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

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...

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. |

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

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. |

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.)

....Which brings up the other factor in this: a capsule design would
have been far more structurally stable than a shuttle design, and
would have had a proportionately better chance of surviving the
initial disintegration of the booster and the detonation of the
remaining fuel.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

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/

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. |

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

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.