OSP: reliability and survivability

In deciding whether or not to fund NASA's proposed Orbital Space Plane
- a "space taxi" dedicated to crew transport, in contrast to the
current "space truck" - Congressional mavens are making a faulty
assumption. That is that because OSP will be launched on unproven
Delta and Atlas-family rockets, it will be fundamentally no more
reliable than the Shuttle. Because OSP will be costly, it follows that
it makes more sense to upgrade the Shuttle than to build a new
spacecraft.

This is correct on its own narrow terms - rockets tend to explode at
least 1% of the time, despite the best efforts of engineers. However,
putting the OSP on top of the launch stack makes it an inherently
survivable vehicle; rockets can drag the plane clear of a fireball,
and launch debris won't fall onto the vehicle. The OSP becomes its own
ejector seat.

The shuttle, in contrast, can be made more reliable but is inherently
unsurvivable. The Challenger and Columbia incidents only became
disasters because of the Orbiter's placement to one side of the launch
stack. One way round this is to build a B-1B type Crew Escape Module
into the middeck, but this would involve a partial rebuild of the
three remaining Orbiters.

No. Don't upgrade the Shuttle beyond the measures suggested in the
Gehman report. Let's put all our energies into building a reliable,
survivable replacement. Fly the Shuttle only as many times as are
needed to complete the Station, then - ASAP - put these dinosaurs into
mothballs. Time for a change.

Edwin Kite
undergraduate
Cambridge University, UK

"Edwin Kite" wrote in message
om...
| In deciding whether or not to fund NASA's proposed Orbital Space Plane
| - a "space taxi" dedicated to crew transport, in contrast to the
| current "space truck" - Congressional mavens are making a faulty
| assumption. That is that because OSP will be launched on unproven
| Delta and Atlas-family rockets, it will be fundamentally no more
| reliable than the Shuttle. Because OSP will be costly, it follows that
| it makes more sense to upgrade the Shuttle than to build a new
| spacecraft.
|
| This is correct on its own narrow terms - rockets tend to explode at
| least 1% of the time, despite the best efforts of engineers. However,
| putting the OSP on top of the launch stack makes it an inherently
| survivable vehicle; rockets can drag the plane clear of a fireball,
| and launch debris won't fall onto the vehicle. The OSP becomes its own
| ejector seat.
|
| The shuttle, in contrast, can be made more reliable but is inherently
| unsurvivable. The Challenger and Columbia incidents only became
| disasters because of the Orbiter's placement to one side of the launch
| stack. One way round this is to build a B-1B type Crew Escape Module
| into the middeck, but this would involve a partial rebuild of the
| three remaining Orbiters.
|
| No. Don't upgrade the Shuttle beyond the measures suggested in the
| Gehman report. Let's put all our energies into building a reliable,
| survivable replacement. Fly the Shuttle only as many times as are
| needed to complete the Station, then - ASAP - put these dinosaurs into
| mothballs. Time for a change.
|
| Edwin Kite
| undergraduate
| Cambridge University, UK
I agree re space plane, but I do not see how you can say that Columbia's
loss wa due to the parallel nature of the Shuttle.

Debris does not have to be from the tank, it could be from debris in space,
and damage to the heat shielding components is going to be as fatal for the
osp however it is launched.

However, if we take the now considered dangerous line of assuming because
no space debris has cause problems before, then why should it now, then
yes, certainly, the top of stack idea is better.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/03

Just to be accurate, the B-1B does not use an escape capsule. The
original B-1 prototype had one. A better reference would be the F-111,
which does have an escape capsule design.

Matthew Ota
Former blue suiter

Edwin Kite wrote:

In deciding whether or not to fund NASA's proposed Orbital Space Plane
- a "space taxi" dedicated to crew transport, in contrast to the
current "space truck" - Congressional mavens are making a faulty
assumption. That is that because OSP will be launched on unproven
Delta and Atlas-family rockets, it will be fundamentally no more
reliable than the Shuttle. Because OSP will be costly, it follows that
it makes more sense to upgrade the Shuttle than to build a new
spacecraft.

