How To Eject From a Spacecraft at Mach 4 - A History of Every Ejection System Used In Spaceflight
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 вер 2022
- For some rockets and spacecraft the crew escape system was via an ejection seat, sometimes custom built for the task, sometimes adapted from an existing seat designed for a high performance plane.
Here's a great NASA paper on the Gemini ejection seat:
ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/1...
For a more general overview this website has collected a lot of good information
www.ejectionsite.com/
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 - Наука та технологія
My grandfather was one of the X-15 pilots. Due to a design oversight, the nose landing gear extended on one of his flights as he was going above Mach 4. Since they didn’t know if the nose gear was safe to land on after that, he was given the option to eject. He declined, saying that they only had three X-15s and he didn’t want to waste one of them. When he touched down on the dry lake bed, the nose tires ripped off but the strut held. He earned the Distinguished Flying Cross for that feat. He, and the X-15 designers and builders, definitely had the Right Stuff.
Another funny anecdote…on his next flight, one of the side landing struts extended on him while going through Mach 3. My parents told me that after he landed, he was so angry that he got out of the plane, stormed off, stopped, and then ran back over and kicked the X-15 in the side. I heard his ground crew literally gave him a boot as a gag gift “commemorating” that whole episode.
What's his name
That's great!!! Amazing story thank you for sharing!
@@kommandantgalileo Robert A. Rushworth. The flight was the 114th of the X-15 program and one of the first for the second X-15 after the fuselage was stretched for extra fuel capacity for aerodynamic heating research. Apparently the cable that held the nose gear bay door shut was slightly too short for the amount of heating and expansion the airframe experienced and actuated the door latch. To save weight and improve overall reliability of the system, the door and its latch were the only thing keeping the nose gear from deploying so once the door latch was actuated, the nose gear deployed.
@@kiloalphasierra wow.
That would have been a 'no' for me. There may have been only 3 planes, and they may have been expensive. But there's only 1 me, and I find myself irreplaceable.
Regarding the Gemini ejection system, I believe John Young's comment was, "Probable death to escape certain death"
Cool. Typical John Young. A real pro of it's time but with a career dent due to a sandwich.
Exactly. Better than nothing.
Every ejection is a mild variation of that. The purpose of an escape system is to forestall death, not injury.
Young later said that if he had known about the uncommanded movement of Columbia's body flap during STS-1 launch, he would've aborted and ejected right then and there, and that almost certainly would've killed him and Bob Crippen, since the shuttle seats were later found to be unable to clear the SRB plume. I wonder if Bob Crippen still gets the shivers thinking about that.
I think he was right, because they had been soaking in pure O2 for a while...
I would add that Buran's ejection seat, called К-36РБ, was certified from ground up to 40 km, and up to Mach 3.5. This corresponds to 102s of a nominal launch trajectory.
These seats flew to space multiple times, first on different Progress spacecrafts and then on Buran obviously.
But the fun fact is that those ejection seats that flew 5 times on Progress were actually fired in flight to test them in relevant conditions ! The Progress escape tower was replaced with the seat that was installed in a special dedicated fairing, and the seats were activated at different times for each flight.
Progress - is a Cargo modification of Soyuz, and it has NO landing capsule or Launch Escape System!!
@@inslayionstorm7667 Yes, that's why they took a Soyuz escape tower fairing, mounted it on a Progress and modified it to accomodate the ejection seats that were activated during ascent.
What history books don't mention is that they strapped convicted criminals into the seats a few hours before launch. If they survived the ordeal, they'd be set free.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Bullshit!!..
Another noteworthy, and closely related technology, were the crazy ejection seats for the B-57 Hustler, and the XB-70 Valkyrie. As some have mentioned below.
Developing these solutions to safeguard the lives of aircrew while serving the nation at the edge of space, "deseve to be remembered" to quote The History Guy.
The B-57 escape capsule is one of my favorite odd little things on display at the National Museum of the US Air Force.
I think that would be the B-58.
That capsul was an insane engineering feat all on its own.
Weber Aircraft also built the systems that saved Neil Armstrong, Joe Algranti and Stuart Present in their LLRV/LLTV ejections and the escape systems in the NASA lifting body studies(M2-F2, HL-10 and X-24).
