Shuttle RTLS abort contradiction

On 12/23/2010 04:58 PM, Val Kraut wrote:
Well, even if they won't make it back to the Shuttle Landing Facility,
getting back closer to the SRB recovery ships would certainly improve
the chances of crew survival after bailout.


I wasn't aware of the fact they wear parachutes and could bailout.

Yes. That has been the case since STS-26.

On 12/23/2010 2:58 PM, Val Kraut wrote:
Well, even if they won't make it back to the Shuttle Landing Facility,
getting back closer to the SRB recovery ships would certainly improve
the chances of crew survival after bailout.


I wasn't aware of the fact they wear parachutes and could bailout.


There's some info on how it's done he
http://chriselyea.com/failure-analys...ally-deployed/
http://chriselyea.com/failure-analys...at-resistance/
http://chriselyea.com/failure-analys...high-altitude/
Since they have to get out of their seats and go to the side hatch to do
this, it's for use in an emergency where the Shuttle is still under
control but can't successfully land for some reason.

Pat

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:58:18 -0500, "Val Kraut"
wrote:


Well, even if they won't make it back to the Shuttle Landing Facility,
getting back closer to the SRB recovery ships would certainly improve
the chances of crew survival after bailout.


I wasn't aware of the fact they wear parachutes and could bailout.

Added after Challenger, along with the bailout pole to prevent being
hit by the Shuttle's wing.

Brian

On 12/24/2010 4:11 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:58:18 -0500, "Val Kraut"
wrote:


Well, even if they won't make it back to the Shuttle Landing Facility,
getting back closer to the SRB recovery ships would certainly improve
the chances of crew survival after bailout.


I wasn't aware of the fact they wear parachutes and could bailout.

Added after Challenger, along with the bailout pole to prevent being
hit by the Shuttle's wing.

I take it the pilot and copilot have it on autopilot while they head for
the hatch after everyone else bails out?
The Soviets also put ejection seats on Buran like we had on the early
Shuttle orbital flights:
http://tinyurl.com/2f4zx4c
They tried them out during several launches of Progress cargo ships,
ejecting the seats during ascent from the aerodynamic fairing that
covered the Progress during ascent.
I don't know if the seats were going to be kept for operational Buran
flights, but Buran was designed to work in a two-crew configuration or
even completely uncrewed if it was to just place a satellite in orbit.
Buran also could perform a maneuver similar to the Shuttle RTLS abort:
http://tinyurl.com/26kmccd
An advantage of Buran over the Shuttle was that the strap-on boosters
were liquid-fueled, so they could be shut down during ascent, allowing
the orbiter to separate from the stack; NASA wanted the Shuttle to have
liquid-fueled boosters originally also, but the budget wasn't there to
develop them, so you ended up having to ride the stack on up till the
SRB's burnt out if something went wrong, and hope for the best.
There was some research put into venting the SRB's to shut them down
like was going to be done on the Titan III when carrying the MOL or
Dyna-Soar, but the ET's structure couldn't withstand the blast of the
boosters venting near it.
That was ironic, because NASA didn't think much of the Air Force using
solid boosters on a manned launch vehicle, yet their SRB's for the
Shuttle lacked the venting capability for shutdown that the Air Force
considered necessary to man-rate the Titan III.

Pat