|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo Style Escape Tower Question....
Hi All...
Just a question - would an Apollo style escape tower system have worked if a new (theoretical Capsule Design) OSP had a serious problem at around the same time frame as the Challenger disaster... would there have been time for it to respond? One difference being that the capsule is on the top of the stack rather than on the side as a shuttle is... Cheers, Richard |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo Style Escape Tower Question....
Hi All... Just a question - would an Apollo style escape tower system have worked if a new (theoretical Capsule Design) OSP had a serious problem at around the same time frame as the Challenger disaster... would there have been time for it to Yep, crew would of most likely been fine for all the reasons you mentioned. One good rason to retire the shuttle... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo Style Escape Tower Question....
In article ,
Richard Stewart wrote: Just a question - would an Apollo style escape tower system have worked if a new (theoretical Capsule Design) OSP had a serious problem at around the same time frame as the Challenger disaster... would there have been time for it to respond? Almost certainly. Had it followed the Apollo design approach, it would have fired automatically if attitude began to change rapidly enough to signify loss of control -- the only emergency bad enough to wreck the rocket before the crew could react. (And the way Challenger was destroyed, in fact -- by being thrown violently out of control at Mach 3 as the ET broke up.) One difference being that the capsule is on the top of the stack rather than on the side as a shuttle is... That actually would affect details only. As witness ejection seats, there is no fundamental difficulty in escaping from the side of a vehicle; the escape system just has to be designed for it. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo Style Escape Tower Question....
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:59:19 GMT, Henry Spencer
wrote: Almost certainly. Had it followed the Apollo design approach, it would have fired automatically if attitude began to change rapidly enough to signify loss of control -- the only emergency bad enough to wreck the rocket before the crew could react. (And the way Challenger was destroyed, in fact -- by being thrown violently out of control at Mach 3 as the ET broke up.) How well would the system respond well here? I'm thinking if the whole stack is veering off-axis due to loss of attitude, how well would the escape tower cope with that off-axis bias at Mach 3+, or would the system detect that veering way before airflow issues arise? I spose the Russians would be the current 'experts' here, as they're still using them, and have actually had them save a crew or two... Cheers, Richard |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo Style Escape Tower Question....
In article ,
Richard Stewart wrote: Almost certainly. Had it followed the Apollo design approach, it would have fired automatically if attitude began to change rapidly enough to signify loss of control -- the only emergency bad enough to wreck the rocket before the crew could react... How well would the system respond well here? I'm thinking if the whole stack is veering off-axis due to loss of attitude, how well would the escape tower cope with that off-axis bias at Mach 3+, or would the system detect that veering way before airflow issues arise? It detects the sudden onset of an attitude rate (a rotation rate), and fires before the rotation goes far enough to cause major problems. The need for fast response is precisely why that case was automated. For almost all other emergencies -- including engine failure just above the pad! -- escape activation was up to the crew. (Mercury had a much more comprehensive automatic escape system, and debugging it had been a nightmare. So for Apollo, automation was confined to the one case where fractions of a second counted.) -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo Style Escape Tower Question....
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:23:38 GMT, Henry Spencer
wrote: It detects the sudden onset of an attitude rate (a rotation rate), and fires before the rotation goes far enough to cause major problems. The need for fast response is precisely why that case was automated. For almost all other emergencies -- including engine failure just above the pad! -- escape activation was up to the crew. (Mercury had a much more comprehensive automatic escape system, and debugging it had been a nightmare. So for Apollo, automation was confined to the one case where fractions of a second counted.) Fair enough - so if our theoretical rocket stack (stack plus two solid rocket boosters) had an O ring burn through (a la Challenger) as soon as the stack broke up and/or veered fractionally off center rapidly enough, the escape rockets would get the capsule otta there! Hopefully far enough & fast enough away that debris/explosion doesn't pose a hazard... What type of escape system did Gemini use? None of the launch photos I've seen seem to show ANY tower system... Cheers, Richard -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo Style Escape Tower Question....
In article ,
Richard Stewart wrote: What type of escape system did Gemini use? None of the launch photos I've seen seem to show ANY tower system... Gemini used specially-built high-powered ejection seats. This was possible partly because it launched on a Titan II, whose hypergolic fuels would burn rather than mix and then explode. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo Style Escape Tower Question....
Richard Stewart wrote in
news Fair enough - so if our theoretical rocket stack (stack plus two solid rocket boosters) had an O ring burn through (a la Challenger) as soon as the stack broke up and/or veered fractionally off center rapidly enough, the escape rockets would get the capsule otta there! Hopefully far enough & fast enough away that debris/explosion doesn't pose a hazard... Solids probably won't be a factor in any more manned launchers due to the possibility of a catastrophic failure in the motor. There are videos of both Delta II & Titan 34D launches in which the transition from launcher to fragments occurs within a video frame. It's unlikely that even an automated system could react quickly enough in that situation. The advantage of liquid-fueled systems is that most problems in the motors can be contained, at least briefly, allowing the escape systems time to activate. -- Reed |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Apollo Style Escape Tower Question....
Henry Spencer wrote:
(Mercury had a much more comprehensive automatic escape system, and debugging it had been a nightmare. So for Apollo, automation was confined to the one case where fractions of a second counted.) Was it a Mercury or a Gemini mission where the rules called for an eject, but the astronaut(s) correctly guessed that the rocket hadn't actually left the pad, as the instruments claimed it had? That obviously wasn't automated. -- Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/ I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
Apollo vehicle sequence question | Charles Buckley | History | 3 | December 28th 03 04:58 PM |
Apollo Hypothetical Question (CSM Tracking) | Jonathan Silverlight | History | 12 | October 6th 03 04:25 PM |
Apollo 7 Saturn Question | pjo | History | 10 | September 22nd 03 01:21 AM |
If Liberty bells hatch hadnt blown? | Hallerb | History | 28 | August 30th 03 02:57 AM |