Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NASA's Rollercoaster For Moon Rocket Escape

Posted by Zonk on Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:39 AM
from the funnest-ride-you-never-want-to-take dept.
NASA Space Toys Technology
simonbp writes "NASA's Constellation Project has approved the Rollercoaster Escape System to be used as the Emergency Egress Systems (EES) for astronauts and pad crew to race away from the Ares I pad, should an emergency be called. The Ares I is the first of NASA's new moon/Mars rockets and is scheduled for a first manned flight in 2014." From the article: "An unpowered fixed single-rail system from the access arm level of the ML tower to the existing bunker would be used. The railcars could be enclosed to provide personnel protection. Each railcar can hold four to six people. The rail would follow the ML tower vertically down to the pad surface, then turn and continue close to the ground to the safety bunker. A passive magnetic and friction braking system will decelerate the cars at the tracks end as well as prevent the cars from hitting each other."
+ -
story

Related Stories

by
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

NASA's Rollercoaster For Moon Rocket Escape 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • The Republican Party has decided to use the same system to safely shuttle away incumbent lawmakers from the Whitehouse.
    • The Republican Party has decided to use the same system to safely shuttle away incumbent lawmakers from the Whitehouse.

      Riotous! Um, other than that whole "lawmakers work in the senate and the congress" part. It's the C-in-C, a part of the Executive branch, that operates from the White House. But never mind what they're planning... it looks like Nancy Pelosi has already used this system, since her party has managed to completely eject her from view so that she doesn't actually say anything in front of a c
        • Where have you been fucking living the last six years?

          My point is that some of the movers and shakers (or at least, the people who seem to get a disporportionate share of the sound-bite coverage under normal circumsatnces - people like her) are astoundingly absent from the PR circuit right now. She's a popular (understandibly) demon for many people because she's lefter than most, and the dems don't really want to shout LEFTY LEFT LEFTIST! too loud while trying to get normal people elected. So someone's t
            • You, sir, are REALLY missing the point. I don't care WHAT Nancy Pelosi says, and frankly, the people the you so loathe would probably be much happier if she DID have a lot more to say. The point is that it's the people in her own party that are anxious to stay out of her proximity while trying to get elected. Because they know she's poison. For example, a typical Democrat trying to win a seat in... say, Virginia... doesn't really want to make a big deal out of trumpeting her as the speaker of the house he j

  • Obligatory Obscure Game Reference (Score:3, Funny)

    by StefanJ (88986) on Sunday November 05 2006, @12:44AM (#16722391) Homepage Journal
    Be sure to assign lots of Handymen to the exit area. Sounds like this thing will have a maxed out the Nausea Rating.

    • Bullfrog's Theme Park?
    • it is an escape system...

      FOR A SPACE SHUTTLE

      Compared to what the crew of the shuttle trains for, this escape system is like a trip to an amusement park...

        • Its a rocket ship, and a piss-poor one.

          40 years after the Saturn 5, they're looking at a projected payload capacity for the Aries 5 to LEO of only 10% more. Why not just upgrade the un-mothball and upgrade the Saturn series? No more SRBs with joint segments to fail and engines that, once lit, can't be shut down.

          • Its a rocket ship, and a piss-poor one. 40 years after the Saturn 5, they're looking at a projected payload capacity for the Aries 5 to LEO of only 10% more.

            I am sorry but you are wrong on multiple points.

            First, comparing Saturn V to Ares V is comparing apples to oranges. Saturn V was a single-launch vehicle while the Constellation architecture calls for a two-launch solution (sometimes referred to a "1.5x launch" due to the disparity in size between the vehicles). The Ares V has a payload to LEO cap

            • The LEO capability of the Saturn 5 was 118,000 kg. The LEO capability of the Aries 5 is, as I state, only 10% more.

              Adding the Aries 1 + Aries 5 to get a "total" of 150,000 kg to LEO requires 2 launches, not 1, so your math doesn't work out.

              Moreover, by splitting the crew from the cargo versions you get several benefits: * You only have to human-rate the Ares I saving significant mass and development and operational recurring costs for the cargo version * You can now "fork" the development to m

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by voidptr (609)
                The Saturn 5 is going to incur development costs? Its already developed, its old dependable technology, and its relatively cheap.

                No, it's not already developed. The blueprints and software have been lost, the tooling to build any of it no longer exists, and the original engineers and machinists are dead or well past retirement.

                Not to mention several critical systems like the guidance computer used to weigh multiple tons. Modern units today could be built with orders of magnitude more functionality and safet
              • Adding the Aries 1 + Aries 5 to get a "total" of 150,000 kg to LEO requires 2 launches, not 1, so your math doesn't work out.

                My math is fine. I was very clear that the Constellation architecture requires two launches. What isn't fair is comparing the Saturn V lift capability to the Ares V. The Saturn V was a complete solution - the Ares V only provides some of the lift. This is a physics driven problem. Physics drives rockets to be long slender cylinders. Existing materials more-or-less limit the maxi

    • I thought it might have been Disney's Roller Coaster Challenge [abcgames.cz] game.. though I understand that was a predecessor to Rollercoaster Tycoon...
  • My first reaction was ... Is this a joke? Even the pictures, with a massive roller coaster running up the side of a booster launcher, look rather ridiculous.

    But alas, this is real NASA "innovation". It seems that any device that allows the crew to jettison themselves quickly from the new rocket just increases the risks associated with it. How many malfunctions (e.g. explosions after crew entry but before liftoff) have happened in the past where this would be useful?

    I view this as being about as use
    • NASA has to cover every little thing, public opinion is a fickle thing.
    • How many malfunctions (e.g. explosions after crew entry but before liftoff) have happened in the past where this would be useful?

      The Soyuz T-10-1 rocket blew up on the launch pad, they used the built in ejection system to launch the capsule to safety.

      Seems to me that such an ejection system is safer (ie: you stay in the well protected capsule) and pretty much makes a roller coaster redundant, the later would only be of use if the crew is on the tower but not in the capsule yet. And I'm not aware of any acc

      • Seems to me that such an ejection system is safer (ie: you stay in the well protected capsule) and pretty much makes a roller coaster redundant, the later would only be of use if the crew is on the tower but not in the capsule yet.

        Simply using the LES (Launch Escape System) is not a complete solution - because during test countdowns the full air-sea rescue teams are not deployed (and the white room is still in place), but there is still a possibility of an accident requiring the astronauts to evacuate.

    • I couldn't tell you if this system was developed before or after the Apollo 1 fire, but there was a launch tower escape system that consisted of a guy wire to the ground. In an emergency the crew would evac to a tower platform and into a harness, down the guy wire and into a block house. While not as sexy a high tech roller coaster, thanks to its simplicity probably more reliable. Why make things more complex than they need to be? I tried to find some information on the web but came up empty handed.

      This sys

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Keebler71 (520908)
        The system you describe is still in use for the shuttle. The problem is that the launch tower for Ares I will be at almost double the height and the crew escape level will be so high that a simliar guy-wire solution would deliver the crew outside the radius of where the bunker is. NASA will need to either move the bunker radially outward, or come up with an alternative escape system. (This is a proposal for the latter).
      • A few. For example, Apollo One was a particularly infamous incident where a ground escape system would have been useful.

        If the crew had got to the white room they would have been ok. Unless the booster goes you are safer in the capsule. If the booster goes you won't have time to get away.

        There may be a class of disasters which this system can deal with but I think that class is pretty small.

      • A few. For example, Apollo One was a particularly infamous incident where a ground escape system would have been useful. Perhaps better would have been a door the astronaut crew could have opened to get out of the burning capsule in the first place.
      • Ok, I'm gonna do something totally crazy before replying; I'll RTFA.

        Yeah, it looks stupid.

        Anyhoo, in the case of Apollo One (which I also read via your link), there were many technical problems that shouldn't have occured. Pressurize, pure O2 atmosphere? Door that opens inward (thus helped sealed by the pressure)? Lots of stuff made of flammable material?

        Yes, they could have used a better ground escape mechanism but even if they had that roller coaster at the time, they'd still have died from smoke inhalati

  • To use the escape system you have to egress from the spacecraft and enter the "rollercoaster". To me this seems like the ideal time for the final explosion which might have actually left the crew alive had they been in a capsule, which after all, is suposed to protect the crew in a hostile environment.

    So I can see the crews weighing the risk of staying aginst the risk of trying to get away and deciding to stay.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cyclone96 (129449)
      I think some of the comments are missing a critical point here...

      Not all emergencies requiring rapid pad evacuation necessarily involve just the crew in a capsule on a fueled booster ready to go. During the final count, the normal method of escape is going to be to fire the escape tower and pull the whole capsule off the booster.

      However, before the crew is strapped in and the access arm is retracted there is the possibility of an emergency arising where they (and the closeout crew) need to leave in a hurry
  • So, what's the point? The current shuttle seems to have a rather serviceable, *simple* cable-based basket escape system [space.com]. This new one seems way too complicated. For example, the new system: A passive magnetic and friction braking system will decelerate the cars at the tracks end as well as prevent the cars from hitting each other. The old system? The baskets hit a net at the bottom. Keep it simple, stupid.

    And like someone mentioned before, the crew would actually have to exit the capsule to use this escape

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ityllux (853334)

      Passive magnetic = magnets, with like poles repelling each other
      Friction braking = hand brakes

      They are keeping it simple, stupid.

  • Please, someone tell me why they are building these retro rockets for man mission to Mars?

    NASA should be focusing on a new Shuttle capable in carrying a sizable payload to mars. Payload that can be left behind on Mars. I would leave behind a Nuclear Powered Device capable in releasing more C02 into the atmosphere. Those who don't know, releasing additional greenhouses into Mars' atmosphere might stimulate terraforming.

    And oh yeah, Roller Coaster idea is a simple, inexpensive and effective way to provide es
      • I said new shuttle nitwit. It would be designed for a mission to Mars. Shuttle actually capable of landing on the surface and like parachuting. Then taking off. Consider it an X-Prize plane with off-road wheels and payload ability.

        Apollo-like rocket isn't big enough. NASA should thinking about building habitat on Mars. Why waste that expensive fuel on an opportunity to walk on some dusty surface to collect a few samples. That is a complete waste of money, time, and bone calcium. NASA should bring a small ca
  • This is nuts on so many levels.

    The system is insanely complicated for an insanely expensive program to go to MARS! Are you kidding me? They should pull the plug on the entire NASA program, and fund John Carmack and Richard Branson with the money.

    The international space station is basically a big ego stroking excercise. For anyone following the actual science being conducted up there over the billions being spent, you'll instantly realize about 100x more space science could be done by others for the same cos
  • It seems to be missing any exhilarating features, other than the exploding 8 million pound rocket, which really seems like old hat by today's theme park standards. They should really add in a corkscrew or something.
  • The title and article text is a bit misleading, as the Ares I will be used for more than just the moon and Mars... The Orion capsule on the Ares I can be configured to carry crew or supplies to the ISS, or do "solo" orbital flights, or mate with the moon/Mars vehicles lifted by the Ares V...
  • Everyone knows that Ares 1 is a fake project. We are never going to go back to the Moon or elsewhere this century. Manned spaceflight beyond LEO is essentially dead. Instead we are weaponizing near-space.
    • >> We are never going to go back to the Moon or elsewhere this century.

      Yeah the real reason is that Bill Gates doesn't want anyone to find his secret moonbase.
  • I've wondered how people might be able to evac very fast from a damaged skyscraper - stairs suck, they're too slow, too prone to blockage, and they crowd up in proportion to building height. So, how about copying this NASA idea and using some system of escape pods and vertical free fall roller coasters?
    • *phew*

      Good thing you didn't read the article, or you might have missed the first post opportunity!
      • I declined it as a First Post. (Did thatyesterday. :-) I was (and am) genuinely curious as to what all the babble boils down to.
        • In essence, NASA wants to build a roller coaster up to the crew module of the next manned Mars/Moon launcher. If there was a problem (e.g. looked like the whole thing was going to blow), they could press a button and the crew would be whisked away down the roller coaster ... propelled to high speeds by technology similar to the new linear accelerator roller coasters at amusement parks.

          I'd rather see NASA spend more money on developing safer vehicles, or on robotic missions, than on bizarre contraptions

          • Re:WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by MichaelSmith (789609) on Sunday November 05 2006, @01:19AM (#16722579) Homepage Journal
            Heck, they might as well build a loop-d-loop at the bottom so tourists can pay to ride it.

            My idea for an escape system in very tall (WTC) buildings is to construct vertical drop tubes inside the buildings. At the bottom it would depart the vertical and follow a parabolic curve for a couple of hundred metres to bleed off speed.

            In normal operation users would pay for the jump and would wear protective clothing. In emergency operation water would spray into the tube to reduce frictional heating when you hit the sides. A simple traffic control system would try to prevent collisions with people who enter the tube part of the way down.

              • anonymous idiot, 5 seconds of thought would have given you a solution. You'd need software about as complicated as elevators currently have. Basically a person would load into a drop chamber, and it would only drop the person into the tube when there was no chance of hitting or being hit by someone. The person would not decide when to drop themselves, duhhhhhhhh

                • Of course with the building having been hit by an airliner, an earthquake or perhaps fire, those computer systems and associated hardware will be functioning just dandy. Lets not forget the panicing.

                  Double duh
              • Beanbags
              • If the tube drops vertically for 1000 feet while in the building, how would the person not essentially be in a free fall and splatter once the tube starts to curve at/near the bottom?

                Its a gentle parabolic curve. Initially it might be at a few degrees from vertical so that you stick to one wall, then the curve and the acceleration build up until you are sliding horizontally.

                • One chick in a leather skirt would skid to a halt and plug up the whole works.

                  Mass casualties in the drop tube.

                  Next!

                • it doesn't help people trapped above the fire at all

                  Sure it does, assuming the tubes are adaquately insulated.

                  Of course, then you might as well make sure the stairwells have adequate insulation.

                  Stairwells would probably have better bandwidth overall, as you don't have to wait for the entire length of the tube to clear before you can go. (You can't just wait for the tube above you to clear, because different people would have different rates of fall, depending on type of clothing etc.) It'd just ta

          • I'd rather see NASA spend more money on developing safer vehicles, or on robotic missions, than on bizarre contraptions like this. Heck, they might as well build a loop-d-loop at the bottom so tourists can pay to ride it.

            Personally, so would I. But NASA has public perception to factor in. It just doesn't spin as well to put the "First Robot on [x]" as it does to let a human give a short speech from there. This is not a stricly engineering issue. Marketing matters.

    • Re:Not the right approach IMHO (Score:5, Informative)

      by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday November 05 2006, @04:27AM (#16723227) Homepage
      I mean, 'cmon... We've been doing ejection seat type systems for what, 40 to 50 years now? These kinds of systems are very, very reliable.

      Not particularly. It's not unheard to fail to eject, or to have the ejector fire without being commanded to do so.
       
       
      Other spacecraft have used similar systems. The F-111 had/has such a system if I remember correctly.

      The FB-111 capsule escape system has been used (IIRC) 20-25 times across its history in US service - and one or both of the crew was severely injured each and every time. In the aviation community ejecting from an aircraft is reffered to as "attempting suicide to avoid being killed".

    • Re:Not the right approach IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ScentCone (795499) on Sunday November 05 2006, @05:56AM (#16723575)
      You've also got another scenario: big ol' nasty fuel/oxidizer leak. You could hop in a passive (enclosed) car for a 32 f/s/s-quickening ride out to a bunker, or, you could use the ejection method, and light a big ol' ejection rocket right on top of the giant leaking tower of flammable stuff. I think you'd want both options, so that you can react to a range of hazards. If they need to bug out, they'll usually know why... and they may very well not be in the capsule (yet) when they see they need to. For that matter, the pad workers may have the need hours before the crew even saddles up.
    • >> 4) Dock the space-plane to the orbiting ion-drive no 1,

      How is the plane gonna catch up with it, given that the ion-drive been in orbit and gathering speed for a few months?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.