Talk:Launch escape system

Ineffectiveness of Launch escape systems (for Saturn V Apollo missions)
Although I could not find a online site with the same topic, my Dynamics teacher (Dr. C. Ray Wimberly http://www.uta.edu/ra/real/editprofile.php?pid=1194&onlyview=1 ) stated that the acceleration required for the crew to safely survive a catastrophic explosion would kill them anyway. Although the design team presented the problem to the higher ups, it was decided that the LES should be kept as a "public relations" measure to show the amount of safety precautions taken to help protect the astronauts. Has anybody heard anything similar or have any sources confirming or debunking this theory? 66.118.230.101 18:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The escape system is similar to the Soyuz system, which IRC has worked on a few occasions. There was a calculation done that said that under a worst-case scenario at lift-off, if the first-stage engine exploded it was possible for fragments to penetrate the capsule before it had a chance to reach a safe distance. However in other scenarios with only a little more warning it would have been likely to save the crews life.WolfKeeper 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your dynamics teacher almost certainly vastly underestimating the g tolerance of the human body, people have survived accelerations of over 45G - see John Stapp Catsmeat (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more information
The Discovery Channel show "Apollo 11: The Untold Story" (possibly AKA "First on the Moon: The Untold Story") states that NASA knew, more than one year before the launch of Apollo 11, that the Apollo/Saturn LES could not save the crew if a catastrophic first stage failure occurred in the first 2.5 minutes of flight. The claim is that this is documented in a NASA memo that was partially displayed in the documentary. The document number shown is NASA-CR-95441, with what appears to be a title of "BREAKUP PROBLEMS" and with a date stamp of July 1968. I have searched for this document, including on the NASA technical reports site (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/) but have not been able to find it. I am uncertain as to the veracity of this claim given that I can't personally examine the source referenced. If anyone out there has access to this document I would personally appreciate it if it could be posted and linked to somewhere publicly. --LESJet (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

...and if it's not used?
At what stage in launch does the LES disengage from the spacecraft if it is not needed for escape? -- RealGrouchy 00:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As early as possible, to avoid wasting energy by carrying the mass of it any higher than needed. Generally it's at the point where the atomspheric density, and aerodynamic forces on the rocket, have become negligible. Catsmeat (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge?
I wrote the stub article about Escape tower before discovering this page. Maybe we should merge them, redirecting escape tower here and taking the photo and adding it, since it is a good one. Does LES definately only refer to an escape version with an escape tower?

I leave to to those in the know to do as they see fit. IceDragon64 (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the ejection seats on Gemini, Buran and the early shuttle flights are a LES as that's what they're for - launch escape. Although I'm not sure if they were explicitly referred to as such. I'd have to do some digging to find out. I would go with a merge simply because both articles are short and covering an almost total overlap of material - a needless duplication. Catsmeat (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but encyclopedias work on the concept not the name. We need to decide what the concept the article covers best, all launch escape systems, or escape tower-based systems. If you cover all launch escape systems then the article should probably cover the cable glide systems and so forth. I think right now it's about the towers only, so should be merged.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Need to add info about "push" launch escape systems
They are planned to be used in Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser.--Craigboy (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Info --Craigboy (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

More info--Craigboy (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s71kyRGy7FE --Craigboy (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/713805main_December_2012_60_Day_Report2.pdf--Craigboy (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone would add this, given that it's recently popular. Greg (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)°

Different versions used
Mercury - Tractor puller

Gemini - No LAS used, ejection seats used instead. Maybe because of the payload limitations of the Titan II?

Apollo - Tractor puller. Crew module has a protective covering to keep it safe from the heat of the rockets.

Soyuz - Tractor puller. Pulls away both the orbital and re-entry module, re-entry module than separates away. Spacecraft is essential launched in a fairing.

Space Shuttle - No LAS used, first few flights used ejection seats.

Almaz -

Buran -

Shenzhou - Same as Soyuz.

Orion - Same as Apollo.

Orion Max Launch Abort System (not chosen but tested) -

Dragon - Pusher. Uses same fuel as Dracos. Also used to land.

CST-100 - Pusher. Part of service module, is jetisoned prior to re-entry.

Dream Chaser - Pusher. Lands with spacecraft.

An LES or a LES
The article uses an LES, isn't a LES grammatically correct?

The an used is from the phonetic use of el-ee-es I think.

