Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!stat!vsserv!prism!ccsupos From: ccsupos@prism.gatech.EDU (SCHREIBER, O. A.) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: shuttle escape systems Message-ID: <2521@hydra.gatech.EDU> Date: 14 Oct 89 22:50:30 GMT References: <538.252A3A3B@mamab.FIDONET.ORG> <2430@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1989Oct12.021826.7915@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: ccsupos@prism.gatech.EDU (SCHREIBER, O. A.) Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Lines: 48 In article <1989Oct12.021826.7915@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >ability to provide successful escape, and all would require advance >warning of an impending hazard from reliable data sources." "Only one >of these [systems], the escape module, offers the possibility of escape >during first-stage ascent. Its use would probably be practical only >after [SRB] thrust termination..." "An additional weight penalty would They could have had the warnings had the SRB been instrumented like they were on the first flights. The escape system should be designed to function before SRB thrust termination. >weight of the orbiter..." "The astronauts testifying before the >Commission on April 3, 1986 agreed that it does not appear practical >to modify the orbiter to incorporate an escape module..." Finally, >it quotes Bob Crippen (STS-1 copilot): "I don't know of an escape >system that would have saved the crew from the particular accident >we just went through..." That is what anybody would say looking at the present design which was not from the start conceived to incorporate an escape system. It is obvious that one cannot patch an escape system one the tiles of the shuttle and that a redesign would be necessary. >>I think this type of vehicle, without an escape system can never >>be safe enough. >Can you elaborate on why you think this? The men who know the hardware >obviously disagree with you. The families of the victims, even without mentioning that of the teacher who was not an astronaut might agree with my statement. Why I think this way is because it is a vertical take off vehicle and a 3000 tons vehicle. The thrust put into play is thus very difficult to manage and puts the crew at greater risk than that of an ailiner or a fighter jet aircraft. Hence the need for an escape system. >How much risk FOR WHAT GAIN is the question. If *you* want to stay on the >ground, nobody is going to march you on at gunpoint. >megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu If you think that a 2.5 year delay in manned space operations is a GAIN, then of course the risk is ok. Still, NASA may not want in the future to take the responsibility of sending non astronauts with that kind of risk level, even volunteers like you. -- Olivier Schreiber (404)894 6147, Office of Computing Services Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ccsupos ARPA: ccsupos@prism.gatech.edu