Soyuz ship rescue system. Sympatho-adrenal system (sas). Multiple data sources

The most reactive, powerful and steadily functioning regulatory systems responsible for the inclusion of a variety of compensatory-adaptive reactions, as well as some pathological reactions of the body in response to any, and even more so shock-related, trauma is SAS.

The significance of SAS activation, accompanied by an increase in the production and action of catecholamines (CA), is reduced primarily to participation in the urgent switching of metabolic processes and the work of vital regulatory (nervous, endocrine, immune, etc.) and executive (cardiovascular, respiratory, hemostasis, etc.) other) systems of the body to an "emergency", energetically wasteful level, as well as to mobilize the mechanisms of adaptation and resistance of the body when exposed to shock factors. However, both an excess and a deficiency of CA can have a clear pathogenic effect on the body.

In the initial periods of shock, the number of discharges in the efferent sympathetic nerve fibers increases; the synthesis and secretion of CA in adrenergic neurons, especially in the terminals of their nerve fibers, as well as adrenaline (A), norepinephrine (NA), DOPA, and dopamine in the adrenal medulla and in brain tissues (mainly in the hypothalamus and in the cerebral cortex) ), the level of CA in the blood rises (from 2 to 20 or more times in comparison with the norm) and their entry into various tissues and organs increases for a short time, and then MAO activity in the cells of various organs is normalized, alpha and beta adrenergic receptors are excited. This results in various physiological changes (increased tone of the central nervous system, including higher autonomic and endocrine centers, an increase in the frequency and strength of heart contractions and the tone of arterioles in most organs, mobilization of blood from the depot, as well as increased metabolism due to the activation of glycolysis, glycogenolysis, glyconergenesis , lipolysis, etc.). An important place in the activation of SAS in developing shock belongs to reflexes with nocy-, baro- and chemoreceptors of tissues, blood vessels, heart, arising in response to their alteration, hypogemoperfusion, hypoxia and metabolic disorders.

Immediately after a severe mechanical injury and in the first hours after it, the content of A in the blood of the victims increases 6 times, and of NA - 2 times. At the same time, an increase in the content of CA in the blood directly depends on the severity of hypoxemia, hypoxemia and acidosis (Serfrin R., 1981).

In traumatic and hemorrhagic shock, the content of A and HA in the blood increases 10-50 times, and the release of A by the adrenal glands - 8-10 times (Vinogradov V.M. et al, 1975). However, in the first 30 s after the injury, there is an increase in the content of A and a decrease in NA in the blood and tissues of the adrenal glands and hypothalamus (Eremina S.A., 1968-1970). The release of A reserves by cells of the medulla on / of the buccal glands significantly increases and the processes of restoring these reserves during anaphylactic shock are activated (Rydzynski K. et al., 1986).

In rats, during the first hour of prolonged crushing of the soft tissues of the thigh (DRMT), the content of A, HA, DOPA, and dopamine in the adrenal glands and in the blood increased rapidly and significantly; the level of A and HA in the brain, lungs, liver and kidneys increased, while in the intestine and damaged muscles it decreased (Yelsky V.

N., 1977-1982; Nigulyanu V.I. et al., 1984). At the same time, the content of precursors (DOPA, dopamine) significantly decreased in many organs (brain, lungs, liver, kidneys, small intestine, skeletal muscles) and increased in the myocardium. By the end of the 4-hour period of tissue compression in the adrenal glands, the level of A and DOPA decreased, the content of HA and dopamine increased, which is a sign of a weakening of the function of the adrenal medulla. At the same time, the content of A in many organs (with the exception of the small intestine and skeletal muscles) continued to remain increased, while the content of HA, DOPA, and dopamine in the brain, lungs, liver, kidneys, intestines, and muscles decreased. Only in the heart, against the background of a decrease in NA, an increase in the content of both A and DOPA and dopamine was noted.

6-20 hours after the cessation of tissue compression, the content of A, HA, DOPA in the adrenal glands and in the blood progressively decreased, which indicates inhibition of CA synthesis in chromaffin tissue. The amount of A in a number of organs (brain, heart, etc.) remained increased, and in some (kidneys, intestines) - decreased, while the content of HA, DOPA and dopamine was reduced in all studied organs (especially in the intestine, liver and damaged muscles). At the same time, a persistent decrease in MAO activity in the cells of various organs was noted.

According to V.V.Davydov, 4 and 8 hours after the cessation of 4-hour tissue compression, the level of A in the adrenal glands decreased by 45 and 74%, respectively, HA - by 38 and 62%, dopamine - by 35 and 50%. At the same time, the content of A in the blood plasma, in comparison with the norm, was respectively increased by 87 and 22%, and the content of NA was reduced by 35 and 60%. Moreover, the severity and outcome of shock directly correlated with the initial hyperactivity of the SAS.

In the torpid phase of traumatic shock in dogs, the content of A and HA in the adrenal glands is reduced in comparison with the erectile phase, but higher than normal (Eremina S. A., 1970). With the deepening of the torpid phase against the background of an increased content of A, the level of NA sharply drops in the blood, and in the tissues of the brain (hypothalamus, cerebral cortex), myocardium and liver, the content of adrenal and extraadrenal CA also decreases.

1984). With burn shock, the secretion of A by the adrenal glands is increased, HA decreases, as evidenced by an increase in A in the blood and a decrease in HA (Saakov B.A., Bardakhchian E.A., 1979). As the shock deepens, there can be either a decrease (Shu Chien, 1967) or an increase (V.M. Vinogradov et al., 1975) impulses along sympathetic fibers.

A high level of CA in the blood of severely injured patients is increased and reaches a maximum before death (R. Serfrin, 1981). One of the mechanisms of hyprecatecholaminemia is inhibition of the activity of enzymes responsible for the metabolism of CA.

In the terminal period of the torpid phase of traumatic shock, the number of CAs (especially NA) in the adrenal glands and other organs: kidneys, liver, spleen, heart, and brain significantly decreases (Gorbov A.A., 1976). In the stage of irreversible shock, the content of catecholamines in the body is depleted, the reaction of adrenergic receptors to exogenous CA decreases sharply, and MAO activity also decreases (Laborit N., London A., 1969).

In the period of deep post-hemorrhagic hypotension and hypovolemia, both inhibition of CA release from the endings of sympathetic nerve fibers and autoinhibition of the adrenergic receptor system are possible (Bond R., Jonson J.,

With endotoxic shock, dystrophic (necrotic) changes in adrenal receptors of the adrenal glands and their functional insufficiency develop (Bardakhchian E. A., Kirichenko Yu. T., 1985).

Elucidation of the functional activity of SAS in shock (synthesis, secretion of CA; their distribution in blood, tissues, organs; metabolism, excretion and manifestation of physiological action as a result of interaction with the corresponding adrenergic receptors) is of great diagnostic, pathogenetic and prognostic significance. The pronounced activation of the SAS that arises in the early stages after a shock injury is a biologically expedient reaction of the injured organism. Thanks to it, vital adaptive and homeostatic mechanisms are switched on and activated, in the implementation of which various parts of the nervous, endocrine, cardiovascular and other systems, as well as metabolic processes, take part.

The activation of the SAS, aimed at ensuring the metabolic and functional activity of the autonomic and somatic parts of the nervous system, makes it possible to maintain blood pressure at a safe level with a reduced MVC, provides a satisfactory blood supply to the brain and heart against the background of a decrease in blood supply to the kidneys, intestines, liver, muscles.

Increased production of A is aimed at stimulating the vital activity of an important adaptive system - GG AS (Davydov V.V., 1982, 1987; Axelrod T. et al., 1984). The activation of SAS contributes to the increased release of opioid peptides (including endorphins by the pituitary gland, met-enkephalins by the adrenal glands), which weaken the hyperactivity of the nociceptive system, disorders of the endocrine system, metabolic processes, microcirculation (Kryzhanovsky G.N. et al., 1987; Pshennikova M.G. ., 1987), enhances the activity of the respiratory center, weakens acidosis, stabilizes the acid-base state (Bazareich G. Ya. Et al., 1979, 1988), provides mobilization of metabolic processes through changes in the activity of adenylate and guapilate cyclase systems of membranes cells, lipolysis, glycogenolysis, gluconeogenesis, glycolysis, energy and water-electrolyte metabolism, etc. (Yelsky V.N., 1975-1984; Me Ardle et al., 1975).

However, both excessive and insufficient SAS activity contributes to the development of microcirculation decompensation, increased hypoxia and dysfunctions of many tissues, organs and systems, complicates the course of the process and worsens its outcomes.

An excess of endogenous and / or exogenous CA can have undesirable side effects during shock also on various complexes of the endocrine system. It reduces the body's tolerance to glucose arising from the activation of glycogenolysis and inhibition of insulin secretion (due to the stimulation of the alpha receptors of beta cells of the pancreatic islets of Langerhans), suppresses the secretion of not only insulin, but also thyrotropin, prolactin and other hormones ... Opioid peptides, which are intensely released during shock and various types of stress (Lishmanov Yu. B. et al., 1987), limit the activation of SAS due to both inhibition of HA secretion and inactivation of adenylate cyclase in the postsynaptic membrane. Thus, opioid peptides can have a protective effect, limiting the excessive activation of SAS, weakening and even preventing the damaging effect of catecholamines.

Weakening of excessive activity of SAS in trauma by the appointment of neuroleptics and tranquilizers (Nasonkin O.S. et al., 1976; Davydov V.V. et al., 1981, 1982), leyenkephalins (Kryzhanovsky G.G. et al., 1987 ), beta-blockers (Novelli G. et al., 1971), alpha-blockers (Mazurkevich G.S., 1976) reduces the severity of shock. When prescribing CA for shock, both positive and negative therapeutic effects can be detected.

Prescription in shock of NA and especially CA precursors (phenylalanine, alpha-tyrosine, DOPA, dopamine) can alleviate, and - A and mezatone either does not change, or makes the shock heavier (Vinogradov V.M. et al., 1975; Laborit N. et al., 1969). In this regard, the data presented above on the changes in the shock dynamics of the content of A, HA, DOPA and dopamine in various tissues and organs become more understandable (against the background of a long and significant increase in the content of A, the level of HA, DOPA and dopamine after an increase rather quickly and significantly decreases) ...

A sharp inhibition of SAS weakens the defense mechanisms in shock. Thus, the destruction of central adrenergic axons and endings, in comparison with peripheral sympathectomy, leads to damage to the hypothalamus and a decrease in the general reactivity of the body during tourniquet shock in rats (Stoner N. et al., 1975).

In the deep torpid phase of shock, especially in its terminal period, there is not only a significant decrease in the SAS function, but also the greatest decrease in the delivery of CA to the cells of many. their tissues and organs and a decrease in their physiological activity. As the torpid phase of shock progresses, the role of CA in the regulation of various * metabolic (mainly energy) and physiological (mainly hemodynamic) processes is noticeably weakened.

Opioid peptides, which are actively produced in shock, clearly inhibiting both the release of CA from the terminals of sympathetic fibers in the vessels, and their physiological effect, contribute to the progression of arterial hypotension and inhibition of blood circulation (Guoll N., 1987), which means the severity of shock. The increased post-traumatic production of opioid peptides, contributing to the weakening of the SAS activity under conditions of progressive hypovolemia and hypotension, can be transformed from a defensive reaction into a damaging one.

Thus, changes in the functions of SAS, CA metabolism in tissues and organs, and their physiological action play an important role both in the pathogenesis and in the treatment of shock. One of the compensatory-adaptive reactions of the injured organism should be attributed to the rapidly emerging and rather long-term storage of the feeling of well-developed SAS, which

is under the following conditions: an increase in the synthesis and secretion of chromaffin tissue and adrenergic neurons of CA (DOPA, dopamine, HA, A); an increase in the transport and entry of CA into tissues and organs; an increase in the physiological activity of CA (ensuring the activation of the HPAS, the formation and maintenance of the centralization of blood circulation, the stimulation of respiration, the stabilization of the acid-base state of the internal media of the body, the activation of enzymes of energy metabolism, etc.). Pathological reactions in shock include both excessive and insufficient in strength and duration activation of SAS, and even more a progressive decrease in its functions, especially a decrease in the content of NA, DOPA and dopamine in blood and tissues, inhibition of MAO activity in tissues, decrease and perversion of sensitivity adrenergic receptors to CA. In general, such a reaction of the SAS contributes to the acceleration of the decompensation of the various functions of the body.

However, to date, both the features of the activity of various links of the SAS in the dynamics of different types of shock (not only in the clinic, but also in the experiment) and the significance of its changes in the genesis of various adaptive and pathological reactions of the body have been insufficiently studied.

CENTRAL ALARM SYSTEM - DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

With the help of light and sound signals, the internal alarm system notifies the crew members about the operating modes of aircraft systems and assemblies.

The central part of the internal alarm system is the SAS-4M emergency warning and notification system.

The aircraft is equipped with light signal boards and brushes.

SYSTEM SAS-4M - DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

1. DESCRIPTION

The emergency, warning and notification system SAS-4M is a central alarm system and is designed to alert the crew members with the help of light and sound signals about failures, malfunctions and modes of operation of aircraft systems and assemblies.

The SAS-4M system includes:

- five blocks of emergency warning signals BAP-1M;

- three blocks of notification signals BU-1M;

- two switching units BK-7M;

- two red and two yellow central signal lights (CSO);

- "CONTROL" button.

The blocks are installed on racks between frames No. 7-8 on the port and starboard sides.

The SAS-4M system receives signals from aircraft systems and units in the form of a voltage level of 18-29.4 V DC and provides:

- waveforms in accordance with table. one;

- manual control of the brightness of light signaling devices, signal boards, central control system, buttons-boards, display control panels PUI-148 of the complex electronic indication and signaling system KSEIS-148 (hereinafter referred to as KSEIS) using the "Brightness" resistor;

- switching on and flashing mode of the red CSO and the appearance of a buzzer in the phones of the headsets when an emergency signal is received from the aircraft system when the CSEIS is not working. When the KSEIS is running, the buzzer is blocked, the alarm is accompanied by a voice message or a tone signal, the KSEIS is generated;

- turning on the yellow CCO in the flashing mode when a warning signal is received from the aircraft system;

- issuing a command to suppress the signal of a strong attractive action in the CSEIS when you press the corresponding lamp-button of the CSO and turn off the CSO;

- automatic blocking of switching on of yellow central control centers during the operation of red central control centers with simultaneous activation of emergency and warning alarms;

- centralized control of the operation of the blocks, light signaling devices and central control system using the "Control" button.

Basic data

Supply voltage ………………………… .. 27 V

Signal frequency in flashing mode ... (2.6 ± 0.5) Hz

Buzzer type signal parameters:

- frequency of a tone signal ……………… .. (2000 ± 400) Hz

- chopping frequency ………………………… (2.6 ± 0.5) Hz

The location of the controls of the SAS-4M system is shown in Fig. one.

The functional purpose of the controls and controls of the SAS is given in table. one

The SAS-4M system receives power from the emergency buses AVSH1 and AVSH2 of the left and right RU 27 V.

WORK

ALARM

When an alarm is received from any system or unit, the BAP-1M unit turns on the corresponding alarm indicator and at the same time issues a command to the BK-7M unit to turn on the red lamp-button TsSO in a flashing mode and to generate a sound signal for ABCA. When the red lamp-button of the CSO is pressed, a command is sent to the BAP-1M unit, which stops sending a signal to the BK-7M unit to turn on the sound signal and the CSO.

When a signal is removed from the system or unit, the corresponding hazard warning lamp goes out.

WARNING SIGNALS

When a warning signal is received from any system or unit, the BAP-1M unit turns on the corresponding warning light signaling device and at the same time issues a command to the BK-7M unit to turn the yellow CCO into flashing mode. When you press the yellow lamp-button of the CSO, a signal is sent to the BAP-1M unit, turning off the CSO, after which the CSO is ready to receive the next signal.

When a signal is removed from the system or unit, the corresponding warning light goes out.

When the emergency flasher and the red button lamp of the TsSO are in flashing mode, the BAP-1M unit sends a signal to the BK-7M unit to block the warning flashers and the yellow button lamp TsSO. After pressing (turning off) the red CCO, the warning signaling resumes its work.

WARNING AND WARNING

(WITHOUT OUTPUT TO DSS) SIGNALING

When a notifying or warning (without access to the central monitoring station) signal of any system or unit arrives, the BU-1 unit turns on the corresponding notifying or warning light indicator in the constant burning mode.

When the signal from the system or the unit is removed, the corresponding indicator goes out.

ALARM CONTROL

When you press the "Control" button, the voltage of 27 V is supplied to the control inputs of the CAC system units. In this case, the red CSO should work in a flashing mode, a sound signal (buzzer) should be sent to ABCA.

When KSEIS is turned on, the SAS buzzer should turn off and a tone signal or a voice message generated by KSEIS should appear.

When the "Control" button is pressed and the red lamp-button ЦСО is pressed, it should go out.

When the "Control" button is pressed and the red lamp-button ЦСО is switched off, the yellow lamp-button ЦСО should work in a flashing mode.

When the "Control" button is pressed and the yellow lamp-button ЦСО is pressed, it should go out.

When the "Control" button is pressed and the "Brightness" resistor is rotated, the brightness of the central control panel, light signaling devices, light signal panels, panel buttons should change.

When “Control” is released, all previously lit indicator lights should go out.

USA. SAS was founded in 1976 by Anthony Barr, James Goodnight, John Sall and Jane Helvig. Initially, the name SAS is an acronym for Statistical Analysis System, which over time began to be used as a proper name to denote both the company itself and its products that have long gone beyond simple tools for statistical analysis. SAS is now a registered trademark. SAS is currently the largest privately held software company.

history of the company

The first basic SAS product, released in the year the company was founded (1976), was used for statistical data analysis. The software package consisted of several modules that ran on IBM mainframes. In addition to the standard mainframe practice of executing programs in batch mode, SAS offered an option that was original for that time - a windowed interface for developing and executing programs. The program was written in one window, the results of its work were displayed in another, and the logs were displayed in the third. As other types of computers emerged, SAS developed applications that ran in the new environment. Thus, SAS users could work on computers running any operating system. SAS applications can now run on personal computers, both networked and offline. thumb | 200px | SAS campus entrance

SAS Russia / CIS

A representative office of SAS in Russia and the CIS countries was opened in 1996. Clients are offered a full range of services - consulting, implementation of implementation projects, training and technical support.

On February 1, 2003, during its descent from orbit in the sky over Texas, the space shuttle Columbia lost stability and collapsed. The death of the seven crew members was quick, but they probably managed to realize what was happening. What the astronauts felt in those seconds, we no longer know, but it is not hard to guess what the engineers who created and prepared the reusable spacecraft thought after the disaster: “Why did the disaster happen? Have I done everything to avoid this? Did the astronauts have a chance to survive? " The answer to the last question is unambiguous: it was impossible to save the crew of the Columbia, because the ship's design simply did not provide for this. Photo above: NASA / ISC

The reliability of the means by which man is able to reach space is far from ideal. A rocket is a complex structure, 90% or more of explosive fuel. The fireball of a launch vehicle, such as Proton or Saturn-5, that flared up at the start is a phenomenon that is outwardly similar to the detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon and is fatal to all living things within a radius of several hundred meters from the epicenter. But even in normal flight, huge loads from the thrust of engines and aerodynamic forces tend to shake, crush, break the rocket and the ship. A refusal may occur at any time. Therefore, from the very beginning of space exploration, the developers paid special attention to the cosmonaut emergency rescue system (SAS), which should work flawlessly in those situations when the rest of the equipment fails.

If the flight is in the normal mode, all systems of the complex work, except for this one. But in the event of a serious failure or, even worse, a missile accident, SAS is the only chance to save the life of the crew. For many interested in astronautics, this abbreviation is associated with an intricate turret located at the very top of the launch vehicle. "Bashenka" is a propulsion system for an emergency rescue system (DU SAS). But it is only the tip of the iceberg, consisting of many technical devices that allow specialists on Earth to keep their finger on the pulse in order to solve only one problem - to save the crew by all means.

Rescue at the start

Refueling a Soyuz rocket with propellants is a rather dangerous operation. Therefore, the cosmonauts take their places in the spacecraft only when it is completed - two hours before the scheduled launch. After that, no active actions are usually performed with the rocket - no electric commands are given, valves and other mechanisms are not activated. This virtually eliminates the possibility of an explosion. In the event of other emergency situations - failure of onboard systems, a sharp deterioration in weather conditions - it is not difficult to evacuate the crew from the start, and even haste is usually not needed.

It is much more difficult to save the astronauts in the last stages of prelaunch preparation, when the personnel have already left the maintenance tower and the rocket is actively preparing for launch. Therefore, exactly 15 minutes before the scheduled start, the SAS propulsion system is brought into readiness. From that moment until the ascent into the upper atmosphere, it is capable at any time to tear off the ship with the crew from the emergency missile, take it to the side and ensure a soft landing.

On September 26, 1983, the next Soyuz was to be launched to the Salyut-7 orbital station. Cosmonauts Vladimir Titov and Gennady Strekalov took their places, the final preparations for the launch were underway. From the control bunker, they did not immediately notice how, 108 seconds before the estimated launch time, a fire broke out in the fuel system of the first stage of the rocket. Moreover, some participants in the launch initially mistook the smoke for the usual picture of the engines reaching the mode, although the "ignition" command was not announced over the speakerphone. Only six seconds after the visual detection of the flame, the launch manager, General Alexei Shumilin, and the technical director of the launch vehicle preparation, Alexander Soldatenkov, almost simultaneously gave the command to turn on the SAS. The operators passed the command for four seconds, and the automatics worked for a little more than a second. The powerful turret engines roared and pulled the Soyuz out of the fireball - a second before that, the flame had completely engulfed the launch vehicle. The flight took five and a half minutes, after which the descent vehicle landed four kilometers from the burning launch. This was the only case in the history of astronautics when the SAS remote control system had to be used to save the crew, and it coped with its task with dignity.

The rescue system must function in any conditions, up to and including an uncontrolled chaotic fall of a rocket. To do this, first, the main engines of the SAS tear off the salvaged part from the rocket and quickly take it to the side, and then the control engines are turned on, which form the desired descent trajectory. The transience of many emergency situations requires high performance from the SAS. Therefore, all of its engines are solid fuel. Compared to liquid ones, they are simpler, more reliable and faster to gain maximum thrust. But you can't go too far with the power of the engines. An overload of 20 units, acting in the direction "from chest to back", a person is able to endure for only about a second. This time is not enough to take the rescued part of the ship to a safe distance from the rocket. It is necessary to limit the thrust of the rescue engines so that the overload does not exceed 10-15 units, but this acceleration can be maintained longer.

First concern

On November 7, 1963, Wallops Island in the US state of Virginia lit up with a flash of light, accompanied by a monstrous, albeit brief, roar. Ahead of the puffs of smoke, a small cone-shaped object rushed upward and in a matter of seconds rose to a height of more than a kilometer. No, it was not a UFO! This is how the first tests of the SAS of the new Apollo spacecraft, which was supposed to deliver the first Americans to the moon, took place. Neither the Saturn-5 launch vehicle, nor even the entire ship itself existed, and the SAS tests have already been carried out!

This system is so important that it is with its creation and testing that the development of a manned system begins. The rocket can still only be in the blueprints, and the ship in the mock-up, but the rescue system must be ready for testing. In the first (most important) tests, the separation of the ship from the rocket at launch is checked. Usually, during tests, a mock-up of a ship with a parachute system is used, and the only operational part is the SAS control system with the necessary subsystems. So the development of not only "Apollo" began. This procedure was passed by the "Mercury", "Soyuz", the transport supply ship (TKS) for the station "Almaz", the Chinese "Shenzhou" ... And now the newest American lunar Orion is being developed.

Sometimes special rockets are created to test rescue systems. The Americans made the Little Joe 1 rocket to test the SAS of the Mercury spacecraft, and the Little Joe 2 rocket for Apollo. They were used to test the performance of the system at maximum high-speed heads and in an uncontrolled fall. Soviet developers approached the matter on an even larger scale. Experimental launches of fully equipped standard Proton missiles were carried out; All this is necessary in order to ensure the highest reliability of the system in a manned flight. "Proton" failed the creators of TKS only once, and then SAS rescued the upper reentry vehicle "Sparky".

Much more trouble fell on the lunar program. During the launches of unmanned spacecraft L-1 ("Zond") for flying around the Moon, SAS rescued descent vehicles four times in case of accidents with the "Proton". She coped with her task without comment at all stages of the launch - from the moment of maximum aerodynamic resistance to the failure of the last stage of the rocket. During emergency launches of the lunar carrier N-1, SAS also operated normally.

Disservice

They say: "And an unloaded gun shoots itself once a year." There was a case when, due to a logical error, the most reliable SAS caused fatal consequences. On December 14, 1966, it accidentally triggered after canceling the launch of the Soyuz unmanned spacecraft. At this time, fuel was already drained from the rocket at the launch site. The inclusion of the SAS engines caused a fire and subsequent explosion of the carrier. Thanks to the decisiveness and attentiveness of the launch manager, it was possible to evacuate almost all the personnel who were near the rocket at that moment. Alas, there were some casualties: Engineer-Major L.V. Korostylev, who led the launch team in the group of the ground equipment complex. An analysis of the causes of the accident showed that the gyroscopes of the missile control system, after the launch was canceled, continued to rotate - until they came to a complete stop, they needed as much as 40 minutes - and "tracked", as expected, the spatial position of the carrier. As a result, the control system perceived the turn of the launch complex, caused by the daily rotation of the Earth, as the departure of the angular deviations of the rocket beyond the permissible limits and issued a command to turn on the SAS.

Not only engines

The SAS propulsion system is not only the most important, but also the most difficult part of the rescue system. She "eats up" a fair share of the payload - about 10%. At the same time, the need for it disappears after the separation of the first stage and ascent into the upper atmosphere, when rescue can be provided by the standard means of separating the ship from the rocket. At the right moment, the remote control system is simply “fired off” from the launch vehicle, so as not to drag an extra load into orbit.

But the SAS duty does not end there. An accident can occur at any stage of the flight, and the rescue of the crew must be carried out up to the entry into orbit. If the flight has to be interrupted, the spacecraft is separated from the damaged rocket using squibs and pushers. Small emergency compartment engines can also be used.

During emergency rescue at these stages of the flight, the crew can experience very unpleasant sensations, as Soviet cosmonauts Vasily Lazarev and Oleg Makarov were able to see more than 30 years ago. On April 5, 1975, their ship was unable to enter orbit due to the accident of the third stage of the carrier. Not gaining orbital speed, the ship, together with the emergency stage, striking the "threshold of space", began to return to the atmosphere again. Automation launched a whole chain of events: first, the spacecraft separated from the rocket, then divided into compartments, after which the descent vehicle with the astronauts entered the atmosphere along a very steep trajectory with an overload of up to 22 units. The capsule landed in remote areas of Altai on the edge of a cliff. Fortunately, the cosmonauts survived, but they had enough impressions for the rest of their lives. In the event of an accident at the very late stages of launch, it is possible to place the spacecraft into a low "emergency" orbit, where the atmospheric drag makes it possible to complete only one or two orbits around the Earth. But during this time, the control system will have time to orient the ship and prepare it for a normal controlled descent and landing in a given area. At the same time, the overloads remain within the normal range.

From "East" to "Orion"

Despite the general fundamental similarity, real spacecraft rescue systems differ in many unique nuances. For example, on the single-seat "Vostoks" there was no SAS propulsion system at all: in the event of an accident, the cosmonaut was rescued by an ejection seat - a technology that was thoroughly tested in aviation and was considered very reliable. The same seat was also used during a regular return to Earth - the parachute system of the descent vehicle did not provide a sufficiently soft landing, and the cosmonaut landed separately. In fact, the developers of Vostok have combined the means of rescue with the means of landing.

The descent vehicle had a special hatch for ejection, and the rocket head fairing had a large cutout. In the event of a catapult due to an accident at the launch site, the parachute could not open and the astronaut in the chair landed on a special net stretched at a height of about 40 meters. During ejection, after the launch of the rocket, two gunpowder engines of the chair were turned on, which took him up and away from the launch vehicle, after which the cosmonaut separated from the chair and landed by parachute. The ejection height was limited to four kilometers: in case of a missile accident at a higher altitude, the sustainer engines were turned off, the head fairing was separated, and then the Vostok descent vehicle. And only after that the ejection of the cosmonaut was carried out.

The system had dead spots. So, at the beginning of the ascent, it was extremely difficult to save the cosmonaut due to the lack of the necessary height reserve: the whole chain of events related to the ejection, opening of the chair parachute, separation of the astronaut from the chair and landing on an individual parachute did not have time to trigger. Fortunately, it was not necessary to test these conclusions in practice - all manned Vostoks flew without accidents.

Ejection seats were also used on the American two-seater Gemini ships: they were supposed to rescue astronauts during the initial phase of the flight and during landing, replacing the reserve parachute. If the accident occurred at an altitude of more than 21 kilometers, the ship was supposed to be separated from the rocket using a standard brake control system. The astronauts had to decide for themselves when to turn on the SAS. The use of ejection seats and manual launch of the rescue system was justified by the high reliability of the Titan-2 launch vehicle. It was filled with self-igniting fuel components. According to the design of the developers, confirmed by experiments, the possibility of an explosion was practically excluded: the oxidizer and fuel, mixing, simply “burned out quietly” and did not detonate.

It is curious that the tests of the ejection seats were carried out by the astronauts themselves. During one of the tests (January 16, 1963), the right seat “fired” before the lander's hatch was fully opened and knocked it out. “It hurt like hell, but it didn't last long,” John Young shared his impressions of the test.

But on the three-seater Apollo (and even earlier on the one-seater Mercury), the ejection seats were abandoned, since the ships were launched into orbit by carriers fueled with cryogenic fuel. In the event of an accident, such a missile is much more likely to explode, and the capsules were equipped with full-fledged rescue engines.

On the Mercury spacecraft, SAS was triggered automatically by sensors registering excessive missile deviations from a given position, as well as in the event of a power failure. But the Americans did not rely entirely on automation - both the astronaut and the operators of the ground-based mission control center could manually activate the rescue system. It consisted of four engines: one main, leading the capsule with the astronaut away from the emergency rocket, and three auxiliary ones, for firing off and withdrawing the propulsion system itself from the ship. It is curious that the thrust vector of the main engine did not pass through the center of gravity of the "Mercury". Thanks to this, even without special control engines, the SAS took the capsule forward and sideways from the launch vehicle.

The flights of cosmonauts on the multi-seat Soviet "Voskhod" were very risky. The ships were made on the basis of a single "Vostok": two or three people were put into the descent vehicle, and there was no way to equip the cosmonauts with ejection seats. There were no rescue engines either, apparently due to the temporary nature of the program, because during the Voskhod flights, the Soyuz series ships were already being developed. At high altitude, the crew could be saved by turning off the rocket engines and separating the ship from it, followed by dividing it into compartments. However, if a serious accident happened at the operation site of the first or second stage of the launch vehicle, the chances of salvation for the cosmonauts would be much less. So the "dead zone" at the "Voskhod" turned out to be much wider than the Vostok one.

The next generation ships Soyuz and Apollo used highly sophisticated rescue systems. So, the Soyuz SAS ensures the rescue of the crew at any stage of the flight: from the accident of the carrier rocket at the launch pad and almost to the very entry into orbit. The rescue system of modern Soyuz-TMA spacecraft is even more perfect and reliable. It contains several groups of engines, and some of them remain on the ship until the very moment of separation of the head fairing. The SAS of the American Orion and the promising Russian ship of the new generation will work in approximately the same way.

Prisoners of the orbit

Until now, we have talked about emergency rescue "on the way to space". But one must think about safety both in orbital flight and during descent to Earth. Scientists have painted a blood-curdling picture more than once when astronauts cannot return to Earth due to an accident. The bestseller at one time was the novel by Martin Kaidin "Trapped in Orbit", the protagonist of which, the fictional pilot of "Mercury" Richard Pruett, almost became a hostage of the ship's failed brake propulsion system.

Special measures are being taken to prevent the cosmonauts from becoming "prisoners of the orbit". For example, the flight altitude of the first "Vostoks" was chosen so that if the braking engine failed, the descent vehicle could return to Earth in 10 days due to atmospheric resistance. At the same time, there was a corresponding supply of food, water and air on board.

You cannot find an orbit for modern ships - they rise to orbital stations for 350 kilometers or more, and this is too high for aerodynamic descent. And here duplication of systems saves. So it was during the flight of Nikolai Rukavishnikov and the first Bulgarian cosmonaut Georgy Ivanov. The launch of the Soyuz-33 took place on April 10, 1979, and at first everything went well. During the day, the cosmonauts checked the operation of the systems. However, due to a failure of automation and abnormal operation of the rendezvous engine, the docking with the Salyut-6 station failed. Repeated attempts did not bring success, but fears arose about a possible malfunction of the brake motor. The situation was extremely dangerous. As a result, the next day the spacecraft was de-orbited using a backup engine.

But perhaps the most dramatic was the return from the Mir station of the Soyuz TM-5 spacecraft with a crew of Vladimir Lyakhov and the first Afghan cosmonaut Abdul Momand. The troubles began when the vertical infrared sensor began to work uncertainly at the border of day and night. Because of this, the on-board computer refused to start the engine for braking. The landing was delayed. And suddenly, seven minutes later, the engine suddenly turned on itself! Lyakhov immediately turned it off - otherwise, he would have had to sit down in China. However, the engine started working again "as it pleases", although it did not give a braking impulse. To top it off, the computer, which decided that the ship had already left orbit, started the process of separating the compartments. If the aggregate compartment with the braking engine had time to separate from the descent vehicle, the astronauts, remaining in orbit in the descent vehicle, would be doomed to perish: they had only a supply of oxygen for descent and landing. Only Lyakhov's quick reaction saved the lives of the astronauts. The descent was postponed for a day. The cosmonauts conducted them without any conveniences in the most literal sense: the household compartment with a sewage device, to put it simply, a toilet, had already managed to separate. Fortunately, the next day everything went well and the cosmonauts landed safely.

Shuttle Dead Zones

SAS on reusable winged spacecraft - the Soviet "Buran" or American shuttles, are fundamentally different from the systems described above. First, the reusable shuttle itself is large and heavy. It is not divided like a disposable capsule ship into small compartments, but is a single structure. For example, the shuttle weighs almost 120 tons. Even for a simple shooting of a ship from an emergency missile, very powerful engines are needed. When designing the shuttles and "Buran", the engineers initially planned to equip them with special solid-propellant rescue engines, but the latter turned out to be excessively heavy, and this idea was abandoned.

Secondly, the airplane scheme requires a certain combination of speed and angle of attack for safe flight. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to provide it when rescuing the shuttle at the beginning of the flight. And in case of an abnormal separation, the winged apparatus can simply collapse from huge aerodynamic loads.

However, it is incorrect to say that there is no SAS on the shuttle. It does exist, and it is quite complex, but it has "dead zones" in which it is powerless. One of the "blind spots" for American shuttles is the first two minutes of the flight, while the starting solid-propellant boosters are working. They were considered practically trouble-free, but they were the ones who failed in the fateful flight of the Challenger on January 26, 1986.

In the event of an accident at the launch site, which occurred before the launch of the main engines, the astronauts can urgently leave the ship and, in a basket-cabin suspended from a cable, roll down from the service tower into the protective bunker. For the same purpose, a special rescue chute was provided at the Burana launch site.

In flight, the shuttle crew can theoretically jump out with parachutes. But this is possible only with controlled gliding at an altitude of no more than six kilometers and a speed of no more than 370 km / h. At the same time, in order not to hit the wing, the crew members need to leave the vehicle using an intricately curved telescopic rail extended several meters through the side hatch.

Conditions for salvation in this way can arise only on the way back to Earth. Therefore, during launching into orbit, the task of emergency rescue is mainly assigned to the carrier and the space shuttle itself. Wherever possible, their subsystems involved in “survival” are duplicated, sometimes more than once. Even if one of the three propulsion engines fails, the shuttle can enter a low emergency orbit.

In case of more serious troubles, at the command of the crew or from the flight control center, a special program is launched that forms an emergency trajectory, which leads the shuttle to one of the numerous (more than a dozen) alternate airfields located in Europe, North America and Asia. In theory, the shuttle can land on any suitable runway at least three kilometers long.

Unresolved problems

During the creation of the Soviet shuttle - the Buran ship - at least 500 possible emergency situations were analyzed. Like the shuttle, in the event of serious failures, the rocket switched to an emergency program, which, depending on the stage of the flight and the severity of the situation, took the ship to one or another area of ​​possible landing. Starting from a certain altitude, "Buran" could go into orbit even if one of the engines of the "Energia" launch vehicle failed. In case of an emergency landing, in addition to the main airfield located at the Baikonur cosmodrome, it was planned to put into operation two spare ones - in Simferopol and in the Far East in Khorol, near Ussuriisk. Interestingly, when landing in Khorol, the "Buran", and with it the escort aircraft, would perform part of the maneuvers in the airspace of China.

In the first test flights, both the shuttles and "Buran" were equipped with ejection seats. However, during regular flights, such a decision turned out to be unacceptable, since seven astronauts in the shuttle and up to 10 astronauts in the Buran were accommodated on two decks, which excluded the rescue of the entire crew.

The Americans rejected the possibility of saving the detachable cockpit at the design stage as an excessively expensive and difficult solution. Soviet developers followed a similar path. As a result, the lack of rescue equipment in case of "fast" accidents remains the Achilles' heel of the winged shuttles. After the disasters of the Challenger and Columbia, attempts were made again to return to the idea of ​​a "salvage cockpit." Again, they were rejected due to lack of reliability. A similar solution was used on F-111 aircraft and showed its low efficiency. For the same reason, it did not take root on the B-1 bomber: in most cases, when rescuing in a detachable cockpit, the crew was seriously injured.

And yet, the shots of the Challenger explosion, captured by impartial video cameras, show that the cockpit with the crew, although detached from the shuttle, was practically intact! There is even evidence that some astronauts died not in the explosion, but when they hit the water. Perhaps, if the cockpit were "salvageable", the astronauts would have a chance to survive. Hard to say. It is very difficult to provide a stable flight for a bluff cockpit, and even a soft landing. So we have to admit that this idea does not solve the problem of rescuing the crew, and the problem of creating an SAS for large cruise ships is still waiting for its solution. How important it is, is evidenced by the fact that after two disasters, the United States decided to completely abandon heavy space shuttles as insufficiently safe ships.

It is somewhat easier to rescue the crew on small reusable winged vehicles. First, a "small" apparatus weighing 10-20 tons can still be diverted from the rocket using a traditional remote control system. Such a solution was proposed in the Russian Clipper project. A small crew - two or three cosmonauts - can be rescued with the help of ejection seats. This method was the main one in the project of the French reusable ship "Hermes". Finally, the crew can be rescued in a compact detachable capsule, as in the Soviet Spiral project. The developers believed that even in the event of an accident in orbit, the only pilot of a combat spaceplane could return to Earth in a small sphere, similar to the Vostok descent vehicle.

Speaking about the prospects for the development of the SAS, one cannot fail to note the desire of the designers to integrate it into the ship. For example, during a regular flight, instead of shooting the remote control system of the SAS, it can be used as a block for putting the spacecraft into a working orbit - there is enough fuel in it for this. A similar idea formed, for example, the basis for the concept of the engine compartment of the Clipper spacecraft. According to the design, the compartment can perform three functions: emergency rescue, putting the spacecraft into working orbit and braking to enter the atmosphere.

And of course, it should be noted that all the rescue systems considered are related to the case of near-earth flights. Flights to the Moon or other planets will pose completely different tasks for technology developers, where the key issue will not be so much the speed of reaction as the ability of the Earth to organize a rescue expedition and the ability of those in distress to wait for the arrival of help.

September 26, 1983, that is, exactly 30 years ago, at the launch pad No. 1 of the Baikonur cosmodrome (at the famous Gagarin launch), a Soyuz-U launch vehicle (product 11A511U) with a manned transport spacecraft was being prepared for launch Soyuz T-10 (product 11F732). On board the spacecraft were cosmonauts: spacecraft commander Vladimir Georgievich Titov and flight engineer Gennady Mikhailovich Strekalov. The cosmonauts were to become the crew of the third main expedition to the Salyut-7 long-term orbital station. Preparations for the launch went unnoticed, despite the strong gusty wind, which caused vibration waves that passed through the entire structure of the launch vehicle, and caused anxiety inastronauts. The leader of the launch (“shooting”) calmly, according to the launch sequence, issued commands from the command bunker over the loudspeaker: “The key to start!”, “One pull!”, “Blowing!”, “P two rotor! "," The key for drainage! "," Aspiration! " Team "Blow!" is implemented automatically and serves to switch on the mode of pressurizing the fuel tanks of the launch vehicle from the onboard systems. The supercharging creates excess pressure, which must compensate for the vacuum in the tanks, which is created during the operation of the turbopump units of liquid propellant rocket engines. Also, using the boost pressure, hydrogen peroxide is displaced from the toroidal tank, which

enters the gas generator to create a hot steam gas, which is the working fluid of the gas turbine of the turbo pump unit (TNA). When pressurizing with nitrogen, the VP-5 valve of the RD-107 engine of the RD-107 block "B" of the first stage failed. Due to a leaky valve, hydrogen peroxide began to enter the gas generator ahead of time. The premature spinning of the TNA rotor began with empty oxidizer and fuel pumps. In a normal situation, the filling of the TNA pumps with fuel components is carried out by gravity prior to the start of spin-up. Due to the lack of load on the pumps, the rotor reached outrageous speed - it was at this moment that the astronauts felt another, uncharacteristic vibration. The TNA rotor that had gone into the run collapsed due to excessive centrifugal force, and its debris damaged the oxidizer and fuel pipelines. A fire broke out in the engine compartment of Unit B, which was first identified on the screens of the command bunker as the start of operation of the launch vehicle engines. The fire that broke out caused damage to the cables transmitting data on the functioning of the systems of the launch vehicle, therefore, only 20 seconds after the occurrence of an emergency situation, the technical staff noticed a fire.
The first to react to the situation was the technical director of NPO Energia, Yuriy Pavlovich Semyonov, shouting “Dniester!” Over the link. This was the password for activating the emergency rescue system (SAS) of the crew of the spacecraft. General Aleksey Aleksandrovich Shumilin and technical leader for the launch vehicle Aleksandr Mikhailovich Soldatenkov, instantly assessing the situation, also shouted the command “Dniester” into the microphones for the operators, who immediately issued a command to activate the SAS.The fired SAS solid-propellant engines separated the head of the rocket-space system, containing the descent vehicle with astronauts and the orbital compartment under the fairing, taking it up and away from the burning launch vehicle. 2 seconds after the shooting of the SAS with the descent vehicle, the rocket engulfed in flames began to sink into the opening of the launch pad, exploded, and the structure destroyed by the explosion fell down the launch facility. SAS engines worked for 4 seconds. During this time, the cosmonauts ascended to a height of 650 meters, having experienced an overload from 14 to 18 units, then, by inertia, rose to an altitude of 950 meters,where the descent vehicle was fired from the orbital compartment from under the fairing, which were taken away by the auxiliary engines of the SAS. Soon the parachute system worked, which after 5 minutes lowered the descent vehicle 4 kilometers from the accident site. Vladimir Titov and Gennady Strekalov became the first cosmonauts in the world whose lives were saved by SAS. Experienced severe overload, but without health consequences, they later returned to their activities. Later, each of the cosmonauts successfully completed three flights into space.

And so ... The emergency rescue system, or SAS for short, is one of the most important systems of the spacecraft. Its direct purpose is clear from the name. But do all spaceships provide for crew rescue in case of emergencies?
From the moment of the first manned launches into space, it was envisaged to rescue the crew of the spacecraft. On Soviet manned spacecraft of the Vostok series, the main means of rescue was the ejection seat. In the event of an emergency at launch or in flight, the cosmonaut had to eject directly from the descent vehicle. For these purposes, a special opening was provided in the head fairing of the Vostok launch vehicle, located opposite the hatch of the descent vehicle. Simultaneously with the flights of the Soviet spacecraft "Vostok", the US launched the manned spacecraft "Mercury" (Mercury). While designing this ship, American designers, led by Max Faget, took a completely different path to ensure the safe rescue of an astronaut in the event of a launch vehicle accident. The capsule of the spacecraft "Mercury" had a very small size and limited volume. Engineers saved weight, since the energy capabilities of the first American launch vehicles had much stricter restrictions than the Soviet Vostok launch vehicle (8K82K). For comparison: the mass of the first American ship barely reached 1.4 tons, while the Soviet ship weighed at least 4.725 tons, that is, it was almost 3.5 times heavier! For the first manned launches under the Mercury program, a modified Redstone ballistic missile (PGM-11/ MRLV), the energy capabilities of which made it possible to "throw" the American spacecraft only on a suborbital trajectory. Opportunities "Atlas-D" (Atlas-D /SM-65 D) was barely enough to put it into orbit. It was unjustified to install an ejection seat on the Mercury ship both because of the limited volume (according to the figurative expression of the astronauts, they did not climb into the "tin can", but "pulled" it over themselves), and from a weight point of view: in addition to a reinforced seat, it was required install guide skids, a firing system and an emergency hatch firing system. Also install an additional parachute system, on which the astronaut would carry out the descent to Earth after the ejection. All this would weigh down the ship. The decision to rescue the astronaut was very simple - to install a solid-propellant rocket engine on a lightweight and durable truss structure in front of the capsule. In the event of an emergency, the entire ship would be saved together with the astronaut. In this case, the main parachute system would be involved, which is used for a regular landing, or rather a splashdown. American spaceships, up to the appearance of the Space Shuttle, always landed in the waters of the Atlantic or Pacific oceans (which, by the way, made it possible to save on the mass of the soft landing system - by completely abandoning it).
The next generation of Soviet manned spacecraft is the Voskhod series. In fact, this ship was an improved "Vostok". The lander underwent the greatest change. Only two ships of this series flew into space. The Voskhod-1 descent vehicle had three seats instead of one. Due to the limited size of the internal volume (since Vostok was originally designed for one cosmonaut), Voskhod-1 had to abandon space suits and ... the ejection system! Farm SAS was also not provided. The world's first crew, consisting of three cosmonauts: commander Vladimir Mikhailovich Komarov, research assistant Konstantin Petrovich Feoktistov and doctor Boris Borisovich Egorov, flew into space on October 12, 1964 in ... tracksuits! This decision (to fly into space without altitude-compensating spacesuits) was practiced until the fateful landing of the Soyuz-11 spacecraft on June 30, 1971. The launch into space of the Voskhod-2 spacecraft on March 18, 1965 was also carried out without emergency rescue equipment. Cosmonauts Pavel Ivanovich Belyaev and Alexei Arkhipovich Leonov (who during this flight became the first person in the world to go into outer space) were aboard Voskhod-2 in Berkut spacesuits. Their seats were also not ejectionable. Thus, these two flights were carried out with a very high risk to the lives of the crews. In the event of an accident with the launch vehicle, the crew had no chance of salvation. In the United States, at the same time as the Voskhod program in the Soviet Union, manned spacecraft of the Gemini series (Gemini). Engineers of the American aircraft company McDonnellAircraft, who previously worked on the Mercury capsule, followed the path of Soviet engineers, installing two ejection seats as a means of rescuing astronauts. This time at the disposal of American designers was a much more powerful launch vehicle "Titan-2" (Titan II GLV), which was also an intercontinental ballistic missile, only more powerful than the Atlas-D. The mass of the ship reached 3.81 tons, that is, it was almost three times heavier than its younger brother. The ship's crew consisted of two astronauts.
Since the early 60s, North American has been proactively developing the Apollo spacecraft, and only after the famous speech of US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the program of a manned flight to the moon received government support. Beyond NorthAmerican, such giants of the US aerospace industry as Martin and McDoneel Aircraft worked on the project of a spacecraft for a manned flight to the moon. The Martin project envisaged the construction of a spacecraft, which provided for a direct flight to the surface of the moon, without first entering a circumlunar orbit. A similar flight scheme was also worked out by the engineers of the company.McDonnell Aircraft... Their lunar ship was based on the Gemini spacecraft project. In 1962, NASA engineer John Houbolt proposed a flight scheme with a landing on the lunar surface, which implied a preliminary entry into a circumlunar orbit and separation of compartments. A small lander was landing on the moon. This flight scheme was first proposed at the beginning of the 20th century by our compatriot - Yuri Vasilyevich Kondratyuk (pseudonym of Alexander Ignatievich Shargei). It was it, as a basis, that the developers of the future Apollo spacecraft took. These works were carried out in the years when the "Mercury" program was carried out. The SAS scheme incorporated in the Mercury project carried another positive advantage - the emergency rescue system was dropped after passing the most critical section where it could be needed. This is the start and passage of dense layers of the atmosphere. In less dense layers of the atmosphere, when the velocity head is not so significant, the ship can independently separate from the launch vehicle in the event of a malfunction of the latter. Using only the thrust of your engine. Therefore, the SAS on the truss is discharged immediately after passing through the dense layers of the atmosphere in order to save weight. In the case of ejection seats, it would be necessary to "carry" the entire system with you at all stages of the flight. Including the moon. Naturally, such a system is absolutely unnecessary for orbital flights, and even more so on interplanetary trajectories and on the Moon. Therefore, North American engineers settled on the SAS with a reset design.
The Soviet designers, who worked on the third generation of Soviet spaceships, went the same way. The Soyuz was originally designed as a spacecraft for manned flights to the Moon. Even earlier, in the very beginning of the 60s, OKB-1 was developing a super-heavy carrier N-1 (11A52), originally intended for launching heavy stations into space under Mars exploration projects. With the beginning of the "lunar race", the N-1 project was focused primarily on the implementation of a program of manned manned flights to a natural satellite of the Earth. The rejection of ejection seats also made it possible to increase the internal volume of the descent vehicle and, at the same time, reduce its mass. Since 1967, regular launches of orbital spacecraft of the Soyuz series (7K-OK) began. Simultaneously, the lunar version of the Soyuz spacecraft (7K-L1) was being tested. Its variant, known as the automatic interplanetary probe "Probe", performed several successful flights into the circumlunar space, and returned to Earth with an entry into the atmosphere at a second cosmic speed. The spacecraft of the Zond series were launched into space by modernized Proton-K (8K82K) launch vehicles, developed at OKB-23 under the leadership of Vladimir Nikolaevich Chelomey. In the "Probe" project, the SAS was used, according to a scheme similar to those installed on the variants launched into space by the Soyuz (8A511) and N-1 launch vehicles. A significant difference between the versions of the Soyuz spacecraft for orbiting the Moon was the absence of an orbital living compartment, which was present on the standard orbital Soyuz and its version for a manned flight with a landing on the Moon (7K-LOK). It was abolished due to the fact that the energy characteristics of the "Proton" did not allow sending a fully equipped spacecraft to the interplanetary trajectory for tests with a return to Earth at a second cosmic speed. The main difference between such flights and orbital flights lies in the descent vehicle - the thickness of its heat-shielding coating must be greater in order to withstand greater heating when entering the dense layers of the atmosphere. During the tests of the "Probes" under the lunar flyby program, there were four accidents when the SAS was triggered. In all four cases, the crew would have remained unharmed if these flights were carried out in manned mode. The incident with the activation of the SAS also occurred during the second test launch of the N-1 launch vehicle, when, due to the abnormal operation of one of the engines, the automation sequentially turned off almost all the engines of the first stage. The flawlessly triggered SAS took the descent vehicle to a safe distance from the crash site - the gigantic rocket managed to rise to a small height, and then crashed flat on the launch site. Likewise, in the case of a manned launch, the astronauts would have survived. These several cases confirmed the reliability of the SAS as a means of saving the lives of the crew of the spacecraft. It only remained to turn up a case when the system would work for its intended purpose ... And this incident happened on September 26, 1983.
In addition to the emergency rescue systems in operation, there were projects that had never been implemented in practice. For example, during the Apollo program in 1961 - 1972, the task was to rescue astronauts "stuck" on the Moon. In the event of a failure of the propulsion system of the takeoff stage of the lunar module, the two astronauts would be doomed to certain and painful death due to the inevitable lack of oxygen. The whole crew (three astronauts) expected the same, if the main propulsion unit had not been launchedSPScommand and service module of the Apollo spacecraft. Astronauts would not be able to leave circumlunar orbit, and would remain inside the command module, eventually dying for the same reason. Later, the ship, gradually descending under the influence of the mascons, would have crashed on the lunar surface. They worked out plans for rescue missions, options for the transition of astronauts from a ship in distress to a “lifeboat” ship, including through open space. But perhaps the most original and elaborate project wasLESS - Lunar Escape Systems... The project involved the development, construction and testing of SAS for long-term two-week lunar expeditions, which were canceled immediately after the successful landing and return to Earth of the astronauts of the Apollo 11 expedition. The SAS was a small aircraft with a folding frame and equipped with a small liquid propulsion system, fuel tanks, a primitive control system and two astronaut seats. The crew's life support system was absent, since it was believed that the astronauts would start from the lunar surface in their lunar spacesuits, with standard portable backpack life support systems.LESSfolded like LRV (Lunar Roving Vehicle- "lunar rover"), which was used in the last three expeditions to the moon, and similarly fit into one of the four side compartments of the lunar module landing stage. In connection with the reduction of the Apollo program, as well as the cancellation of the construction of a base on it under the Apollo programApplications Program, the project was scrapped, and never embodied in "hardware".

The most "embodied" project to save the lives of astronauts who flew on the Apollo spacecraft was the Skylab Rescuer program (Skylab Rescueor SL-R). On July 28, 1973, the Apollo spacecraft went into space with the second long-term expeditionSL-3 to the American orbital station Skylab. Soon after the launch, the astronauts discovered that one of the four units of the spacecraft orientation control system (RCS) had failed, and six days later the second unit had failed. The problem was caused by a fuel leak, monomethylhydrazine. NASA decided to prepare a rescue ship that could evacuate astronauts from the Skylab station in the event that the remaining RSU units on the main ship failed. A rescue ship expedition was prepared, consisting of backup astronauts of the second long-term expedition SL-3: Vance Brand and Don Leslie Lind. A space-rocket system was assembled as part of the Saturn-1B launch vehicle (SA-208 sample) and the Apollo spacecraft (CSM-119 sample) with a reconfigured command compartment to accommodate five astronauts, instead of three:

In preparation for the rescue mission, astronauts Brand and Lind used simulators to practice recovering the Apollo main ship, which had problems with a fuel leak. According to the reserves laid down in the design of the spacecraft, the astronauts of the SL-3 expedition could safely return from orbit and on one working DCS unit. NASA engineers concluded that the leakage of monomethylhydrazine did not damage other systems on the ship, and since the other two DCS units remained operational, the rescue mission was canceled.
During the final, third expeditionSL-4 to the Skylab station, NASA "just in case" prepared another rescue ship - the same converted Apollo (CSM-119 sample), but already installed on another Saturn-1B launch vehicle (SA -209). The previous "Saturn-1B" (sample SA-208) for the rescue ship was used to launch the last expedition SL-4 into space. The assembled space-rocket system "Skylab-Rescuer" was even taken to the launch complex No. 39, to position "B", but the launch did not take place due to its unnecessary. The same crew of astronauts-"rescuers" was preparing for this flight.
The Space Shuttle series spacecraft were not equipped with emergency rescue equipment. Only during the first four test manned launches (STS-1 flights -STS-4), when crews consisting of two astronauts flew into space, rescue means were provided - ejection seats, similar to those installed on the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird supersonic reconnaissance aircraft. Starting from the fifth flight (STS-5), operational flights of the reusable transport space system began. The crew in flight STS-5 already consisted of four people, and the means of ejection were abolished. And starting from the sixth flight (STS-6), when the orbital spacecraft (OK or "orbiter") "Challenger" was put into operation, the crew already consisted of five or more people. Part of the crew was placed on the middle deck during launch and descent from orbit - ejection from there was already impossible for technical reasons due to the layout and structural features of the ship. Despite the obvious risk, up to the tenth launch of the Challenger on January 28, 1986, everything went more or less successfully. The Space Shuttle spaceships, since 1981, have made 24 successful flights into space ...

Much has been written about the Challenger disaster. Immediately after the accident, a government commission was established to investigate the cause of the disaster. The reasons for the crash were established with sufficient reliability. Measures and recommendations were developed to prevent such incidents.cprocessions in the future. During the investigation, it turned out that the ship was not completely destroyed - an explosion tore off the bow of the "Orbiter", in which there was a pressurized cabin with a crew of seven. The astronauts survived, and died only when struck by the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. If the cockpit had been equipped with a primitive parachute system, the death of the astronauts would have been avoided.
After the disaster, a fundamental change in the design of the reusable spacecraft was not envisaged. As a measure to ensure additional safety, a scheme for leaving the "orbiter" in the atmospheric phase of the flight was developed. It provided for an independent escape from the ship through the exit hatch. In the event of an emergency, the astronauts had to take turns leaving the Shuttle and deploy the rescue parachute. Immediately after separating the hatch with the help of pyrotechnic means, a special flexible pole was deployed into the stream, which served to divert astronauts leaving the "orbiter" down under the wing, in order to prevent them from colliding with the frontal edge of the wing. But the next disaster that happened on February 1, 2003 with the space shuttle Columbia showed that manned space flights are a dangerous undertaking. At high hypersonic speeds, the astronauts were doomed in advance to die in the crumbling ship ... Even if all the crew members could eject, it would not have saved them from certain death. The Soviet reusable spacecraft "Buran" possessed practically the same design features. But that is another story.
The reaction to the Columbia disaster was the speech of the 43rd President of the United States, George Walker Bush, on January 14, 2004. A plan for space exploration was proposed by the Presidential Commission, called the "Vision for Space Exploration" (Vision for Space Exploration, abbreviatedVSE). According to this plan, no later than 2014, a spacecraft was to be built and tested, called the "Manned research ship" (CrewExploration Vehicle, abbreviated CEV), which later received the official name "Orion" - in honor of the famous constellation. The program for the creation of a manned spacecraft, a series of launch vehicles, a lunar lander, lunar rovers, and other auxiliary equipment, called "Constellation" (Constellation Program, abbreviatedCxP), provided for the return of American astronauts to manned flights to the moon, which were terminated in December 1972 with the flight of "Apollo 17".
In the process of creating Orion, several options for its layout were considered: from winged to options with a return capsule. Each of the options was reusable. The winner in the competition for the creation of the CEV was the Lockheed Martin Corporation, which proposed an option that resembled the Apollo spacecraft, but increased in size. Later "Orion" became known as "Apollo on steroids". August 31, 2006NASAsigned a contract for the development, construction and testing of the spacecraft. Extensive work has begun. Simultaneously with the development of the reusable descent vehicle - the command module (Crew Module, abbreviatedCM), the development of a parachute system and an emergency rescue system began. Testing of individual elements of the parachute system began with the release of weight equivalents, as well as the entire system as a whole, with the release of CM weight models from transport aircraftC-17 andC-130. At the same time, testing of CAS components, created by the companies, began.Aerojetand ATK... On May 6, 2010, at the White Sands Rocket Range, New Mexico, the first flight tests of the SAS of the Orion spacecraft took place -Pad Abort 1 ( PA-one). The situation was simulated with the operation of the emergency rescue system at the launch site. The tests were successful. The command module climbed to an altitude of 1800 meters in the upper part of the trajectory, separated from the truss with rocket engines and a fairing, the auxiliary and exhaust system worked, and then the main parachute system. The latter carefully lowered the CM at a distance of 2.1 kilometers from the launch site.

 

It might be helpful to read:

• Electronic document management system (EDMS): what is, features and recommendations Types of EDM;
• Synergy operating system Who participated in the project;
• Planning and Organizational Design Why it is necessary to design the organizational structure of the enterprise;
• Material Requirements Planning (MRP) Material Requirements Planning;
• Sympathetic-adrenal system (sas);
• Management of projects for the improvement and development of the enterprise;
• Types of project risks and risk factors;
• The best internet accelerator software;