The 'Escape Pods' That NASA Developed, But Never Used.
2024 ж. 13 Мам.
348 130 Рет қаралды
Crew safety has always been a core part of space engineering, and yet there has never really been a 'lifeboat' or 'escape pod' system deployed on orbit, but it's not for a lack of ideas or even engineering. There were ideas developed and built out to support Space Stations being ferried by the Space Shuttle, but ultimately the solution which was built, the X-38, was cancelled in 2002 and the space station has never had a dedicated escape system.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley
I imagine people returning to Earth “surfing” on a personal heat shield will be an extreme sport in the future.
legit that would be so sick
Dark Star?
@@ghost307 Also the ending to the hilariously awful sci-fi prison movie "Lockdown".
"Crazy fool! Why do you always jump? One of these days, you're gonna land on somethin' as stubborn as you are! And I don't do bits and pieces!" - Sergeant Johnson
If I'm alive, I'll be watching this sport!
Re-entering with an "escape hang-glider" was one of the more fun things I've done in KSP
same
External seat on the smallest wings and no reaction wheels? Parachutes used?
paraglider
Some of the rescue pod systems were not designed to get you back to Earth, but just to keep you alive until a rescue can come get you. My favorite was the Space Shuttle's "Personal Rescue Enclosure", which was a beach ball-looking spherical thing that you curled up inside and could keep you alive in space for about an hour, just long enough for guys in space suits to toss you across from your stricken vessel to another shuttle orbiter. It was about as bare bones as you can get, low mass, low bulk, designed in the days before the LES suits when there were not enough space suits for a full crew of 7.
My understanding is that the Personal Rescue Enclosures were also used to test claustrophobia for new Astronaut Candidates.
@@mattweihl Yes, Mike Mullane talks about this in his book.
I remember those getting a lot of publicity when the Shuttle was about to go up for the first time.
Years ago I read a humorous sci-fi book that was basically a dystopian military bureaucracy on a space station. Imagine Catch-22 meets Office Space in space. It ended in the most epic way possible: with the hero using a one-man escape bubble to jump back down to earth, where he landed in Texas and walked into the nearest bar. Edit: I found it: Orbital Decay, by Allen Steele. At the time it was just a cool one-off, but I just found it it was the first of a series and he went on to become a best-selling author so I guess I've got some more reading to do.
That ending though!
Allen Steele?
What was the book?
It's been a long time since I read any Allen Steele but I remember him as being pretty above-average when it came to the realism side of things, with clear research and understanding of how space technology actually worked. Plot-wise I don't remember a thing, or even which book I read!
Iain M Banks also touched on the concept a few times in his sci-fi novels. "The Algebraist" is still one of my all-time favourite books.
SCRAM looks like every KSP lander I have ever built.
Mk2 Lander Can
Fr tho😂😂😂
@@NickJarmuszwith an inflatable heat sheild and a couple chutes
About 18gs on reentry
I agree
"rocket-propeled lawnchair" Every first ship in any ship building game ever
Nothing succeeds like success. You can return a lone stranded Kerbal from well within the orbit of Moho (very close to the Kerbol, the sun) to a fairly safe Kerbin orbit, where she can be rescued by economically feasible means, with something like that! The down-side is that it takes virtually the largest delta-V possible in the game to get the ion-drive-equipped lawn-chair rescue package payload to an orbital rendezvous that close to the sun. Or, about 30,000 m/s. Once she's aboard, the rest is fairly straight-forward orbit-wrangling. To be clear, it's an ion-thruster propelled lawn chair in my version. The mission is called "Big Intrasolar Technically Challenging Headache Prototype Long-range Electrically Accelerated Search/rescue Equipment". So-far it is by-far the hardest rescue-mission in this version of KSP. It's colloquially referred to by the technicians who operate the mission as "B*TCHPLEASE". The mission-patch is completely awesome, and the rescued Kerbal, Clauby, will get to wear it with pride. She will also out-rank even Valentina and Jeb when she gets home.
The Columbia disaster shows why a single system, no matter how redundant it appears, is *not* "Its own backup option". In spite of the assurances of program management and reliability engineering teams.
Sure, but we'll never have 100% safe space craft for the same two reasons we'll never have 100% safe cars or cell phones that last more than 2 years - cost and the randomness of existence. Compromises must ultimately be made
Fun fact: There were proposals for "Evolved Shuttle" involving liquid fuel boosters and an ejectable crew deck dating even before Challenger, but NASA couldn't afford the development cost of them. #FundNASA
The alternative to the single escape system is staying in the station. The chance of something happening both to the station and to the escape system at once is very low (and most likely would result in no astronauts left to save). Anything happening to the escape system after the escape is initiated, will be dealt with by means of the redundancy built into the "lifeboat" itself. After all, you can't board more than one ship at a time
@@limiv5272 My cell phone is still going strong after 4 years, but I get your point. NASA currently has required the Commercial Crew vehicles to have a "Loss of Crew probability" of 1 in 270 (i.e. 99.623% safe)
@@jeffbenton6183 I've never head of that requirement. That's a strange number, why not round up to 1 in 300?
Scott, “Home safely in any emergency” is quite a bold statement! Yes the spacecraft used today for ‘Orbital’ missions do indeed have redundant systems. But should anything happen to to the spacecraft itself, such as broken hatch hinge, puncture to the skin of the craft or damage to a window seal or cracked glass panel, the integrity of the airtight worthiness would be in jeopardy! I believe the X-38 was an outstanding idea and something similar should still be pursued. Even if the ISS gets retired, we are still going to be putting people in space and they should have some kind of lifeboat pre-staged in orbit. Just my two cents…
I really really wanna see that for real
Especially since humans are (hopefully) returning to the Moon in the near future. Some sort of escape craft on the Lunar Gateway would be needed since it would take days for a rescue mission to get there assuming that a vehicle is ready to go and there are no delays.
Currently for the ISS, it is just simpler to use preexisting docked spacecraft like Soyuz than make a special craft.
I always liked the description of MOOSE from an article on Cracked: "MOOSE is the most terrifying form of transportation ever devised by man."
Featuring a 6.4 mm (¼") thick ablative heat shield.
Hi Scott. Thanks for this video about the X-38. I worked on this vehicle at Houston, focusing on the High-Voltage and Low-Voltage DC bus distribution boxes. I wish I had better videos to send you of testing, but alas, I don't.
Way back when I worked for McDonnell Douglas (MDAC) at KSC I was part of a team that was supposed to evaluate systems for what was internally referred to as the GTFO (Get The F... Out) for Space Station. It never materialized. The problem with all these ideas is the additional cost to develop, build and maintain. The thinking always came back to using the transfer ship as the rescue ship because you already have it. Shuttle was a problem but even back in 1988 there was talk about partnering with the Russians for a long duration escape ship.
The use of a cargo ship as a rescue ship is another option - the Dragon was quite capable of that. It does involve a reduction in payload capacity however.
@@allangibson2408 ... would it? Ôo Just a silly late-night thought and with a beer already gone down the drain: you'd need a short-term life support system and a few high-G seats for the passengers. If you managed to make portable modules of them you could stuff them into the Dragon (after ripping out the cargo if needed), attach them to a few built-in mounting points, and you're almost good to go. Question is how long this would take, but it might be an option.
@@44WarmocK77 The Dragon has a heat shield so that takes care of the first and biggest problem. You need a minimum of two hours life support for a crash re-entry - the Station EVA suits have 12 hours. The most likely case of need would be a collision that takes out the station by directly impacting the crew transport capsule and damaging the docking port as a result.
Re-entering with a pool floaty sounds like the single most terrifying experience you could ever go through.
You would never be the same
0:29 IIRC, police have to fill out incident reports every time they fire their service pistols. Maybe the imperial laser turret operator people have to do the same if they fire while the ship isn’t engaged in a battle, and their commander just didn’t want to do the paperwork?
Also they detected no life forms and assumed it launched due to a malfunction
A perfect explanation for such a beurocratic empire
"What, are we paying by the laser now?" "You don't do the budget Terry! I do!"
@@stormhawk4277 I like my explanation better, regardless of whether it’s supported by the dialog 😁
That is actually the canonical explanation
I've seen the X-38 on display at the Evergreen Air and Space Museum! I Initially thought it was a pretty detailed mock-up, but looking closer at it, I realized that it was an actual vehicle! So cool!
The appleTV series "Foundation" takes the escape-pod trope to the whole new level where every only-sarcophagus-sized escape pod is also a complete cryogenic space craft that easily reaches 20% of the speed of light (without warp/teleport), and that can travel for 100 years between more distant stars without running out of fuel/power, and that can abort and restart cryosleep, and that functions as 1-time-atmopspheric-entrance-vessel. As narrative device, it is very close do the Tardis or the time machine of Bill&ted, if only in size, and that it is not a time machine.
But does it clean windows and make a good cup of post-touchdown coffee?
@@MonkeyJedi99 Dang it, you're right. It doesn't! Well, back to the Soyuz, I guess :)))
@@TohaBgood2 Hahaha!
You forgot the fact that it somehow still needs parachutes for reentry (instead of just propulsive landing), and it somehow sinks to the bottom of the ocean, whereas you are supposed to whip out a lifeboat from a lifeboat aka a kayak even though the original escape pod was a perfectly capable interplanetary spacecraft with a life support system… (I'm really miffed at how the tech doesn't make sense in that show)
@@BrotherCheng Hey, give him a break he was literally one of the first primates to even think of these things! But yeah, some of the tech is um… a little off, shall we say :)) Still enjoyable though. Doesn’t distract that much from the plot. I think the politics and the magical math voodoo are more annoying tbh.
Hi Scott! Big fan of yours! Could you talk about material wear down in space-stuff? There's much overoptimistic talk about o-neill cylinders, generation ships, giant space stations and such, but after looking at the back of my fridge, I'm thinking there's no way we can live in such a thing and expect for it to work continously with people inside for decades or centuries. Maybe you've heard about wear-and-tear and maintenance on the MIR, ISS,etc? Thank you very much, even if you don't answer to this question!
I second this, it's some stuff Kerbal doesn't teach us either, nor any sci-fi thing I've ever seen!
The X-38 was never the ACRV. They were two different vehicles and project offices. The ACRV preceded X-38, originally being called the Crew Emergency Return Vehicle. The name was changed because NASA didn't like the word Emergency in the name and what it implied. The ACRV had proposals from Rockwell and Lockheed for entry vehicles, Rockwell's being a scaled up Apollo of course. I worked as an engineer in both projects. I was responsible for the three paintings of the ACRV that you used in the video when talking about SCRAM. The vehicles in the paintings are clearly marked ACRV. The X-38 was always referred to as the X-38, never as the ACRV. At one point during ACRV, our office had discussions with the Russians about the US obtaining Soyuz capsules to fill the role of a return vehicle until we got the ACRV operational.
Next beer is on me, David.
So are the official references equating ACRV and X-38 incorrect? I’ve mostly seen CRV and X-CRV in literature.
What a Legend!!!
@@scottmanley I started pretty early in the ACRV project office and it was a competition between Rockwell and Lockheed who both had capsule designs. When it folded, I went back to the engineering directorate. The X-38 started shortly after that and I worked on various parts of the project, modeling, wind tunnel, parachutes. I can honestly say I never heard anyone at any level refer to it as the ACRV or CRV or X-CRV, always as the X-38. That doesn't mean it wasn't referred to as the later two in some literature, but I doubt ACRV. It just never crossed my path. Interestingly, Orion, NASA's next manned vehicle is sometimes referred to as Apollo on steroids. Something we were working on 30 years ago.
Hi David, did you happen to know an artist at JSC named Pete Colangelo? I believe he was the one who did the paintings of the SCRAM recovery ops with the USCG Dolphin as well as the one at 7:07 in the video.
The idea of using a paraglider wing to land is quite interesting. Normally we don't like wings on spacecraft, let alone rockets, because they introduce additional drag and weight which is a big no-no at the moment of launch and cruise. However, paraglider wings are very light (because they're made of fabric) and are stowed until use, so they might be a workable solution to land a rocket. Would be pretty cool to see a giant reusable suborbital rocket land on a giant parawing.
Rocket lab is working on this idea, they are currently using a parawing for a soft sea landing and want to use that same system to catch their rocket from the air using a helicopter.
Wings on orbital lifters aren't as bad as SpaceX's PR makes them seem like. A aluminium construction/winged flyback Heavy-lift Vehicle from NASA's SPS study had a similar payload to Starship, yet only 4000t mass when fully fueled - less than simply the fuel mass of Starship, and even with some mass reserve!
The Rogallo wing used in hang gliders was originally developed as an inflatable wing to bring down the Gemini capsule on land. I'm not 100% clear on what the landing gear was supposed to be--the test vehicle had big fixed wheels but obviously that wasn't realistic.
(artists' conceptions seem to show skids popping out of the sides and nose of the spacecraft)
"No shortage of ideas" is a phrase I'm going to use more frequently in meetings to call out bullshit.
13:30 it always upsets me to hear about cool things being canceled when they’re almost done. Oh well.
The X-38 flight hardware was about 65% complete and as of a couple years ago was still stored at JSC.
Why do you have to mention another infuriating fact about politicians cancelling nearly complete awesome stuff?! Have mercy on us. We're not made of stone!
@@TohaBgood2 If I was a legal adult and had a few billion $$$ I would have payed for this thing to be finished. Polish mini shuttle here we go.
The important thing for funding wasn't the fact that it was 65% complete, but the fact that it still was 35% incomplete. On the ISS, they were looking for every saving they could find, no matter the reduction of its capabilities.
I worked on that project back in 2001 to 2003. Fun job
@@mattpeacock5208 Did you know David Deloney? He worked over at the Vibration Lab. He's retired now.
Hazegrayart, a channel that does animations of various spacecraft and space launch systems (both historic ones as well as speculative, experimental vehicles that never flew) has a video of the lunar escape system. It's pretty nutty, like two lawn chairs on a rocket.
There are a lot of jobs that involve handling explosives. There aren't very many that involve being handled by explosives. But we're talking about astronauts here. The proposed return methods aren't *that* much more dangerous than their regular jobs.
In all fairness to the Sci-Fi genre and their escape pods, humanity is nowhere near the level of orbital construction (we have zero orbital construction, only orbital assembly) that would necessitate the need for escape pods. The fact that we send pods up means by default, we have pods available to bring people down, so there's no need to engineer anything else as it's purely an expense that essentially gains you nothing in return. When we get to the point where we're building oil tanker/cargo ship sized ships in space and we're not launching crew modules every time there's a shift change, the whole 'life boat' system will have already been revisited and figured out, and put into place so people can stay in orbit, work, and come back when the new crew arrives in what surely will be something much bigger than a soyuz or dragon. Perhaps Starship delivering 100 people at a time for a one month rotation. I highly doubt with an orbital platform on fire and breaking apart in a worst case scenario, we'd not have escape pods not scattered about so that whatever ship that is the usual crew ferry isn't sitting there waiting for every last person to board while everything burns and deorbits around it.
Well tbf space catastrophes are luckily pretty slow most of the time.
I've always wondered why they don't just make the battle stations BE the escape pods. If you're about to explode you don't want to have to run for a pod.
Well if I were an enemy craft, the first thing I'd aim for would be the battle stations, not the escape pods.
The bigger question is, if you are about to explode, why can't you eject the reactor?
…. and you never ever go back to get the ships cat.
@@dsdy1205 eject the reactor??? 🤔🤔🤔
@@MrCrackbear At the enemy? 🤔
My attention was immediately grabbed by the fucking telnet Star Wars, that thing is awesome.
I worked on the Space Station Centrifuge Facility, before it was cancelled. Very interesting concept. Extremely low vibration, 1.8 meter diameter, with six animal cages, with any two opposite side cages being able to be removed while the other four keep spinning
I am actually almost done with my video on the X-38. Great one again, Scott😀
I have to say the airframe on that I'd never seen before and I was going WOW that is cool AF. I'd LOVE to see that . Subscribed ~ Duh.
Have you been out this way to SAC museum and seen X-38 132
@@extradimension7356 Thanks a lot! Video dropping tomorrow 😀
I love how modern space plane design, but yeah, MOOSE is freaking badass
"austere: (of living conditions or a way of life) having no comforts or luxuries; harsh or ascetic" Taught me a new word today. Thanks Scott Manley!
In an emergency, I would put my money on Soyuz - only had two fatal mission endings in 54 years, 7 months, 8 days... Thats a hell of a safety record
Years dont matter. Mission count does more so. How many missions involved humans onboard? This is a similar issue with aircraft parts failing being reported via dates, rather than time being *used.* If something fails 1/10 missions, for example, but only flies every 5 years... then a 60 year thing would only have 1.2~ fatal failiures on record.
@@higueraft571 147 manned missions - of which, two flights ended in fatalities, one launch failure and one abort after launch but before orbit
Fun fact: At the time it was cancelled, the Space Shuttle had more missions flown than Soyuz.
@@HalNordmann But with a worse mission fatality rate - and no Soyuz crew member ever tried to kill the wife of a crewmate
@@Trek001 Well, there have been some fights aboard Soyuzes, plus that doesn't have anything to do with the design. As for the problems - a 2/135 loss of vehicle probability is pretty good by rocket standards. And another fun fact: There were proposals for "Evolved Shuttle" involving liquid fuel boosters and an ejectable crew deck dating even before Challenger, but NASA couldn't afford the development cost of them. #FundNASA
Hehe. God bless the empire’s eco-drive to save power by not wasting laser power when it might just be a short-circuit.
godless
Imagine actually having to use MOOSE. Terryfing.
The real reason they never tried it was because the astronaut's enormous brass balls would have thrown the mass distribution off.
US government: how much will escape system cost? NASA: IDK few hundred million US government: How much to train new astronauts? NASA: Few million US government: we have all the info we need
[ Insert credit card to activate escape pod. ] “whoo boy this is going to be expensive”
In KSP I made up and tested a tiny escape pod concept: Docking port, probe core, battery, inflatable airlock, and 4x drogue chutes. Your ship still needs to be healthy enough to start the deorbit, but that tiny list of parts will safely splashdown a Kerbal from at least up to 2km/s reentry. The docking port is the heat shield, and the docking port/probe core/battery stack make it the fat and heavy end of the pod so it reenters that way nicely. I very loosely based it around the inflatable "rescue-ball" concept that's featured in the "Space Shuttle Operator's Manual".
Reenter the atmosphere with a heat shield on your back is something for when base jumping has become tedious :-)
I don't think a single one of us would have said a word about the 240p video.. this is probably one of the few channels that actually goes out of their way to find actual footage vs stock clip over and over with some lame robot voice lol
Loved the ASCII Star Wars clip!
Scott!! You forgot the PRE! (Personal Rescue Enclosure) Truly one of the weirdest ideas NASA has imagined. Only for crew transfer, but worth mentioning.
MOOSE is obviously the superior design because its called MOOSE
MOOSE plus Electron equals extremely cheap space tourism 🤔🤔🤔
And pronounced MOOSE
At least one of those MOOSE packs had better be called Bullwinkle.
@@polygondwanaland8390 man out of space economicalist
I'm always interested in more of the "unsung" history behind our space exploration, so this is just right up my alley! Thanks, Scott (and those involved in making the episodes)!
Thank you for this information. Been interested in this subject forever.i used to picture everyone having " mini shuttles " but just dreamcatcher.i think we haven't seen the end of this vehicle
Haha! I remember playing that version of Star Wars on the BBC Micro. Cheers Scott! 👍😎
Awesome breakdown and explaining! Thank you for your work put into this!!
I don't remember if ESA had anything invested in the X38 but they were pretty pissed on its cancellation. Seems to me if they really wanted to use that for their access to space, they probably could have added some funds to get NASA to finish. They were so close to a working model. The X 33, 34, and 37 also got chopped about the same time.
The vehicle Scott Manley showed looks a lot like the Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle that flew to space in 2015, especially with those flaps...🤔
Thanks Scott Manley for continuing to share your knowledge and research.
As a kid in the early 70s I remember reading about MOOSE being in the pipeline. I've always wondered what that ride would be like.
Another piece of great content, this time with the extra joy of knowing where you likely found the inspiration for it ;)
I like how with MOOSE they go "deorbit yourself first, THEN build your reentry vehicle." So if absolutely anything goes wrong in inflating a giant plastic bag with foam while you're inside, you have no abort option to get back to orbit.
The rogallo wing, which went on to become the modern hang glider, was developed by Francis Rogallo and NASA as an entry control method during the Apollo era (I think)... also worth a read!
During the mid 60s this was projected for use on an Air Force design for a Gemini capsule that would land on skids. It would have even better cross-range capability than a paraglider, which is what is shown in this episode. Well, as a hang glider it has benefited a lot more people in its own way. Idk if Rogallo invented this for use in Gemini, or if the Air Force knew of his design and adopted it.
The ram air parachute has rather displaced the Rogallo wing - and skilled pilots can glide them for hundreds of miles (and that’s from a ground launch).
Gemini. The Gemini capsule was designed with tricycle gear to fit with it.
Thanks for the video Mr. Manley, it is neat and clear as usual. Just wanted to express my disagreement with the "emergency escape system" being the same ship that transports the astronauts to and from Space. Giving redundancy to every system onboard do not provide a redundant separate mean of escape. Gemini had rocket-propelled ejection seats, Apollo had its solid rocket motor on top. Then, the Space Shuttle had yes maximum redundancies but no escape system, and blew up twice. Soyuz and Dragon both have escape systems; because the First Corollary to the Murphy Law clearly says that: "Your astronauts are going to need an escape system the moment you remove it from your Spaceship". Thank you - once more - for all the continued and very well documented updates you keep providing. Me lazy, I just thumb up and watch them...
What about redundancy for the escape pods?
aslo the spacex dragon capsule itself can also be a escape pod for the iss! with a massive crew capacity from as low of 6 to a maximum of 12 astronauts and more than enough fuel after being docked from being launched from earth to help get the astronauts back down in a emergency! it even has its own dedicated solar and battery power supply that can even help keep some of the iss systems powered in a emergency and it's also far cheaper then the most what NASA could come up with! heck starship could even cram a dragon capsule in some variants like the moon and cargo variants for an emergency if spacex wanted to! or they can even have crew be transferred from earth to the starship for interplanetary long range missions via dragon capsule to save a lot more fuel for starship's missions for going to the moon and mars and beyond!
@@ashtiboy IIRC cargo variant of Starship will be unmanned, therefore not needing any escape system.
Fun fact: There were proposals for "Evolved Shuttle" involving liquid fuel boosters and an ejectable crew deck dating even before Challenger, but NASA couldn't afford the development cost of them. #FundNASA
The Test-Flight Hardware for the X-38 still exists outside of NASA's buildings in Houston... I've seen it.. I wish it would be restored and displayed somewhere.
Bravo, you are very well informed. In my youth it was published this inflated recovery life raft, it was after Apollo 13 mission. Thank you for this documentary, I watch your films with great interes.
There was also a non-reusable tactic, a temporary HS paint lube, it wouldn't save the outer structure, but the cargo/humans in. The X-15a used this to assume lasting long horizontal, but was effective as re-enter burn. ANY craft can. The original shuttle just lact a surrounding heat shield paint, on the color & decal area, for imbalance dive, could've saved many lives.😔
There is always the option of the Dark Star "wreckage riding" surfboard :)
UFO spotted at 1:06 - 1:09 going right to left, Scott’s new outline, “I’m Scott Manely, we are not alone!”
Thanks again for another informative space presentation keeping the public at large large informed.
I think Skylab 3 suffered problems with 2 thrusters. Which is worse because then you have to consider the possibility that there is a flaw in the whole batch. The Cm could easily come back with one or even 2 failing thrusters, but what if on the return journey one or more fail? So while the crew was in Skylab in orbit, Houston and contractors a. tried to find out if there is a fundamental problem with the thrusters and b. simultaneously preparing the rescue CM. The backup crew was involved in both efforts. he irony is that by finding that the crew could come back, the backup crew cancelled their chance for their own space flight (in the long gap til the shuttle). And of course Al Bean and co. brought the thing back in probably one of the more interesting flights with a Apollo CSM. Also even when Freedom was still freedom, the idea of buying/renting a Soyuz was already floating around. Not quite sure, where i read that. Jerry Bosticks book probably or Stafford..
this has great info in it....thanks and keep them coming.
Thank you, that was your best video yet. Great content! Keep them coming.
Scott, I hope you see this, I just learned from this that the KOOSE from that KSP mod is based on a real thing, thank you :D
One of the most interesting talks l've yet heard. Thanks Scott. 🤩
Great coverage of all this small cans ;-) Thanks for the nice tech-path overview. by the way: I think ARCA-Space had some development with realy flying demonstrators ;)
“Thanks in part due to the strict rationing of laser bolts” That gave me a good laugh, I’ve always wondered why the Star Destroyer held its fire. I guess even A New Hope had to rely on plot armor!
3:16 Saturn V main stage lox tank with baffles. One of the coolest shots ever
Brilliant. Thoughtful and informative (with a good dash of opinion) as usual.
Really love your work Scott, thank you!
Thanks, Scott, for explaining this matter. Great job
The only aerospace escape capsule that I was aware of (until just now and the new to me example of the B-58) that was actually built and used was on the F-111. They were reported to work quite well in actual use. Of course, the problems that an in-atmosphere escape capsule need to solve are far simpler than of an orbital escape capsule; and that is sugar coating it!
Actually they didn't work well, mass of the capsule made landings really hard to the point crew could not leave it afterwards, in one time capsule was used both pilots ended with broken spines!
@@randomnickify Interesting. What you say makes sense. My recollection was based on media reports far in the past (before the internet!) on Australian operations of the F-111. You are no doubt better informed than I am. Spine damage was a potential problem for all ejection systems that I am aware of. Having actually witnessed a zero-zero ejection while I served, I'm not surprised. It is brutal.
@@MarkHarrisonBNE IIRC the Australian F111 ejections were all over water - none were zero-zero. The capsule proved to be a fine lifeboat - quite seaworthy. I wonder if the other escape pod ideas all floated?
As was pointed out to me in a forum a while ago, why would you abandon a spaceship? It's got all the stuff you need; and it's not as though it's going to sink.
Destroyed spaceships always explode in movies, have movies ever lied to you?
Loss of vessel integrity, ala gravity, would be a good reason. You don't want to be left without a way to get back if shit goes haywire and the vessel is rendered uninhabitable.
Cough cough Mercury Liberty Bell 7
Presumably if you're abandoning your spacecraft it no longer has all the things you need. Perhaps there's no more oxygen because the life support failed or it all leaked out. Perhaps it's on fire. Or maybe the spacecraft itself is fine, but the heatshield is scuppered and you have no rescue coming.
Onboard fire, deorbiting, debris firld, power loss, no more incoming supplies, solar flare, station breaking up, etc etc.
That ending Scott. Lol Great video!
You didn’t mention all the Dream Chaser craft on the outer ring of the Voyager Station concept.. since it would be impossible to dock to the outside of a spinning station then the only purpose they could serve is as escape pods..
Unable to dock to a spinning station? TARS would disagree.
@@Forest_Fifer that was on the axis of rotation.. I said the outside of a huge spinning ring. It’s actually not impossible to dock there.. just not useful or practical.
MOOSE, or something very much like it, appeared in a novel I read years ago called Orbital Decay. In the story it was treated by the characters as almost a joke because it was clearly insane and probably suicidally dangerous and indeed had never ever been used. I had no idea when I read it that 30 odd years ago that something like it had seriously been considered at one time.
I've read that book. Orbital Decay by Allen Steele. IIRC one of the characters uses the MOOSE and does indeed require a stiff drink after surviving the landing.
".... and a whole-lot of bad assery.." Scott - that comment was just great!
For my stations in Kerbal I usually added commandpods with a bunch of Seperatrons, a heat shield and set of parachute as a lifeboat
Scott Manley: Badassery Me: My life is complete
That ASCII Star Wars takes me waaaay back.
i felt so validated as an aerospace geek when i got the bear in the b-58 pod joke
Fantastic stuff. Makes me want to make escape modules in kerbal
Would it be cost-effective to just send George Clooney up with every flight?
"Rocket-powered lawn chair." 3:33 Something you'd see at a Fourth of July picnic after a full helping of Ground Beef Tacos and Loaded Refried Bean Sauce.
Great screen saver! Where could I get one? Brilliant retrospective on escape systems!
Hey, Gully Foyle -- from Alfred Bester's _The Stars My Destination_ Awesome! The screen saver on Scott's computer is the Arecibo message. This was an interstellar radio message carrying basic information about humanity and Earth that was sent to globular star cluster M13 in 1974.
@@williamblack4006 You nailed it exactly! A great rip snorting golden age sci fi novel. Bester was a great storyteller. So good to virtually meet you! I have heard of this Arecibo 1974 radio message, as I recall Frank Drake helped make that happen. I'm going to see if I can find that screen saver. Thanks!
My kerbals rely on the trusted Orbital K/Crew Rescue Assistance Pod. I wonder why NASA didn't pick up the same name, it's descriptive.
When he said "thankfully no bear" - I thought he was referring to the "Spaceballs" escape pod scene :-)
Nice clip, really enjoyed it. 👍🏻
the image transitions behind you were very entertaining
ooo the bit about how long the shuttle can stay or orbit is a snarky little inclusion and im loving it
“But thankfully no bear”. Good one Scott.
Great as always Scott, can you make a video about SSTOS?
If he doesn’t, everyday astronaut has a really good in depth one
@@ryanhamstra49 I know but I would like on which goes even more into the physics and mathematics behind SSTOS
"Ideally, close to a place where they can get a drink!" 🤣😂🤣
that moose thing is absolutely next level. gotta love that era.
Scott could you do a video on what type of sensor's spacecraft used to determine things like altitude Orientation and orbital velocity. I find it hard to believe that you could calculate it so precisely with just Accelerometers
Great question. I am also interested in learning about that kind of hardware!
I remember when the X 38 was a project I remember watching the drops on the b-52 on a discovery channel documentary
Would you consider the ejector seats on the Gemini capsule an escape pod? It seems equally crazy as the MOOSE, if not more so.
I think those were only active during the launch, and never useful afterwards since if your chute is tangled on re-entry you're probably tumbling and rolling around
Just imagine those ejecting an astronaut in orbit due to a sick malfuction. EDIT: Or the same thing happening to a cosmonaut in one of the Vostok missions.
The ejection seats on the early shuttle flights were even crazier, and as later analysis turned out, almost certainly suicidal, since the seat likely wouldn't get you clear of the SRB plume. John Young said that if he had known about the body flap uncommanded movement during liftoff of STS-1 he would've ejected then and there; good thing he didn't or he and Bob Crippen would've been killed.
You mean the gemini ejection seats that entailed lighting a rocket engine in a pure oxygen environment atop a giant nasty hypergolic fuel tank? im not sure that qualifies as "escape"..... If i recall those seats were there bc gemini was originally supposed to land under a paraglider wing horisontally.
Does anyone else get sad when they see all the amazing proposed space vehicles that were never built?
Did you hear the tragedy of the Space Exploration Initiative? It is not a story SpaceX fanboys would tell you...
@@HalNordmann Space Exploration Initiative? Now that’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time… a long, long, time.
Interesting to watch this in the aftermath of whatever's up with Soyuz MS-22.
This channel is pretty much my real world escape tool.
As always a plesaure! Thanks Mr Scott
Anybody else notice the Apollo CSM in the CERV proposal? Either they were gonna convince the manufacturer to build some new ones, or they were gonna upcycle the ones they had left over. A ship originally built to go to the moon, reused as a lifeboat.
Love Scottish humor: stars wars ref, "badassery ", potatovision. Lol