Oct PopSci: "Get Out Now!" (Shuttle Escape System)

(Stuf4) wrote in message om...
"Had the Challenger crew had
ejection seats, they'd have been drinking beers at one of the bars in
Canaveral that evening."

Except they wouldn't. Prior to the breakup they had no reason to
eject, and had they done so they'd likely have ended up flying through
the shuttle exhaust, which wouldn't be too healthy for them. After the
breakup they would have rapidly lost consciousness and, even if they
had time to pull the ejection handle, they'd have been fired out of a
spinning crew compartment into the middle of a huge debris cloud as
the shuttle broke up... not too healthy either.

More provocatively, Gutierrez makes the same
claim for Columbia. "You put the [mid-deck] crew in a capsule in the
payload bay," he says.

If you're going to that extreme, why not just forget the shuttle and
put the crew in a capsule?

Like it or not, NASA can afford to lose shuttle crews, but they can't
afford to lose another shuttle. There won't be year-long shutdowns and
government investigations if a shuttle crew get run over by a bus, but
there probably won't be any more shuttle flights if they lose another
orbiter, whether or not the crew survive.

Mark

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:14:44 GMT, stmx3
wrote:

Did you really read the report?

....No, he just wiped his ass with it. Please, kids, just killfile the
little trolling ******* and be done with him. He's pulled this ****
before, and we're all sick of it.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

From Mark ):

"Had the Challenger crew had
ejection seats, they'd have been drinking beers at one of the bars in
Canaveral that evening."

Except they wouldn't. Prior to the breakup they had no reason to
eject, and had they done so they'd likely have ended up flying through
the shuttle exhaust, which wouldn't be too healthy for them. After the
breakup they would have rapidly lost consciousness and, even if they
had time to pull the ejection handle, they'd have been fired out of a
spinning crew compartment into the middle of a huge debris cloud as
the shuttle broke up... not too healthy either.

I can't speak for Sid, but I can offer my understanding of what he
meant. The Rogers Commission found evidence that the crew remained
conscious after the cabin separated from the orbiter wreckage. The
cabin had a long freefall of several minutes and was recovered from
the ocean floor.

If the crew had ejection seats, they would also have been in pressure
suits. In such a case, even if the cabin had depressurized, the crew
could have initiated egress from the cabin during that long way down
to the ocean. Once out, the chutes deploy and they are floating in
the ocean waiting to be rescued.

Then comes Miller Time, with about the coolest "there I was..." story
ever told.

More provocatively, Gutierrez makes the same
claim for Columbia. "You put the [mid-deck] crew in a capsule in the
payload bay," he says.

If you're going to that extreme, why not just forget the shuttle and
put the crew in a capsule?

Like it or not, NASA can afford to lose shuttle crews, but they can't
afford to lose another shuttle. There won't be year-long shutdowns and
government investigations if a shuttle crew get run over by a bus, but
there probably won't be any more shuttle flights if they lose another
orbiter, whether or not the crew survive.

Interesting position that NASA can afford to lose crews. I understand
the economics behind that statement, but I see it to be untenable in
the face of public opinion.


~ CT

From stmx3:
Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]


CAIB took seven months (!) to crank out a report that states the
obvious, leaving out key factors that aren't so obvious. Gehman had
little schedule pressure. NASA, too, had little schedule pressure.

How ironic that the investigation concluded that schedule pressure was
a key factor when the STS-107 mission had been slated for launch in
May 2000 (so many slips that the -107 mission got bracketed by STS-113
and STS-114).

That is *not* schedule pressure. The proper term is mismanagement.


(This forum had lengthy discussions questioning the decision to slip
STS-107 under the auspices of flow liner issues.)


~ CT

Did you really read the report? I think the board makes a pretty clear
case of schedule pressure driven by the Node 2 target date. Perhaps
following the STS-112 foam strike, more analysis would have been done to
resolve the issue if managers didn't have a "Countdown to NODE 2 Launch"
screensaver running. Of course, this is speculation.

Also, all events leading to the scheduling slip of 107 were directly
attributable to fleet grounding issues or ISS resupply/crew changeover
issues. You call that mismanagement? Again, I think that was driven by
schedule pressures.

Let's examine the notion of a "clear case of schedule pressure"...

Did Gehman bother to point out that STS-107 was an *unnecessary
mission*? It could have been cancelled outright with no impact to
Station. No sweat for the "line in the sand" (using the term out of
the report). NASA saves money and buys time to work the foam issue.
This was not done.


Other points regarding unwise management calls were hashed out last
summer and these threads can be found by searching the archives for
[flow liner slipped]. But the basic point is that NASA squandered
away months of schedule "slop" with management creating a problem that
hadn't previously existed.


~ CT

Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]
Also, all events leading to the scheduling slip of 107 were directly
attributable to fleet grounding issues or ISS resupply/crew changeover
issues. You call that mismanagement? Again, I think that was driven by
schedule pressures.


Let's examine the notion of a "clear case of schedule pressure"...

Did Gehman bother to point out that STS-107 was an *unnecessary
mission*? It could have been cancelled outright with no impact to
Station. No sweat for the "line in the sand" (using the term out of
the report). NASA saves money and buys time to work the foam issue.
This was not done.


You're purposefully putting on blinders to support your argument. Do
you think 107 was a necessary mission? If not, then do you know why
NASA had to do the mission? If you really take this to the extreme, the
you can say that NONE of these missions are *necessary*. But I think
you know that Congress didn't want NASA to be all about the ISS.


Other points regarding unwise management calls were hashed out last
summer and these threads can be found by searching the archives for
[flow liner slipped]. But the basic point is that NASA squandered
away months of schedule "slop" with management creating a problem that
hadn't previously existed.


~ CT

OK...I've not read that thread, so I won't comment further on
"mismanagement" in this context.

Thanks for the discussion. You obviously have strong personal feelings
regarding this.

Stuf4 wrote:
From Mark ):

Like it or not, NASA can afford to lose shuttle crews, but they can't
afford to lose another shuttle. There won't be year-long shutdowns and
government investigations if a shuttle crew get run over by a bus, but
there probably won't be any more shuttle flights if they lose another
orbiter, whether or not the crew survive.


Interesting position that NASA can afford to lose crews. I understand
the economics behind that statement, but I see it to be untenable in
the face of public opinion.


~ CT

I ditto your last sentiment. The only thing keeping NASA going, AFAIK,
is the will of the public (and, of course, NASA being a neat source of
congressional pork). NASA can *always* build another shuttle, despite
the difficulties, but they will *never* find another crew like the one
on STS-107.

In article , stmx3 wrote:

Interesting position that NASA can afford to lose crews. I understand
the economics behind that statement, but I see it to be untenable in
the face of public opinion.

I ditto your last sentiment. The only thing keeping NASA going, AFAIK,
is the will of the public (and, of course, NASA being a neat source of
congressional pork). NASA can *always* build another shuttle, despite
the difficulties, but they will *never* find another crew like the one
on STS-107.

Whilst I in no way wish to belittle the deaths of the 107 crew...
in exactly what way, from NASA's point of view, were they unique?

NASA wants a competent shuttle crew. They have, to the best of my
recollection, some 200-odd people - roughly twenty-five to thirty
possible crews, depending on whether or not you count those who are
unavailable for some reason. Those people got their places through a
highly competitive process that weeded out ten times as many, most of
whom were perfectly capable of doing a job, and (SFAIAA) all of whom are
still willing to, to paraphrase Al Shepard, get on top and light the
candle.

The STS-107 crew did not, to the best of my knowledge, contain
individuals whose skills are not replicated elsewhere in the astronaut
corps (unless you count "being Israeli").

Yes, deaths are a tragedy; any death diminishes us all, to misquote
someone whose name I really should remember. But whilst people, as
individuals, are irreplaceable... people, as employees, aren't. If one
of my (hypothetical, damn this job market) colleagues dies, then I will
mourn them; I won't claim that we can't hire another cook.

An individual is irreplaceable; it does not mean someone else cannot do
the job they did. And NASA has a large pool of trained, competent and
willing replacements. They'll find another crew like the one on 107. I
think you've slightly misread the point you were agreeing with...

--
-Andrew Gray

From stmx3:
Stuf4 wrote:
From Mark ):

Like it or not, NASA can afford to lose shuttle crews, but they can't
afford to lose another shuttle. There won't be year-long shutdowns and
government investigations if a shuttle crew get run over by a bus, but
there probably won't be any more shuttle flights if they lose another
orbiter, whether or not the crew survive.


Interesting position that NASA can afford to lose crews. I understand
the economics behind that statement, but I see it to be untenable in
the face of public opinion.


~ CT

I ditto your last sentiment. The only thing keeping NASA going, AFAIK,
is the will of the public (and, of course, NASA being a neat source of
congressional pork). NASA can *always* build another shuttle, despite
the difficulties, but they will *never* find another crew like the one
on STS-107.

The way I see it, following the Columbia wreck the primary factor that
saved the US space program was...

The Chinese!


~ CT

From stmx3:
Stuf4 wrote:
[snip]
Also, all events leading to the scheduling slip of 107 were directly
attributable to fleet grounding issues or ISS resupply/crew changeover
issues. You call that mismanagement? Again, I think that was driven by
schedule pressures.


Let's examine the notion of a "clear case of schedule pressure"...

Did Gehman bother to point out that STS-107 was an *unnecessary
mission*? It could have been cancelled outright with no impact to
Station. No sweat for the "line in the sand" (using the term out of
the report). NASA saves money and buys time to work the foam issue.
This was not done.


You're purposefully putting on blinders to support your argument. Do
you think 107 was a necessary mission? If not, then do you know why
NASA had to do the mission? If you really take this to the extreme, the
you can say that NONE of these missions are *necessary*. But I think
you know that Congress didn't want NASA to be all about the ISS.

If you prefer, Gehman's supposed "schedule pressure" could also have
been relieved by slipping STS-107 to *after* core complete. I mean,
what's one more year after all those other delays.

Other points regarding unwise management calls were hashed out last
summer and these threads can be found by searching the archives for
[flow liner slipped]. But the basic point is that NASA squandered
away months of schedule "slop" with management creating a problem that
hadn't previously existed.


~ CT

OK...I've not read that thread, so I won't comment further on
"mismanagement" in this context.

Thanks for the discussion. You obviously have strong personal feelings
regarding this.

Thank you too. (It seems that I need to tone down the way I voice my
opinions since I come across so strong. This has been a long time
criticism of mine.)


~ CT

stmx3 wrote in message ...
NASA can *always* build another shuttle, despite
the difficulties,

So where's Columbia's replacement?

Mark