Son of Little Joe II

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Scott is describing what options (effectively none) the crew of Challenger
would have had

Actually, *I* wasn't- "Joe" was playing loose with proper attribution.

It's the sort of thing I'd like to have said, but I believe it was said
better than I could have done so.

wrote in message
...
Christ, what a bunch of dickheaded
morons

That's Latin for "I'm talking out of my ass and hoping that if I throw out
enough profanity nobody will notice my complete lack of research."

Scott Hedrick wrote:

Christ, what a bunch of dickheaded
morons



That's Latin for "I'm talking out of my ass and hoping that if I throw out
enough profanity nobody will notice my complete lack of research."


They who build the Shuttle, they go the VAB? :-\

Pat

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:57:10 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

You came here with a know-it-all attitude, so prove it. Otherwise, you and
Bbo Hallre get to sleep together.

....Are you kidding? They'll erporduce and contaminate the gene pool of
the entire cattle industry!

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:20:49 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote:


I think the argument here is based on two different concepts; you are
describing what would have happened if Challenger had incorporated a LES
as part of its original design, Scott is describing what options
(effectively none) the crew of Challenger would have had if they had
known that the SRB was having a burn-through given the way that the
Shuttle system was actually built.

I think it's my post he's responding too, but yeah.

Dale

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
Reentering the atmosphere sideways is a no-win situation; I always found
it odd that the X-15 didn't have a separable nose section like the X-2
had, given its performance and altitude capabilities...

Scott Crossfield, the first X-15 pilot (who expected, incorrectly as it
turned out, to be doing a lot of the envelope-expansion flights),
campaigned against it, partly because his earlier work on the Skyrocket
(aka D-558-2) had convinced him that separable noses were themselves
almost suicidally risky to use.

It's interesting to note that when ESA decided that Hermes had to have an
escape system, they too ended up specifying ejection seats... and that
ESA's astronauts were openly opposed to the whole idea.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:


Scott Crossfield, the first X-15 pilot (who expected, incorrectly as it
turned out, to be doing a lot of the envelope-expansion flights),
campaigned against it, partly because his earlier work on the Skyrocket
(aka D-558-2) had convinced him that separable noses were themselves
almost suicidally risky to use.



The big problem was that every different aircraft needed a different
design jettisonable nose, so you never could get any real experience
with any particular one- unlike ejection sats which could be used in
multiple types of aircraft. (although that wasn't the case in early
ejection seats which tended to be made by the same company that made the
aircraft and designed specifically for it.) I'm trying to track down the
first aircraft that was equipped with a jettisonable nose; it may have
been the German DFS 228 rocket-powered reconnaissance plane:
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/dfs228.html

It's interesting to note that when ESA decided that Hermes had to have an
escape system, they too ended up specifying ejection seats... and that
ESA's astronauts were openly opposed to the whole idea.



The ejection seats lacked the elan vitale and clashed with the cockpit
decor no doubt. :-)
Considering the weight problems that Hermes ran into, the astronauts
probably thought that they were lucky to have seats, much less ejection
seats, rather than slings to sit in. Something about an ESA spationaut
putting their ass into a sling is unappealing.

Pat

Henry Spencer wrote:

Scott Crossfield, the first X-15 pilot (who expected, incorrectly as it
turned out, to be doing a lot of the envelope-expansion flights),
campaigned against it, partly because his earlier work on the Skyrocket
(aka D-558-2) had convinced him that separable noses were themselves
almost suicidally risky to use.

It's interesting to note that when ESA decided that Hermes had to have an
escape system, they too ended up specifying ejection seats... and that
ESA's astronauts were openly opposed to the whole idea.

Having worked on the F-111D, which had a capsule system rather than
ejection seats, and having seen one D model in my unit crash due to
hydraulic failure while flying nape of the earth (200' off the deck)
around Truth Or Consequences, NM, with a successful cabin capsule
ejection and full crew recovery, I don't think that cabin capsules are
inherently bad. They certainly are useful for vehicles spending time
above 50,000 ft if they suffer major failures that could quickly result
in fire or explosions in the air, and protect the crew against the
elements without having to work in pressure suit environments (not at
all fun). The 111's capsule was not the whole nose, though, just the
crew cabin, though it is interesting that on deployment, the cabin
deployed flaps from its trailing edges and was shaped to rougly mimic a
rather faceted airfoil shape, and so could 'fly' a little until
parachutes deployed, at least enough to maneuver away from the rest of
the aircraft at high speed.