NASA to Test Emergency Ability of New Spacecraft

coondoggie writes "NASA this will show off the first mock up of its Orion space capsule ahead of the capsule's first emergency astronaut escape system test. NASA said it will jettison the full-size structural model off a simulated launch pad at the US Army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The launch escape vehicle sits atop the Orion capsule which is slated to be bolted on an Ares rocket. The escape vehicle is made up of three solid rocket motors as well as separation mechanisms and canards, and should offer the crew an escape capability in the event of an emergency during launch, according to NASA."

Re:The real story...

[bill_mcgonigle]

The shuttle had no escape system.

But was it hubris, callousness, or bean counting? One from each column?

I'm somewhat embarrassed for NASA that they feel the need to press release this. It should be right up there with "NASA To Tighten All Screws On New Spacecraft". Of course you're going to do that.

Re:It's 1963 all over again!

[SacredByte]

The thing you overlook in declaring the shuttle "safer" than previous launch/re-entry vehicles is this:

When we built the previous generations of spacecraft we didn't know WTF we were doing -- Especially with the earliest attempts (made by the US) after the launch of Sputnik; We were trying to get something up fast, not something up safely.

The shuttle has been a compromise since its very inception. It was designed to be able to intercept/capture (as well as launch) satalites. Because of this, it doesn't really go up high enough to be [extremely] useful. Additionally, when we look at the first major shuttle disaster (challenger?), it was due to thermal failure of critical parts (Read: not designed to launch when it was cold out), which lead to nice fireworks.

But then again, my grandfather worked on [pieces of] most of the early space programs (he worked for G.E.), so my opinion is clearly biased...

Re:The real story...

[ScottKin]

Interestingly enough, early designs from North American Rockwell for the Shuttle included a crew escape system similar to what was going to be implemented in the North American Rockwell B-1A - which in itself was based on the F-111's Crew Escape Module, where the Crew Cabin / Cockpit blasts away from the rest of the vehicle using solid rocket motors. When the decision was made to use the area where the motors would have been for the extra crew seats and stowage, the whole escape system was scrapped. So much for hindsight.

--ScottKin

Re:The real story...

[A nonymous Coward]

No. Columbia's crew, the one which blew up during launch (or was that Challenger?) was probably alive when it hit the ocean. Whether they were conscious is not public info, but they were alive for a while, based on evidence that some of them tried to put on oxygen bottles, IIRC. They could have used an escape pod.

Soviet attitude to safety

[Kupfernigk]

It may come as a surprise, but the attitude to things like crew safety in the old USSR was actually pretty good. In WW2 Stalin executed his head of the Air Force for attacking the safety of Soviet aircraft, but Stalin was a monster and his successors weren't. Spaceflight was post-Stalin, you know. Kruschev, whatever his faults, was probably no worse as a human being than Kennedy.

People who have investigated the ejector seats on Soviet military aircraft have commented that in some ways they were better than ones used on many NATO planes,and the armor on Soviet helicopters was truly impressive. After all, who do you think worked on the Soviet space and military aircraft programs? Hint: they weren't heroic Stakhanovite peasants. They were the sons and daughters of Party members, the people who were on top in the Soviet Union. And middle class people are notorious for caring an awful lot what happens to their children.

So I guess what I am saying is, there is no a priori reason for believing that the US and USSR attitude to space flight safety was significantly different, but, as Arthur Clarke once commented, the Russians preferred to go with solid, proven, perhaps over-engineered systems even if they were bigger and heavier.

Re:do what now?

[Waste55]

I am working CEV, the people doing the Abort Software are 1 row over from me.

No, the crew will not be moving around during ascent. :)

In short: The software will monitor for abort conditions, at a point where any are detected the Launch Abort System (LAS) will take over and "pull" the CM in the proper direction away from the rocket.

More unofficial info (sorry, cant link to official docs):
Launch Abort System [wikipedia.org]
Orion Abort Modes [wikipedia.org]
(I also remember an animated video on NASA's site at one point, but cant seem to locate it on the new website.)

Re:The real story...

[smooth wombat]

Do you have a reference for this? I'm a mild space geek and I've never heard it before.

Urban Legends [snopes.com] comments
Straight Dope [straightdope.com] comments
MSNBC [msn.com] comments.

All three sources say the same thing: 3 of the 4 air packs were activated which can only be done manually.