Author Topic: Future Pad Escape options – From Slidewires to Roller Coasters  (Read 7695 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Write up on the latest per the evaluations into the future EES for SLS and Atlas V:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/09/future-pad-escape-options-slidewires-roller-coasters/
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Nice article Chris. :) I think that the roller coaster option would carry a hefty price tag…
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Online Chris Bergin

Thanks! And I don't think it costs "that" much, to be fair. Especially in the bigger picture.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Thanks! And I don't think it costs "that" much, to be fair. Especially in the bigger picture.
Chris, I like the way you think! My wife would have accused you of being able to “rationalize anything”…  ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Jason Sole

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Chicago
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Really interesting article, and something that will be of interest to follow as decisions are made!

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
The rollercoaster option would seem more reasonable for a pad with a fixed structure (like Shuttle) - but with a clean pad it seems like a solution with lots of problems.

Doable? Sure, but it doesn't seem to be very practical.

Offline mrbliss

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Grand Rapids, MI
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 175
Ah, but what other approach would give KSC the opportunity to open up a great new visitor attraction?

"Ride the amazing astronaut emergency escape roller coaster!"

;)

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 39
Nice article Chris but I feel like you glossed over what at least on the surface seems like the simplest and safest option, a protected bunker at the pad? What am I missing? This whole escape concept is a bit strange of a concept to me. Is there a scenario where the Astronauts would actually have time to use such a system? Is there failure modes that allow for time to get away from the pad? If so, how much time.

Sorry to be rambling on a bit but of all the options the quickest seems like a protected bunker unless of course there is deemed to be "enough" time that it is more advantageous to exit the pad altogether? A cataclysmic failure seems like it would destroy any kind of escape structure? A thousand questions regarding the trades on this.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
OUt of curiosity,
If the old Apollo bunker is still there and in good shape beneiththe pad, is there a reason not to use it?  SOunds like the tower elevator took the crew/techs down, then they jumped into tubes.
And I take it the STS cables cars when out to a different bunker?  And that's what they are thinking about utilizing with either a new calbe car or rollercoaster?
Is there some major flaw in the old Apollo system?

Online Chris Bergin

I referenced, and even showed a picture, of the bunker (rubber room) in the article. It looks in good condition.

As far as it's ranking, the Roller Coaster won the previous study
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
I referenced, and even showed a picture, of the bunker (rubber room) in the article. It looks in good condition.

As far as it's ranking, the Roller Coaster won the previous study

Yea, that's why I asked about it, from your article.  :-)

Just wondering since it is there, and in good shape, why it's not being looked at?  Or is it, but rollercoaster to the slide cable bunker is beating it out?

Offline GSE pad rat

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The pad is the worst place to be under with RP1 and Lox fire, separation charges, and hypergol fuels. The Apollo crew used the Launch Abort System LAS for escape. There are limited exits from the ML to the pad surface.

The PTCR chamber below the pad included high pressure gases, electrical substations and comm. rooms. There is no astronaut bunker on the pad. The elevator is too slow for crew escape and in the Apollo program there was no fixed service structure except the one mounted to the ML. There was no fixed structures at the pad during the Apollo program except under the pad surface.

Suttle crew abort since it had no LAS,they used the baskets. The escspe baskets go to the west side of the pad next to a bunker where an armored vehcile was stationed during launches.

SLS/ Aries I program changed to the roller coaster for crew abort with close out crew prior to the close out of the pad. After close out the LAS is the primary crew abort system. The SLS uses an ML like Apollo and the roler coaster has to interface with the ML.

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 39
I referenced, and even showed a picture, of the bunker (rubber room) in the article. It looks in good condition.

As far as it's ranking, the Roller Coaster won the previous study

saw that, loved it, had never heard of it before and wanted to hear more that's all.

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 39
The pad is the worst place to be under with RP1 and Lox fire, separation charges, and hypergol fuels. The Apollo crew used the Launch Abort System LAS for escape. There are limited exits from the ML to the pad surface.

Just so I understand this. It is more viable to ride a roller coaster or wire than to jump in an elevator, which instantly disconnects and drops via gravity into a 50 or 100 ft well decelerated by magnetic brakes and shield by blast doors. I am sure its easier to draw then to build but roller coasters aren't fast (initially) and their structural integrity is pretty important. What am I missing?

Online Chris Bergin

I referenced, and even showed a picture, of the bunker (rubber room) in the article. It looks in good condition.

