Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bds beta 6/6/85; site pucc-j
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!pucc-j!rsk
From: rsk@pucc-j (Wombat)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Escape tower for shuttle orbiter?
Message-ID: <888@pucc-j>
Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 21:12:11 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-j.888
Posted: Wed Mar 12 21:12:11 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 05:44:13 EST
References: <9696@ucla-cs.ARPA> <588@qantel.UUCP> <12286@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <418@watcgl.UUCP>
Reply-To: rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat)
Distribution: net
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 54

>> In article <588@qantel.UUCP> lynx@qantel.UUCP (D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207) writes:
>>>
>>>It wouldn't be necessary to have the entire orbiter be detached from the
>>>ET and SRB's, just the crew compartment.  The main problem with this, I
>>>think, would be in making the crew compartment separable from the rest
>>>of the orbiter.  A much smaller escape tower motor could then be used.

Good point.  Several of us around here speculated on the problem of
pulling the entire orbiter away from the booster package, and concluded
that there didn't seem to be a reasonable way to do it.  A detachable
crew compartment carries its own engineering problems, of course (for
instance, ensuring that it doesn't detach until you want it to) but the
same sort of escape towers used on previous manned missions should be
adequate for the job.  One consideration which caused us considerable
speculation was the effect of the "roll" (performed shortly after launch)
on an attempted escape via such a tower.  Perhaps someone conversant in
the aerodynamics involved could comment on whether or not this would
be a problem? 

Now then; we also have this exchange:

David desJardins:
>    I hate to sound callous, but I don't see the point of all of this just
> to save the crew.  If you could save the orbiter, that would be great, but
> you are talking about something that has got to cost hundreds of millions
> of dollars just to save the crew.  Doesn't this seem a trifle excessive?
>

Valerio Franceschin:
>You don't sound callous, you sound like a neanderthal SAVAGE!

Actually, this kind of cost-vs-human-lives thinking goes on all the
time; it's just that we don't think about it a lot, or we don't easily
admit thinking about it.  Failure to put a cap on the funds spent on
astronaut safety, for instance, would result in an astronomical (sorry)
amount of money being spent.  It would probably also spell the end of
the space program--since one can never be 100.0% sure that the
astronauts would be safe.  [Think about this in terms of bicycle
engineering, for instance, to gain some perspective.]  *IF* the people
at NASA do their job, and are competent engineers and physicists, then
the amount of money and effort expended on safety is enough to reach
the point of diminishing returns -- and perhaps cross over it, just a bit.

The question to be answered here (if, say, an escape tower system would
cost $100 million) is: "Is the added margin of safety worth $100
million?".  Of course, the people that have to answer this are NASA
officials, scientists, engineers -- and the astronauts.  Note that
there is always the possible that the installation of such a system
might actually make the spacecraft *less safe*.

This problem falls in the domain of risk analysis and safety
engineering, not in that of emotional moralizing.
-- 
Rich Kulawiec  pucc-j!rsk or rsk@asc.purdue.edu