parte 1, o engenheiro JPL Mike Meacham explica como a NASA e JPL estão testando um pára-quedas supersônico em condições de Marte, como parte para exploração futura.
Stuff like this, Mainly urge to do it, is what makes me love 'murica.
I love you guys.....
I want to who decided that every video needs to be edited for the ADD generation. I don't need EXTREME music or fast editing to keep my interest in this topic.
I love the idea - and assume it's cheaper than firing a rocket with a simulated load to the point where pressure in the earth's atmosphere is equal to Mars.
How does NASA simulate the CHEMICAL load? The atmosphere is different there than earth, mandating a differently shaped re-entry vehicle.
parachute made in Devon england, as are many of NASA instruments
You guys are like the Myth Busters for grown ups
Since the Mars atmosphere is only 1% as dense as Earth's, how do you accommodate testing to be accurate on Mars?
As an engineering student I can answer this with great confidence. Math.
As an engineering student who remembers this particular bit of fluid dynamics: due to the way the maths works, you can simulate a different atmosphere through a combination of changing the scale of the model, and the windspeed it's being tested in. They use this when they're trialling aircraft and car body shapes - they'll use a scale model, then use the math to get the wind tunnel's variables at the right point that they can get a fairly accurate simulation of the full-sized version.
Math and experience.. Not the first time stuff is flying to Mars :)
Wandering Bishop Thanks for a good explanation.
This is a test to see if the parachute can take the aerodynamic loads it will see at Mars. To match the load, you need to match the dynamic pressure times the drag coefficient, q Cd. q is 1/2 rho v^2, so as you scale rho up by a factor of 100, you have to scale v down by about a factor of 10. "About" since you also need to adjust for the Cd at Mars Mach vs. Cd at the scaled Earth (subsonic) Mach -- they are different. Then you have your test velocity at Earth, about 65 mph, to match the loads at Mars at Mach 2.5.
what will be the final test speed?
Mike Meacham is inspiring-is he on Twitter?
Now make a parachute that will fit in my pocket instead of in a backpack, yet still allow steerable base jumping. I'm too old for that now but I'd like to see more base jumping.
Where can we watch the full test video?
awesome ^_^
i clicked only because i read LSD brake for mars )))))))))))
Better to lose $millions on earth than to lose $billions on Mars. Nice job fellas.
But how do you test a skycrane?
This guy has veins poppin' on his biceps. You better listen to him.
Go to the freaking Moon.
Why? Or why not both?
*****
Funny how we live in a Space. There must be aliens and other shit we haven't discovered.
Moron
Not going to happen, for humans at least. We got so much data from the lunar rocks we gathered.
Flaw: The parachute is deployed before the rocket kicks in. Why not simply deploy the parachute from a container dropped from a Rockwell B1 supersonic bomber or similar?
I tried to formulate an appropriate response, this is what I came up with: Go JPL.
Can anyone summarise this for me im in class and cant use my headphones
I see a couple problems with this test. First of all, with the winch and nylon line, the parachute is allowed to expand slowly and gracefully before the rocket sled ever takes off. This doesn't test how the parachute might open while attached to something going the speeds the Martian landing craft will be.
Second, this is being tested in Earth's atmosphere, which is more than 20x as dense as Mars' atmosphere. Hardly a comparable analog.
Why don't you just use a sounding rocket to test the parachute? At high altitudes you'd also get similar pressures to what you get on Mars so no rescaling is needed.
Because you need to be able to test the parachute in a controlled environment, in front of dozens of cameras. There's no point in testing if you aren't going to be able to document what happens.
A sounding rocket is not big enough to carry the parachute up. And in this case, it was just to get the same dynamic pressure, so we didn't need or want low density air for this particular test. We will go to high altitude for the test of SIAD, as described in video 2. But we are going by balloon and have a large rocket to accelerate the payload to the intended test conditions. That rocket is quite a bit larger than a sounding rocket.
0:05 Pleased to meacham.
...That is a *really* complicated setup for dropping a friggin' parachute. O_o;
We already have people and equipment on Mars...
And Gazoo is here with us also.
Anthony James That's the ""Great" Gazoo...
I stand corrected! The Great Gazoo!
i don't understand how they tested the parachute on the ground
it's been tested the wrong way i think
what happened during the ground test was not like what happened in the upper atmosphere today on the second test(06/08/15)
on the ground the parachute was already fully inflated and descending slowly and then dragged by the booster
in the upper atmosphere the parachute was folded at mach 4 then inflated
the ground test conditions were no way near what happened today
what i want to say is that the test should have been made with the parachute folded and at a higher speed not at mach 4 because of the denser atmosphere
but at least behind a rocket going down then inflated at the optimal speed.
this test is valid only for non existent binary parachute that are either folded or inflated.
OR they thought the deployment transition was not an issue, that the only matter was the drag load.
What about airbrake? (Except i dont know the what the atmosphere of mars is like) Or just doing a controlled burn before?
A Parachute is effectively a massive airbreak. Mars's atmosphere is only 1% of earths, and so slowing down from a few kilometers per second requires a very very large parachute.
SirusKing VanMedia Thank guys :) Thanks for the info :D
Also, if they make a better parachute, they don't need to slow down much, which means less rockets. Lighter rockets means more room for usable mass.
It would have to be a large air brake, and would weigh more than the parachute. A great parachute is just more conventional and practical for this purpose.
Where's the "Low Density" part? I thought the point of not using a wind tunnel was to test a full-size device (which wouldn't fit), but then Earth's atmosphere is a much thicker soup?
