On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:54:31 GMT, Joann Evans
wrote:

The biggest flaw is being a vehicle that even *needs* a crew escape
system.

True, but rocket launches are considerably more dangerous than
aviation. Ignoring this current fact would be unhelpful.

We only do this in aircraft where some outside force may actively be
trying to destroy you. (fighters and bombers) Almost everything else is
sufficently robust that we don't consider it, we expect 'intact abort'
in virtually all cases.

Maybe you have not noticed, but in the case of both Challenger and
Columbia, they were both destroyed by outside forces. So the very
environment that they are in is the thing that is trying to destroy
them.

Now had the Shuttle came with an escape system built in, then both of
these crews may have survived. I am thinking of a detachable cockpit
that forms into a crude craft.

Certainly the case of the CEV is a whole different safety concern,
where simply mounting this craft on top provides a huge advantage over
the Shuttle.

That rocket goes and does it's worst during flight, then with only a
little luck they should survive with only getting a little cooked. I
can only say that it would be helpful if the CEV could detach itself,
should the rocket go way off course. Like straight down.

Anyway, it would simply be wrong to ignore that launching and reentry
does carry a high level of risk. Ignoring it won't make it go away,
which is why they should certainly plan for what can go wrong.

Cardman.