"I was the project test engineer on Gemini for Weber Aircraft. We were tasked to design, test and qualify it for McDonnell Aircraft (MAC) and NASA. We, Weber Aircraft spent three years in providing an escape system that was the most sophisticated and complex system ever envisioned. It had to provide the astronaut occupants with safe egress and recovery from (1) a pad abort condition should the booster suffer a catastrophic failure. The system had to eject the occupants more than 500 feet away and bring them safely to earth via a personal parachute, (2) a high speed max Q condition during the boost phase, (3) a high speed Mach 4 ejection at 45,000 and (4) a high altitude ejection up to 70,000 feet. A whole lot more than those currently in service with the F-35, F-22, F-16, F-15, B-2, etc. Weber also provided the lightweight systems used in NASA lifting bodies M2-F2, HL-10 and X-24 in addition to those for the LLRV and LLTV ( have the filmed footage of Neil Armstrong, Joe Algranti and Stuart Present ejecting from it).
Astronaut safety was the primary concern throughout the program and every conceivable failure mode and environment was considered.
Secondly, you were correct in listing the reasons for ejection seats. Jim Chamberlain had always championed them and with good reason for the Gemini program. The weight of an escape rocket system would have been many times that of the seats and they'd have spent much fuel getting to a safe altitude where the vehicle parachutes could be relied on to affect safe recovery.
Modern ejection seats have provided a 90% safe recovery rate for the past 50 years. And a good deal of the 10% failures are pilots delaying the decision to eject. There were some spinal compression fractures in early Martin Baker seats before we realized the importance of keeping onset rates below 150 gs/sec. Once that was solved there have been very few back problems due to ejections. More than 12,000 pilots have had their lives saved by ejection seats and I think they'd take exception to your comments regarding the safety and capabilities of ejection seats.
John Young and Gus Grissom were not at the Randsburg Wash facility of China Lake when the hatch problem caused only one seat to be ejected. I was there and had Jim Lovell and Frank Borman with me. And the seat did not "blast through the hatch." The system works like this...when either occupant pulls his ejection control handle to fire an initiator, the hot high pressure gas is routed to both hatch actuators. The hatch actuator initiator fires to start the hatch opening sequence. As the hatch actuator piston moves up it releases the hatch latches and starts opening the hatch. When the piston reaches the top of the actuator and hatch is locked in the open position, hot gas is vented off to the rocket catapult (rocat). The catapult ignites and moves the seat up the rails. When the seat reaches the top of the rails, the catapult is stripped off and the seat rocket is ignited. In this instance, the o-ring on the piston failed and hot gas was vented off to the rocat before the hatch was fully open. The seat moved up the rails and struck the hatch structure. This jammed the seat on the rails. Both the hatch structure and the seat headrest structure sustained some damage. The test dummy's helmet was cracked. When we were looking at the post-test damage, Jim looked over at Frank and inquired if maybe Frank might interested in trading seats; Frank thanked him for his kind offer, but decided that he was fully satisfied with his seat. MAC installed double o-rings on the piston and no further problems of this kind were encountered.
Since the seat is at the top of the rails when the rocket is ignited there is no flame inside the vehicle before that and no problem with oxygen environment.
While our astronauts are extremely intelligent, super test pilots and true American heroes, none of them that I'm aware have any experience whatsoever in escape system design. Several of them, including Tom S., did make derogatory comments about the Gemini seat system and that was unfortunate. They are human just like the rest of us, but their comments should not be taken as gospel.
Weber, MAC and NASA expended blood, sweat and tears for those three years (1962-1965) to provide our guys with the finest system available. It's very easy 50 years later to make derogatory comments regarding why certain decisions were made, but where were you when the decision had to be made?
Thanks for letting me vent!"
Mr Cross passed away 8 months ago, October 27, 2019 in his 86th year.
Scott...to go even further...both the Rockwell B-1a bomber and the General Dynamics F111 had crew ejection systems whereby the whole cockpit was ejected.
Good point, yet this was not addressed in his video. The National Aerospace Space Plane (NASP) considered a similar approach.
