inflation st yle heat shield crew bail out

Has the idea of using inflation heat shield technology as a "life
boat" been examined?

I remember early space paper studies of man in orbit to ground via
schemes similar to ejection seats. Granted, it is a high spot to step
out for a jump; can it be done?

Has the idea of using inflation heat shield technology as a "life
boat" been examined?

I remember early space paper studies of man in orbit to ground via
schemes similar to ejection seats. Granted, it is a high spot to step
out for a jump; can it be done?


Ahh Moose, I think it should be implemented. solves all sorts of statrion and
shuttle issues while facilitating hubble service.


Hey this is my opinion

Hmm, not sure I'd want to test the first model though!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"bob haller" wrote in message
...
|
| Has the idea of using inflation heat shield technology as a "life
| boat" been examined?
|
| I remember early space paper studies of man in orbit to ground via
| schemes similar to ejection seats. Granted, it is a high spot to step
| out for a jump; can it be done?
|
|
| Ahh Moose, I think it should be implemented. solves all sorts of statrion
and
| shuttle issues while facilitating hubble service.
|
|
| Hey this is my opinion


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 29/03/04

In article ,
(Rob Mohr) wrote:

Has the idea of using inflation heat shield technology as a "life
boat" been examined?

I remember early space paper studies of man in orbit to ground via
schemes similar to ejection seats. Granted, it is a high spot to step
out for a jump; can it be done?

Back in the 60's NASA was workin g on such a system, with a little
*hand* held retro-rocket held thru the bubble. The idea was to have
such a low loading that temps would be workable, and the bubble would
collapse at lower altitude. I think the astronaut had to bail out of
the bubble and parachute.

All concept, never saw actual hardware.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Hmm, not sure I'd want to test the first model though!

Brian

design build, then eject a few from a shuttle with a crash dummy for test
purposes. all wired up with telementary.

The first tester will get a first in space. that and the promise of safety will
likely get lots of astronauts competing to be number one.

Advantages.

Since it takes crew down seperately a single sick crew member doesnt
necessitate evacuating the station.

Station crew size can easily be increased with no new soyuz needed.

Hubble service flight can now be possible.

It elminates the necessity of having a back up shuttle availble for
emergencies.

It minimizes the ISS lifeboat need, and the troubles they would have keeping 9
or 10 people on the station for 90 days.

I suspect the ride down would be gentle since it has to come down with low
loading on the inflatable.

Realite to shuttle costs this shouldnt be too expensive.

Now does anyone know of some negatives???
Hey this is my opinion

(bob haller) wrote in
:

Since it takes crew down seperately a single sick crew member doesnt
necessitate evacuating the station.

Well, it's certainly a good way of killing off a sick/injured crewmember
you want to get rid of. For one, MOOSE requires the crewmember be suited,
and it takes a good deal of physical exertion to get into one even when
healthy. It's quite likely that an injured crewmember would be injured
further as his crewmates attempt to wrestle him into the suit. Second, if
the crewmember suffers from nausea, there's a good chance he could vomit in
the spacesuit, which in zero-G is practically 100% fatal within 48 hours.
Third, MOOSE requires the crewmember to orient himself for retrofire, which
might be a tad difficult if the crewmember is sick/injured/unconscious.
Fourth, the crewmember might be stuck on the ground for quite a while
waiting for SAR forces.

Bottom line is that MOOSE violates the cardinal safety rule: always use the
buddy system.

Station crew size can easily be increased with no new soyuz needed.

But not without additional life support.

Hubble service flight can now be possible.

It's possible anyway.

It elminates the necessity of having a back up shuttle availble for
emergencies.

It's not needed anyway.

I suspect the ride down would be gentle since it has to come down with
low loading on the inflatable.

Nope. For one, it's not inflatable (please read up on things before you
pontificate on them). For two, it makes a ballistic entry, which is
typically 8-10 g.

Now does anyone know of some negatives???
Hey this is my opinion

See above. Your reckless disregard for crew safety is duly noted.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Rather than quote away...

So, if the loading is such that heating is low, surely the weather would
take it hundreds of miles from where it might be aimed at. As was said,
maybe a second bale out would be the way ahead.

How hevy and space consuming would such things be though?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Nick Hull" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| (Rob Mohr) wrote:
|
| Has the idea of using inflation heat shield technology as a "life
| boat" been examined?
|
| I remember early space paper studies of man in orbit to ground via
| schemes similar to ejection seats. Granted, it is a high spot to step
| out for a jump; can it be done?
|
| Back in the 60's NASA was workin g on such a system, with a little
| *hand* held retro-rocket held thru the bubble. The idea was to have
| such a low loading that temps would be workable, and the bubble would
| collapse at lower altitude. I think the astronaut had to bail out of
| the bubble and parachute.
|
| All concept, never saw actual hardware.
|
| --
| free men own guns - slaves don't
| www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 31/03/04

rk wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

See above. Your reckless disregard for crew safety is duly noted.

But does it give the appearance of crew safety?

Yup. Good PR, too. So it meets both of hallerb's criteria for safety
upgrades.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Nope. For one, it's not inflatable (please read up on things before you
pontificate on them). For two, it makes a ballistic entry, which is
typically 8-10 g.

Doesn't the g load depend on the mass/volume ratio ?

Is it correct to state that the higher g load means a lower heating ? (since
you decelerate much master) ?

John Doe wrote in :

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Nope. For one, it's not inflatable (please read up on things before
you pontificate on them). For two, it makes a ballistic entry, which
is typically 8-10 g.

Doesn't the g load depend on the mass/volume ratio ?

Is it correct to state that the higher g load means a lower heating ?
(since you decelerate much master) ?

MOOSE is only one of several designs based on a similar concept, that being
a very small, single-person reentry unit for use in emergency deorbit. Bear
in mind that none of the designs went further than a pure paper study.

It has "a flexible, folded 1.8 m diameter elastomeric heat shield". Not
quite an inflatable, and with a rather small cross-section.
More info at http://www.astronautix.com/craft/moose.htm

MOOSE re-entry was supposed to be at around 10g.


Your questions as to G loading.
G load varies as to *frontal surface*/mass, drag coefficient, and re-entry
trajectory. (which in turn is quite dependant on entry anglel, speed, and
lift/drag ratio)

Higher g loading does mean lower heating of the vehicle, *in total*. Peak
heating will be higher for a high-g entry, but for a much shorter duration.
Low g entries have lower peak heating, but much longer duration and thus
more total heat entering the vehicle rather than dumped in the plasma.