Slashdot Mirror


NASA to Test Emergency Ability of New Spacecraft

coondoggie writes "NASA this will show off the first mock up of its Orion space capsule ahead of the capsule's first emergency astronaut escape system test. NASA said it will jettison the full-size structural model off a simulated launch pad at the US Army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The launch escape vehicle sits atop the Orion capsule which is slated to be bolted on an Ares rocket. The escape vehicle is made up of three solid rocket motors as well as separation mechanisms and canards, and should offer the crew an escape capability in the event of an emergency during launch, according to NASA."

25 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Hopefully by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 5, Funny

    they'll have this whole thing ironed out for when that one guy has to go to Mars alone

    --
    We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
    1. Re:Hopefully by tm2b · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why a duck? Why-a-no chicken?

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  2. It's 1963 all over again! by BadEvilYoda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4205/app-c.html#section2 Ah, Saturn V... good times. Glad we've once again remembered it's a better idea to have the astronauts at the TOP of the stack rather than stuck to the SIDE of the stack.

    1. Re:It's 1963 all over again! by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Glad we've once again remembered it's a better idea to have the astronauts at the TOP of the stack rather than stuck to the SIDE of the stack.

      On the side wouldn't have been so bad if it would have been in a vehicle with emergency escape capability. After all "The US Space Shuttle has a lower failure rate (1.6%) than the other launchers. The failure rates range from 5% for the Russian R-7 Soyuz and European Ariane 1-4 to 14% for the US Atlas." Perhaps in this round of launch design we can manage to cut the accident rate to one third again. A 0.53% failure rate isn't bad considering what is being attempted, but with (hopefully only) a 1 in 200 chance of disaster, an escape plan is always a good idea.

      --
      We are all just people.
    2. Re:It's 1963 all over again! by SacredByte · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing you overlook in declaring the shuttle "safer" than previous launch/re-entry vehicles is this:

      When we built the previous generations of spacecraft we didn't know WTF we were doing -- Especially with the earliest attempts (made by the US) after the launch of Sputnik; We were trying to get something up fast, not something up safely.

      The shuttle has been a compromise since its very inception. It was designed to be able to intercept/capture (as well as launch) satalites. Because of this, it doesn't really go up high enough to be [extremely] useful. Additionally, when we look at the first major shuttle disaster (challenger?), it was due to thermal failure of critical parts (Read: not designed to launch when it was cold out), which lead to nice fireworks.

      But then again, my grandfather worked on [pieces of] most of the early space programs (he worked for G.E.), so my opinion is clearly biased...

    3. Re:It's 1963 all over again! by Rakishi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      BS. Using misleading statistics to prove a point does not prove a point. The Soyuz has a lower fatality rate than the Shuttle and that's going back to the 60s. It has a flawless fatality record for longer than the shuttle has even existed. Unlike the shuttle failures for it (well launch.re-entry ones) are far from fatal and even then it has a lower failure rate if you don't count the pre-shuttle era I think.

      Now consider that the Soyuz is likely flown/managed by people whose attention to safety would give NASA managers heart attacks and just how much of a fuck up the shuttle is become evident.

    4. Re:It's 1963 all over again! by johno.ie · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Soyuz rocket has been launched over 1700 times, according to this wikipedia page. I don't think that's completely accurate, I think that's counting the R-7 and all its derivatives. About half of that number would be my guess for the current Soyuz design.

      There have been a few variations of the Soyuz manned spacecraft as technology has improved. The current version can support a 3 person crew for 30 days. When docked to a space station it can survive for 6 months in space and safely re-enter with a crew. The 98th manned Soyuz was launched in October last year. There have been 2 flights where the crew died, the very first flight when 1 cosmonaut died, and a flight in 1971 when 3 cosmonauts died. AFAIK there hasn't been a fatality on a Soyuz mission in almost 37 years.

      Not counting Enterprise, because it never went to space, the shuttles have flown 121 times. There have been 2 fatal flights with 7 people killed each time. Counting Apollo 1 NASA have lost 17 astronauts in it's history but still haven't had anyone killed in space.

      johno

      --
      872835240
    5. Re:It's 1963 all over again! by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Informative

      The last Soyuz failure occurred in 1983 when the rocket exploded on the pad with the crew inside.

      It might be a good point to note here that the crew all survived.

      In 1975, Soyuz 18a aborted its launch before reaching orbit due to a major booster malfunction. The Launch-Escape-System automatically triggered when the rocket left what was considered a "safe" trajectory, and the crew also survived.

