Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!eos!aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov!harbour
From: harbour@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle computers (Really, "Drop the landin' gear, Jed!")
Message-ID: <1991May13.143302.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: 13 May 91 20:33:02 GMT
References: <1991May3.111445.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> <1082@igor.Rational.COM> <1991May7.120505.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> <282b9084.2da2@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>
Sender: news@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET News System)
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Flight Center
Lines: 50

In article <282b9084.2da2@petunia.CalPoly.EDU>, rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Falconer) writes:
> 
> 
> In article <1991May7.120505.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>> (descent pole indeed).
> 
>>I have never seen what NASA claimed the failure rate to be before challenger
> 
>>but I would guess it was billed as higher than 1 per 78.  The changes to many
>>systems were major.  SRB's Main engines, APU's, Brakes.  Almost nothing could
>>save any crew in any vehicle from a challenger type break up.  
>>
>>--
> 
> 	I have met and talked to a SR-71 Blackbird pilot who punched
> out of his craft while travelling at just under Mach 3. He came through
> it all right; was more badly hurt from landing in a saguaro cactus on
> the ground. _If_ the shuttle had provision for crew ejection (and no, 
> I would not claim that to be a feasible post-Challenger refit) there
> would have been a significant chance for STS-51L's crew (some of them)
> to have survived. The forensic evidence suggests that several of the
> people on the flight deck were alive and breathing (emergency air packs
> do not spontaneously switch themselves on), said persons being killed
> by the freely falling cabin's 350+kph impact with the Atlantic.
> 
> 	The original shuttle should have incorporated (encapsulated?)
> ejection capability. That it did not was one of the most egregious
> design flaws yet promulgated by NASA. Let's do it right next time, eh?
> 
> 
> -- 
> ||||||   Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU  --  (Falconer)  |||||||
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle

Actually, the shuttle had ejection seats installed for the first several (can't
remember the exact number of) flights.  The top of the crew compartment was
rigged to blow off first, of course.  This approach works fine with crews
of 4 or less.  But there are only 4 seats on the flight deck - the remaining
crew members are in (on?) the mid-deck from which there is no easy way out.
The ejection seats (and roof panel) were removed after the early flights.
It just didn't seem fair to give only half the crew an ejection seat.
(This is your captain speaking: we're having a bit of trouble so I'm
hittin' the silk.  Enjoy the rest of the flight :-).

I believe that there was talk of trying to put parachutes on the crew
compartment itself.  But I don't remember any details.  It probably ran
afoul on cost, weight penalty, or both (my guess - I really don't know).
-- 
Jeff   :   harbour@vf.jsc.nasa.gov   :   .sig void where prohibited by law