Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 System V-beta 12/2/85; site fai.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!saber!qubix!wjvax!fai!ronc
From: ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Escape tower for shuttle orbiter?
Message-ID: <100@fai.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 15:25:06 EST
Article-I.D.: fai.100
Posted: Mon Mar 10 15:25:06 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 08:38:39 EST
References: <9696@ucla-cs.ARPA> <322@drivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian)
Distribution: net
Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc.
Lines: 30

In article <322@drivax.UUCP> holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway) writes:
>That'd have to be one h**l of a rocket to lift the orbiter far. Anyways, the
>orbiter is at least slightly maneuverable, whereas the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo
>capsules weren't...
***

It occurs to me that the orbiter has a really nice rocket already built
in.  Only needs a fuel source other than the external tank.  Perhaps the
shuttle itself should carry enough fuel for emergency manuvers should it
have to jettison the external tank?  Or has this been suggested before?
Since the engines are already firing, this would involve switching the
shuttle fuel source to internal, detach from the tank, then steering
the shuttle away from the SRB/tank (and the SRB's away from the shuttle).

The downside would be that this would decrease the payload capacity of
the shuttle.  And I understand the shuttle already carries less payload
to lower orbits than was intended.

Besides, I have a feeling that even this capability would not have helped
the Challenger.


				Ron
-- 
--
		Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
		ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc

Oliver's law of assumed responsibility:
	"If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."