Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!mrgofor
From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Challenger disaster
Message-ID: <472@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 10:31:19 EST
Article-I.D.: mmm.472
Posted: Fri Feb  7 10:31:19 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 07:59:43 EST
References: <787@decwrl.DEC.COM> <899@h-sc1.UUCP> <503@oliven.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Lines: 48
Summary: 

In article <503@oliven.UUCP> barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) writes:
>The following is the second posting I've read worrying about ejection seats:
>> On the topic of ejection seats...  I hope that uninformed
>> press and public do not force NASA to do a lot of unnecessary work before the
>> shuttle continues its work....
>
>Well, excuse me for asking -- but how you gonna put ejection seats in
>the durn thing anyway?  Think, folks (and I hope the 'Powers' in their
>finite wisdom do, too) -- ejection seats on fighter aircraft depend on the
>fact that the canopy can be blown clear first (and a few pilots have died
>when it wasn't).  Is it feasible to put a removable canopy in a shuttle???
>Or are we going to eject them through the roof?  There is no smiley here
>because too many people -- no doubt uninformed people -- have phrased the
>question seriously.
>
>Barb

The astronauts could ride in a rigid, enclosed escape pod during liftoff.
The whole unit, aerodynamically designed, (with parachutes, or perhaps even 
with control surfaces for a controlled descent) would blow clear of the
shuttle. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying I favor such a thing, but I
do think that if we decide that it is a necessity, we'll find a way to
do it. I'm sure that putting Neil Armstrong on the moon took more ingenuity
than putting ejection capability into the shuttle.

	I think the real question here is: would such a device be cost
effective (costs being $$ and weight and volume, etc.)? If it would only
be usable during 2 minutes of the flight, but it weighed two thousand 
pounds and caused strange engineering kluges to get instruments interfaced
correctly, and required X cubic meters of space, etc. etc. etc. - is it
worth it?

	I hear a lot of people saying things like: "Sure, we lost a shuttle,
but the most important thing, the biggest tradgedy, is that we lost 7 human
beings." The fact of the matter, however, is that the human beings are 
indeed the most expendable element of the space program. Those astronauts
knew the risks and accepted them. I would be stunned to hear any astronaut
say that the manned space program should stop because it's too dangerous. Let's
face it - as others have already pointed out - pioneer mortality is the
price you pay for exploration. And I'd be willing to bet that none of the
astronauts would be in favor of making the trade-offs involved with putting
an ejection mechanism into the shuttle. It seems to me that the only people
who want "ejection seats" are people who know nothing of the technical aspects
involved, and are not even affected by the decision, anyway.

	However... with civilians in space, it may be a whole new ballgame.

	--MKR