[Jereboam]

I'd like to echo the others and say how amazing it is to have somebody from NASA right here in the forum. I, for one, was guilty of seeing this on the news and letting the soundbites just flash by me. It seems sometimes that unless we can compress an event into a newsworthy few minutes it doesn't deserve our attention - and we completely miss the real story.

Just a few quick questions though, for you Paul - film capsules were ejected from "spy" satellites on a regular basis in the 60s/70s (I could look up the exact dates but don't know off the top of my head, but the program was called Corona) and snagged in midair by Herky-birds. I am sure there were loads of failures in the beginning, but it must have worked more often than not...so -

1. Did you draw down on the Corona experiences/test data?
2. Why did you decide to use a chopper instead of fixed wing?
3. Why didn't you just use a parachute-only system?

I suppose I could Google some of this but it's much more fun asking you, if you don't mind...

Thanks, J'bm

[Jereboam]

I'd like to echo the others and say how amazing it is to have somebody from NASA right here in the forum. I, for one, was guilty of seeing this on the news and letting the soundbites just flash by me. It seems sometimes that unless we can compress an event into a newsworthy few minutes it doesn't deserve our attention - and we completely miss the real story.

Just a few quick questions though, for you Paul - film capsules were ejected from "spy" satellites on a regular basis in the 60s/70s (I could look up the exact dates but don't know off the top of my head, but the program was called Corona) and snagged in midair by Herky-birds. I am sure there were loads of failures in the beginning, but it must have worked more often than not...so -

1. Did you draw down on the Corona experiences/test data?
2. Why did you decide to use a chopper instead of fixed wing?
3. Why didn't you just use a parachute-only system?

I suppose I could Google some of this but it's much more fun asking you, if you don't mind...

Thanks, J'bm

[Steven Cedrone]

Originally Posted by Jereboam

Why didn't you just use a parachute-only system?

While we wait for the official answer, I'll take a guess: They didn't want it to hit the ground (or anything else for that matter) that could possibly "contaminate" the experiment...

Steve

[JackTheTripper]

Yup, report I read said that any bump, even a parachute assisted landing, could dislodge the particles from the collection pannels. Imagine you have a ping pong paddle covered with double stick tape and stick a bunch of ping pong balls to it. Now, drop it on the floor from about 3 feet up. Some stay put but some are going to fall off. They wanted to assure they save as many as possible.

[Yogyakarta]

Originally Posted by Jereboam

1. Did you draw down on the Corona experiences/test data?
2. Why did you decide to use a chopper instead of fixed wing?
3. Why didn't you just use a parachute-only system?

I suppose I could Google some of this but it's much more fun asking you, if you don't mind...

Thanks, J'bm

In all honesty, I'm not really qualified to answer any of these questions with a reasonable degree of competence. However, I will tell you what I know.

1. That is something I don't have first-hand knowledge of. There was a separate team working strictly on recovery operations, so I would have to ask them if that experience was taken into account. Unfortunately, the members of that team are kinda busy right now. My assumption is that the Corona experience was certainly taken into account.

2. The reasoning behind using a chopper vs. a fixed-wing aircraft is that a chopper could recover quickly from a miss, whereas a fixed-wing aircraft would take much longer to get back into position to make another attempt. And when you consider that a parachute-borne capsule would still be descending while the aircraft is lining up to make another attempt, speed would be of the essence.

3. A parachute only system (like Stardust's) was not considered because of the fragility of the payload. It was feared that even a minor bump on landing would damage the collection arrays. Stardust's capsule, which was constructed to be more rugged than Genesis's, will land at a speed of 10 mph. Even that speed was considered too risky for the Genesis payload.

[maximus]

Originally Posted by Yogyakarta

Genesis is just one of the projects I work on. I also work on Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, and Stardust. Next year our Mission Support Area will support the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and in 2007, the Phoenix Mars lander. And, the spacecraft bus for Genesis still lives. It has a couple of solar wind monitoring instruments onboard, so it could concievably support an extended mission.
Paul

Just curious, dont you guys at NASA have somekind of NDAs ? We dont want you to get into trouble for sharing confidential stuffs...

[Yogyakarta]

Originally Posted by Maximus

Just curious, dont you guys at NASA have somekind of NDAs ? We dont want you to get into trouble for sharing confidential stuffs...

I actually work for a contractor, but everything I've said here in this forum is public domain information (i.e., you could get the same info. from space.com, spaceflightnow.com, or nasawatch.com). I can't talk about projects in the proposal stages though. I'm also not allowed to speculate on or share information in public regarding the cause(s) of the Genesis mishap.

So, basically, I'm in the clear to share my NASA McNuggets with y'all. 8)

[rocky_raher]

Originally Posted by JackTheTripper

Does this remind anyone besides me of the opening sequence of the original "Tomb Raider"??