As far as it's ranking, the Roller Coaster won the previous study

saw that, loved it, had never heard of it before and wanted to hear more that's all.

I hear ya! We must try and find someone to interview about that, because it is fascinating. Didn't even know there was such a room until that set of pictures turned up via one of our pad rat friends.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline GSE pad rat

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Mia copa, the Apollo program had a movable service tower MST and a rubber room. Shuttle facility modifications covered ups some of these features. There was an Apollo program slide wire from the MST to armored vehicles also used. Here is an interesting doccument on the history of the systems

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110012275_2011012759.pdf

Offline GSE pad rat

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The pad is the worst place to be under with RP1 and Lox fire, separation charges, and hypergol fuels. The Apollo crew used the Launch Abort System LAS for escape. There are limited exits from the ML to the pad surface.

Just so I understand this. It is more viable to ride a roller coaster or wire than to jump in an elevator, which instantly disconnects and drops via gravity into a 50 or 100 ft well decelerated by magnetic brakes and shield by blast doors. I am sure its easier to draw then to build but roller coasters aren't fast (initially) and their structural integrity is pretty important. What am I missing?

1.Digging people trapped under a pad that had a masive fire is harder that having them driven away rom the pad edge.

2. The drop is about 500 feet plus for free fall to pad surface and 60 ft more to below pad.

3. The elevator is part of the ML and would have to have a shaft aligned with the pad flame trench with blast doors automatically closing on launch able to withstand the water and thrust of the vehicle. The extension shaft would need to portable but able to survive the thrust forces of many launches.

4. Digging a hole in the pad structure for the shaft and room would be monumental task.
5. Acceleration would be very hard to control in a freefall, the G forces alone would be problematic to the riders. Roller coaster can use curve and twist to control acceleration.

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 39
The pad is the worst place to be under with RP1 and Lox fire, separation charges, and hypergol fuels. The Apollo crew used the Launch Abort System LAS for escape. There are limited exits from the ML to the pad surface.

Just so I understand this. It is more viable to ride a roller coaster or wire than to jump in an elevator, which instantly disconnects and drops via gravity into a 50 or 100 ft well decelerated by magnetic brakes and shield by blast doors. I am sure its easier to draw then to build but roller coasters aren't fast (initially) and their structural integrity is pretty important. What am I missing?

1.Digging people trapped under a pad that had a masive fire is harder that having them driven away rom the pad edge.

2. The drop is about 500 feet plus for free fall to pad surface and 60 ft more to below pad.

3. The elevator is part of the ML and would have to have a shaft aligned with the pad flame trench with blast doors automatically closing on launch able to withstand the water and thrust of the vehicle. The extension shaft would need to portable but able to survive the thrust forces of many launches.

4. Digging a hole in the pad structure for the shaft and room would be monumental task.
5. Acceleration would be very hard to control in a freefall, the G forces alone would be problematic to the riders. Roller coaster can use curve and twist to control acceleration.

Makes sense. I am still struggling with imagining a situation where you have the base structure of your escape system (the tower) crumbling to pieces right as you are trying to escape. You could be half way down that escape route as it completely falls apart.

I'm starting to get the sense that the Escape System is more to deal with a "possible" or "probable" catastrophic situation as opposed to a complete failure which the LAS would become primary. More akin to "we see pressure building uncontrollably in some part of the vehicle and before it goes critical we would like you to evacuate in the next 5-10 minutes"?

Does that sound right?
« Last Edit: 09/10/2012 09:47 pm by Pheogh »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
I referenced, and even showed a picture, of the bunker (rubber room) in the article. It looks in good condition.

As far as it's ranking, the Roller Coaster won the previous study

saw that, loved it, had never heard of it before and wanted to hear more that's all.

I hear ya! We must try and find someone to interview about that, because it is fascinating. Didn't even know there was such a room until that set of pictures turned up via one of our pad rat friends.

I knew there was this room during Apollo.  I saw a bit on it on a Discovery or History channel show one time.  From what I remember it's far enough below so the full explosion of a fully fueled saturn V wouldn't harm the room or astronauts, and it was provisioned with enough food, water, O2 and other consumables for the crew for X amount of time deemed sufficient that rescue crews could clear the pad and get to them.  Seemed like a pretty good concept to me.  :-)
I didn't realize it was still there and in good shape.  I didn't know if it'd had been remove or filled with concrete or something with STS. 

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
The pad is the worst place to be under with RP1 and Lox fire, separation charges, and hypergol fuels. The Apollo crew used the Launch Abort System LAS for escape. There are limited exits from the ML to the pad surface.

The PTCR chamber below the pad included high pressure gases, electrical substations and comm. rooms. There is no astronaut bunker on the pad. The elevator is too slow for crew escape and in the Apollo program there was no fixed service structure except the one mounted to the ML. There was no fixed structures at the pad during the Apollo program except under the pad surface.

Suttle crew abort since it had no LAS,they used the baskets. The escspe baskets go to the west side of the pad next to a bunker where an armored vehcile was stationed during launches.

SLS/ Ares I program changed to the roller coaster for crew abort with close out crew prior to the close out of the pad. After close out the LAS is the primary crew abort system. The SLS uses an ML like Apollo and the roler coaster has to interface with the ML.

Just so I understand this. It is more viable to ride a roller coaster or wire than to jump in an elevator, which instantly disconnects and drops via gravity into a 50 or 100 ft well decelerated by magnetic brakes and shield by blast doors. I am sure its easier to draw then to build but roller coasters aren't fast (initially) and their structural integrity is pretty important. What am I missing?

Agreed under the pad is the worst place to be...unless it's designed for it.  As I believe the Apollo Bunker (“rubber room”?)was.  It was designed to withstand A fully fueled Saturn V and everything in it going boom. 
Orion will have an LAS like Apollo, which obviously STS didn’t.
Additionally, STS had a fixed pad, so you could put a fixed slide cable (or rollercoaster) to it.  With a return to clean pad, slide cables would need some free standing structure next to the pad, or be strung up to the ML tower on each rollout.  Rollercoaster would need  fixed structure obviously.  Neither of these are deal breakers with a clean pad, but since a new system of some kind from STS will be required, I was wondering if using Apollo’s bunker would be an option?  It was designed for an LV much more like Saturn V than STS after all. 

Now, I think Pheough is on to an idea of probably the best way to approach considering using the Apollo bunker.  The problem with his picture is it looks like that was the fixed tower for STS, so a custom elevator could be designed to go straight down to the Apollo bunker and be fixed.  The problem with the new clean pad, is such an elevator and elevator shaft would have to mate up with some separate system on the pad, so that it could fall through the ML tower, and right into the underground elevator shaft that would take it down to the bunker.  And that mating assembly would have to withstand many launches.
But still, it does not seem like that would be much more complex than built a brand new fixed rollercoaster structure at that pad, do you?  (although you make a good point about now drilling such a shaft down to the bunker now, being a big task in your later post.  Good point)
If the ML tower elevator was going to be used in an emergency evacuation situation, it would basically uncouple from it’s cables and counter weights used to normally raise and lower it, and have some sort of passive brakes to keep it from falling too fast, be they electromagnetic or something else (there’d be lots of ways to skin that cat I think). 
They have amusement park rides that do similar things, which use pneumatic brakes I think.  (not a bad idea, as stored compressed air is not effected by a power outage, which is why it’s often used for backup systems)
I am assuming an evacuating Apollo crew would have had to wait for the Saturn V ML elevator to descend normally to ground level, and then they exited and jumped into tubes where they slid down into their bunker and then closed blast doors?  So in an emergency, that would seem pretty slow, granted.
But a direct elevator system, gravity powered, passively braked, going right to the Apollo bunker which is already designed to take such a blast (note that I am not advocating building such a bunker new, but utilizing an existing asset that could do the job).

Being stuck in a bunker while the pad is being cleared –is- less than idea, granted.  However, could a diagonal shaft be sunk from say the location of the current slide cable location down to the Apollo bunker?  A way for a rescue crew to get to the crew, and for them to basically walk out?

But, I do suppose I am seeing the logic in using gravity to move the crew away from the pad, as well as down to the ground.  If you can do both, why not?

That would bed the question then, why didn’t Apollo not use some sort of slide cable or rollercoaster instead of it’s tubes to the rubber room?

PS:  How would a fixed structure with a roller coaster or slidecalbe be utilized by commercial crews who's crew access height would be different than SLS?  Would they have to go to the elevator and ride it up to get to the rollercoaster?  That seems slow...An elevator that does an emergency descent could be used really for any height vehicle.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2012 11:30 pm by Lobo »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Chris, do you have the second study on L2? I see a link to the corresponding article, but not a link to the document.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0