SpaceX Testing Passenger Escape System Tomorrow

An anonymous reader writes: On Wednesday, SpaceX will be performing the first test of a prototype for its passenger capsule escape system. Most rockets have a launch abort system that will save the lives of its crew within the first few minutes of launch, but not beyond a relatively low altitude. SpaceX is designing the new system to be able to return astronauts safely whether they're close to the ground or near orbit.

The Dragon capsule will fire eight SuperDraco thrusters, capable of producing 120,000 lbs of axial thrust between them in under a second. With that amount of thrust, the capsule can get half a kilometer away from a failing rocket in under 5 seconds. SpaceX will have 270 sensors aboard the prototype, including a crash test dummy. The main mission goals include: determining the best sequencing for the launch abort timeline, getting all eight thrusters to fire in unison, and seeing how an aborted launch affects both the inside of the capsule and the area around it. The test is planned to start at 7 a.m. EDT (11:00 UTC), but they have a 7.5-hour window if there are minor delays.

Comments

Re:Tell me that we're not

[grommit]

We're not on this particular test.

Last time one was used?

[Dereck1701]

I suppose its not a bad thing to have just in case but I don't see the reasoning behind the fixation on it as a design requirement and their ranting about its "importance" in press releases. In almost 300 manned space launches a Launch Escape system has only been of verifiable use in a single incident(Soyuz T-10-1).

Re:Last time one was used?

[bledri]

I suppose its not a bad thing to have just in case but I don't see the reasoning behind the fixation on it as a design requirement and their ranting about its "importance" in press releases. In almost 300 manned space launches a Launch Escape system has only been of verifiable use in a single incident(Soyuz T-10-1).

The Challenger incident reminded us that rockets are still dangerous. Especially newer rockets, and everything US crew flies on will either be a new-ish rocket (F9), or a rocket with new engines (Atlas V flying Blue Origin's engine as a replacement to Russian engines.) Also, SpaceX has done something rather clever. The abort propellent and engines will eventually be used for propulsive landings instead of coming down under canopy. So their abort system isn't a total waste.

Re:Last time one was used?

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and would have been a "nice to have" with STS-51 (Challenger)

Re:Last time one was used?

[Spy Handler]

In almost 300 manned space launches a Launch Escape system has only been of verifiable use in a single incident(Soyuz T-10-1).

If Shuttle had a launch escape system, it would've been used at least once (Challenger) with 7 lives being saved.

Re:Last time one was used?

[gman003]

Because they're trying something new with it. They're using the same set of engines for emergency escape as they are for propulsive landing of the capsule. That's fairly innovative in and of itself, and the changes required for that (side rockets instead of a top-mounted tower) let it also be used for a longer period of the flight.

Re: Last time one was used?

[Anonymous Coward]

No insurance company will insure human cargo if there are no safeties in place.

Re:Last time one was used?

[Spy Handler]

So their abort system isn't a total waste.

That's an understatement. If everything goes according to Elon's plan, we might have weekly or even daily Dragon launches in the future. Calling the US Navy and having them send out aircraft carriers every day to retrieve capsules from the Pacific would get pretty expensive!

Having the capsule return to the launch site and land with precision is gonna be a big money-saver.

Re:Last time one was used?

[garyisabusyguy]

Because it is a requirement of NASA and if you want to make money launching people for them, then you might as well prove you can do it

Re:Last time one was used?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd be curious to know if it actually is a bad thing to have... In the context of a rocket, there isn't exactly a lot of spare mass, spare volume, or engineers just sitting around and wallowing in boredom because the design is trivially simple and every niggling problem has been worked out.

If you skipped the launch escape system, you'd be able to transport more in the same number of launches(or the same amount in fewer) and your craft would be less complex, allowing you to focus on making the remaining systems less likely to need an escape.

