NASA Drops Helicopter From Giant Swing To Test Airbag
By Jason Paur February 12, 2010 | 1:00 am | Categories: Air Travel


At NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia, engineers are using one of the coolest crash test devices around to research a new material aimed at decreasing the impact forces on passengers during a helicopter crash. The 240 foot tall structure was used to teach astronauts how to land on the moon, and is now being used to recreate aircraft crashes to improve aviation safety.

The latest safety device is called a “deployable energy absorber” and what the name lacks in creativity, it makes up for in practicality. The idea is very similar to an airbag, but instead of deploying in front of the passenger, the honeycomb material would be deployed on the belly of a helicopter to absorb some of the impact force during a crash.

Because both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are built as light as possible to make them efficient for flight, they lack some of the structural designs used in cars that can protect passengers in a crash. And contrary to popular belief, many aviation accidents result in a relatively slow speed impact with the ground. But with little structure to absorb the energy, these accidents can result in serious injury or worse.

In the video from NASA (after the jump), you can watch the crash and see the relatively unscathed crash test dummies inside after the helicopter comes skidding to a stop.

The helicopter was outfitted with instruments and four crash test dummies, including one with simulated internal organs from Johns Hopkins University. A NASA spokesperson said the passengers received “very few injuries” and the helicopter was also damaged very little.

The helicopter was raised to a height of 35 feet on the giant swing device and released. The swing has been used on other crash tests at NASA Langley and allows the airframe to follow forward moving path as it descends to replicate a typical crash. At the last moment, the cables are removed, allowing the helicopter to impact the ground as it would in a real accident. When the helicopter impacted the ground, the skids were bent outward, but the Kevlar honeycomb cushion attached to the belly absorbed much of the impact, and prevented the belly of the helicopter from hitting the ground.

In normal use, the honeycomb material would be kept flat against the airframe, and swing into place before an impact. The material was originally developed for use in space capsules as a way to cushion astronauts.

The engineers plan to repair the MD-500 helicopter and perform the drop test again, this time without the energy absorber, in order to compare the results from the tests. NASA says the final test should take place some time in late March.

Photos/Video: NASA

Isn't NASA government funded?

NASA is one of the best returns on investment the US has ever made in knowledge gained, technological advancement, and economic boost. Shutting it down is stupid.

IMHO

Less unconstitutional spending please, also less hypocrisy please.

Article 1 Section 8 me NASA.

What's interesting is that I take the general welfare clause to actually support the sciences and whatnot....

<3

Don't need to. National defense. Been over this. Constitution doesn't specify how national defense to be set up administratively. Issue addressed repeatedly. Debate over. Later.

Find me where national defense is an excuse to ignore the Constitution. This excuse has to be in the Constitution.

So despite you not wanting to, yes you need to.

I noticed that you didn't mention the General Welfare clause, which it fits into as well, that DFK! mentioned.

Is this going to be one of those threads where you keep objecting to everyone else's arguments until everyone gets tired of hearing you and you get the last word because no one cares anymore if you win or not?

Love the new Hellfire rules.

National Defense or General Welfare, both leave room for a space program that benefits either area. I'd even be comfortable with moving NASA into the Navy, just to make it three areas that it is covered by.

[Snarky sarcasm on cutting NASA's budget goes here]

He's ending U.S. manned space flight. Well, unless you count hitching rides with the Russians.

I can see the case where Space Exploration could possibly considered part of the Navy, Naval Research. Private entrepreneurs will one day achieve space flight worthy vehicles for the common man (maybe not for a thousand years, who knows?) and so it makes sense that the Navy is able develop space vehicle technology. Eventually, enemies will develop means to engage in combat using Space Worthy Vehicles and so we must have a navy which is able to defend and support our Army in this new medium. I'd imagine there will be a Space Guard too, like there is a coast guard since civilians will eventually have access to private, non-combative and recreational vehicles. Space ships are just boats that go into a vacuum and really, space is just the next logical evolution for the Navy. The nature of the combat in terms of how you mobilize your force, patterns and formations for attack, defense etc seem like they would likely be the same as modern naval warfare, just in three dimensions.

That said, the statement about "Promoting the General Welfare" is not a specific enumerated power or responsibility of government - it is simply words in the preamble of The Constitution, or a way to put into context the preceding bodies of text which empower the United States Government.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I believe the Air Force actually supplies the pilots and military support for NASA.