Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!convex!texsun!newstop!sun!m-5!admiral
From: admiral%m-5@Sun.COM (Michael Limprecht SUN Microsystems Mt. View Ca.)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: shuttle escape systems
Summary: Fooling yourselves about escape.
Message-ID: <126311@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 13 Oct 89 20:01:03 GMT
References: <538.252A3A3B@mamab.FIDONET.ORG> <34577@srcsip.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 43

In article <34577@srcsip.UUCP>, rogers@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers) writes:
> 
> Who needs an escape rocket or a jettesonable crew compartment?
> Just have a Big parachute (or three or five) attached to the
> crew compartment.  Then if we have 51L disaster again, the crew
> compartment has been separated for us, and we just throw the
> chute out.  Granted that it may not be air or water-tight anymore,
> the chutes should enable astronauts (any who survived the initial explosion)
> to survive the water impact.
> 
> About 1/4 :-).   I think it could be made to work. (and not weigh too much)
> 
I think people are fooling themselves about an escape system for the
shuttle. 
Most people don't realize the enormous forces and pressures the shuttle
is under during the boost phase (The time the soilds are running).

First off, nothing known on this planet at this time could have saved the
Chalenger crew with the failure they had. How much time was there from 
main tank ignition to total breakup? Millisecounds? We know from the
telemetry that Chalenger was having a rough ride. The shuttle was slightly
pitched to one side probably due to the failing booster. But do you call 
an abort for that? For what reason? Even if they had decided to 
separate from the main tank (which they can't) the shuttle would have
been ripped apart or severly damaged  because the speeds at which they
were traveling or by the exhuast from the boosters as they passed by.
The same probably goes for any escape module that could have been ejected.

The Chalenger loss of crew was not due to a lack of an escape system but
a lack of safety measures/decisions/procedures taken throughout the project.
My bitch is with the segmented booster idea in the first place. Launching
in cold weather despite arguments from engineers, etc.

With the time and limited money(sorry to say) that NASA has they should look
at active ways of improving safety as opposed to passive ideas such as
escape systems.

Space travel is dangerous. People are going to be killed doing this and it's
going to happen again. We should do the best we can to put that next time
far in the future but let's not tie ourselves up trying to protect against
everything. We'd never leave the ground.

Mick