Even if you don't fancy a look at our (honestly somewhat curious) level of risk aversion around space activity, it's not clear that adding an escape pod is a better investment, in terms of lives saved, than spending the resources on more extensive testing, improved reliability, and similar for the main systems. It's very much unlike the car scenario, where even 100% perfect engineering doesn't change the fact that other people are going to screw up and crash into you, and that a fair number of your drivers are going to be incompetent, drunk, or distracted; so you fairly quickly run out of improvements to the drive and steering system and have to achieve further survival gains by building in crash resistance. With a rocket, building a launch system that doesn't destroy itself and/or kill the passengers some of the time is quite challenging; but there isn't the same presence of ineradicable external danger, if your system doesn't kill the passengers, they'll survive.(Until you get them into orbit, where the micrometeorites can take them out...)

Re:Last time one was used?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aircraft carriers really aren't necessary, unless you stretch the term to mean "We can park a helicopter on the rear deck" which is more than a bit generic.

I know I'd much prefer a scrubbed launch divert to the ocean instead of land.

Re:Last time one was used?

[phayes]

If the superdraco engines and the associated tankage were only used as abort insurance (thus tomorrow's tests), maybe -- but you'd have to convince nasa for whom it is a manned certification requirement (even though the shuttle didn't have an equivalent system for many conditions - see challenger). In addition you completely missed the fact that the same engines and tankage are planned to be used for capsule recovery.

Re:Last time one was used?

[gman003]

SpaceX is getting some of the benefits of skipping the LAS, by using the same system for at least two tasks.

The primary use is as a propulsive landing system. That's probably the main way they'll be used. There's a backup parachute system, but they want powered landings to be the norm.

The secondary use is as an abort engine. It'll probably be rarely used, and I think it uses up all the fuel so an aborted launch will have to use parachutes, which will make for rougher landings but still plenty survivable. This way, they won't be carrying fuel that isn't used in some way during the flight.

A third possible use is as an in-flight maneuvering system. This is mostly done using the smaller Draco engines, not the big SuperDracos, but they run off the same fuel supply and are mounted in the same pod. But if they ever need to do significant orbital maneuvers, I expect they'll light up the SuperDracos.

Re:Last time one was used?

[Anonymous Coward]

if it works, do you get your money back?

Re:Last time one was used?

[Idarubicin]

even though the shuttle didn't have an equivalent system for many conditions - see challenger

That was true for 1986 NASA, certainly. Post-Challenger there were major changes (extensions) to the list of abort options - including a new bail-out capability - which made the loss of two engines crew-survivable for the entire ascent, and the loss of all three main engines survivable for most of the ascent. (See the Wikipedia article for details.) As it turns out, we have higher expectations 30 years on. Whodathunkit?

Re:Last time one was used?

[Canth7]

<quote><p>I suppose its not a bad thing to have just in case but I don't see the reasoning behind the fixation on it as a design requirement and their ranting about its "importance" in press releases.  In almost 300 manned space launches a Launch Escape system has only been of verifiable use in a single incident(Soyuz T-10-1).</p></quote>

Marketing. This is a joyride for the rich - they want some danger but they also want to feel that there's a safety mechanism in case of failure. I imagine it'll help sell a lot of tickets, no matter how little use it gets or whether it prevents any deaths.

Re:Last time one was used?

[Dereck1701]

People often make that statement but there is no proof that a LES would have been of use in the Challenger incident. There were no indications of a problem right up until the ET exploded, if a capsule had been on top of the ET stack there is every chance that it could have been crippled/destroyed in the explosion much as the shuttle was. And yes I am well aware that the at least one of the astronauts was alive after the explosion, in the shredded remnants of a useless cockpit. The only way to be reasonably certain of a successful escape would have been to have sensors to detect the issue and activate the escape system before the ET went up, and if such sensors had been available to even the shuttle it would have been possible to have detached from the ET and possibly (though it would have been quite risky) steer the shuttle around for a landing or at least a ditch in the ocean.

Re:Last time one was used?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being awesome - like Space X - helps too.

Space X and Elon Musk have done more for interest from the general public in the last 2 or 3 years than NASA has done in the last 30. Lets face it - NASA's marketing department sucks, and so do pretty much every other space company.

