Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/3/85; site ukma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!sean
From: sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: net.columbia,net.space
Subject: Re: Ejection seats
Message-ID: <2612@ukma.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Feb-86 18:32:05 EST
Article-I.D.: ukma.2612
Posted: Sat Feb  1 18:32:05 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Feb-86 06:04:19 EST
References: <667@ihwpt.UUCP>
Reply-To: sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey)
Distribution: net
Organization: The White Tower @ The Univ. of KY
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath net.columbia:1936 net.space:5488

In article <667@ihwpt.UUCP> gjl@ihwpt.UUCP (g licitis) writes:
>The news people should stick to reporting the news and not to try
>to second guess NASA engineers.  10 to 1 they will have ejection seats
>on the next shuttle.

Your second sentence contradicts your first.  Think about the implications
of ejection seats:

1. They don't work at shuttle speeds.
2. They are only viable for about a minute into the flight, unless you
   make the crew wear pressure suits.
3. The shuttle can ditch into water if necessary, and anything that would
   preclude this is probably going to happen too fast to eject anyway.
4. How the h*ll do you construct a blowaway canopy for a space shuttle?

The reason NASA is not speculating is because they don't want people jumping
to conclusions.  They want facts supported by evidence.  Let's show the same
scientific approach.  I doubt very few of us here have all but the most
superficial knowledge of shuttle construction and operation.  I don't mean
to get down on everyone, but I really believe that we shouldn't over-speculate.

Sean

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Casey                             UUCP:  sean@ukma.UUCP   or
915 Patterson Office Tower                    {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
University of Kentucky                 ARPA:  ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
Lexington, Ky. 40506-0027            BITNET:  sean@UKMA.BITNET