This is correct on its own narrow terms - rockets tend to explode at
least 1% of the time, despite the best efforts of engineers. However,
putting the OSP on top of the launch stack makes it an inherently
survivable vehicle; rockets can drag the plane clear of a fireball,
and launch debris won't fall onto the vehicle. The OSP becomes its own
ejector seat.

The shuttle, in contrast, can be made more reliable but is inherently
unsurvivable. The Challenger and Columbia incidents only became
disasters because of the Orbiter's placement to one side of the launch
stack. One way round this is to build a B-1B type Crew Escape Module
into the middeck, but this would involve a partial rebuild of the
three remaining Orbiters.

No. Don't upgrade the Shuttle beyond the measures suggested in the
Gehman report. Let's put all our energies into building a reliable,
survivable replacement. Fly the Shuttle only as many times as are
needed to complete the Station, then - ASAP - put these dinosaurs into
mothballs. Time for a change.

Edwin Kite
undergraduate
Cambridge University, UK

From Matthew Ota:
Just to be accurate, the B-1B does not use an escape capsule. The
original B-1 prototype had one. A better reference would be the F-111,
which does have an escape capsule design.


Here's a good photo from one ejection:

http://f-111.net/KevinCoyne/FB-68-243-module.jpg


And here are the details from this one incident:
_________________

FB-111A 68-243 380 BW Nickname and nose-art 'Net Results'. Also called
'Jungle Queen'.
Crashed and destroyed approx. 1145am 2 February 1989 at Kirby near St
Johnsburg, Vermont. Plattsburgh crew of CAPT Randall S. Voorhees and
CAPT Len J. Esterly Jr survived ejection.
Callsign 'HEAT 22'.
Info from news clipping....

Aircraft took off from Plattsburgh AFB at 1050hrs as part of a two
ship AAR sortie off the Maine coast. After the aeroplane leveled at 19
000ft, it tended to roll left. At first Voorhees thought this was due
to a weight imbalance between the left and right fuel tanks, but the
pilot of the other FB-111A flew behind HEAT 22 and reported the left
external fuel tank (#3) was cocked 10 degrees outward. The wings were
moved forward but the tank remained cocked off. Voorhees decided at
1133hrs to return to Plattsburgh and at 1140hrs declared an in flight
emergency. At 1146hrs, radio contact was lost. The crew had
descended to 10 000ft and flew level for about five minutes before
Voorhees said he felt a jerk to the left. This was likely caused by
the tank twisting out to 65 degrees. As the FB-111A plunged at an
estimated 7000fpm, Voorhees shouted "Bail Out!" and pulled his
ejection handle at 7 220ft. The module landed into a large Spruce
tree, which penetrated the module and caused minor injuries to CAPT
Voorhees' left leg.
____________

(From http://f-111.net/t_no_FBG.htm)

As pointed out by many others, not all capsule ejections had a happy
ending as this one did.


~ CT

"Stuf4" wrote in message

Here's a good photo from one ejection:

http://f-111.net/KevinCoyne/FB-68-243-module.jpg

Doesn't Jenkins have a mention of the "escape module" reasoning for shuttle
in his book? Don't have my copy with me at the moment.

Jon

(Edwin Kite) wrote in message . com...

...- rockets tend to explode at
least 1% of the time, despite the best efforts of engineers.

It may be true that the best rockets tend to fail during the
initial boost phase about 1% of the time, but it is also true
that even the best launch vehicles (including shuttle) fail
to achieve their intended orbit about 2-3% of the time.

Here are my numbers for the best active launchers as of
August 30, 2003.

================================================== ===========
Vehicle Successes/Tries Realzd Pred Consc. Last Dates
Rate Rate* Succes Fail
================================================== ===========
Atlas 2/2AS 58 58 1.00 .98 58 None 1991-
STS 111 113 .98 .97 0(A) 2/1/03 1981-
Delta 2 107 109 .98 .97 54 1/17/97 1989-
Soyuz 813 835 .97 .97 7 10/15/02 1966-
Ariane 4 113 116 .97 .97 74 12/11/94 1988-2003
Tsyklon 2 108 111 .97 .96 90 4/25/73 1967-
Titan GT2/23G 23 23 1.00 .96 23 None 1964-
Kosmos 3M 399 421 .95 .95 7 11/20/00 1964-
Molniya M 271 290 .93 .93 51 6/21/90 1963-
Tsyklon 3 112 120 .93 .93 2 12/27/00 1977-
CZ-2(C/SD) 21 22 .96 .92 21 11/5/74 1974-
Proton(-K/M) 263 300 .88 .87 4 11/25/02 1967-
Titan IVA/B 31 35 .89 .86 8 4/30/99 1997-
Pegasus 30 35 .86 .84 21 11/4/96 1991-
CZ-3/3A 17 20 .85 .82 7 8/18/96 1984-
Zenit 2/3 36 44 .82 .80 9 --/--/00 1985-
H-2/H-2A 10 12 .83 .79 5 11/15/99 1994-
Ariane 5G/ECA 12 16 .75 .72 2 12/11/02 1996-
================================================== ===========
* First level Bayesian estimate of mean predicted probability
of success for next launch attempt (k+1)/(n+2) where k is the
number of successful events and n is the number of trials.

(A)STS-107 re-entry failure due to launch phase damage.

However,
putting the OSP on top of the launch stack makes it an inherently
survivable vehicle; rockets can drag the plane clear of a fireball,
and launch debris won't fall onto the vehicle. The OSP becomes its own
ejector seat.


An ejection system, of course, can't guarantee survival. It
only improves the odds - and there may be some failure modes
that require sacrifice of the spacecraft to save the crew, etc..
NASA might still have to plan for a 2% fleet loss rate, but
it won't lose astronauts so often.


No. Don't upgrade the Shuttle beyond the measures suggested in the
Gehman report. Let's put all our energies into building a reliable,
survivable replacement. Fly the Shuttle only as many times as are
needed to complete the Station, then - ASAP - put these dinosaurs into
mothballs. Time for a change.


Agreed. Indeed, knowing the inherent danger of flying without an
escape system (if it flies enough times, more astronauts will
almost certainly die), why even fly shuttle again at all?

- Ed Kyle

"Stuf4" wrote in message
m...
From Matthew Ota:
Just to be accurate, the B-1B does not use an escape capsule. The
original B-1 prototype had one. A better reference would be the F-111,
which does have an escape capsule design.


Here's a good photo from one ejection:

http://f-111.net/KevinCoyne/FB-68-243-module.jpg


And here are the details from this one incident:
_________________

FB-111A 68-243 380 BW Nickname and nose-art 'Net Results'. Also called
'Jungle Queen'.
Crashed and destroyed approx. 1145am 2 February 1989 at Kirby near St
Johnsburg, Vermont. Plattsburgh crew of CAPT Randall S. Voorhees and
CAPT Len J. Esterly Jr survived ejection.
Callsign 'HEAT 22'.
Info from news clipping....

Aircraft took off from Plattsburgh AFB at 1050hrs as part of a two
ship AAR sortie off the Maine coast. After the aeroplane leveled at 19
000ft, it tended to roll left. At first Voorhees thought this was due
to a weight imbalance between the left and right fuel tanks, but the
pilot of the other FB-111A flew behind HEAT 22 and reported the left
external fuel tank (#3) was cocked 10 degrees outward. The wings were
moved forward but the tank remained cocked off. Voorhees decided at
1133hrs to return to Plattsburgh and at 1140hrs declared an in flight
emergency. At 1146hrs, radio contact was lost. The crew had
descended to 10 000ft and flew level for about five minutes before
Voorhees said he felt a jerk to the left. This was likely caused by
the tank twisting out to 65 degrees. As the FB-111A plunged at an
estimated 7000fpm, Voorhees shouted "Bail Out!" and pulled his
ejection handle at 7 220ft. The module landed into a large Spruce
tree, which penetrated the module and caused minor injuries to CAPT
Voorhees' left leg.
____________

(From http://f-111.net/t_no_FBG.htm)

As pointed out by many others, not all capsule ejections had a happy
ending as this one did.


~ CT

There was a 111 shot down in 1991 over Iraq. I remember CNN running
video of the capsule laying on the ground in the desert. It looked intact
and rightside up. May still be there.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:12:55 GMT, "Bruce Sterling Woodcock"
wrote:


"JNICHOLS" wrote in message
.. .

There was a 111 shot down in 1991 over Iraq. I remember CNN
running
video of the capsule laying on the ground in the desert. It looked
intact
and rightside up. May still be there.

I think you're thinking of the F-111 that was shot down over
Bosnia or Yougslavia sometime during the Clinton years. I
never heard a good explanation as to how it happened and
how the wreckage was recovered.

Bruce


An F-111 was lost over Iraq Feb 13, 1991. Previous to that one was
lost over Libya in 1986. None were lost over Bosnia/Yugoslavia. An
F117 Stealth Fighter was shot down over Yugoslavia on Marcy 27, 1999.

http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/news99/uns99072.htm


http://f-111.net/combat/

"...Iraq, Persian Gulf, Operation DESERT SHIELD 1990-91 / DESERT
STORM, 1991

F-111E, F-111F and EF-111F used. Australian F/RF-111C were requested
by US, but the Prime Minister declined the request and sent a number
of Australian warships and other assets for duty in the Persian Gulf.
Australia was the first foreign country to commit forces to the US led
Operation DESERT SHIELD.

EF-111A 66-0023 13 Feb 91. Saudi Arabia. Capt. Douglas L. Bradt and
Capt. Paul R. Eichenlaub. Callsign RATCHET 75. Speculation of flight
into terrain at night avoiding air to air threat displayed on the
threat radar warning receiver upon entering Iraqi airspace. An
ejection was attempted. It has been reported that F-15s in the
vicinity witnessed the EF-111A manourvering and dispensing
countermeasures immediately prior to terrain impact.(XX)
Both Capt. Douglas L. Bradt & Capt. Paul R. Eichenlaub received
Distinguished Flying Crosses and Purple Hearts for "their gallantry in
combat". (DFC citation)
The EF-111 (66-0016) on static display at Cannon AFB has the names
Capt. Douglas L. Bradt (Aircraft Commander) and Capt. Paul R.
Eichenlaub (EWO) adorning the cockpit as a memorial to their heroism
(see photo) (see art-work tribute by Jeff Ferguson, friend of Capt
Bradt)...."


- Rusty Barton

Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote:

I think you're thinking of the F-111 that was shot down over
Bosnia or Yougslavia sometime during the Clinton years. I
never heard a good explanation as to how it happened and
how the wreckage was recovered.

AFAIK, an F-111 Aardvark was not lost over Serbia or even Iraq during
Gulf War I. I believe the last F-111 lost to hostile fire was during
the strike on Libya in 1986. However, you may be thinking about the
F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth) that was shot down over Serbia.

--


Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii

"Rusty B" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:12:55 GMT, "Bruce Sterling Woodcock"
wrote:


"JNICHOLS" wrote in message
.. .

There was a 111 shot down in 1991 over Iraq. I remember CNN
running
video of the capsule laying on the ground in the desert. It looked
intact
and rightside up. May still be there.

I think you're thinking of the F-111 that was shot down over
Bosnia or Yougslavia sometime during the Clinton years. I
never heard a good explanation as to how it happened and
how the wreckage was recovered.

Bruce


An F-111 was lost over Iraq Feb 13, 1991. Previous to that one was
lost over Libya in 1986. None were lost over Bosnia/Yugoslavia. An
F117 Stealth Fighter was shot down over Yugoslavia on Marcy 27, 1999.

Yes. I meant the F117. I actually thought he was talking
about the 117, not the 111.

Bruce