Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Oct 12, 9:29*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), bob haller safety advocate

wrote:
So if a crew capsule had been in the columbia payload bay would the
crew survived?

No, they wouldn't have been in it, because management didn't believe
there was a problem.

Brian

Lets assume they were in the capsule.........

In article 1f4177cb-aca5-4ddb-9ada-3bcb74a1d914
@i21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com, says...

So if a crew capsule had been in the columbia payload bay would the
crew survived?

Doubtful because even if the crew was in a capsule in the payload bay,
it's doubtful it would have survived the break up of the shuttle due to
aerodynamic forces. And even if it did survive, it would need to
quickly orient itself properly (heat shield in the right direction) to
prevent it from burning up. Good luck with that.

Jeff
--
42

On 10/13/2010 10:33 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article1f4177cb-aca5-4ddb-9ada-3bcb74a1d914
@i21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com, says...
So if a crew capsule had been in the columbia payload bay would the
crew survived?
Doubtful because even if the crew was in a capsule in the payload bay,
it's doubtful it would have survived the break up of the shuttle due to
aerodynamic forces. And even if it did survive, it would need to
quickly orient itself properly (heat shield in the right direction) to
prevent it from burning up. Good luck with that.

I gathered we were supposed to assume that there was a capsule in
the payload bay, AND that the damage was identified before the shuttle
started re-entry, AND the decision was made to have the crew abandon
the shuttle and re-enter via the capsule, and so forth and so on. Why
that's a more useful exercise than simply imagining that friendly aliens
pulled up alongside Columbia in their flying saucer, beamed the crew
over, and landed them all on the South Lawn of the White House, I have
no idea.

Bob M.

On Oct 13, 1:14*pm, Bob Myers wrote:
* On 10/13/2010 10:33 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article1f4177cb-aca5-4ddb-9ada-3bcb74a1d914
@i21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com, says...
So if a crew capsule had been in the columbia payload bay would the
crew survived?
Doubtful because even if the crew was in a capsule in the payload bay,
it's doubtful it would have survived the break up of the shuttle due to
aerodynamic forces. *And even if it did survive, it would need to
quickly orient itself properly (heat shield in the right direction) to
prevent it from burning up. *Good luck with that.

I gathered we were supposed to assume that there was a capsule in
the payload bay, AND that the damage was identified before the shuttle
started re-entry, AND the decision was made to have the crew abandon
the shuttle and re-enter via the capsule, and so forth and so on. *Why
that's a more useful exercise than simply imagining that friendly aliens
pulled up alongside Columbia in their flying saucer, beamed the crew
over, and landed them all on the South Lawn of the White House, I have
no idea.

Bob M.

the capsule should of been the crew compartment of the shuttle.......

with a detchale crew compartment probably both chalenger and columbia
crews wuld of survived

On 10/13/2010 1:07 PM, bob haller safety advocate wrote:

the capsule should of been the crew compartment of the shuttle.......

with a detchale crew compartment probably both chalenger and columbia
crews wuld of survived

I seriously doubt that. You're talking about not just a "detachable" crew
compartment (the crew compartment of Challenger survived the
explosion relatively intact, by the way), but one with independent
re-entry, safe descent, and landing/recovery capability, plus some system
to reliably detach said compartment and remove it to a safe maneuvering
distance from a presumed shuttle-in-trouble before it strikes out on its
own.
Then you'd have to worry about providing all of the system attach mechanisms
while the compartment was in place, including providing a means for crew
access
to the rest of the shuttle (esp. the payload bay) which would not
interfere with the escape function. Doesn't sound like a particularly
practical notion to me.

Bob M.

Bob Myers bracht volgend idée uit :
On 10/13/2010 1:07 PM, bob haller safety advocate wrote:

the capsule should of been the crew compartment of the shuttle.......

with a detchale crew compartment probably both chalenger and columbia
crews wuld of survived

Then you'd have to worry about providing all of the system attach mechanisms
while the compartment was in place, including providing a means for crew
access
to the rest of the shuttle (esp. the payload bay) which would not
interfere with the escape function. Doesn't sound like a particularly
practical notion to me.

Bob M.

This has been thougt of during the MOL project. The idea was to cut a
hatch in the ablative heatshield of the Gemini capsule, te get into the
laboratory.
Google for "Blue Gemini", "Gemini B" or "Gemini MOL"

On 10/13/2010 3:57 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:
I gathered we were supposed to assume that there was a capsule in
the payload bay, AND that the damage was identified before the shuttle
started re-entry, AND the decision was made to have the crew abandon
the shuttle and re-enter via the capsule, and so forth and so on.

Actually, this is not as useless excercise as it seems.

Given that no one is engaged in the development of new shuttle
hardware, I don't see how it's anything but.

Bob M.

On Oct 13, 3:29*pm, Bob Myers wrote:
* On 10/13/2010 3:57 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

Bob Myers wrote:
I gathered we were supposed to assume that there was a capsule in
the payload bay, AND that the damage was identified before the shuttle
started re-entry, AND the decision was made to have the crew abandon
the shuttle and re-enter via the capsule, and so forth and so on.

Actually, this is not as useless excercise as it seems.

Given that no one is engaged in the development of new shuttle
hardware, I don't see how it's anything but.

After a while (perhaps less than 30 years), someone will want a winged
vehicle again. We're just doing their homework early.

/dps

Given that no one is engaged in the development of new shuttle
hardware, I don't see how it's anything but.

After a while (perhaps less than 30 years), someone will want a winged
vehicle again. *We're just doing their homework early.

/dps

yea 30 to 40 years makes us lose the lessons of the past.

5 years after vietnam loss we wouldnt of gone and mired our country in
2 more useless unwinnable wars.

the voters would of rioted.

sadly our country forgot

Jeff Findley wrote in
:

Take a closer look at the shuttle. There are many failure modes on the
shuttle which can be fixed by astronauts, but can't be fixed remotely
from the ground.
How many of those failure modes are directly related to being a crewed
and/or reusable vehicle ?


Take a look at the list of possible contingency EVA's on the shuttle and
you'll quickly find that the sorts of failures these address would turn
into loss of vehicle without a crew present.
In the history of the shuttle, how many times was is saved by having an EVA
?

Loss of vehicle can be a danger to people on the ground.
Having a crewed cargo vehicle voids the "blow it up over the ocean" option.