NASA Successfully Tests Orion's New Crew Escape System

Boccaccio writes "NASA on Wednesday successfully tested its MLAS alternative launch escape system designed for the new Orion Crew module. MLAS, or Max Launch Abort System, is named after the inventor of the crew escape system on the Mercury program, Maxime (Max) Faget and consists of four rocket motors built into a fairing that encloses an Orion module during Launch. MLAS is designed to pull the crew away from the main rocket stack during the critical first 2.5 minutes of flight in the event of a catastrophic failure. The advantage of the MLAS system over the more traditional LAS (Launch Abort System) is that it reduces the total height of the rocket, lowering the center of gravity and adding stability, and potentially allowing higher fuel load. You can watch a video of the launch at the NASA website, and there are also a bunch of pictures."

Comments

Quite complex

[the_other_chewey]

I just watched the video - and while it definitely is a cool concept, what immediately came
to mind is the increased complexity of the system. I counted five separations (the launch itself
would be a separation in reality) of some piece or another and multiple chute deployments before the
crew capsule was safely floating down on its main parachutes.

I'm sure there's redundancy in there so a single failure wouldn't be fatal (although not dropping the
casing preventing main chute deployment would be bad), but it is quite a step up from the regular
"separate, fire one solid booster, wait a bit, deploy chutes" apporach.

Re:Quite complex

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it may be a Russian design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll

Re:Quite complex

[Shaiku]

I initially thought the same thing, but perhaps they need variable descent rates and perhaps the first set or two of chutes is more likely to get tangled, ripped, or burned. We also don't know if the failure of one system prevents all the subsequent systems from operating or not. It may be more reliable than it first appears.

Re:Quite complex

[sunking2]

after 2 minutes of bastoff this sucker would normally be pretty damn high. The first stages are pretty much just drag chutes to ensure correct orientation. The next few stages are used to slow it down to a safe speed and/or altitude to deploy the final much larger chutes that might not be able to withstand deployment at a high speed/altitude. Another reason may be that they want to get these guys down as quickly as possible. Thus the drag shoots for control, and a few stages of chutes to slow down/land without putting their heads through their stomachs.

Re:Quite complex

[DerekLyons]

I just watched the video - and while it definitely is a cool concept, what immediately came to mind is the increased complexity of the system. I counted five separations (the launch itself would be a separation in reality) of some piece or another and multiple chute deployments before the crew capsule was safely floating down on its main parachutes.

What the video and accompanying article doesn't make clear is that most of those separation events were part of the test vehicle, not part of the proposed flight configuration.

Its an alternate solution.

[Hozza]

The summary doesn't really make this clear, but the baseline Orion design uses a standard LAS system.

The MLAS is only being developed as a possible alternate, if the LAS solution proves unworkable.

Apollo 11 nearly tested their LES

[MichaelSmith]

This is from Carrying the Fire, by Michael Collins. The story as Collins tells it is that as the crew entered the capsule for the launch he noticed that Armstrong had a loose strap on the thigh of his pressure suit which was about to snare a T shaped hand controller. The launch escape system is triggered by twisting the controller so there was a risk of accidently triggering it. In the book he suggests the last word spoken in the CM before the LES fired would be "oops".

Oh the possibilities

[yerktoader]

They shoulda ran with it. Awesome names and acronyms have come out of stranger places. For example, my Dad knows one of the engineers that built the San Diego Wild Animal park. They were trying to decide a name for the park's monorail, now known as Wgasa. Apparently, after they had been at it for days one of the engineers coworkers said "Who gives a shit anyway?" :D The story has no official evidence to back it up, but Snopes still believes it to be true.

So I say honor that Faget and give this device a proper name.

Futile attempts go exit there?
Finally a great ejection technology?
Faget's automatic gravity enhancing technique?
Fuckers are gonna egress tonight!

Discuss.

Orion?

[tcdk]

Please, do not call it Orion unless it has small nukes coming out it's ass. Confuses this old timer, it does, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Re:Orion?

[DerekLyons]

No, it only confuses pedantic old timers who are unable to keep straight the difference between a project long dead and an active project. The rest of us old timers have no problems at all.

Overly complex + more chances to fail.

[assemblerex]

Jettison + primary escape stage + jettison stage + deploy nose cone parachutes + jettison nosecone + deploy primary parachute primers + deploy primary chutes
Failure of any of those steps results in loss of crew.

Re:backup of a backup.

[teridon]

However when looking at the video there is the posibilty they get other elements of the escape capsule on their head after a succesful landing.

I know this is /., but try RTFA:

Because the MLAS flight test vehicle was not optimized for weight and parachute performance, there may be recontact between the elements of the test vehicle after the parachutes are fully deployed and after all the required data is collected. If recontact does occur it will not affect the MLAS test objectives, nor will it apply to Orion -- as the MLAS design and hardware are not representative of the current Orion design.

There goes another one...

[PinkyDead]

Hold your fire. There are no life forms. It must have been short-circuited.

Re:There goes another one...

[drachenfyre]

What are we, paying by the laser beam? You don't do the budgets around here....

Experience counts

[John Guilt]

Though any of the steps can go wrong, the likelihood of each going wrong also matters. I don't know the record of failed separations and parachute deployments well enough to really say, but both technologies pre-date manned space flight, and have been continuously necessary, so they might be down pat. If there's a very low rate for either or both, it might be safer than a system with fewer stages but more inherent danger for the crew. Depending on the odds, I might prefer five low-risk threats to three moderate-risk threats.

And, asking from near-complete ignorance: would the failure of the fairing to separate be fatal to the crew? It will be hot, but it seems to me that if it weren't well thermally-isolated from the capsule, they'd be in trouble to begin-with...but maybe it's only insulated well enough to keep them safer from it until expected separation, and much longer than that would be pushing it....

Space 1999

[Migraineman]

Man, I swear I'm looking at the cockpit module from an Eagle. BTW, what's Catherine Schell up to these days?

Comples, Yes. Overly-Complex, No.

[Phairdon]

This system is only as complex as necessary. If it could be simplified, it would. Do you have any idea of how recovery of spacecraft components works, such as recovery of the solid rocket motors? The first parachutes, the small ones, help to slow down the capsule. These parachutes can withstand a certain amount of load. Do you know what dynamic pressure is and how it drives the aero forces in atmo? The next batch of parachutes can withstand another set of forces, and finally the huge babies are released when the dynamic pressure is just right and those 'chutes will bring the capsule in for a landing.

They don't have all those 'chutes just for the fun of it. The budget is just too tight to do crap like that.

First stage recovery has more than 1 set of 'chutes as well.