"Low density" is in reference to Mars' low-density atmosphere. Landing on Mars is not like landing on Earth, which has a dense atmosphere, or on the moon, which has no atmosphere. Mars has a tricky environment somewhere in-between: it has too much atmosphere to allow rockets alone to land heavy vehicles, as is done on the moon, but too little atmosphere to land vehicles from space purely with friction and parachutes, as is done on Earth.
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
This doesn't make any sense because, despite falling faster, there would be less resistance on mars with less atmosphere, so the drag/forces acting upon the chute would necessarily be less... or am i missing something??
The higher we ascend from Earths Sea level, the less dense is the Atmosphere, and at some point the density would be much the same as Mars density.
Having said that I am wondering why NASA doesn't construct a more durable neutrally buoyant saucer shaped craft replacing the currently relied upon balloon which lifts up a simulated "Mars Destined Craft", I mean if the balloon can lift up the simulated craft, then why not take advantage of that for the actual mission as well or even better yet if the craft is made neutrally buoyant, it could then rely on Rail "Gun Propulsion" as per my previous post above..
cool but could have done without the death metal
why rocket sled?
why not high power electric sled?
Bwahaha dream job
Go to Saturn Like so NASA can see this
Instead of rockets, why not use magnets?
Did you know that the Physical principles that a rail guns relies upon could be used instead of the above rocket? oh and the rail gun could also be relied upon to propel a "Space Freighter Train" near to the Speed Of Light, and it could also be used to slow decent of significant payloads - mind you all the workings would have to be distributed amongst the four below sections. [+ -][+ -][+ -][+ -]
I know - I know it sounds crazy, and one would think at first thought - it may need significant energy, but surprisingly its far more economical than the storage of chemical propellant/s!
Example of a four Unit Space freighter.
----------------------------------------------------
Where sections are electromagnetically phase flipped..
[- ///// +]
There has got to be an easier way for Wile E. Coyote to catch Road Runner!
Is that a parachute or your moms underwear???
Sorry but the actual working details of the winch-bullet-fishing-line business went right past me without waving hello.
And why not just fire a rocket up 20-30 kilometers and let it drop until >mach 1 in something closer to Martian air-pressure?
Because on entering Mars's atmosphere, the craft will not be going just above mach 1. It will be going several kilometers per second, or about mach 10.
Because this is much cheaper than a rocket or even a high-altitude balloon drop. What's more, you can see what happens much more easily near the ground, with lots of really good cameras.
I do not understand, what happened with the "steel bullet". Is the solution "Top secret"? If not, please make another video, without talking head, without video clip style, but with described pictures. I hate such wouldbe popular, but non-explaining videos :-(.
couldnt you have unpowered helicopter blades instead of a parachute that will turn as you fall and slow the desent!! ahaaa! yes! ta! i enjoy!!!!!
150 million dollars could have brought proper affordable housing to the homeless in the US. It could have brought job opportunities, help pay off student debt, helped create real wages, could have help clean up radioactive soil in Iraq etc etc
Fine! March right over to General Electric headquarters and rip them a new one over their $3 Billion TAX REFUND due to tax loopholes their lobbyists create.
Not the only one.
Looks like your LDSD is on LSD...
why can i drive to mars? i have prius
bad "music" and information too fast , but ok anyway
Weird that they're implying that going to Mars is crazy. Definitely not healthy to teach people to think badly of intrasystem flight.
Parachutes..? Lol humans.
Parachute on Mars! How parachute work without air? Crap!!
I don't know about you, but I didn't like this video. It was like watching an episode of Top Gear... It just doesn't fit.
?
Ничего не понял...да он ещё и не на русском говорит.
We could do without the rock music -- do you think this video isn't interesting enough in its own right?
thare no aliens on mars is have small Bacteria space dont have air you dont know space Pharmit24
PARACHUTES ???
That's the best that you could come up, GROW UP !
Eh? So you think parachutes aren't a good way to land on Mars? You do realize that they are only one part of the landing mechanism that lands the spacecraft safely. Besides, the facts speak clearly. 7 out of 8 NASA-JPL spacecraft have landed on Mars safely with the aid of parachutes. The one that didn't land safety? Mars Polar Lander. It had nothing to do with the parachute though.
***** Parashutes are good but perhaps we need some new ideas
***** Like what? Physics, a limited amount of funding, the limits surrounding engineering a spacecraft that has to run everything on an insanely amount of power make anything else seem impractical. Plus there is a reason NASA doesn't like to try new systems of landing on another planet unless they absolutely need to. Developing new engineering techniques is expensive, mostly because engineers are expensive. So if you can save a significant amount by keeping to a true and tested method of landing on the red planet, uh you better do so.
Especially in this funding climate where NASA only gets .04 percent of of the nation's budget. With a vast majority of the population thinking that is enough. While NASA's budget has been falling more or less from 1 percent downward since the 1970's (With exception to the early 1990's).
Oh, and new ideas are untested and that makes everyone nervous. You can test a sky crane all you want on earth, but there is really no substitute for Mars. We live in a world where a failure or two, might jeopardize our space program. So yeah, tried and true sometimes is the best solution unless you have an unlimited amount of funds/a people who are understanding of failure/accept it as part of the process of exploring.
***** Something tells me that NASA serves only as a Cover Up for some other Projects...
So if Germans did have flying Saucers in 1945, so just imagine, what America has right now !!!
Oh, you're one of them. >.> OK. Nevermind. The laws of physics are pretty clear.
Just show a diagram instead of all this fast talking and head banger noise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAKE A POWERPOINT SLIDE .
It is also unbelievable it is the 21st century and we use parachutes. That is 1960s tech.
Great speaker
Interesting info
Thanks J P L !