      Soyuz capsules have also survived landings in virtually every sort of terrain known to man. Although subsequent revisions have made the spacecraft's landing precision considerably better, the ability to land *anywhere* is a very nice fallback to have if an abort is necessary.

      The last Soyuz known fatalities occurred in 1971.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  3. Re:The real story... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The shuttle had no escape system.

    But was it hubris, callousness, or bean counting? One from each column?

    I'm somewhat embarrassed for NASA that they feel the need to press release this. It should be right up there with "NASA To Tighten All Screws On New Spacecraft". Of course you're going to do that.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. Project Orion? by arodland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Somewhat offtopic, but I still don't think you should name any space project "Orion" unless it involves nuclear propulsion! It's... misleading.

  5. Re:The real story... by Saberwind · · Score: 3, Informative

    Columbia originally had ejection seats for the Commander and Pilot for the first few flights. After crews exceeded two people, however, they replaced the seats with normal ones because it wouldn't be fair for only two of the crew to be able to eject while the rest perished.

  6. One man, one way mssion to mars by cizoozic · · Score: 4, Funny

    He won't be alone they are sending along some ducks for company. For god's sake I hope one of them is that Aflac duck - Either that or the guy is Gilbert Gottfried and they disable any proposed escape mechanisms.
  7. do what now? by ILuvRamen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Excuse me? During launch? They're supposed to get into an emergency capsule if something goes wrong during launch? Okay let's just ignore the whole idea of how fast they'd have to be and say they're really, really fast astronauts...how the hell is anyone going to get up out of their seat and into a capsule while they're pulling what like 7 Gs? I'd like to see someone even lift their arm up let alone get up.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:do what now? by Bobb9000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The summary doesn't describe the system itself very well - if that was how it worked I'd agree it'd be idiotic. The "vehicle" the summary mentions is actually just a separate rocket engine attached to the nose of the capsule. If something goes wrong, the astronauts don't have to go anywhere; the bolts holding the capsule onto the main Ares launch vehicle blow, and the escape rocket fires, lifting the entire Orion capsule off the Ares rocket and high enough into the air to get clear of the launch pad and any unpleasant explosions. Then the escape rocket separates from the capsule, while the capsule is hopefully high enough to land softly by parachute. For more info (and pictures), see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_escape_system and here: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/orionlas.htm.

      --
      Bobb9000 - raised by the wolves,
      Oxford education as phrased by the wolves.
    2. Re:do what now? by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Informative

      The astronauts are seated in the capsule during launch. The emergency system is basically a rocket on top of the capsule. If there is an emergency, the rocket fires and pulls the capsule away from the stack.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    3. Re:do what now? by codepunk · · Score: 3, Informative

      You went to college didn't you? It shows!

      It is the same sort of escape system attached to the top of the
      capsule as the soyuz spacecraft has. If you do some searching it
      is a tried and proved emergency escape system. Look for Soyuz T-10,
      a fire on the pad occurred during launch causing a explosion that
      destroyed the pad. The cosmonauts where launched to safely by their
      emergency escape rockets.

      --


      Got Code?
    4. Re:do what now? by Waste55 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am working CEV, the people doing the Abort Software are 1 row over from me.

      No, the crew will not be moving around during ascent. :)

      In short: The software will monitor for abort conditions, at a point where any are detected the Launch Abort System (LAS) will take over and "pull" the CM in the proper direction away from the rocket.

      More unofficial info (sorry, cant link to official docs):
      Launch Abort System
      Orion Abort Modes
      (I also remember an animated video on NASA's site at one point, but cant seem to locate it on the new website.)

  8. So... by n3tcat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I skimmed the article looking for details on the ejection system itself, but nothing stood out.

    I'm guessing this is an ejection system strictly for non-moving spacecraft, right? I mean I can't imagine the speeds those shuttles reach, and having a piece of it suddenly pop open and eject the crew. Debris would be flying for miles.

  9. Re:The real story... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The shuttle had no escape system.

    The shuttle should have been an evolution from Apollo. Make the orbiter a stretched, winged service module. Install a hatch in the command module heat shield (this was trialled for the Gemini wet lab). For launch and landing pack the crew into the CM using the rescue mode layout. During launch use a launch escape system. This will get you past the Challenger failure mode. During reentry the LES won't be there but you can use the reaction control system to achieve separation.

