Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!cja
From: cja@umich.UUCP (Charles J. Antonelli)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Future of the Space Program
Message-ID: <429@umich.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Jan-86 16:23:24 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.429
Posted: Wed Jan 29 16:23:24 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jan-86 06:46:07 EST
References: <12178969201.19.DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Reply-To: cja@umich.UUCP (Charles J. Antonelli)
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 52
Summary: 

Some speculations ...

In article <12178969201.19.DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA> DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA (Steve Dennett) writes:

>The shuttle tragedy has raised some questions (in my mind) about the
>shuttle, and the effect this disaster will have on the space program.
>Perhaps the readers of this digest will have some answers or speculation on
>these questions.

>- What kind of escape mechanism (if any) does the shuttle have for the crew?

The orbiter can disconnect from the external tank / SRB assembly prematurely
and glide to a landing, hopefully at one of the emergency landing sites.
Crew members wear life vests and associated water-survival gear.
There are no ejection seats; reasons given: (1) not necessary, needed
only for initial flight tests; (2) not sufficient, could not be provided
for each crew member; (3) not viable, orbiter speed at ejection and/or
magnitude of emergency would preclude successful deployment.
I am not aware of any other escape mechanisms.

>- Will this be a setback for the space program, due to public disapproval
>  or the government's need to find (and punish) someone?

There will be a setback of as yet unspecified duration in the STS program
while the situation is investigated by NASA.  The extent of public
and governmental influence on the STS program cannot be predicted pending
the results of the investigation.  It has been said that the 1967 fire in
the Apollo (6?) command module in which three astronauts lost their lives
greatly increased NASA's committment to safety in the Apollo program.
Does anyone know details?

>- Alternately, might it lead to *greater* support of the space program
>  (e.g., if NASA presents a case along the lines of "If our budget were
>  larger, this wouldn't have happened.")?

Wouldn't that be a tacit admission of incompetence on NASA's part?
If the budget is too small to assure adequate safety for a given number
of operations, prudence dictates fewer operations.  NASA's `safety first'
paradigm absolutely precludes this `larger budget' argument.

>- Might this redirect (to some extent) the focus of the manned space
>  program away from the shuttle (large, complex) back toward simpler or
>  alternative launch systems?

Those missions not requiring human attention, such as the launching of
satellites, most certainly could revert to disposable boosters.  Does
anyone know the status of booster production?  I have heard that the
existing supply is totally committed to existing projects.  However,
missions requiring capabilities not provided by unmanned launch vehicles
(such as the space station) must still be carried out with manned
vehicles.  Does anyone know the specifics of the STS vs. alternatives
argument?