I'm not sure but Scott mention pod ejection. Perhaps that was what he meant, that the whole cockpit ejected for more protection especially from aerodynamic forces. I was thinking about those systems too while he was talking and would like to hear about them.
Even further than that, the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System means that the plane that Scott flies can eject its whole self in an emergency. (from the reference frame of the parachute cover)
@@johnp139 I think Scott was explicitly making the video about "seats" rather than capsules and pods. Those could encompass a whole other video.
Those weren't capable of spaceflight, though.
Thanks for the shout out. I don’t think many know about my many contributions to space research. It was a privilege to assist NASA in sorting what was a workable solution, from all my crazy ideas. It was a lot of fun, even if they never resulted in me feasting on some succulent roadrunner.
Your close relationship with ACME and your ability to bring their expertise to bear made you an invaluable asset to NASA, too. Great work at such an important point in history.
@@brianhaygood183 yah. You should see the work ACME has done on the Hydrogen valves for SLS.
Short story Scott. Raytheon originated the Killer Bee project under a management team that couldn't grasp a number of issues that killed the project for them. They sold the project to Swift...probably for pennies on the dollar...and Swift sold it to Northrop.
The whole story is one of gross incompetency. It gave grave insights into the US system of defense acquisition. I designed and made the original killer bee props. After about two weeks going back and forth with that team there was no question Raytheon would never finish it. Swift contacted me for help years later after they bough it. I sent them to John Roncz, considered an extraordinary guru in the aerodynamic community. Roncz is a Mozart.
I put Roncz, Drela, and a dead guy named Don Bates as the mozarts in their field. Bates designed many winning propellers for different teams in the Reno Air Races. Bates designed one of the models I sold commercially....he did well on that one.
Another reason for Gemini's ejection seats was the initial plan to use a rogallo wing to glide the capsule to a runway landing.
Thanks Mr Manley. I've have an odd fascination with spacecraft rescue systems ever since I first saw a diagram of the Saturn V with an 'escape tower'. I figured the astronauts had to climb up the tower to seek shelter. Seemed a bit unlikely to me. Kids.....
I had the same idea, even drew rockets with that system and small doors inside and people crawling through. Learning how it really functions was a disappointment in some ways, but far more impressive in others.
@@vmarek98 that's so funny and familiar. I was actually quite pleased to be wrong when I found out how they actually worked. I like to think we value our astronauts' safety more!
I'm glad I wasn't the only child that didn't quite grasp the concept.
I thought the same thing! I remember, on a trip to Kennedy Space Center (being the "space expert" in my family) telling my grandmother that the crew had to climb into the small rocket during an emergency! Glad to know I wasn't the only one to get this wrong!!!
@@user-rk3yb6nd1n Apparently there are lots of us, now of a certain age. I went on to be an aviation and space writer, have written about these escape systems, and the subject still fascinates me.
I cracked up when you said "sound familiar?" Also: I recently read the account in flying magazine of that disintegrating SR 71 and the death of that one pilot. The surviving pilot went through a pretty harsh time too. As you probably know he landed in the field - in the desert - and was rescued by a farmer who rushed out to meet him in his truck and took him to a nearby hospital. Great video Sky; I really enjoyed it!
I recently watched the TV videos of the first failed Gemini 6 launch, in which Schirra and Stafford chose not to eject. The whole GT6, GT7, and Agena rendezvous drama is one of the great NASA stories, but what amazed me in 2022, was the news coverage I had seen as a five year old, but didn't remember.
Broadcasting the launch (that wasn't) live, Walter Cronkite was ready to discuss the *to eject or not to eject* issue, in depth, as well as provide extraordinary (and accurate) details of the Gemini ejection seat system.
You can find that video on lunarmodule5's YT channel.
Because of that, my brother and I have been discussing ejection systems, and maybe two weeks later, find our favorite, Scott Manley, was already on it!
Awesome channel.
In addition to the B58 ejection capsules and the F111 cockpit ejection systems a reference to the XB-70 clam-shell seats - with which we unfortunately have experience (good and bad) - is probably in order.
Yeah, I consider that a bit more complicated than the X-15 system.
What timing for Scott to release this video just days before the New Shepard abort system gets triggered unexpectedly!
Great video.
Just a minor note on 4:59 - the Восход spacecraft can romanized as Voshod, but the 's' and 'h' sounds are separate. This is why Wiki gives it as Voskhod. There is no real 'k', but it separates the other sounds.
Also 4:08 - dogs names was "Belka & Strelka", not Bella. "Belka" in russian means "squirrel" and "Strelka" - is an "arrow".
@@mongoose404 Dammit, my language is close enough to Russian to give me the false impression of knowing what it means. 'Belka' in my language is an animal close to a ferret.
And Voshod is pronounced almost the same way, but means ascent, upwards trend. I was today years old when I learned it meant 'sunrise' in Russian. The Bulgarian meaning fits the space term so well :D
At this point I gave up and stopped trying to correct his pronunciation. If he wanted to learn how to pronounce names in Cyrillic, he would have done that long time ago.
I read an article by a person who had taken a closer look at the Gemini escape system. His girlfriend was a medical student and he used her as a resource. He concluded that an ejection from the Gemini capsule during launch would not have been survivable.
If they had gone with the original plan of using an inflatable wing to land on land like an airplane it might have been viable in the landing phase after reentry, but the pilots would probably have been injured.
Fortunately the escape system was never needed.
From what I can tell, they never did an in flight test (from a rocket) of the ejection seats, as they did with the Apollo launch abort system. That would give me zero confidence in the system.
It was always a hail mary thing anyway, and after Challenger's loss they redid the math and concluded that had Columbia's crew ever used the seats they'd have been killed by the SRB plume anyway.
Did they ever test the Gemini system by firing the seat from an oxygen-soaked boilerplate spacecraft? Granted- if you are ejecting from a broken rocket things are bad. But introducing fire to an oxygen-soaked system could make a bad day worse.
@@alanholck7995: I just happened to stumble upon the answer to that question, as I was looking up the Gemini 6A pad shutdown story. The answer is, no--the tests of the ejection seats were done from a boilerplate spacecraft pressurized with nitrogen. As quoted in the Gemini 6A Wikipedia page, pilot Tom Stafford remarked that he thought they were lucky Command Pilot Wally Schirra did not follow procedures and pull the D-ring when the engines shut down and a light on the panel said the rocket had lifted off--he believed that if they'd fired the ejection seats after soaking in 17psi pure oxygen for two hours, they would have been incinerated.
I'm not totally certain he's right, given what Scott said about the rockets on the ejection seats not igniting until after the seats had been kicked out of the spacecraft cabin. But it's not the kind of thing I'd like to try.
@Ron G: Sry but i find your reasoning kind of... meh.
What are saying? "It was never tested thus now that the rocket is actually exploding, i'd rather stay"?
To start with, rockets are pretty safe.
Also, an in fligh test, wouldn't that cost the rocket? If true, then it's not zero confidence but negative confidence you must have to insist on performing a test.
@@huyxiun2085
"Rockets are pretty safe."
I would argue that while rocket launches have a high safety record (I would exclude the CNSA from that statement), the idea of generating a controlled sustained explosion to accelerate into space and attain orbital velocity is inherently unsafe; the fact that rocket & aerospace engineers take this seriously is what leads to the consistently high success rate of rocket designs and launches.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for not having sponsors or spamming us with ads. While I recognize that you're still a UA-camr, your videos don't have that plasticky fake feeling that so many other do. Thanks Scott!
After watching Maverick escape Mach 10 from the SR-72 prototype, this has definitely been one of the questions I had.
That was probably the least realistic part of the movie
@@metachuko It was completely believable. Maverick was protected by plot armor and charisma. The plot armor is safe till about mach 4... the rest was charisma. :)
Maverick flew the plane, then the cabin, then the seat, then a wing suit, then a parachute, then his shoes, then hitch hiked, then had a drink. All at Mach 10. He is f’n Maverick.
Unless the cockpit separated from the fuselage during the disintegration and Maverick rode it to subsonic speeds before punching out, or the SR-72 had an escape capsule, he's dead moments after he pulls the ring
If you're bailing out at Mach 10 you're gonna need more than a glass of water to put you back together.