  10. Re:The real story... by ScottKin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Interestingly enough, early designs from North American Rockwell for the Shuttle included a crew escape system similar to what was going to be implemented in the North American Rockwell B-1A - which in itself was based on the F-111's Crew Escape Module, where the Crew Cabin / Cockpit blasts away from the rest of the vehicle using solid rocket motors. When the decision was made to use the area where the motors would have been for the extra crew seats and stowage, the whole escape system was scrapped. So much for hindsight.

    --ScottKin

    --
    I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
  11. Re:The real story... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No. Columbia's crew, the one which blew up during launch (or was that Challenger?) was probably alive when it hit the ocean. Whether they were conscious is not public info, but they were alive for a while, based on evidence that some of them tried to put on oxygen bottles, IIRC. They could have used an escape pod.

  12. Re:The real story... by yotto · · Score: 2

    Not that I've ever put on an oxygen mask, but I suspect I'd find it difficult if I was unconscious.

    Do you have a reference for this? I'm a mild space geek and I've never heard it before.

  13. Soviet attitude to safety by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It may come as a surprise, but the attitude to things like crew safety in the old USSR was actually pretty good. In WW2 Stalin executed his head of the Air Force for attacking the safety of Soviet aircraft, but Stalin was a monster and his successors weren't. Spaceflight was post-Stalin, you know. Kruschev, whatever his faults, was probably no worse as a human being than Kennedy.

    People who have investigated the ejector seats on Soviet military aircraft have commented that in some ways they were better than ones used on many NATO planes,and the armor on Soviet helicopters was truly impressive. After all, who do you think worked on the Soviet space and military aircraft programs? Hint: they weren't heroic Stakhanovite peasants. They were the sons and daughters of Party members, the people who were on top in the Soviet Union. And middle class people are notorious for caring an awful lot what happens to their children.

    So I guess what I am saying is, there is no a priori reason for believing that the US and USSR attitude to space flight safety was significantly different, but, as Arthur Clarke once commented, the Russians preferred to go with solid, proven, perhaps over-engineered systems even if they were bigger and heavier.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  14. Re:The real story... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Do you have a reference for this? I'm a mild space geek and I've never heard it before.


    Urban Legends comments
    Straight Dope comments
    MSNBC comments.

    All three sources say the same thing: 3 of the 4 air packs were activated which can only be done manually.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  15. funny difference between perception and reality by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to admit, I get a burst of geek pride when I see the shuttle actually building something in space, even if it's the deeply flawed space station. Back in the 90's, it burned me up to see the shuttle just dicking around in low earth orbit, not doing much but performing breeding experiments on fruit flies and floating around in the cabin. $500 million a launch and the damn thing isn't doing much on orbit when it's there! But building the space station, that's one of the original meat and potato missions planned for the shuttle. Neato! And to see that sucker in space, then see it come down through the atmosphere and land like a plane, oh so cool.

    But you know what? None of that stuff was really necessary. There's no financial sense in retrieving satellites from orbit. The servicing of the Hubble was a very unique situation, it's almost always easier to treat each satellite as an expendable unit, send another one up when the last one wears out. The cost of launch is so high that "servicing" missions to install new components, refuel the thrusters, etc, all would end up significantly more expensive than sending up a brand new satellite.

    As for building space stations, it really does make more sense to have a light man-rated vehicle that has 99.9999% reliability and a big dumb booster with 99% reliability sending up the big pieces. A shuttle really isn't needed for building anything in space -- things like the cargo bay arm should be a part of the station already. I believe one of the cut modules for the station would have been a super-arm, a multi-segmented robot that could walk it's way around the station, anchoring itself on special pads that would provide support and power. One or two of these arms could move anywhere on the station and help attach incoming modules every time they're boosted.

    What we really need for a revolution in space, we need bigger boosters. Why did pepper used to be worth more per ounce than gold? Because getting to the far east was so damned expensive, caravan or ship, it was a dicy proposition. Why is pepper cheap as dirt now? Affordable transportation. Lower the cost of transport and whole new worlds of possibility are opened.

    I remember reading about the Orion drive for the first time and smacking my head in awe. They weren't talking about building finnicky paperweight rockets, they were talking about constructing true spaceships in frickin' shipyards, launch weights that dwarfed naval destroyers! Ok, so maybe using open fusion explosions to propel the ship ain't politically correct but I've seen some very intriguing theoretical designs for clean nuclear propulsion, the kind of stuff with ehough ISP to get big, heavy things into earth orbit. Screw rockets and capsules, I want to see us launching stuff that looks like Battletech DropShips. Let's have some goddamn ambition, for chrissake.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne