Are Boeing and SpaceX having parachute issues with their manned capsules?
Week Three: Ninth Anniversary Fund-Raising Drive for Behind the Black
It is now the third week in my annual anniversary fund-raising campaign for Behind the Black.
Please consider donating. I am trying to avoid advertising on this website, but will be forced to add it if I do not get enough support from my readers. You can give a one-time contribution, from $5 to $100, or a regular subscription for as little as $2 per month. Your support will be deeply appreciated, and will allow me to continue to report on science and culture freely.
Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:
If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
There appears to be a significant conflict between what NASA has been saying about the parachute development tests for both SpaceX’s Dragon capsule and Boeing’s Starliner capsule and what the companies have reported.
The head of NASA’s manned program, Bill Gerstenmaier, has said that both programs have had “anomalies” during their tests. Both companies have said otherwise, with both companies claiming that all their parachutes have been successful. The article looks into this, and what it finds tends to support the companies over Gerstenmaier. There have been issues, but not as terrible as implied by Gerstenmaier.
So what is going on? I suspect that Gerstenmaier is overstating these issues as part NASA’s game to slow-walk the private capsules in order to make SLS not look so bad. He would of course deny this, but that denial won’t change my suspicions, in the slightest. I’ve seen NASA’s bureaucracy play too many games in connection with getting these capsules approved for flight to be generous to Gertenmaier or NASA. I don’t trust them. I’ve seen them make dishonest accusations against SpaceX and Boeing too many times already.
It is now the third week in my annual anniversary fund-raising campaign for Behind the Black.
Please consider donating. I am trying to avoid advertising on this website, but will be forced to add it if I do not get enough support from my readers. You can give a one-time contribution, from $5 to $100, or a regular subscription for as little as $2 per month. Your support will be deeply appreciated, and will allow me to continue to report on science and culture freely.
Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:
If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
There appears to be a significant conflict between what NASA has been saying about the parachute development tests for both SpaceX’s Dragon capsule and Boeing’s Starliner capsule and what the companies have reported.
The head of NASA’s manned program, Bill Gerstenmaier, has said that both programs have had “anomalies” during their tests. Both companies have said otherwise, with both companies claiming that all their parachutes have been successful. The article looks into this, and what it finds tends to support the companies over Gerstenmaier. There have been issues, but not as terrible as implied by Gerstenmaier.
So what is going on? I suspect that Gerstenmaier is overstating these issues as part NASA’s game to slow-walk the private capsules in order to make SLS not look so bad. He would of course deny this, but that denial won’t change my suspicions, in the slightest. I’ve seen NASA’s bureaucracy play too many games in connection with getting these capsules approved for flight to be generous to Gertenmaier or NASA. I don’t trust them. I’ve seen them make dishonest accusations against SpaceX and Boeing too many times already.
Bob> “… both companies claiming that all their parachutes have been successful.”
I believe you are misreading the article where it says, “SpaceX, in a later statement, said it had performed five such “parachute-out” tests previously, all successfully.”
“Previously” here, means previous to the failed test. It is more clearly worded in Jeff Foust’s 9 May article — https://spacenews.com/crew-dragon-parachutes-failed-in-recent-test/ — “SpaceX said that, prior to last month’s test, it had performed five similar “parachute-out” tests where one of the four parachutes deliberately did not open. All of those were completed successfully.” No one is questioning the revelation that SpaceX’s sixth parachute-out test failed.
Did you watch Associate Administrator Gerstenmaier’s testimony? He certainly didn’t appear to be throwing SpaceX under the bus. The incident only came up because Rep. Brooks specifically asked about it, with Gerstenmaier seeming to give as little information as possible and downplaying the significance of the failure.
Gerstenmaier always seemed fairly pro-SpaceX, to me at least.
“with Gerstenmaier seeming to give as little information as possible”
Excuse me, but who does her think he works for? Congress are the Peoples’ Representatives – he should be completely open, not playing games.
Kirk,
Neither article seems to have a quote from SpaceX as to whether they think the test was a failure. That word is only coming from NASA.
Col Beausabre,
There may be little additional information to give. The article and Kirk’s linked article both suggest that the problem may be with the test setup. When there is suspicion along those lines then there is a reasonable probability that this is where the problem lies. Until they know for sure, however, giving out additional information may end up misleading people. If they prematurely say that it was the test setup but it wasn’t, then it looks like they were intentionally misleading Congress so they didn’t think things were so bad. At this stage of the investigation, it may be prudent to say as little as possible in order to keep from being bitten in the butt with your own words.
Edward,
Correct but the SpaceX statement (made after Gerstenmaier testimony) — that the five parachute-out tests prior to the April test were successful — could be taken as tacit admission that the sixth wasn’t successful, and was certainly not a claim that it was successful which is how Bob appears to have interpreted the ambiguous “previously” in Foust’s 12 May article.