Rmvandijk (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't commonly enough used to be pronounced as an acronym (compare this with LEM (later shortened to LM, but still pronounced as a word): Neil Armstrong: "I'm going to take my foot off the lem now.") I think most people would say l-e-s. I've never heard anyone refer to "the les". JustinTime55 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dragon V2 Pad Abort
Let's replace the image of a Dragon on this page with an image of the Dragon V2 pad abort that just happened this morning, now that it's been completed. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 14:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Launch escape system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208094607/http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5300 to http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5300
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140805134401/http://astronautix.com/flights/soyzt101.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyzt101.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Launch escape system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817172305/http://astronautix.com/articles/kamaries.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/articles/kamaries.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Launch escape system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131108103328/http://astronautix.com/craft/mertower.htm to http://astronautix.com/craft/mertower.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Soyuz MS-10 abort-to-ground Oct 11 2018
This mission does not appear to have used its LES tower. The linked to article from The Star in the recently edited section does not say anything about the LES. (For reference here, the article is https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/10/11/russian-soyuz-rocket-suffers-failure-on-launch-set-to-return-back-to-earth.html ). The 6-7 Gs mentioned in the article are from atmospheric deceleration (which is higher than nominal because it was such a steep angle). The expected acceleration from the LES firing would be 14+ Gs. 12.10.222.67 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

... On further thought, rather than opening up a debate for editors more familiar with this article to clean it up, I'm reverting today's edits now, and we can debate adding them back in. It's recent news, and some news agencies have been caught pulling speculation out of Wikipedia, which then makes its way back into Wikipedia with a citation. 12.10.222.67 (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * NASA's press release only mentions that the launch was "aborted" and does not mention an LES. 2601:644:1:B7CB:A5CC:B7E2:2499:B26E (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also started a discussion on the Soyuz MS-10 talk page. 2601:644:1:B7CB:A5CC:B7E2:2499:B26E (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So far I've seen one reference that might make the idea of a LES system being used be plausible. It was mentioned once in a press conference. As I continue to learn more, this probably wasn't the LES Tower on top of the Soyuz, but a separate system for use in getting away from a fueled but otherwise safe rocket during flight. Still, one mention that could have just been an uninformed comment during a news conference that I can't find the permanent video of yet is not a reliable citation.  I'll restore the changes I reverted if I do see something reliable and citable. 12.10.222.67 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Further research shows that there may be a second LES system besides the LES Tower, that was likely to be used. An "RDG" set of solid boosters that are used after the loss of the Tower but before Fairing Separation.  These will most definitely be counted as a Launch Escape System, but will also need to be pedantically explained that it wasn't the same type of LES used in the 1983 Soyuz abort.  I don't have any concrete citations yet, but will follow it down to something reliable OR confirm that it wasn't used.  (And for those keeping track of IPs, I'm also (talk) and will confirm when I'm back on that subnet. 2600:8800:8282:1F6A:7186:A667:BD6:5A83 (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Based on Twitter posts (which obviously are not credible citations) repeated on a space enthusiast site (again, not credible):

Jeff Foust @jeff_foust Vande Hei: launch abort system “kicked in” 119 seconds into flight. Don’t know for sure yet what happened. #ISPCS2018 7:42 AM - Oct 11, 2018 https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1050396225403539456 Jeff Foust @jeff_foust Vande Hei says it was thrusters on the shroud that pulled the Soyuz away. Launch abort tower had separated several seconds before anomaly. #ISPCS2018 7:43 AM - Oct 11, 2018 https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1050396464483115008
 * Seems to be evidence that *A* launch abort system was used, but definitely not the primary LES Tower. Perhaps a comment to that effect with a pre-emptive Citation Needed tag can go up.
 * I'm also in discussions with others who indicate that an LES system other than the LES Tower was used, including the venerated Scott Manley... I just wish he could be cited, but so far the "best" source I have tonight is still just "independent research." The most important links I have at the moment are https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45365.260, https://twitter.com/JonathanOC/status/1050627492124315649 , and https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/9m6o85/week_of_october_07_2018_all_space_questions_thread/e7mcq0h/?context=3&utm_content=context&utm_medium=message&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage ... none of which can be cited, but all indicate a second LES system besides the primary LES Tower.  (And  yes, I'm the same anonymous user who also used IP 12.10.222.67 above who reverted edits that said an LES was used, and argued for citations...  Currently conflicted as it seems *A* LES was used, but clearly the _typical_ LES in the form of a 14+ G LES Tower wasn't used.  I just wish I had something to cite that wasn't forum posts and Twitter comments...) 2600:8800:8282:1F6A:8859:D1CE:1051:6944 (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ISRO Pad abort test Crew Module lifting off.jpg

Soviet N1/L3 LES not included in "Related Systems" ?
Why have all the successfull activations of Korolyov's N1/L3 Manned Lunar Launch Vehicle's Safety Asuurance System's (LES) for 3 of 4 failed launches not included, as they functioned flawlessly in all cases ? (one outstanding vehicle, 6L, had no LES due to dummy upper stages) Tito Jugoslavchenko (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)