Mk2 Launch Escape System

[Xyphos]

 

[ZentroCatson]

This is a good idea, although it is too large and bulky. I prefer hiding two Sepratrons between the cockpit and a modded decoupler for my planes and SSTOs or simply jettisoning the external tank for my piggybacker spaceplanes. It is quite kerbal and has a high tendency to fail, but it's better than the abort program of the real Shuttle!

[theend3r]

Yep, the modded Mk2 decoupler is a must. There is no need to have a LES on a plane, imo. The reason it is on rockets is because they cannot be shut off.

[Adelaar]

I usually just stamp on a few sepatrons, two (at minimum) in the upper section of the craft, and four (at minimum) in the lower section, which help to turn the nose upwards and into the airstream. A decoupler that has been clipped into the fuselage does the actual seperation. It works, but I never really put them on my planes because I never really have to abort in the first place.

A poor mans solution would be to just put a parachute on top of the thing. Should you need to abort, just deploy the chute. The tail will be dragged down first, most likely destroying it on impact with the ground. But often, the cockpit (and some more bits) survives.

[Xyphos]

4 hours ago, theend3r said:

no need to have a LES on a plane, imo

it's not for a plane. Mk2 rockets do exist.
I just prefer to build / demo from the SPH because it's more roomy.

[Alshain]

5 hours ago, theend3r said:

The reason it is on rockets is because they cannot be shut off.

That is not the reason.  They are on rockets because rockets have a much higher rate of failure, and when they do, it is usually an explosion.

Planes can often glide to a water landing and are actually very safe.

[Gaarst]

6 hours ago, theend3r said:

The reason it is on rockets is because they cannot be shut off.

You can shut off a rocket, it is part of the standard procedure in case of failure: closing valves isn't that hard. You can't shut off a SRB the same way you can't shut off an exploding stick of dynamite (they are essentially the same thing).

 

Or you can take the best worst of both worlds, and stick a LES-less plane on top of 2000t of exploding fuel, of which 1000t cannot be shut off...

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, theend3r said:

Yep, the modded Mk2 decoupler is a must. There is no need to have a LES on a plane, imo. The reason it is on rockets is because they cannot be shut off.

LES is nice on a plane in some settings, back in before 1.x they would not survive an water landing. I also had an issue with loosing engines on pull up on some planes. 
In the splashdown setting separating cockpit and passenger module and using parachutes to splash down, the canards was nice wings, in an runway issue you want an LES badly, However the MK2 decopler mod and a group of seperatrons works well enough. You aborted then used the cancards to gain attitude so you could open parachutes at Ap. 

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

4 hours ago, Gaarst said:

You can shut off a rocket, it is part of the standard procedure in case of failure: closing valves isn't that hard. You can't shut off a SRB the same way you can't shut off an exploding stick of dynamite (they are essentially the same thing).

 

Or you can take the best worst of both worlds, and stick a LES-less plane on top of 2000t of exploding fuel, of which 1000t cannot be shut off...

I know some SRBs (generally used in upper satellite stages) have vents on the side, so when the ideal height/speed is reached, the thrust is vented the other way, cancelling out excess SRB thrust. Probably not possible with the huge thrust from a booster, though.

[razark]

10 hours ago, theend3r said:

There is no need to have a LES on a plane, imo. The reason it is on rockets is because they cannot be shut off.

Many high-performance aircraft have an escape system, though.

[DerekL1963]

4 hours ago, Gaarst said:

You can't shut off a SRB the same way you can't shut off an exploding stick of dynamite (they are essentially the same thing).

*sigh*  Seriously, this nonsense needs to die in a fire.  You don't need to shut down an SRB - all you need it to do is produce zero net thrust so it will be left behind.  This is fairly straightforward to do - simply vent the case and the burn rate drops to essentially zero.  If you can arrange for it to vent forward (at an angle so as to not to nail the departing payload), so much the better as it then acts as it's own retrorocket.

And this is old, old tech - dating back at least to the 1950's.  Polaris A-1, A-2, Poseidon, MM-I, -II, -III, and Peacekeeper all used or use this method.  (As did the much smaller SUBROC and ASROC.)  The Titan that would have lifted Dyna-Soar would have used this method.  NASA considered it for the Shuttle, but abandoned it because the dynamic loads would have torn the ET part and thrown the Orbiter into the airstream where it would have been torn apart (exactly as happened to Challenger).

The reason not to use solids for manned launches isn't that you can't get away from them in an emergency - it's because pretty much their only failure mode is an earth shattering (and very sudden) kaboom.

[Rocketscience101]

I'm gonna need to see a 3 scenario in flight tests,

1. At 1,000 meters traveling at standard low altitude slow speeds

2. At 5,000 meters, traveling > the speed of sound

3. At 10,000 meters traveling > the speed of sound, to simulate SSTO emergency situations.

Otherwise its an interesting pad test system.