back to article NASA tests amazing bailout rocket which will never be used

NASA has spectacularly and successfully tested the launch abort system - the ejector seat, as it were - for its new Orion crew capsule. There's just one problem: according to President Obama's stated plans, Orion will never be launched with crew aboard. The Pad Abort 1 test took place today at the White Sands Missile Range at …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

erm

According to my calculations on the back of my envelope 0-600mph in 2 seconds is about 50g, can humans even survive that?

0
0

actually

its about 14g and yes, if the crew is lying horizontally it is more than survivable. Even if they were upright, they may black out but two seconds wouldnt kill them. the only thing that would kill them is if they were floating about when it fired, but given the fact they would likely be accelerating already, even this is unlikely.

1
0
Flame

iwantoneofthose

0-600 in 2 seconds? I understand why that sort of acceleration is required - but is that sort of force survivable?

0
0
Silver badge

There's other uses for an Abort spike

Any launch with a payload that absolutely positively must survive can use that technology.

As a not-so-completely-off-the-wall suggestion, how about launching nuclear fuel to be loaded into another vehicle once in orbit?

You *really* don't want that to go up with a failed stack, but a lot of 'deep space' missions could really use it, given the paucity of sunlight in the outer solar system.

0
0
Thumb Up

very nice High G lift

What a ride,

It was tested because it is not written in stone that the US is out of the Space game.

Just because this president does not get it, does not mean that it is over.

Really, No maned space effort = No space effort.

That is in the minds of those wiser than Obama in regards to what inspires people to try and have a future... overrides his short term goals.

That is why it was tested.

2
1
Thumb Up

Wow

Regardless of the politics involved that was rather impressive! bet you thats gonna hurt but i suppose not as much as burning to death on the top of a large rocket.

0
0
Thumb Up

i am glad

its not my money they are wasting.

0
0

0 to 600 mhp in 2 seconds

0 to 600 mph in 2 seconds is about 14g, if my rusty math is to be trusted. I'm wondering what will happen with the astronauts when they go through this.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

They will hurt a little

Worst case is probably a lot of bruises but that will heal again. I think the passengers would prefer this rather than sticking around a failing Ares. :-)

0
0
Thumb Up

An amazing launch.

Even though the Orion is supposed to have been canceled, the fact remains that NASA will need to have some method of getting its crews safely back to Earth, should the unfortunate happen as it did with both the Challenger and the Columbia shuttles. Either of them most likely could have been saved by such a device, if it were to have been fitted to the shuttles' crew compartments. In my opinion, experimentation in the name of safety should never be overlooked, for you never know when that one idea you had overlooked will be the one that will save the day.

0
0
Flame

Ouch

13.6G - gonna be a sore one... better than being incinerated I guess.

0
0

The reason they did it

At the time Obama had cancelled Orion NASA had done 100% of the research into the escape mechanism and probably 98% of the engineering. So why waste the money they had already spent by not going ahead with a test launch?

Everything they have learnt will be banked and revisited when NASA are given the go-ahead in the future to launch manned rockets.

3
0

Good job, NASA

I completely agree.

If anything NASA should be praised for their initiative.

0
0
Flame

0 to 600mph in 2 seconds!

I assume when it lands they hose the squishy remains of the crew out of the capsule.

0
0

Not odd at all

It's not at all strange that NASA still performed this test. After all, the thing was already built, and there was still a great deal of data to gather about how it performs.

In any event, they still learned how to build these safety systems (always good) and maybe now have some new ideas.

It would have been odd *not* to test it.

0
0
Thumb Up

Besides which

The data gathered might be used for something else too. There were several parts to that thingy, some may even be new or improved designs, and they can be used in other projects now that they've been tested IRL. Remarkably sensible thing for NASA to do but positive surprises are allowed even from government agencies.

0
0
WTF?

Uh...

" accelerating from 0 to 600 mph in two seconds"

Isn't 13.7G a little hazardous to the astronauts inside the capsule? Or does the short duration only make it extremely uncomfortable?

0
0
Paris Hilton

Uh... cont

The heart and internal organs going "squish" might be more than extremely uncomfortable I suspect. Then again NASA must have more data on squishy organs than anyone else.

Apart from Paris perhaps (prefers hers to be a tad stiff).

0
0
Go

Well, Elon Musk have been asking for this hardware for years

so it has a good chance to fly - albeit not on Orion but rather on SpaceX Dragon.

