NASA Will Man Destruct Switch Just In Case

Ant writes "Popular Mechanics reports if the looming Discovery mission or any other between now and the spacecraft's retirement loses control, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is prepared to ditch it in the Atlantic ocean — or blow it up. The article also shows complete no-fly-zone maps and a photograph of the switch."

Comments

I hope their communication channels are secure

[The Fanta Menace]

...would be pretty nasty if someone if someone figured out how the radio comms for this function worked.

Re:Four Buttons?

[Z00L00K]

This is not uncommon for many such systems where you want to verify the circuit to see that it actually will fire.

The solution is even simpler, it just adds a resistor in the circuit so that the current flowing through the detonators are below ignition current.

More then one

[NewToNix]

Range Safety Officer per launch might be a good idea --like the idea behind one blank round in a firing squad, only in this case one live destruct, and some not active, but no one knows which are which.

Two reasons for this come to mind, 1) The obvious not having to 'know' you were the only one who flipped the kill switch on people, and, 2) the effect of thinking it's only a one in some number chance it's really you flipping the kill switch means a faster response time (less emotional hesitation to interfere).

For all I know they do this already... it seems like a reasonable idea to me anyway.

Re:Space Shuttle Discovery

[Jesse_42]

The other issue, just as important as the explosives, is all the other chemicals on board - many of which are highly toxic. This includes chemicals like monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) used in the Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem (OMS) and in the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) for control. It is great stuff, you mix it with nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) and they ignite with no spark or air required. At the same time, by the time you can smell it, you have been exposed to ten times the lethal dose. Remember when Columbia crashed and they told everyone not to go near the wreckage? this was one reason why.

As the parent said, remote destruct capabilities are simply par for the course when your strapping things to that much explosives and toxic chemicals. Really it should make us feel safer that NASA is honest about the risks and is willing to do what it needs to do to insure (as best as possible) public safety.

Re:Four Buttons?

[MoonBuggy]

I had also heard that the astronauts would visit the RSO before their flights with pictures of their families, just to be sure he knows exactly whose lives he would be affecting if he had to destroy the shuttle. That's interesting, I'd actually heard the opposite - that the RSO is not allowed to meet the astronauts at all in order to ensure that they make rational, not emotional, decisions if it comes down to it.

Re:Space Shuttle Discovery

[Jesus_666]

Maybe the GP wants a way of putting people into space that doesn't involve rockets. A giant catapult maybe? If we'd breed stronauts that can withstand acceleration forces of, say, 200g, space exploration would be much easier.

Re:Encoded Signals

[Rorschach1]

Oddly enough, I've seen the hardware specifications for at least one of the command destruct transmitters. That part wasn't classified, but I'm not sure where I came across it - might have been in some old Range documentation I found in the office I inherited. I don't remember much, but I'm pretty sure there were at least a couple of different designs in use. I think one was a redundant 68HC11-based system. All I really remember is that the design struck me as very conservative and architecturally simple. I don't recall any mention of crypto procedures and protocols - what I read only concerned getting the destruct message from its origin to the vehicle.

I'm sure the codes are tightly controlled. It's really not hard to design a very secure system, when it only needs to send one message, and that very rarely. An arbitrarily long, purely random key generated and distributed to the transmitter and receiver under tight security would do it. Denial-of-service would be a more difficult problem to address, but then jamming the signals isn't exactly easy when you're competing with some fairly high-power transmitters on high-gain dishes aimed right at the receiver. And they've got RF measurement vans that I assume patrol for interfering signals, malicious or otherwise.

Re:Already been used

[cybrpnk2]

Agreed that this is a non-news and there have been similar range destruct packages on EVERY shuttle launched since 1981 in case she starts heading for Disney World.

Re:Already been used

[cybrpnk2]

Oops. Wrong link in the above post.

Re:Encoded Signals

[AJ Mexico]

I actually worked on the range safety computer displays back c. 1990. The displays showed the rocket trajectory in 2D plan view and vertical view, with pre-calculated limit lines. Generally, if the rocket went outside the limits, it was to be destroyed. Basic telemetry was provided so the RSO could see if the rocket's engines were still functioning normally. And, post-Challenger, we added a debris data page so it would be easier to find parts of rockets that exploded.

Again, for the shuttle, the destruct units blow the solid rockets and the external tank, but not the orbiter itself -- not that it would matter unless they had already separated from the orbiter somehow.

And I remember that "Flight Termination Unit" in the picture with the 4 red switches. Those buttons with the paper bezel look like some cheesy add-on since then.

I agree with posters who said that this is nothing new -- the range facilities, including range safety, are used for all launches from the cape, manned or unmanned.

...And they've got RF measurement vans that I assume patrol for interfering signals, malicious or otherwise.

I heard that one day the electronics firm (~30 miles from the cape) where I worked got a call:

"Are your antenna guys testing something on XXX MHz?."

"Yes..."

"Well knock it off, we're trying to launch a rocket here, and you're on the destruct frequency."