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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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!

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.