0
0

Numbers & Letters

Dear Mr. President,

Do you hear that cheering in the background of this video? THAT is the reason we need manned space flight.

Yours,

Will.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

G's?

Flippin' heck. How many G's does 0-600mph in 2-seconds work out to?

Astronaut jelly anyone?

0
0
Coat

NASA: Not Another Squashed Astronaut ?

0 - 600mph in 2 seconds is a shade under 14g. Will there be any crew left to recover?

0
0
Pirate

maybe not

but at least their remains will all be in one place, not scattered all over the eastern coast of Florida.

0
0
Bronze badge

Testing the design process?

My guess is that there was a lor of computer simulation done before metal was ever cut. Now they can compare the reality to the predictions. And the chances are that most of the money had already been spent anyway. Why waste all the effort to build the test sample?

0
0

Scrambled astronauts on toast, anyone?

Jeez, I wouldn't wanna be in that fucker, shaken - and stirred to death. I'd rather a bit longer in prayer, just-in-case.

Loved the parachute configuration, as the video proceeds. Impressive change of aerodynamics.

But, 31 seconds, plus landing deceleration? Any smart person out there capable of doing the math? My guess is it needs to be activated at about 10Km.

So....if it goes 'tits-up' before that, they're buggered.

0
0
FAIL

E-ticket Ride

Wheee! That's sure to be an E-ticket ride. If my calculations are correct, and the acceleration is constant, that represents an acceleration of about 13.7 gs. That's getting up there close to being fatal for humans. I don't suppose it would be considered a success if the pink goo flowed out the door after it landed, would it?

Dave

0
0
Boffin

There were a series of experiments on this

The experiments were run by the amazing (and totally insane!) John Stapp.

From wikipedia: "Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in (compared to 12 g eyeballs-out) for several minutes without loss of consciousness or apparent long-term harm" (Eyeballs in means perpendicular to the spine and g-force pushing the body backwards, eyeballs out means perpendicular to the spine and g-force pushing the body forwards).

Humans are worse at surviving g-forces in the vertical direction, because that pushes blood around the body - to the feet or brain depending on the direction, leading to grey outs, blackouts, red outs and tunnel vision. These cannot be withstood for long.

Stapp's penultimate experiment involved "a series of rocket sled deceleration experiments culminating in a late 1954 test in which he was stopped in a little over a second from a land speed of Mach 0.9. He survived a peak "eyeballs-out" force of 46.2 times the force of gravity, and more than 25 g for 1.1 sec, proving that the human body is capable of this. Stapp lived another 45 years to age 89, but suffered lifelong damage to his vision from this last test".

Captain Eli Beeding survived 83g for 0.4 of a second in 1958, albeit suffering severe shock. This is considered the upper limit for human survivability.

Nasa's history of multiple G is here: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4201/ch2-4.htm

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Hold on a sec...

It's cheaper to go ahead and launch the thing than it is to cancel at the late date of the Orion sort-of-cancellation, then store the rocket or have it scrapped. Plus they actually do get to learn something since this is a much better steering rocket design than Apollo used, and nobody's ever used the design.

Anything not directly connected with the test launch has already gotten a stop-work, according to spaceflight.com.

Plus the Orion/Ares thing is still up in the air (ha!) as the congresscritters vow to veto the cancellation to keep their pork & jobs. So theoretically, there's a chance it may still happen.

Plus this design could also be licensed to Space-X or anyone else, as it's suitable for most of the generic tall-rocket-with-a-capsule-on-top launchers. It's not an Orion-specific design.

0
0

Acceleration

Zero to 600mph in two seconds is a little more than 9 g, if I've computed correctly. That's one hell of a roller coaster ride...

0
0
Boffin

No you haven't!

Equation of motion: v=u+at

V=600mph=268m/s, u=0, t=2s, gives a=134ms^-2

convert to G gives 134/9.81=13.65G

0
0
Go

Blimey

0 - 600mph in two seconds? Are they going to be taking the astronauts out of it with a spoon once it lands?

0
0
Silver badge
Go

Why not?

They had spent untold millions to build it, why not just spend an extra million to test it, just to see if it works? Anyway, the budget must have already been attributed for this test long ago.

And really, it makes no sense to spend 99% of your budget to build something, then throw away the result without checking if it works, just to save the remaining 1%. It is almost certain that the knowledge will be useful at some point, even if not for this particular project.

0
0
Thumb Down

It's probably coming from a separate funding...

Just like with the schools all around the US: funding for teachers and assistants has to be cut, because funding is low; however, the 'new-building' funds are overflowing, so just continue building new school buildings, storage lockers, etc.

And yes, laws and regulations are in place for school boards to prevent shifting funds from the new-building funds to be moved over to help funding the teachers...

0
0
wsm

Mixed messages

Technology to give astronauts a life-saving escape route moves forward while putting astronauts on rockets does not.

The motivations, leadership and intentions are all confused, as always.

0
1
Thumb Down

Apollo

Ok

so now do a look at the apollo eject system, the difference is ?

0
0
Pint

13.4 G acceleration for 10 seconds with no prior warning?

Keep those eyes shut, mouth closed and butt cheeks clenched, boys.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

A change...

...of underwear is probably going to be eagerly sought after touchdown. The sound alone from those babies lighting up outside the capsule is probably enough to make even the heart of an astronaut tick a little faster.

0
0

Looks suspiciously like apollo

Didn't apollo have a siimilar system? It definitely had a spike on the front which is usually used for these purposes.

Welcome to the wonders of 1960-es tech...

0
0

What the heck...

might as well light the candle, we've already paid for it. If nothing else, it shows that the system worked pretty much as designed. We'll have to see what the final report says about G loads during launch/separation/parachute deployment/landing in the capsule.

0
0
Silver badge
Boffin

"it seems perhaps a little odd...

"... that NASA bothered to carry out today's test at all."

Not at all.

If they'd built the thing, it would have been odd (if not stupid) not to test the thing since even if it isn't going to be used *right now* it provides valuable data and proof of concept which may be usable in the future.

1
0
E 2

Where's Steve Jobs?

NASA is using the word 'pad'. Surely Steve Jobs will not put up with this?

4
0
Thumb Up

re: Where's Steve Jobs...

Ta-da!

After reading umpty versions of the same two or three comments, this was near the end of the list, and was definitely the winner of the lot.

0
0
Thumb Up

Holy crap that was fast!

But for those worrying about the G-Force, have you heard of John Stapp? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp

0
0
Silver badge

Crivens

That Stapp bloke deserves a medal. (Ok, so he's already got a load - but,l what a guy!)

0
0

Space projects last longer than most presidents

So that explains why they kept going if they could. Mind you it also explains why funding is so difficult: no politician wants anything good to happen under his successor's watch...

0
0
Alert

A Few points

This would NOT have saved the astronauts in Columbia or Challenger. This device is designed to jettison the astronauts while the rocket is still on the launchpad. It is jettisoned once in space. Columbia came apart on reentry and Challenger was already launched when it exploded. This escape method is simply not designed to address those failures.

As to the G Force, look at the link above for John Stapp. A human can survive considerably more than 14 Gs for brief periods of time.

Also, the cost of development is sunk cost, true. The cost of continued development and operation is still a tremendous amount. I don't agree with the decision to cancel the project, but lets not kid ourselves that it doesn't save money. It does.

I'm still rooting for this guy:

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news/

0
1

I think it's meant to pull the capsule away from the rocket in early launch

I thought it was meant to pull the capsule away from a malfunctioning (or about to explode) booster and/or second stage, generally WHILE in flight. I understood that one of the reaons that the capability of a 'land' landing for Orion was removed was because the escape rocket had to be made more powerful (and Orion lighter) in order for it to be able to pull the capsule away from an accelerating solid fuel booster.

0
0

I just checked, both on the pad and during the launch

I originally thought it was meant to pull the capsule away from a malfunctioning (or about to explode) booster and/or second stage, generally WHILE in flight. I understood that one of the reasons that the capability of a 'land' landing for Orion was removed was because the escape rocket had to be made more powerful (and Orion lighter) in order for it to be able to pull the capsule away from an accelerating solid fuel booster. Checking Wikipedia, the descriptions indicate that the lauch escape system is for both pad and in flight escapes (up to the point where it is jettisoned

0
0
Alert

launch abort not just on the pad

The launch abort system is designed to pull the capsule free during the ascent as well.

0
0
Boffin

Actually...

This is designed for the pad AND for after launch just like the Apollo escape tower that was tested from a launched Jittle Joe rocket. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Joe_II following 2 static pad tests. I'm guessing that NASA will test from a rocket if the budget allows, which it may not.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums