HackerTube

Apollo Launch Abort System Test

oisiaa1 HN recommender · recommended in 1 month, 2015–2023
YouTube
demo · general · evergreen · 2015–2023 on HN

Footage of an unmanned Apollo boilerplate capsule launched on a Little Joe II booster to test the launch escape system. The booster went out of control and broke up, but the escape system worked and the capsule was recovered undamaged.

HN cites it as the classic example of a launch abort test that proved the design even though the rocket failed.

8 comments from Hacker News

@JshWright2019-03 · in “SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight”

The tower style launch escape system works in flight as well. Here's a video explaining how it works, with footage of it being tested during the Apollo era. ▶ this video

Recommends View on HN
@ceejayoz2023-12 · in “SpaceX's next Starship flight could test refueling tech”

> how come people with sliding rulers and navigation computers 'knitted' by local grannies have lost 0 Saturn rockets. The fuck? NASA lost people in production hardware multiple times. link link "The damaged third-stage engine failed to restart for trans-lunar injection... Despite the engine failures, the flight provided NASA with enough confidence to use the Saturn V for crewed launches..." link link link Here's a fun one: They tested the Saturn crew escape system. The booster was supposed to blow up, and demonstrate the crew would survive... but the test went wrong , and it blew up early , when it shouldn't have. The crew abort worked, so test failed successfully . ▶ this video

@ceejayoz2023-12 · in “SpaceX's next Starship flight could test refueling tech”

> If a test flight doesn't achieve the testing objectives, that's a failure. Incorrect. Examples: ▶ this video is a Saturn launch abort test that failed. It failed in a way that they were able to determine that intended test would have worked, though. link also failed to achieve its objectives; "Despite the engine failures, the flight provided NASA with enough confidence to use the Saturn V for crewed launches; a potential third uncrewed flight was cancelled." All that aside, SpaceX was quite clear that the latest Starship test had multiple objectives, and that "successfully splashdown near Hawaii" was deemed quite unlikely. It successfully demonstrated a number of items, including fairly critically the launchpad changes.

@mcpackieh2023-07 · in “Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight”

It might seem a little sketchy but it worked well. When they flew it on a small rocket to test it, the rocket accidentally broke apart but the escape tower system then performed perfectly: ▶ this video

@hoorayimhelping2020-05 · in “If Rockets Were Transparent [video]”

Red is kerosene, blue is liquid oxygen, orange is liquid hydrogen, the fuel that looks like fire is solid fuel (think compressed gunpowder). Left to right: Saturn V, Space Shuttle, Falcon 9 Heavy, SLS (still under construction). 2:22, you hear Neil Armstrong say "inboard cutout," that is the center engine shutting off to limit the thrust, and therefore G-forces the astronauts felt. As fuel ran out, the rocket stack would weigh less and so the rocket would push harder. By the time the main engine cutoff, the Saturn V was pulling 4 and a half Gs. Also, just noticed the SLS keeps its launch escape tower (the big needle on the top of the rocket - see this: ▶ this video ) - this wouldn't happen in a real flight. The flight plan calls for ditching than when it's not longer useful - you can hear the Apollo 11 call saying, "tower jettisoned."