Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

NASA Will Man Destruct Switch Just In Case

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sat May 10, 2008 09:28 AM
from the explosions-are-cool dept.
NASA Space Science
Ant writes "Popular Mechanics reports if the looming Discovery mission or any other between now and the spacecraft's retirement loses control, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is prepared to ditch it in the Atlantic ocean — or blow it up. The article also shows complete no-fly-zone maps and a photograph of the switch."

Related Stories

Firehose:NASA Will Man Destruct Switch Just In Case by antdude (79039)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

NASA Will Man Destruct Switch Just In Case 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.

  • Four Buttons? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10, @09:32AM (#23360426)
    I don't understand why there are four switches. I mean, I understand "Arm" and "Destruct", but why "test"? Does that blow up just a small section of the shuttle? I would have thought that turning off the "Arm" would be the same as "Safe"

    I know, I know ... it's the engineers having a laugh. Getting a kick out of the confused looks on stupid people like myself.

    • Re:Four Buttons? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10, @09:48AM (#23360514)
      The "Test" button probably checks the detonation circuits, WITHOUT igniting the actual charges. And the "Safe" button is probably for permanently disarming the charges once the shuttle's in orbit.

      • Re:Four Buttons? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Alwin Henseler (640539) on Saturday May 10, @10:46AM (#23360846)
        Sure hope those are labeled correctly... just in case anyone at NASA would think it's a funny prank, I recommend NASA add one more rule to their launch procedures: "DO NOT lauch on April 1st"

        Best use a time window, to allow for differences in 'local time' (a relative notion for space operations)

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by maxume (22995)
              You are insinuating that the people who work in life and death situations at NASA are incapable of acting in a professional manner. It's preposterous.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Z00L00K (682162)
        This is not uncommon for many such systems where you want to verify the circuit to see that it actually will fire.

        The solution is even simpler, it just adds a resistor in the circuit so that the current flowing through the detonators are below ignition current.

        • Re:Four Buttons? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by MoonBuggy (611105) on Saturday May 10, @11:39AM (#23361256) Homepage

          I had also heard that the astronauts would visit the RSO before their flights with pictures of their families, just to be sure he knows exactly whose lives he would be affecting if he had to destroy the shuttle.
          That's interesting, I'd actually heard the opposite - that the RSO is not allowed to meet the astronauts at all in order to ensure that they make rational, not emotional, decisions if it comes down to it.

        • Re:Four Buttons? (Score:4, Funny)

          by c6gunner (950153) on Saturday May 10, @01:41PM (#23362132)

          I had heard once that there were two buttons the RSO had to use to blow up the shuttle, and that the first button activated an indicator in the cockpit that let the astronauts know what was about to happen.
          Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Only it's not an indication-light. It actually activates a system which releases streamers and balloons, while loud celebratory music blares out of hidden speakers, and an amplified voice yells "CONGRATULATIONS!!! YOU'VE WON A FABULOUS TRIP TO PARADISE!!!!".

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Detritus (11846)
      The test function allows you to verify that everything is working without blowing anything up or endangering anyone. Think of it as a "NOP" command to the launch vehicle's range safety system.
    • The test switch only works once.
    • I am no expert in man-machine interfaces, but I think I would make the Destruct switch a different kind of switch and color than the rest of the switches. It should be red and the others orange or yellow or something.

      I would just want to minimize as much as possible the chance that the destruct switch was accidentally activated if things got really hairy and fast moving and the range officer had to be prepared to blow the thing up.

      I know they toggles have the red guards on them so the officer would have to flip it up before actuating, and from the article it appears to be a two-step process (arm then destruct), but four identical switches next to each other for such a critical function just seems a bit risky to me. I think I might even make it a two-person job where the 2nd could destruct only after the first armed.

      But then I realize that by delaying the destruction, many more lives could be put in danger if the assembly was headed over populated areas. Still, four identical switches and buttons right next to each other, with such dissimilar functions seems a bit risky to me.

    • Slashdot Translation (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10, @12:13PM (#23361506)

      Test: ping

      Arm: login root

      Destruct: rm / -rf

      Safe: logout

    • Re:Four Buttons? (Score:5, Funny)

      by greeze (985712) on Saturday May 10, @04:51PM (#23363760)
      They should've had Apple design it. Apple would've done it with only ONE switch.

    • Re:Four Buttons? (Score:5, Funny)

      by syousef (465911) on Saturday May 10, @05:01PM (#23363850)
      I don't understand why there are four switches. I mean, I understand "Arm" and "Destruct", but why "test"? Does that blow up just a small section of the shuttle?

      That button is for mission controllers that wanted to be astronauts but didn't make the cut. It blows up just one astronaut, but leaves the shuttle flying. Correct procedure when using this button is to laugh maniacally then yell "Who wants to be an astronaut now, bitch!" before flicking the switch.

  • photograph (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10, @09:38AM (#23360458)
    I looked at TFA, and I gotta tell you, it's an exciting picture of the switch. Actually, it looks like FOUR switches and FOUR buttons. Well worth going to the site to see it.

  • Not news (Score:5, Informative)

    by FuturePastNow (836765) on Saturday May 10, @09:40AM (#23360468)
    This is such a non-story. NASA has a Range Safety Officer for every single launch, manned or not, and always has.

  • ...would be pretty nasty if someone if someone figured out how the radio comms for this function worked.

    • Encoded Signals (Score:5, Insightful)

      by reality-bytes (119275) on Saturday May 10, @10:19AM (#23360658) Homepage
      According to NASA documentation [nasa.gov], the SRB Range Safety system is operated by encoded signals.

      From the description in the document, it sounds like one coded signal to 'arm' and a second coded signal to 'fire'. I'd bet that due to the nature of the system, it's transmission method will be so simple that it rarely needs to be tested and as such gives little opportunity for homicidal black-hat analysis.

      Finally, I'll also bet that the codes are as top-secret as to-secret can be (as in: Get caught with this and you'll disappear forever). It wouldn't surprise me if the codes are created and handled by just one person on the day of use and never used again. Or perhaps two people where only one person knows the arm code and the other the fire code before the system is finally set.

      However it's done, I'd like to think that a hell of a lot of thought went into system security ;)

      • Re:Encoded Signals (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rorschach1 (174480) on Saturday May 10, @01:40PM (#23362122) Homepage
        Oddly enough, I've seen the hardware specifications for at least one of the command destruct transmitters. That part wasn't classified, but I'm not sure where I came across it - might have been in some old Range documentation I found in the office I inherited. I don't remember much, but I'm pretty sure there were at least a couple of different designs in use. I think one was a redundant 68HC11-based system. All I really remember is that the design struck me as very conservative and architecturally simple. I don't recall any mention of crypto procedures and protocols - what I read only concerned getting the destruct message from its origin to the vehicle.

        I'm sure the codes are tightly controlled. It's really not hard to design a very secure system, when it only needs to send one message, and that very rarely. An arbitrarily long, purely random key generated and distributed to the transmitter and receiver under tight security would do it. Denial-of-service would be a more difficult problem to address, but then jamming the signals isn't exactly easy when you're competing with some fairly high-power transmitters on high-gain dishes aimed right at the receiver. And they've got RF measurement vans that I assume patrol for interfering signals, malicious or otherwise.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jafafa Hots (580169)
      In Chris Kraft's autobiography, he talks about the range safety officer's job, and how during the lead-up to the first Mercury flights they were worried about that. There were always Russian "fishing trawlers" off the coast watching every test launch, and they were concerned about the Soviets blowing up a manned launch.

      Besides encoding the signals, the other thing they did was to use a different code during tests than they would during a real manned launch.

  • destruct switches _should_ look like that. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zarf (5735) on Saturday May 10, @09:58AM (#23360554) Journal
    You know, if you are going to have destruct switches... they really should look like that. A big turn key, solid, metal, single function panel that does nothing else. Heavy clunky switches that tell you you've done something. Yep, if you're going to have what is essentially a "big red button" that's how it should look. There's no mistaking that for the coffee dispenser switch. Putting modern "iPhone" styling on that would be a sin.

  • Already been used (Score:5, Informative)

    by camperdave (969942) on Saturday May 10, @10:12AM (#23360632) Journal
    Not only are the destruct switches active during each and every launch, they have actually been used on one particular launch. When Challenger's [wikipedia.org] external fuel tank blew up, destroying the shuttle, the solid rocket boosters started to fly out of control.

    At T+110.250, the Range Safety Officer (RSO) at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station sent radio signals that activated the range safety system's "destruct" packages on board both solid rocket boosters. This was a normal contingency procedure, undertaken because the RSO judged the free-flying SRBs a possible threat to land or sea. The same destruct signal would have destroyed the External Tank had it not already disintegrated.[11]

  • Sounds Familiar... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kyle_Katarn-(ISF) (982133) on Saturday May 10, @10:24AM (#23360692)
    Computer, activate self-destruct sequence, authorization Janeway Pi-One-One-Seven.

    "Warp core overload initiated"

    That's how they should do it...
  • can any of you actually imagine being a 'range safety officer'? Full govt pay, bennies, retirement, and all you have to do is sit by a switch panel during launches. Other than that it would be lots of paper reading and maybe some busy work to make it look like you are earning your pay.

    It's the job I want.

    • Re:What a kewl job (Score:4, Informative)

      by hughk (248126) on Saturday May 10, @10:43AM (#23360818) Journal
      RSO usually also has to do a lot of work before the launch. They are ultimately responsible that there have been no incursions into the various danger zones. This would mean they would be talking to police, coastguard as well.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TooMuchToDo (882796)
          It's akin to being an executioner. You may not do your job ever but once in your life, but once you've done it you're never going to want to do it again. That's what you're getting paid for.

  • As if this is new.. (Score:4, Informative)

    by bigattichouse (527527) on Saturday May 10, @10:39AM (#23360790) Homepage
    Its funny this is "news" - they've had that switch since day one, if I know the military. And the no-fly zone has probably be a registered flightplan with the FAA since a year before day one. Interesting, yes, but not news since at least 1978 (or whenever it was they were building the fleet). I knew a guy who worked on the software on the early fleet. Made me wonder about the whole thing.

  • More then one (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NewToNix (668737) on Saturday May 10, @11:04AM (#23361014) Journal
    Range Safety Officer per launch might be a good idea --like the idea behind one blank round in a firing squad, only in this case one live destruct, and some not active, but no one knows which are which.

    Two reasons for this come to mind, 1) The obvious not having to 'know' you were the only one who flipped the kill switch on people, and, 2) the effect of thinking it's only a one in some number chance it's really you flipping the kill switch means a faster response time (less emotional hesitation to interfere).

    For all I know they do this already... it seems like a reasonable idea to me anyway.

  • Other abort modes! (Score:5, Informative)

    by pumpkinpuss (1276420) on Saturday May 10, @11:16AM (#23361088)
    In addition to the destruct switch, there are other flight plans for an intact abort in case of problems. These abort modes are: Return to Landing Site (after SRBs are jettisoned, shuttle returns to Kennedy Space Center); East Coast Abort Landing where the orbiter lands on a different runway somewhere up the East Coast of the US; Transoceanic Abort Landing where the orbiter lands somewhere in Europe or Africa; Abort to Orbit; and Abort Once Around.

    The Solid Rocket Boosters can't be stopped once they are started, but they have their own navigation system (rate gyro assemblies, and inertial measurement units) that are considered as/more reliable as those on the orbiter due to the rigidity of the SRBs. So the reason this "self destruct" button exists is because there is no "off" button for the SRBs, but, as far as I know, it is only an issue if its quad-redundant navigation system fails and somehow its thrust gets stuck in an unsafe vector, and that is very unlikely.

    More detail, including why you can't jettison the flight deck with all the crewmembers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes [wikipedia.org]

  • Technical details (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10, @01:01PM (#23361812)
    For the technical details on how this works, check out an old Risks article here [ncl.ac.uk]. They put a lot of thought into the system.
  • in his book "Riding Rockets". The Range Safety system is nothing new, having been on almost every manned and unmanned launch that NASA or the USAF ever put up. The RSO is an Air Force officer, who intentionally avoids any social contact with the astronauts, so as not to allow personal feelings override his/her duty to protect the public from a wayward launch.

    In Mullane's book, he questions the the mindset of the NASA engineer who thought it a good idea to have the RSS system light an indicator lamp in the shuttle cockpit, giving the astronauts a second or 2 of notice (with no way to intervene) before the charges go off.

    He also relates an amusing story of a fellow astronaut making obscene comments about the RSO's mother over the Air/Ground link as they sat on the pad waiting out a launch hold.

    • Re:People inside? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chris Mattern (191822) on Saturday May 10, @09:48AM (#23360516)

      Didn't RTFA, but are they planning on blowing it up with people inside, if something goes wrong.


      Yes, they are. They always have. *Every* NASA rocket launch includes a self-destruct to prevent ground casualties. This includes the manned missions. In such cases where it would be used, the crew is either dead or will unavoidably be dead very shortly, and the lives on the ground must be saved.

      • Re:People inside? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rorschach1 (174480) on Saturday May 10, @10:50AM (#23360880) Homepage

        And if you need an example of why those destruct systems are required, watch this [youtube.com].

        I've met at least one of the Range Safety Officers while working out at Cape Canaveral. It's not something they like to talk about much, when it comes to the Shuttle.

        • Re:People inside? (Score:4, Informative)

          by tgatliff (311583) on Saturday May 10, @11:41AM (#23361266)
          You really do not need to find an example... They used this procedure during the Challenger accident. Meaning, once the main booster had already exploded, they quickly detonated the individual spiraling side boosters to prevent potential problems. In this case the crew and craft had already separated and were presumed already dead, but they still needed to use the detonation procedure...

        • Yes, this is not news. But they have a picture of THE SWITCHES. Ooh, aah.
          That's so that visitors know what not to fuck with while on tour.
    • Seriously, what is going on with these things? Is there a stenographic message in that mess? Someone testing out AI language algorithms? I'm afraid to click "Read the rest of this comment..." because maybe someone did find the snowcrash virus.

    • build a newer & better launch vehicle, the space shuttle belongs in an automobile wrecking yard (or a museum)...
      You make it sound so easy.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rubycodez (864176)
      Did you just fall off the turnip truck? all rockets launched have this, manned and unmanned; all military missiles from short range and upward have this; private rockets will be required to have self-destruct capability also. Rockets bound for orbit have enough energy in their fuel tanks to equal yield of tactical nuclear weapon. If it malfunctions and heads for populated area of course it has to be destroyed, seven people on board who are going to die anyway should not take out hundreds or thousands on t

      • Re:Space Shuttle Discovery (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Jesse_42 (754610) on Saturday May 10, @11:06AM (#23361032)
        The other issue, just as important as the explosives, is all the other chemicals on board - many of which are highly toxic. This includes chemicals like monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) used in the Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem (OMS) and in the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) for control. It is great stuff, you mix it with nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) and they ignite with no spark or air required. At the same time, by the time you can smell it, you have been exposed to ten times the lethal dose. Remember when Columbia crashed and they told everyone not to go near the wreckage? this was one reason why.

        As the parent said, remote destruct capabilities are simply par for the course when your strapping things to that much explosives and toxic chemicals. Really it should make us feel safer that NASA is honest about the risks and is willing to do what it needs to do to insure (as best as possible) public safety.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jesus_666 (702802)
        Maybe the GP wants a way of putting people into space that doesn't involve rockets. A giant catapult maybe? If we'd breed stronauts that can withstand acceleration forces of, say, 200g, space exploration would be much easier.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.