Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Escape Systems
Message-ID: <1988May2.233724.5179@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <47316@ti-csl.CSNET>
Date: Mon, 2 May 88 23:37:24 GMT

>Do any of you know why there isn't an escape system that could operate
>during the SRB burn which would save the crew compartment in it's
>entirity?  Would it be too expensive, too complex, too heavy?

All of the above:  it would cost a lot to develop, especially with NASA
doing it; it would be complicated and would probably require considerable
redesign of the orbiter; it would be very heavy.  It would also raise
safety worries of its own.  Remember that one of the reasons the pole was
chosen over the tractor rockets was that storing rockets in the cabin is
a significant safety problem.  Military technicians are killed every year
in ejection-seat accidents.

> ... just having an extended pole to use when at 20,000 feet
> flat and level doesn't cover many of the situations...

Actually, it covers most of the situations that (a) happen after SRB shutdown
and (b) do not involve major explosions or major structural failures.  In
such situations the preferred course of action is to get the bird under
control and fly it back; the problem is that it can't always make it back
and cannot be ditched or belly-landed safely.  Hence the pole.
-- 
NASA is to spaceflight as            |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail.          | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry