Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!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: More elaboration on escape.. Message-ID: <126530@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 19 Oct 89 23:33:50 GMT References: <538.252A3A3B@mamab.FIDONET.ORG> <34577@srcsip.UUCP> <3838@rtech.rtech.com> Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM Lines: 29 In article <3838@rtech.rtech.com>, reb@squid.rtech.com ("REB - Take two checkpoints and call me in the morning") writes: > In article <126311@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> admiral%m-5@Sun.COM (Michael Limprecht SUN Microsystems Mt. View Ca.) writes: > >In article <34577@srcsip.UUCP>, rogers@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers) writes: > >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 > > Wait a minute... I thought that the crew compartment landed relatively intact. > > reb My statement about time had to do with making the descision to abort and the factors involved with that. As to the main compartment landing relatively intact. The term "relatively" can mean a lot of things. Could the crew compartment have remained functional enough to deploy some type of escape system? The stress of a uncontrolled flight at mach 4+ probably left the crew compartment spining and breaking up until the shuttle slowed to subsonic speeds. I'm not sure that evacuation at this point would have been possible, hatches jammed shut, parts of shuttle everywhere. It's likely that the astronauts had some physical damage as well. How long from subsonic speeds to water impact? The point still remains that the Chalenger loss could have been avoided altogether with better decision making and not cutting corners. Mick