zipline tower escape system

[mikegarrison]

http://www.koaa.com/story/35053285/new-emergency-escape-system-for-astronauts-modeled-after-canon-city-zip-line-design

Boeing's tower escape system will be based on COTS zipline technology. Instead of baskets to carry the crew down the ziplines, each person gets their own seat. They have four lines with five seats on each line, so a total capacity of 20 people.

[DoctorDavinci]

Nice ... How much you think thet're gonna charge per ride when nobody needs to escape?

Or perhaps they can charge people for a quicker and more enjoyable way down from a skyscraper rather than a person getting stuffed in an elevator like a sardine at quitting time

They gotta pay for it somehow 

Edited April 4, 2017 by DoctorDavinci

[TheSaint]

Five seats per line? So, what, are they going to rock-paper-scissors for who gets the first seat?

[mikegarrison]

7 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

Five seats per line? So, what, are they going to rock-paper-scissors for who gets the first seat?

Four lines though. So I expect it's first-come, first-served. There is no way they could get five people out through the hatch at one time anyway. Probably not more than one at a time, in fact. But I suppose if an incident happened, the people up there might not be in the capsule at the time they were ordered to leave.

Edited April 4, 2017 by mikegarrison

[TheSaint]

Plus it may not just be the capsule crew, there may be support crew up there as well. Seems it could get a little lifeboat-ish to me.

[kerbiloid]

If an ICBM SILO can survive 100-200 meters far multikiloton strike, why not build one right near the launchpad.

[YNM]

I thought this was about evacuating highrise buildings on ziplines XD

[monophonic]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If an ICBM SILO can survive 100-200 meters far multikiloton strike, why not build one right near the launchpad.

How do you think people get fast to the bunker from the top of the ~150ft tower?

Yup, zipline. Although Boeing plans to use armoured vehicles instead of a bunker.

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, monophonic said:

How do you think people get fast to the bunker from the top of the ~150ft tower?

Yup, zipline. Although Boeing plans to use armoured vehicles instead of a bunker

I see.
Just 

Quote

"The speeds are comparable--about 40-45 mph.  Actually the system we have at Launch Complex 41 in Florida is 200 feet longer than this one,"

sounds like Lara Croft's long flights across a canyon, rather than "safely fall down from top"

[mikegarrison]

12 hours ago, TheSaint said:

Plus it may not just be the capsule crew, there may be support crew up there as well. Seems it could get a little lifeboat-ish to me.

Haven't you ever seen the Shuttle's system? They had seven baskets, each one of which could hold up to three people. 21 total, and that only if everybody waited until their basket was full. With this system, there is no expecting people to wait. Once you get to a chair, you go.

[TheSaint]

30 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Haven't you ever seen the Shuttle's system? They had seven baskets, each one of which could hold up to three people. 21 total, and that only if everybody waited until their basket was full. With this system, there is no expecting people to wait. Once you get to a chair, you go.

I have seen the current system. I suppose this one should work, but it seems like it may have some details to work out. Can they run all five chairs down a line at once or is there a weight limitation? What happens if you have five people going down at once? Person #1 reaches the end and stops. Person #2 reaches the end five seconds later, before Person #1 can get out of their chair, at 45 mph. I suppose you could get around this all with barriers and whatnot, but this all has to happen really fast. Dunno, I'm sure someone has worked out all those details, but there isn't a lot of that in the fluff article.

3 hours ago, monophonic said:

Yup, zipline. Although Boeing plans to use armoured vehicles instead of a bunker.

They already use armored vehicles.

Although they are planning on replacing the M113s with MRAPs.

 

[mikegarrison]

4 hours ago, TheSaint said:

I have seen the current system. I suppose this one should work, but it seems like it may have some details to work out. Can they run all five chairs down a line at once or is there a weight limitation? What happens if you have five people going down at once? Person #1 reaches the end and stops. Person #2 reaches the end five seconds later, before Person #1 can get out of their chair, at 45 mph. I suppose you could get around this all with barriers and whatnot, but this all has to happen really fast. Dunno, I'm sure someone has worked out all those details, but there isn't a lot of that in the fluff article.

I actually thought the most interesting part was that Boeing decided they wouldn't try to "aerospace" any of it. Instead, they hired a third party who had experience in commercial zipline design. It will be up to those folks to handle the design details you are raising.

[TheSaint]

56 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I actually thought the most interesting part was that Boeing decided they wouldn't try to "aerospace" any of it. Instead, they hired a third party who had experience in commercial zipline design. It will be up to those folks to handle the design details you are raising.

Meh, everyone wants to COTS everything these days because it's cheaper. I guess as long as the designers can make the cognitive leap from designing amusement park rides to designing safety-of-life systems.

At least they never had to use the rubber rooms.

[DoctorDavinci]

I gots a question ... if a building has one of these escape systems, and is surrounded by other buildings with escape systems, wouldn't each building be in the way of the others zip line?

[mikegarrison]

32 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

I gots a question ... if a building has one of these escape systems, and is surrounded by other buildings with escape systems, wouldn't each building be in the way of the others zip line?

We are talking about crewed launch complexes. I guess I assumed that would be understood in this forum.

[monophonic]

12 hours ago, TheSaint said:

Meh, everyone wants to COTS everything these days because it's cheaper. I guess as long as the designers can make the cognitive leap from designing amusement park rides to designing safety-of-life systems.

Well, the commercial system carries thousands of tourists 1200ft high across the Royal Gorge every year. That is just the one installation mentioned in the original article. I would expect the system to stand up to par on safety-of-life grounds.

Perhaps even too well, if I may say so. In a tourist setting you can sit stuck halfway across for a few hours while the emergency services find a crane with enough reach to bring you to firm ground. With a rocket about to explode in vicinity I reckon most people would rather get to the end even if they broke a couple of bones in the process.

[kerbiloid]

They can use a multi-seat railway emergency dragster to avoid queueing.

Spoiler

 

[TheSaint]

7 hours ago, monophonic said:

Well, the commercial system carries thousands of tourists 1200ft high across the Royal Gorge every year. That is just the one installation mentioned in the original article. I would expect the system to stand up to par on safety-of-life grounds.

Perhaps even too well, if I may say so. In a tourist setting you can sit stuck halfway across for a few hours while the emergency services find a crane with enough reach to bring you to firm ground. With a rocket about to explode in vicinity I reckon most people would rather get to the end even if they broke a couple of bones in the process.

You illustrate my point precisely. A ride operator says, "As long as my system doesn't cause anyone injury, then I have designed my system successfully." Their primary concern is that their system fails safe, then it doesn't matter if their riders are stranded for a while, or need to be rescued. That's a minor inconvenience, they can just hand out some free annual passes to make up for that and they're all good. Reliability is secondary to safety. 

The system we're talking about here is a safety-of-life system. Not safety-of-life as in, "This system cannot injure anyone," safety-of-life as in, "If this system fails to operate as designed, someone will die." It has to operate fully and completely, the first time, every time. Safety is secondary to reliability. That's a paradigm shift for the engineers involved, which isn't always as easy as it sounds.

Plus your hardware requirements are going to change. They're used to hardware for systems that are used dozens of times a day. Now they're looking for hardware for a system that will be used, what, once a year, maybe? That sounds easier, but it's not, especially when it's going to be stored in a humid tropical environment like Florida.

I just think that the "obvious" choice of bringing in a commercial zip line designer to design the system may not be so obvious once you start digging into the details of the problem.

[FleshJeb]

On 4/4/2017 at 9:28 AM, TheSaint said:

They already use armored vehicles.

Although they are planning on replacing the M113s with MRAPs.

 

That's odd. You'd think they'd prefer the tracks, because the tires will burn.

[TheSaint]

21 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

That's odd. You'd think they'd prefer the tracks, because the tires will burn.

Well, remember, MRAPs are designed to survive contact detonations of landmines and IEDs. If the crew can get to the MRAP and button up, they're probably going to be okay, even if the rocket on the pad explodes. If they have a chance to put it in gear and get more distance between themselves and the rocket before that happens, that's gravy.

[kerbiloid]

11 hours ago, TheSaint said:

survive contact detonations of landmines

Anti-infantry, 100 g TNT?

[Tullius]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Anti-infantry, 100 g TNT?

No, 15 kg.

It is a bit difficult to find informations, but Germany's similar ATF Dingo protected its crew, when it drove over an anti-tank mine with 6 kg of explosives. The explosion created a crater with a diameter of 2 metres and hurled the Dingo 2 metres sideways, but only 2 crew members got lightly injured.

[magnemoe]

14 hours ago, TheSaint said:

Well, remember, MRAPs are designed to survive contact detonations of landmines and IEDs. If the crew can get to the MRAP and button up, they're probably going to be okay, even if the rocket on the pad explodes. If they have a chance to put it in gear and get more distance between themselves and the rocket before that happens, that's gravy.

Wheels are faster on road, main issue is to avoid the fireball and avoid getting hit by large rocket parts like the pod or upper stage engine, anything else would not affect an apc.
Tires will not catch fire even if driving trough an puddle of burning RP1. 

 

[TheSaint]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Anti-infantry, 100 g TNT?

 

6 hours ago, Tullius said:

No, 15 kg.

It is a bit difficult to find informations, but Germany's similar ATF Dingo protected its crew, when it drove over an anti-tank mine with 6 kg of explosives. The explosion created a crater with a diameter of 2 metres and hurled the Dingo 2 metres sideways, but only 2 crew members got lightly injured.

 

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Wheels are faster on road, main issue is to avoid the fireball and avoid getting hit by large rocket parts like the pod or upper stage engine, anything else would not affect an apc.
Tires will not catch fire even if driving trough an puddle of burning RP1.

MRAP survivability isn't really a question. They are significantly better protected than the M113. There are stories from Iraq of MRAPs encountering contact IEDs consisting of hundreds of kilos of explosives. The MRAPs are generally written off, but the crews generally survive with little or no injury. In fact, survival rates for crews in MRAPs in IED attacks were higher than the survival rates for crews in M1 Abrams MBTs.

[sevenperforce]

Just out of morbid curiosity, exactly what sorts of pad failures would offer sufficient warning to use a zipline and a MRAP?