Some Martin-Baker ejection seats (notably the Mk. 7) have "face curtains" that the pilot pulls down over his face to initiate the ejection. This helps prevent the pilots face from melting during high-speed ejections and also causes the pilots arms to be in a safer place.
I had eyes on the proposal of the escape system for the shuttle which included the entire cockpit. Much like a modified Apollo capsule. The official rejection was due to payload reduction. One thing that disturbed me about the shuttle safety standard is that it was reduced to 99%, rather than the 99.9% afforded to military equipment. Meaning that for 100 flights, we would lose one, which is pretty much what happened.
S.E.A.C. made some amazing ejection seats, including the SR-71. Some of them from the Vietnam era kept the pilot in the seat as well in the attempt to get the pilot back in friendly territory.
12:56
Here is the fork point for another video (which Scott has previously partially covered) about the Shuttle Orbiter Crew Module Abort System, why it was never implemented, and how it might have saved the Challenger and Columbia astronauts.
There were a LOT LESS flights of the STS than with the least used military aircraft system. Less than 400, two losses, meaning 99.5% success rate.
@@johnp139 I'm no rocket scientist but I think it was 135 missions total. Maybe redo your math. My point was that 99% is a low number for an engineered success rate without some sort of safety system. After the first failure, I was tasked with building a bullshit mock up ejection system for Rockwell that involved explosive bolts on the hatch with a cylinder of small rockets that each astronaut would have to link a lanyard to, one person at a time. It was absurd. The apathy and politics of everything I saw was remarkable. I had regular conversations with Morton Thiokol workers about "things". I got out shortly thereafter.
You know it's cutting-edge when Wiley Coyote's name is invoked for comparison.
I love it when three words describe probably years of testing.. like Wile E Coyote. And everyone of a certain few generations knows exactly how those tests played out.
I recently watched the video on the first shuttle launch and the call out altitude for the ejection seats becoming usable on re-entry was a hundred thousand feet, I had to run it back and hear it again, it was nuts.
Right, at above 100k, the total temperature would be too great, not to mention that aerodynamic stabilizers wouldn’t be very effective.
I have now subscribed to enough interesting UA-cam channels that I could literally spend 24 hours a day and not keep up with all the fascinating content. Why the heck does anybody watch TV anymore?
I don't!!
only old people watch broadcast tv now. and places (in the world) where there is no internet.
many youtube, tiktok, and other social media channels get more views that broadcast tv shows do.
I don't. discovery channel animal channel etc are all repeating crap reality shows
what a time to be alive.
@@1MinuteFlipDoc Because as people age, they reach their tolerance for life changes.
Some have argued that there's been as much change in civilization in the last 120 years as in the previous 1200.
Columbia space shuttle ejection seats were borrowed from the US Air Force SR 71 maintenance inventory.
The SR 71 ejection seats were manufactured by Lockheed for the A12 andSR 71
Fascinating stuff, thanks so much Scott!
Sorry for nitpicking but at 06:00, you say that they fired all eight of Gemini's retrorockets in an abort after 75 seconds. The Gemini spacecraft had four solid retrorockets, not eight. That said, I'm always stunned at how much info you squeeze into these videos so an occasional fluff is entirely forgivable. Love your work.
except for the Gemini B for the MOL program, that had six, but you are correct about no Gemini having eight
This guy thinks that he knows WAY MORE than he ACTUALLY KNOWS!
@@johnp139 if you look at his profile, all of his comments are correcting things on videos lol. Maybe he does know some things. But still, theres a such thing as decorum. Just because you know more doesnt mean you have to SAY it.
Hi David. I came to make the same comment but you beat me to it.
@@MrGrace We are thankful for information sharing. Please say things in comments. UA-camrs and watchers want to learn, insatiably. Decorum of the kind you describe belongs in a royal dinner or something.
As a former Alameda County resident (the island) and Oakland Tribune delivery person I love your t-shirt.
Yes! Looks like a bit of Cabot Space and Science Center Schwag?
Great vid, Scott! I was in the USAF for many years and I learned a few things watching this! Fascinating!!!
Thanks, and keep up the excellent work.
Great vid! Checkout the egress systems for the B-58 Hustler and XB-70 Valkyrie.
Scott, I’m just amazed at the amount of information you can cram into 17 minutes.
I think the TRUE first man into space was Joe Walker in the X-15, , a year before Yuri flew. Joe Walker did go up and come back with the X-15, which was rocket powered and had reaction control that Joe used during his flight into space. It also had a kinda-high mach ejection seat. The Gemini abort,,with the ejection seats that were contemplated for a microsecond. Scary stuff. Thanks Scott.
Joe Walker may have entered space; Gagarin was the first human to orbit the earth in space. IDK what the international criteria at the time were, I do believe they have changed since the Cold War.
Looking at the list of X-15 flights, the highest altitude flight before Vostok 1 was flown by Joe Walker - reaching 169,600 ft/51,8 km (though it was a few days before Gagarin's flight, not a year). However it's way below either the US's definition of the edge of space (50 mi/264,000 ft/80,5 km), or the international Kármán Line (328,000 ft/100 km).
Even if we update our definitions, I doubt this flight will be counted as a spaceflight for a simple reason - there are high altitude balloons that can fly higher. A current record stands at 173,900 ft/53 km, which is just above said flight.
I don't wanna diminish Walker's accomplishments, or anyone else's from the X-15 program, I'm just pedantic about those things :P
This kind of aerodynamics is always so terrifying to me. Even sticking my hand out the window of my Piper Archer is an intimidating force of air blast.
They don't install turn signals on the Piper?
@@aspuzling Haha! That's actually a good one. But mostly I stick my hand out either to funnel the strong wind into the cockpit on a hot day, or if I'm throwing something out, which I don't do very often.
I thought that little window was part of the Cigarette-Jettison System. I'll have to stick my arm out it sometime.
I'll be sure not to walk under your plane while it's flying then 😂
Although the higher up, the less impact (literally) is from the aerodynamics, and the greater threat is from the THERMODYNAMICS.
Amazing Scott, that you do such an amazing job collecting all the data, researching, disseminating and then scripting the most interesting/relevant info for your videos!
Nice vid!
Although not space flight ejection, the B-58 and XB-70 bombers had ejection capsules for high-mach crew eject protection. NAA adapted some of the capsule tech for the X-15 seat without the enclosure mechanism to reduce weight.
Don't forget the Soviet Buran atmospheric flight test machine (OK-GLI, the equivalent of the STS Enterprise test ship) had ejection seats, and although the Buran K1 orbiter didn't have seats installed, it and it's later in-build sister ships had ejection portals built into the airframe for future fitment.
The B-58 Hustler and the XB-70 had pretty unique ejection systems as well. Both operated in the higher supersonic regimes and the xb-70 would have been just as high and fast as the sr-71.
Scott, I really enjoy your presentations. My hat is off to you on the research you put into these.
Hello Scott, you forgot mentioned ejection seat of Buran - Soviet shuttle. I think, it was the best life saver system of its time. You make very good job, i am your big fan !
No need for ejection seats on a shuttle with no crew.
K-36RB ejection seats
Exactly, he missed the closest thing to space system ejection seats. What an ignorant UA-camr.
The content turned out to be impressive, keep it up, Scott Manley.🥰
The story of the dogs that were saved by the warmth of the chutes is quite wholesome given the context.
Not really. He missed a lot of details and even the Buran ejection system. He’s such an amateur.
@@johnp139
I can't help but think that the ~1300ft gap between the balute separating and the chutes deploying would have been...interesting...for the astronaut in question.
Well by time it deploys you've already made peace, so if it fails you're not too surprised.
Actually, the F-106 still holds the single-engine speed record at 1,525mph.
Ummm actually...
X-15 was faster, but not an air breathing engine.
@@jrwickersham It separates from a carrier airplane, not single-engine or else the Saturn V is the fastest single-engine vehicle at TLI
@@ryanspence5831 Yeah, the X-15 had *nine* engines if you count the B-52 first stage.
Great video Scott. "Extremely" informative.
Lots of great historical info and "tongue in cheek"! Enjoyed every minute! :D
Northern Ireland had something to do with ejection seat technology or production. Love your show Scott Manley, cracking name btw.
The Valkyrie was designed with escape pods to try to improve survival in an ejection at Mach 3. Ironically, one of the pilots who ejected from a crashing Valkyrie was injured and trapped in the pod. I assume that the F111 pod was designed for the same reason, although it increased the risk of back injury if the pod didn't land in water.
Another great piece Scott. It was especially good to see more footage of the infamous X-15
Have you watched my video on Neil Armstrong’s X-15 emergency?
@@scottmanley No I haven't. But, I will look it up ASAP. Thanks
So good! You deserve every single one of your 1.5 million subscribers.
Pretty interesting indeed! Thanks, Scott! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Love the show, matey. Love that you have a copy of Matter back there as well, dude! Anyway, while I watch a lot of other similar stuff on ‘tinternet , yours is the least dumbed down and I very much appreciate that.
SPL
Terrific report, Scott. Thank you for giving us more details about the severely under-reported X-15 program.
Scott is such a great story teller!
Since you mention pyrotechnics, I just finished reading David Woods' How Apollo Flew to the Moon (a more technical read on the machinery and its operation in the Apollo missions), and it drove home how important pyrotechnic bolts and similar were. Every key step of the mission (including emergency procedures) relied on them. Don't know if there's enough there to warrant a video, but could be interesting.
Scott, I sort of wished you would have covered the ejection systems from the XB-70 Valkyrie and B-58 Hustlers. While these were not spacecraft, they were designed for mach 3 ejections. And they are just plain cool. Cheers. :)
I like the ACME parachutes personally. Meep, meep...
4:08 someone took the time to draw an accurately cute face for the dog. I can't :)
Another great vid Scott 👍
I remember one test of the Gemini eject seats where the seats worked fine but the hatches failed to open first. The seats (and the test dummies) punched holes through the hatches and ejected anyway. Thanks for the shout-out of the X-15 at the end! The X-15 is one of my favorites. NASA has a free downloadable book about that project on their web site and it's fascinating. Mercury and Gemini owed much to the processes, expertise, and equipment created for the X-15.
Timely video Scott! Given the issues with New Shepard.
Thanks! I really enjoy your videos. God bless you!
You were in a mood, a fun mood. Even extreme. The X-15 was the first model I ever had. Nothing else captured my imagination like that rocket plane.
As usual, outstanding video ! TY sir ! :)
I really like your presentations. Thanks
Great video, Scott
We almost found out what a Gemini ejection could do on Gemini 6A, but thankfully Wally Schirra's experience as a test pilot told him the Titan II did not liftoff, thus saving the mission.
Nice one Scott! 👊
Awesome video mate, love your channel, would love to see a video about the n1 soviet rocket there's not alot of video on it. Cheers
There were probably real deliberations on the X-15 about the viability of ejection survival or waiting and trying to get the aircraft under control or slower, given the risk of death at Mach 4.
Nice one scott!!!
I still like the B-58's system that closed a clamshell around the seat and used BEARS as test subjects.
Those ejection pods were wild.
It didn’t work too well for the XB-70.
Missed such a great opportunity to talk about how the US air force launched a bear in an ejection seat.
...
Of course the air force launched a bear. Why am I even surprised.
@@user-lv7ph7hs7l Because that should have been done by the Soviets! 😀
@@user-lv7ph7hs7l The bear was. He was described by the recovery team as "not happy"
@@tbjtbj7930 Oh jeez, thank you for that laugh.
@@tbjtbj7930 he was less happy after they euthanized him and dissected him to see what damage if any ejection had done to him.
Another awesome video Scott! Hows the flight lessons coming? Hopefully good!
As the A-12/SR-71 was a Lockheed product, it would make perfect sense for the design to carry over the seats from the F-104, also a Lockheed machine. No need to develop or procure components with peculiar constraints that would need "some 'splainin'" from anyone else, or even during in-house testing.
I've just deleted yet another spurious "Text Me, you've won a prize" message. When is UA-cam going to add a filter to suppress these irritants? A straightforward algorithm should catch them.
Great Scott! Hey I learned a little, thank you.
Always nice hearing the X-15 get some love.
I'm Scott Manley - Eject Safe!! =))
I request that Scott always take the free seat in the tiny intro rocket. Bring your own green man and you will be Scott-free!
Awesome information thanks
Scott: For the ALTA tests, Shuttle Orbiter Enterprise had the ejection seats also. Columbia was the only orbiter that went into orbit with the seats. @11:37 is actually a shot of Enterprise during one of the free-flight ALTA tests.
Great episode.
Cool, I had been wondering this same thing just the other day!
Thanks Scott for this review of ejection systems used not only in space craft but also high performance and high altitude jets.
Am I the only one who is really excited that Scott Manley pronounced "Mach" correctly? :D
(English speakers usually struggle with the German pronounciation of "ch")
Thx for another great video - was hoping you were going to sign off with '... eject safe!' 😊
Fascinating stuff. I would love to hear more about pod type ejection systems where the whole cockpit separates from the aircraft. I've seen one or two I think when touring air museums, but can't recall which specific aircraft. Edit: In the science fiction series "Space: Above and Beyond", the fictional aerospace fighters in the series had cockpits that could separate. Both for ejection and for boarding the fighter during normal operations. The cockpit would pop up to a pressurized boarding area while the fighter itself remained in a launch bay.
I'm just glad that no-one thought of trying the original F-104 downward ejection seat in one of these applications.
For what applications?
@@johnp139 The application of ejection seats to space vehicles, the subject of this video. "Application", as in the action of placing something into operation.
I can't believe the one guy who survived ejecting at three times the speed of sound.
Wiley Coyote military approved maneuver. Love you Scott.
I was an AME in the USN. My specialty was ejection seats (and other bailout options), cabin pressure, and air conditioning.
You mean ECS?
@@johnp139 This was a long time ago.
@@johnp139 I worked on 'Martin Bakers' and 'Escapepacks' or something like that McDonald Douglas was the company making the escapack.
I work at a school named Oakland University, so your shirt really threw me off there for a moment.
Have these seats saved many astronauts in production series launches?
Could you do a video on inertial guidance systems, thanks great video as always :)
Scott, please do a video of hydrolic analog computers in aerospace. I'm thinking of the A-12 mainly.
This is awesome!!!
Strange that I would have to resubribe to you channel after watching for so many years.
Scott, I thought the Columbia seats were reexamined after the Challenger accident and found to have been unable to get the astronauts clear of the SRB plume. Another reason to be thankful they were never used.
Mike Mullane's book has a lot of interesting anecdotes about shuttle safety, or lack thereof. He said shuttle emergency procedures were just something to read while you waited to die.
@@jshepard152 sadly that happened too many times.... Scott could should do a video on that topic
That's what I had read / heard as well - that after a certain altitude, the SRB plumes expanded to such a wide radius in the lower atmospheric pressure that the seats wouldn't be able to clear the plumes.
I have also been told (by UA-cam, so take it with a grain of salt--Scott's videos excepted of course) that the Shuttle ejection seats were primarily about the final approach and landing. Seems FAA regulations regarding experimental aircraft and populated areas meant NASA couldn't do an unmanned first flight with automatic landing at Edwards AFB. The ejection seats were there to give the pilots an escape if re-entry didn't go as planned and they had to drop the Shuttle into the ocean or somewhere in the desert to avoid crashing into downtown Los Angeles.
Look up the Zvezda K-36RB.
The B-1A bomber prototypes had cabin ejection systems. One was actually used during a crash but the crew was killed.
Both the B-58 & the XB-70 bombers had supersonic ejection pods.
Not quite.
Captain Pete Mitchell walked into a bar after surviving a Mach 10 ejection from the Darkstar. Incredible story that.
Who?
You fly safe, Scott Manley
Very interesting video! However - I was expecting something on the "flap" that comes down over the pilots head I have seen in videos from - I believe the Soviets. Best described as a square arm on a hinge mounted on top of the seat - where the square has some sort of fabric stretched over it. This square would flip down covering the pilots head with the fabric. I do not know it's intention but intuitively it seems to be there to keep the head locked in position while ejecting.
He mentioned the straps that deploy and lock arms in place. Pretty wild.