Conference 7.286::space

    Hang on...it continued upward because it was already going up at
    the time it acceleration terminated (now that's a euphimism for
    you).  Presumably the same would be true for other debris.  In other
    words, the cabin would not move up out of the debris field, it would
    travel along with it.  (Obviously differing force imparted by the
    explosion and differing air resistance would tend to separate different
    things.)
    
    I should think that the first bit of analysis that should be done
    is "how likely is this sort of separation"?  If this was a fluke,
    there is no sense basing a survival capability on it.  Secondly,
    how much does this front hunk of the shuttle weigh?  Is it even
    within the realm of sense to lower it with a 'chute?
    
    Burns

    I'm with Burns. The likelyhood that the next failure would result
    in the same "clean" separation is rather unlikely.
    
    Besides putting a set of parachutes, one would also have to
    redesign the bulkhead connections, etc. to be separable.  My
    understanding is that the air supply is in the payload area, and
    that the cabin probably depressurized very quickly.
    
    You also have to consider that a launch failure is only one possible
    option for a flight with fatalities.  Re-entry, and landing present
    far greater risks (in my mind) than the launch.  Those have to be
    considered when proposing safety redesigns too...
    
    - dave

        NASA has been very quiet about what it found in the flight deck.
        If anyone was consious after the initial explosion, I would expect
        that there would have been some evidence of escape attempts, such
        as unbuckled harneses, etc. Autopsies might show that death was
        due to drowning if they were alive when they hit the water. Until
        NASA tells us what the cause of death for all seven astronauts
        was, there is no way of knowing if anything like this would have
        saved the crew. The answer is likely different for the four on the
        flight deck than for the three on the mid deck. It is also
        unlikely that NASA will release such personal information to the
        public. 

        Before we decide to put rescue systems into the shuttle, we need
        to look at what they can rescue the astronauts from, what they
        cost, and what additional dangers they might cause. A seperable
        crew compartment that activates during a non-emergency situation
        can create a disaster itself. If the cost is greater to save the
        crew in a particular scenario than it is to prevent that situation
        form ever occuring, then the proposed escape system is not the
        right solution. 

    re .3:  I agree with Bob about the costs etc.  I would just like
    to comment about the possible evidence from the crew remains:  I
    read somewhere (AvWeek?) that after immersion in relatively warm
    water for several weeks, there is little that can be done in the
    way of tissue analysis to determine if the cause of death was due
    to drowning.  Presumably one could determine if there were some
    sort of structural damage (crushed skulls etc) which could have
    caused death, but I wonder if it would be possible to determine
    whether said damage came from the explosion or from ocean impact.
    
    In addition, don't forget that there were probably sharks around.
    Need I say more?

    Burns
    

    re.2
    re.3
    re.4
        
         THE DISCUSSION REGARDING ESCAPE SYSTEMS IS AN INTERESTING ONE
    THAT IS GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION FOR SURE.  I'VE GOT A COUPLE
    OF CENTS WORTH OF OPINIONS HERE (FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH).
    
    1.  CREW SURVIVABILITY.  THE ORBITER WAS DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND 
        G LOADS OF +12/-9.  IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE CREW SURVIVED
        THE DYNAMIC LOADS IMPARTED ON THE VEHICLE DURING ITS BREAKUP.
        YOU PROBABLY RECALL THAT THE SEATS IN THE MID-DECK AND AFT
        FLIGHT DECK ARE REMOVABLE AND MOST LIKELY WOULD NOT TAKE
        THE SHOCKS THAT WERE FELT DURING THE MISHAP.  IF ANYTHING,
        THE CREW WERE NOT ANCHORED FOR VERY LONG.
    
    2.  THE SEVERING OF THE CREW COMPARTMENT WAS SOMEWHAT LOGICAL.
        THE ORBITER STRUCTURE IS BUILT FROM SIX MAJOR ELEMENTS:
         CREW COMPARTMENT/ORBITER NOSE (INCLUDING FORWARD RCS BAY)
         MID FUSELAGE
         RIGHT WING
         LEFT WING
         PAYLOAD BAY/PAY LOAD TRUSS STRUCTURE
         AFT FUSELAGE/SSME ATTACHMENT STRUCTURE
    
        THE AFT RCS/OMS ARE IN INDEPENDENT PODS.
    
        PICTURES SHOW THE ORBITER NOSE SEVERED RATHER CLEANLY.  THERE
    WERE TRAILING CABLES AND/OR PLUMBING.  INTERESTING ENOUGH, PHOTOS
    ALSO SHOW THE SSME'S FALLING ALSO.
    
        THE COMMENT ABOUT ATMOSPHERE AND POWER STORAGE IS CORRECT-THE
    TANKS AND FUEL CELLS WERE LOCATED IN MID FUSELAGE.
    
        AS FAR AS ESCAPE SYSTEMS GO, THIS WAS BROUGHT UP IN ONE OF THE
    ROGERS COMMITTEE OPEN SESSIONS AT KSC.  (THIS WAS THE ONE ATTENDED
    BY YOUNG, CRIPPEN, HARTSFIELD, AND WEITZ.)  THEY WERE ASKED ABOUT
    THE POSSIBILITY OR FEASIBILITY OF HAVING SOME KIND OF ESCAPE MECHAN-
    ISM.  THEY REPLIED THAT IN THE CURRENT VEHICLE CONFIGURATION, SUCH
    A SYSTEM WAS UNLIKELY.  THE FOCUS OF DISCUSSION WAS ESCAPE DURING
    THE FIRST 2 MINUTES OF FLIGHT, I BELIEVE.
    
        FOR MY PART, I JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING'S POSSIBLE.
    MAYBE NOT IN THIS GENERATION OF VEHICLE, BUT IN THE NEXT.  I JUST
    KEEP THINKING THAT IF THE F111 AND THE PROTO B1'S HAVE ESCAPE CREW
    COMPARTMENTS, SO COULD AN ORBITER.  I DON'T CONSIDER THE CONCERN
    ABOUT AN ACCIDENTAL ACTIVATION OF SUCH A SYSTEM TO BE REAL ISSUE
    IN THAT THERE ARE FEW INSTANCES OF THAT EVER HAPPENING.  HOW MAY
    MERCURY AND APOLLO FLIGHTS WERE FLOWN WITH LAUNCH ESCAPE TOWERS?
    HOW MANY GEMINI FLIGHTS WITH EJECTION SEATS?  OH WELL.  I'M WITH
    YOU GUYS HOPING THAT NASA GETS THEIR ACT TOGETHER, GETS THE MANAGEMENT
    AND TECHNICAL ISSUES FIXED AND GETS FLYING AGAIN.  UNFORTUNATELY,
    WHEN THEY DO START FLYING AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE GOING TO
    SEE (OR MORE APPROPRIATELY NOT SEE) A VERY DIFFERENT PROGRAM.
    WITH THE MILITARY PUSHING FOR EXCLUSIVE LAUNCH RIGHTS AND NASA BEING
    UNDER SIEGE, I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL SEE A FAR LESS "PUBLIC" PROGRAM.
    

    It would be interesting to know the rationale behind escape seats
    in miltary aircraft.  My guess is that there are a number of reasons:
    
    	1)  	Part of the purpose of these planes includes being placed
    	    	into dangerous situations.  Thus since you are EXPECTING
    		a reasonable %age of them to be destroyed, you are morally
    		obligated to provide escape (not to mention of which
    		it provides some rationale for a pilot to even think
    		of flying one in combat).
    
    	2)	These vehicles are very expensive.  Noone will quibble
    		over a few more 10s of thousands to put the seats in.
    
    	3)	There are usually very few people in them, making it
    		more practical to provide escape for all.
    
    The shuttle meets criterion 2.  Until January 28, people had the
    apparently mistaken impression that it did not meet 1.  I'm not
    sure whether 7+ astronauts meets 3 or not.
    
    Comments?
    
    Burns
    

OK, assuming that seats are put into the shuttle.  How do they eject?  The only
possible configuration would be, as mentioned before, the ability to remove the
entire crew compartment and make it semi-aerodynamic, so that it could 'fly',
much like the F-111's escape pod.  I suspect, though, that the cost would be
prohibative, involving major redesigns of the entire shuttle.  If we were to
do that, why not just make a new (different) shuttle?

Dan

    RE .7 - Recall that Columbia flew her first 4 flights with ejection
    seats for the pilot and copilot.  I don't recall maximum speeds
    or altitudes beyond which they could not be used, however I believe
    they were operational through SRB separation.  These two seats were
    disabled for Columbia's fifth flight because that flight carried
    4 crewmembers, and it was deemed unethical for only half of the
    crew to have an escape capability.  The seats were subsequently
    removed from Columbia (partly to save weight) and none of the other
    orbiters were ever scheduled to receive escape seats.
    
    It might be possible to retrofit up to 4 escape seats in the upper
    flight deck, but up to 3 more passengers can ride in the mid-deck
    (as was the case in the Jan. 28 flight), and I doubt that an ejection
    seat system can be worked out for the mid-deck.
    
    Besides, the Jan. 28 accident happened so quickly that there may
    not have been enough time to activate any escape mechanism.
    

    One should also remember that ejection seats make for a rather
    "ungraceful" exit from the cabin. For test pilots, this is OK.
    If you start flying random mission specialists and schoolteachers
    and then blow them out the window using explosive charges, the
    survival rate may not be much more impressive than 51Ls.
    
    							-Brian

    Perhaps some of the alternatives proposed here might prove palatable
    given the right set of political circumstances.
    
    I would much see my tax dollars go to something like this than ...
    
    Mark

    re: .9 I disagree, ejection seat technology is very safe and well
    proven....somewhere everyday a military pilot uses one, and 99.999%
    of them survive with no/minor injuries.
    
    Training for ejection seats is a 6 hour course delivered routinly
    at most/all military airstations. Training includes a practice seat
    shot on a verticle track so the person knows what to expect if they
    ever use the real thing. (ps it's fun!)
    
    dave

    re: .11 I can't believe it:
    
    	1) I don't for a minute believe that seats are used "every day".
    	   If we used them every day in real circumstances, we'd be
	   losing 400 military craft a year. As a taxpayer, I'd like
 	   to know why.
    
    	2) Most seats that are used are used on planes with canopies,
    	   which are made to open. The shuttle seats used an explosive
 	   charge to push the seat out through a rather small window
    	   designed to stay in place.
    
    	3) Most users of ejection seats are pilots, in good physical
   	   shape. If you can survive a 7g turn in an F-16, I agree you
    	   can probably survive ejection. Shuttle crews are primarily
    	   non-pilots.
    
    	4) Most seat incidents are at low altitude. 51L aborted at above
    	   50,000 feet, with virtually no outside oxygen and temperatures
    	   in the -65 degree F. range. There are some written accounts
    	   from SR71 pilots about what bailing out is like. (The SR71
    	   uses the same seats).
    
    	5) Most bailouts occur at speeds well below Mach 3, the shuttles
    	   speed at abort.
    
    	I still contend that the average individual would have problems.
    
    						-Brian

re .-2

I  grew  up in Virginia Beach, Va., as a navy brat. We lived about 20
min. away from Oceana Naval Air Base, the same one that just  had  an
A-6 Intruder crash yesterday. There were lots of stories where pilots
ejected  and  got  off easily; just a broken ankle; just a dislocated
shoulder. Other cases where an arm got ripped off or so badly damaged
it had to be removed later! This is not  including  the  cases  where
something  went  wrong  like  the canopy and ejection charge were not
correctly synched and the pilot was killed on  the  way  through  the
canopy.

In  the past 10 years, these stories have become more rare, but it is
still debatable in some pilots minds as to  the  greater  risk:  keep
trying  to  pull  it  out, or punch out using a small bomb under your
ass.

Clearly,  in  a case like the shuttle the only reasonable method is a
"module ejection." In case no one in this note realized it  the  crew
compartment  is a structural module. It is the small things like air,
power, and controls that pass out of it to the  other  parts  of  the
shuttle.  Perhaps  a  redesign  to  eject the entire crew compartment
would not be as drastic as has been expressed.

	-SES

    re: 12, 13
     I grew up as an airforce brat and was an aircrew member in the
    NAVY E2-B aircraft for nearly 6 years.....I stand by my statement
    that somewhere in the world every day a military pilot uses an ejection
    seat. What I did not say was that they were all OURS. After flying
    countless search and rescue missions after our boys punched out
    I am well aware of the survivability rate. The canopy does not come
    off on all ejections, check out the NAVY A-6 aircraft, they go through
    the canopy (in the early models A-6 much $$$ was spent trying to
    figure out why the B/N was always dead after an ejection).There
    are countless horror stories about ejections, so what? The stories
    about pilots who walked away are greater in number, just less exciting
    to relate.
                      
    Most pilots do not want to eject, but most fighter pilots do at
    least once in their career, it's a fact. As a taxpayer, you may
    be interested in the accident rate, but it's my experience that
    the accident rate is related to cost cutting politicians who overreact
    to the accident rate, by cutting funds, resulting in aircraft that
    don't have as much in the way of backup systems as they might. Or
    spare parts, or properly trained service personel.
    
    The technology is tried and true, yes there are problems, but nothing
    that we can't fix.
    
    Ejection from high altitude is a problem that pressure suits solve.
    
    Ejection at high speed is still unresolved using the current martin
    baker seat systems (or similar).
     
    Temperature is not an issue.

    Ejection is a risk, but when facing the option of certain death or the
    risks associated with ejection no one hesitates.
    
    A compartment ejection is the most likely candidate for the shuttle
    and the solution I endorse.  This is also a tried and true system,
    ie F-111.
             
    Having no escape system in a high risk, experimental vehicle is
    just unacceptable (in my opinion).
    
    dave

    re: .14 I don't remember where the reference was, but SR71 pilots
    bailing out (who suffered frostbite, etc.) Would claim, I believe
    that temperature is an issue.
    						-Brian

    Well yeah if you feel that frostbite is more dreaded than death
    then maybe temperature is an issue. However, it's a minor issue
    compared to tumbling 8 miles to the ocean with no possibility of
    escape.
    
    As an avaitor the one thing I feared most was being trapped in
    my aircraft (which had no ejection seats...run for the door) while
    it spun from 20K to the ground, while being tossed from wall to
    ceiling to wall to floor......
                                                          
    I believe that NASA is hurting from a lack of concrete goals, the
    shuttle is/was a goal in itself. We need to reorganise, get long
    range goals an persue them. We also need to get safety back in the
    picture and escape systems are a major safety feature. We put men
    on the moon, we can design a reliable escape system for the shuttle
    crew.
    
    dave