Re:Last time one was used?

[ckatko]

The point is, we can undertake riskier missions if we know the crew will be safe.

Re:Last time one was used?

[WindBourne]

The Super Dragon will be used for landing on earth without parachutes in several years to come.
In addition, look up red dragon in wiki.

So, rather than think of LES as unneeded weight to dragon, think of it as a free side effect of Dragon's future landing capabilities.

Re:Last time one was used?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two shuttle crews would probably have wanted a launch escape system....just saying.

Re:Last time one was used?

[Anonymous Coward]

You get to use it again, so yeah, over and over again.

Re:Last time one was used?

[bledri]

<quote><p>I suppose its not a bad thing to have just in case but I don't see the reasoning behind the fixation on it as a design requirement and their ranting about its "importance" in press releases. In almost 300 manned space launches a Launch Escape system has only been of verifiable use in a single incident(Soyuz T-10-1).</p></quote> Marketing. This is a joyride for the rich - they want some danger but they also want to feel that there's a safety mechanism in case of failure. I imagine it'll help sell a lot of tickets, no matter how little use it gets or whether it prevents any deaths.

You really should learn about a topic before posting. The Dragon 2 is being developed as part of NASA's commercial crew program. Launch Abort is a NASA requirement. NASA will be using Dragon to transport astronauts to and from the ISS.

Re:Last time one was used?

[bledri]

People often make that statement but there is no proof that a LES would have been of use in the Challenger incident. There were no indications of a problem right up until the ET exploded, if a capsule had been on top of the ET stack there is every chance that it could have been crippled/destroyed in the explosion much as the shuttle was. And yes I am well aware that the at least one of the astronauts was alive after the explosion, in the shredded remnants of a useless cockpit. The only way to be reasonably certain of a successful escape would have been to have sensors to detect the issue and activate the escape system before the ET went up, and if such sensors had been available to even the shuttle it would have been possible to have detached from the ET and possibly (though it would have been quite risky) steer the shuttle around for a landing or at least a ditch in the ocean.

LAS on the shuttle was impractical for a number of reasons. One of the lessons of the Challenger incident was that LAS was more important of a requirement than they thought when making design trade offs when developing the shuttle. So part of post-Challenger requirements for new designs is to include LAS.

Re:Last time one was used?

[catchblue22]

I suppose its not a bad thing to have just in case but I don't see the reasoning behind the fixation on it as a design requirement and their ranting about its "importance" in press releases. In almost 300 manned space launches a Launch Escape system has only been of verifiable use in a single incident(Soyuz T-10-1).

The same rockets used for the launch escape will also be used as a propulsive landing system that can land like a helicopter.

Re:Last time one was used?

[Macrat]

I know I'd much prefer a scrubbed launch divert to the ocean instead of land.

Why? Both surfaces can just as easily kill you at speed.

Re:Last time one was used?

[cbhacking]

An aborted launch (as opposed to a scrubbed one) would definitely want to divert to the ocean if possible; the Dragon 2 uses the same thrusters (and their same fuel tanks) for its emergency escape system as it does for the intended ground landings. That's one of the reasons it still carries parachutes; in the event that it needs to use its rockets for launch escape, there's not going to be enough fuel left for a propulsive soft landing.

A scrubbed launch, you just get out of the capsule and go back down the stairs or whatever to the launch pad to try again the next day.

Re:Last time one was used?

[DerekLyons]

Also, SpaceX has done something rather clever. The abort propellent and engines will eventually be used for propulsive landings instead of coming down under canopy. So their abort system isn't a total waste.

Clever in some respects - but not without risks and drawbacks. (As compared to the toss-it-unused style generally in use otherwise.) Since the spacecraft is (intended to be) re-useable up to ten time "without significant refurbishment", all limited life components (notably the seals) have to last that long. Since it's carried the whole flight, the system has to survive all flight phases. And most notably, it increases the orbited, suspended, and landed weights.

Another consideration is that "traditional" (solid fueled tractor escape motors) were passively stable, while Super Draco very likely is not. "Traditional" systems could also be easily designed to passively steer the vehicle clear of the boosters trajectory, while Super Draco will require active throttling.

I'm not saying anything against the system, only that the cleverness comes with costs that aren't going to be obvious to the untrained eye.

Re:Last time one was used?

[DerekLyons]

I suppose its not a bad thing to have just in case but I don't see the reasoning behind the fixation on it as a design requirement and their ranting about its "importance" in press releases. In almost 300 manned space launches a Launch Escape system has only been of verifiable use in a single incident(Soyuz T-10-1).

My wife and I have owned vehicles with airbags for nearly twenty years. By your logic, we could have gotten rid of them since we never needed them.

Until a week ago.

Re: Last time one was used?

[djdarko]

I assume that you are referring to Challenger and Columbia? There's an argument to be made that a LAS may have saved the crew of the former, but I don't see how one would have benefitted the crew of the latter- it's a LAUNCH abort system, not a re-entry abort system. They would still have all died regardless.

Re:Last time one was used?

[Dereck1701]

Again, any safety system is nice, but its benefits have to be weighted against its costs and risks. Airbags are a good example, some back of the napkin numbers suggest that airbags add somewhere around $15 Billion dollars of cost to US vehicles per year (13 Million new cars, 2 airbags @$600 each). Those airbags save somewhere in the neighborhood of 600-1000 lives per year, assuming those numbers are correct it costs over $19 Million per each saved life. Now I'm all for devoting a few billion towards saving lives but are we getting the best bang for our buck by using airbags or would that money be better used elsewhere?

Re:Last time one was used?

[dywolf]

Similarly over the course of several million military aircraft flights the ejection seat has rarely been used, somewhere around 0.000001% of the time. Since it is used so rarely, I fail to see it's importance, so let's get rid of it. I mean, who cares if we lose the pilot/astronaut, amiright? ...

Hey, where are you going? Get back here!
What do you mean you don't want to fly for us anymore?

Re:Last time one was used?

[Anonymous Coward]

And by that same logic all commercial airliners should be required to have parachutes on-board for all passengers just in case there is a need to abandon the aircraft, all cars/businesses/homes should carry complete medical kits in case of an accident & all stairways should be replaced with elevators because you could trip and fall down them. There are cost benefit ratios that we deal with on a regular basis whether we like them or not.

Re:Last time one was used?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's rather a bit of difference between passengers and crew, not mention the larger difference between an airliner running passengers as a commercial service, and a spaceship with a paid employee risking his life.

the logic doesn't really expand to your scenario that well.
flying buses are notoriously safe, and in particular quite a bit safer than the flying bombs we call "rockets".

your argument is a fallacy, specifically the reduction to extremes.
its a bad comparison.

Re:Last time one was used?

[dywolf]

Last time I checked paying customers don't board airliners expecting to enter combat along with its associated high risk of damage/injury.

When riding a rocket into space has the kind of safety record as air travel, then your ridiculous extrapolation will have merit. But as of now, it has none.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

ComputerX will be building an exact replica of an IBM 360 mainframe, also for 1960s nostalgia.

Re:In other news

[WindBourne]

That would be true if the new 360 was super computer speeds, was the largest system going, ran the most advanced OS, etc.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

That would make sense if rockets were thousands of times faster, used thousands times less fuel, and were thousands of times bigger.

Oops.

So much for the space dreams of the '60s: DOA.

that's the old joke about N.A.S.A.

[turkeydance]

Need Another Seven Astronauts

Re:that's the old joke about N.A.S.A.

[R3d M3rcury]

What was the official soft drink of Challenger? Ocean Spray.
They tried, but they couldn't get 7-Up.

Re:that's the old joke about N.A.S.A.

[funwithBSD]

Reporter: Is that your Crash Helmet?

Jose Jiménez: Oh.... I hope not!

Reading comprehension

[Anonymous Coward]

Each SuperDraco produces 15,000 lb of thrust, there are 8 of them, so together they produce 8 * 15,000 = 120,000 lb of thrust.

Shuttle

[p51d007]

First couple shuttle launches had ejection seats, but were taken out prior to operational use. The way that stupid shuttle was designed, there would never had been a practical way to escape the shuttle, unless they went with a "pod" to get them out, which would have weighted too much. The capsule concept, in use from the 50's, is a more practical way of escaping, but, NASA (and by the way of a proxy, the congress), went with that stupid shuttle, then didn't launch it the way it was intended (piggyback on a giant plane). They went with those stupid boosters, problematic at best. NASA, congress, and of course the CONTRACTORS, wanted the shuttle because they sold it as a "flying truck". So, instead of furthering our exploration of space, we just flew up and down in low orbit, then, they came up with the space station concept to give the shuttle something to do. It's been a great big money spending party. Put space exploration into private hands, which will find a profitable way to do it, and space exploration will, to coin a phrase, take off.

Re:Shuttle

[R3d M3rcury]

Put space exploration into private hands, which will find a profitable way to do it, and space exploration will, to coin a phrase, take off.

What if there is no profitable way to do it?

Don't get me wrong--I love what SpaceX is doing and I believe it will save the US Taxpayer and businesses money sending items and people into orbit. But exploration is expensive and you may not find what you're looking for--a bad Return On Investment.

I'm reminded of the old saw about the California gold rush: the only people who made money were the people who mined the miners.

I mean, who's SpaceX's biggest customer? The US Government.

Re:Shuttle

[catchblue22]

I mean, who's SpaceX's biggest customer? The US Government.

They are the world's cheapest launch service provider and that is without re-usability. They will likely become the dominant launch provider in the world. If they get re-usability to work economically, this will enable mass launches of inexpensive satellites, which could change the entire communications industry. Musk doesn't think small.

Re:Shuttle

[tehcyder]

If they get re-usability to work economically, this will enable mass launches of inexpensive satellites, which could change the entire communications industry

Call me a cynic, but the only word I see there is "if".

Re:Shuttle

[catchblue22]

Call me a cynic, but the only word I see there is "if".

Yeah well, you probably would have been cynical of SpaceX when their first three launches failed. Now they are on track to dominate the entire industry, even without reusability. Looking at Musk's history, when he says something is possible, you can be quite sure that success is in the set of possible outcomes.

A sneak peak at the results

[SuperKendall]

Don't tell anyone, but I'm from the future and wanted to give you a heads up how it goes:

Test 1: Make sure all thrusters installed pointing out.

Test 2: Humans can only withstand how much thrust?

Test 3: Make sure to thrust away from, not underneath, falling debris.

Test 4: Emergency homing signal for safe landing should be changed to not match Arbys drive through wireless mics. "Smoked with real smoke from real wood that's on real fire" ended up being a grimly accurate tagline.

Test 5: Turns out Ed was right and we really do need to add a laser canon for those damn pelicans.

Test 6: Success!

And 7 people died because of lack of it in shuttle

[hkultala]

Launch abort system could have saved the 7 astronauts of challenger accident. But shuttle did not have launch abort system.

Still against the public aspect of this

[Anonymous Coward]

While space exploration is needed. I am against the type of marketing of space flight for a thrill ride. We are still not at a point in space technology to consider space flight a day to day occurrence like air plane flight. To consider people can just buy a ticket and jump on a rocket to see space is just asking for trouble.
Why would you risk the future of space flight at this stage just so a few wealthy people can experience space for a brief period? This kind of ideal is not advancing space exploration in the least. It simply trying to commercialize space as yet another thrill like tornado tours, or some other bucket list thrill. If even one of these launches goes terribly wrong it sets space travel back a long time. Will leave a very negative feeling for everyone.

Test was successful

[CeasedCaring]

Test took place at 9am EDT, all went according to plan. Next will be 2 full duration unmanned launches.