Auto-destruct

"...The fact that the shuttle had an auto-destruct was astounding to the
Russians. The system, which enabled NASA ground controllers to blow up the
shuttle in the unlikely event it wandered off course and threatened to crash
into a populated area, was anathema the Russians, who angrily said no such
system had ever been incorporated into Russian spacecraft."

p. 253 Bryan Burrough Dragonfly: NASA and the crisis aboard the MIR
(HarperCollins, New York, 1998)

Is the above emphasis on *Russian*, as opposed to *Soviet*?

Martin

"Martin Dunn" wrote in message
...
"...The fact that the shuttle had an auto-destruct was astounding to the
Russians. The system, which enabled NASA ground controllers to blow up the
shuttle in the unlikely event it wandered off course and threatened to
crash
into a populated area, was anathema the Russians, who angrily said no such
system had ever been incorporated into Russian spacecraft."

p. 253 Bryan Burrough Dragonfly: NASA and the crisis aboard the MIR
(HarperCollins, New York, 1998)

Is the above emphasis on *Russian*, as opposed to *Soviet*?


Not sure, but there are several slightly wrong details there.

NASA ground controllers had no ability to activate the range safety devices.
That's handled by range safety at the Cape which is generally an Air Force
officer.

Secondly, the shuttle itself (the orbiter) never had any such devices. Only
the ET and SRBs. And after Challenger, they were removed from the ET as
they were considered redundant. However, they were kept on the SRBs (and I
believe activated) since an SRB landing in Orlando (especially if there is a
lawyer's convention going on) would be a real bad day.

Also, there's rumors that such a device WAS in fact incorporated in
Garagin's craft expressly so he couldn't defect to the US.



Martin

Why does the shuttle need a destruct system? It seems to destroy itself okay
without it.

Hallerb

HEY THIS IMPERSONATOR IS FUNNY

Pre challenger auto destruct was on the orbiter. After challenger its only on
the boosters.

I know more than my impersonator!

Pre challenger auto destruct was on the orbiter. After challenger its only on
the boosters.

Actually I meant to say ET.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...
However, they were kept on the SRBs (and I
believe activated) since an SRB landing in Orlando (especially if there is
a
lawyer's convention going on) would be a real bad day.

Not for the rest of us
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
I know more than my impersonator!

Facts not in evidence.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...

Actually I meant to say ET.

Bob Haller, phone home.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

"Martin Dunn" wrote in message ...
"...The fact that the shuttle had an auto-destruct was astounding to the
Russians. The system, which enabled NASA ground controllers to blow up the
shuttle in the unlikely event it wandered off course and threatened to crash
into a populated area, was anathema the Russians, who angrily said no such
system had ever been incorporated into Russian spacecraft."

Well, let's assume that this is all true so far. Why would the U.S.
have a self destruct onboard an orbiter, hypothetically? Because it's
extremely massive, and it launches from the edge of the most densely
populated state in the union. In the event that the stack goes wildly
off course and veers toward Florida, it'd be like dropping a jumbo-jet
on Ft. Lauderdale, only worse because of the potentially much higher
kinetic & chemical energy.

What about the Russian vehicles? Their stacks are typically much
less massive, and more importantly, they all launch from way out in
the middle of nowhere. The likelyhood of an out of control stack
landing on top of innocents is proportionately very much smaller.

And of course, there's the question of one's paradigms. In the U.S.
there's at least ostensibly some accountability. In the old Soviet
Union it was possible to accidentally extinguish a small village full
of powerless peasants, and all the authorities might do is officially
erase it from history.

-Mark Martin

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

However, they were kept on the SRBs (and I
believe activated) since an SRB landing in Orlando (especially if there is a
lawyer's convention going on) would be a real bad day.


My pet "Bad Day" scenario is the Shuttle coming off the pad... and
something going terribly wrong with the guidance system- so that it
heads into the VAB "Doppleganger" style.... while another Shuttle's
stack is being assembled...with its SRBs in the VAB.

Pat

On or about Thu, 25 Dec 2003 03:54:12 -0600, Pat Flannery
made the sensational claim that:
My pet "Bad Day" scenario is the Shuttle coming off the pad... and
something going terribly wrong with the guidance system- so that it
heads into the VAB "Doppleganger" style.... while another Shuttle's
stack is being assembled...with its SRBs in the VAB.

You can't really appreciate this scenario. I watched the STS-99 launch from
the north parking lot of that there VAB. A line of hedges blocked the view of
the pad. My first thought when I saw the stack pop over those hedges was:

"Um, if that thing explodes, I'm f**ked."

3 miles is *A LOT* closer than I'd thought it was.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here