Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ginosko!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekig5!robina
From: robina@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Robin Adams)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Why 3 SSME's?
Message-ID: <4900@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 89 18:22:20 GMT
References: <538.252A3A3B@mamab.FIDONET.ORG>
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 32

In article <538.252A3A3B@mamab.FIDONET.ORG>, Mike.Pompura@f49.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Pompura) writes:
> I submitted a proposal to NASA and Rockwell that involved the escape 
> sequence for a shuttle PES system.  
>  
> Basically what it was is a method of escape for the astronauts in the 
> event of a Challenger-type mishap.  It was dismissed as not being cost 
> effective.  
>  
> I suggested that the pressurized inner crew cabin be severed from any 
> remaining orbiter pieces by explosive bolts <the shuttle carries a 
> multitude of explosives already>, and provided with a series of drogue 
> and main parachutes stowed near the front landing gear, attached to the 
> inner crew cabin.  In the event of .............

 -- I agree. I've always felt NASA's first obligation is to ensure that all 
aspects of Challenger should not be able to repeat. 

I would however go a couple of steps further on your proposal and suggest:

	1.  The addition of a small escape rocket to get them out of the
            immediate area.

	2.  Quick electrical (and other) disconnects between the inner
            cabin and orbiter to facilitate seperation.

                                  
		                                  *    |_____
                                             *         |     |/   Robin
                                                     * |          Adams
                                                       |_____|\
                                                    *  |