Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!purdue!gatech!udel!rochester!ur-tut!kwa1_ltd
From: kwa1_ltd@ur-tut (Karl Wagenfuehr Ltd.)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle Escape Systems
Message-ID: <1895@ur-tut.UUCP>
Date: 27 Apr 88 05:19:06 GMT
References: <47316@ti-csl.CSNET>
Reply-To: kwa1_ltd@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (Karl Wagenfuehr Ltd.)
Organization: Univ. of Rochester Computing Center
Lines: 28

In article <47316@ti-csl.CSNET> dmeyer@mips.UUCP (Dane Meyer) writes:
>thinking about an explosive charge to separate the entire compartment
>and parachuting to safety, or something along that line.  I know there
>would be plenty of problems to solve, but I'm wondering what the
>stoppers are.
>
COST!

I know it sounds crass just stated like that, but think about it.  The
whole shuttle program, the whole space program, the whole world, operates
on trading off benefits for inconveniences.  There are certain safety
features that can't be implemented on the shuttle because they would just
cost way too much.  Making the crew compartment be separable is an example
of this.  It would require a complete re-working of the shuttle, plus
be expensive on its own, anyway.

I think you're approaching the problem the wrong way.  An escape system
is just not cost effective.  There are way too many complications (how
are you going to keep them clear of the wings if you go out the side?  If
you go out the top, how to keep clear of the tail and oms pods?  Then, don't
forget the plumes from the SRBs which the ejecting crew would then have
to somehow avoid.  ANd so on); what should be considered are ways of
making it less likely that an escape system will be needed.  There will
always be risks; the idea is to minimize those risks.

Karl
['(]

kwa1_ltd@tut.cc.rochester.edu