Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

SpaceX Testing Passenger Escape System Tomorrow 55

Posted by Soulskill from the coming-home-safely dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX Testing Passenger Escape System Tomorrow More

SpaceX Testing Passenger Escape System Tomorrow

Comments Filter:

  • Last time one was used? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dereck1701 ( 1922824 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2015 @07:47PM (#49625699)

    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bledri ( 1283728 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2015 @07:54PM (#49625727)

      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.

      • 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.

      • 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

    • 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.

      • Shuttle (Score:3, Informative)

        by p51d007 ( 656414 )
        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

        • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

            by catchblue22 ( 1004569 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2015 @11:12PM (#49626675) Homepage

            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.

            • 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".

              • 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.

      • 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 reasonab

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bledri ( 1283728 )

          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.

    • 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.

    • 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

    • 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 s

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by phayes ( 202222 )

        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.

        • 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 [wikipedia.org] for details.) As it turns out, we have higher expectations 30 years on. Whodathunkit?

      • 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. Th

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

    • 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 [youtube.com].

    • 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.

      • 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 savi

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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      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?

  • Need Another Seven Astronauts

  • A sneak peak at the results (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday May 05, 2015 @09:19PM (#49626235)

    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!

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

Slashdot Top Deals

Fast, cheap, good: pick two.

Close