"Roger. Go at throttle up."

That phrase STILL gives me goose bumps......

But I'm not going to be sad for someone that took a chance and went out doing what they loved.!!!

True American Badasses!!!

From the NASA report - and an important fact:

During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options.

No matter what they were wearing or emergency equipment they had, the Shuttle crew was doomed. The only thing pressure suits would have done is kept the crew alive long enough to hit the water.

Av.

Quoted: From the NASA report - and an important fact: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. No matter what they were wearing or emergency equipment they had, the Shuttle crew was doomed. The only thing pressure suits would have done is kept the crew alive long enough to hit the water. Av.

and who the hell wants to be alive while falling into the ocean??  You know the instant you are going to die.  Great.

No thanks!!!!!!!!!!

As I understand it, some of the emergency air supply tanks in the spacesuits of the Challenger astronauts were empty.  They used it all up.

Under panic breathing conditions, that's at LEAST two minutes, and the supply has to
be turned on manually.


The same thing was discovered among some of the Columbia astronauts as well, and some
of them were thrown clear of the shuttle when it tore itself apart,  and were unharmed with
intact spacesuits, but for the impact with the ground.


CJ

Quoted: From the NASA report - and an important fact: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. No matter what they were wearing or emergency equipment they had, the Shuttle crew was doomed. The only thing pressure suits would have done is kept the crew alive long enough to hit the water. Av.

at some point- the helmet is wearing you for protection....

Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft.
parachute after reentry, just like apollo.
It can be done.

There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted.

Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident.





More...

Quoted: When it blew up I think they were traveling at about 4500 mph correct?

Speed at Max Q (max aero pressure) is @2000 MPH.  The break-up happened seconds later.

There's involvement

and then there's commitment.

Quoted: There's involvement and then there's commitment.

What's the old saying? If you are having eggs for a meal the chicken is involved. If you're having chicken for dinner the chicken is committed.

Quoted: Quoted: There's involvement and then there's commitment. What's the old saying? If you are having eggs for a meal the chicken is involved. If you're having chicken for dinner the chicken is committed.

I started to include that.....but was afraid it might seem indelicate..

(in a breakfast of bacon and eggs- the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed)

You have to have a HUGE set to strap yourself to 100,000 gallons of explosive liquid propellant and let someone launch you at the stars!!!

American Badasses!!!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The G-forces from the impact weren't nearly enough to kill a healthy individual. just so i'm clear, you'e stating that hitting water at 200+ MPH isn't nearly enough to cause BFT death? i think perhaps you should reconsider this statement, since hitting water at 110mph will kill you virtually every time.  in the annals of skydiving, there are only a few examples of survival from a terminal velocity impact, and those involved highly-yielding surfaces like a 20' snowbank (siberia), and viscous mud flats (florida).  at high speed, hitting water is very similar to hitting dirt. I think he meant the g-forces from the initial disintegration of the orbiter. Correct, the first part of my post refers to the impact of the pressure wave from the explosion. ok--that makes more sense.  though i must say that i've never heard someone use the term "impact" in this way (WRT the pressure wave).  i agree that the breakup itself was probably insufficient to kill the crew.

From the view of the orbiter and crew, the pressure wave hitting the orbiter very much was an impact, causing a peak of 12-20gs almost instantly. A little like a golf ball being hit by a golf club.

They survived that, though, without doubt.

Quoted: From the NASA report - and an important fact: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. No matter what they were wearing or emergency equipment they had, the Shuttle crew was doomed. The only thing pressure suits would have done is kept the crew alive long enough to hit the water. Av.

I don't think this is completely correct. There's a difference between an "abort" (which, at that point in the flight, there were no options for) and getting out of the hulk of what remains of your spacecraft after a catastrophic failure as it freefalls from 60K.

The thing is no one at NASA conceived such a scenario. The crew compartment, and crew within, was not supposed to survive a catastrophic failure of the SBRs and tank. They were supposed to die in a giant fireball.

They didn't. It didn't happen as the projections said it would, and they survived. If they had been wearing pressure suits, they would have had considerable time to attempt escape from the crew compartment. Now I'm not saying they would have escaped, a lot of that depends on the stability of the cabin in freefall (IE: was it spinning), but I give them a one in a hundred chance of getting out. Assuming they had parachutes and rescue beacons, that would mean survival.

As a point of interest,  before the wreckage of the Challenger was buried in the Minuteman missile silo that is also where the Apollo 1 capsule was buried,  (and later, also the Columbia remains),  the rescue crews at KSC were given the opportunity to test their rescue tools on
the Columbia wreckage....and the titanium framing members of the cabin and fuselage
are so strong that the rescue crews broke all their Hurst tools on them.


In retrospect, it might have been feasible to design the crew cabin with a large two stage drogue and main parachute system at the back of it,  with automatic flotation systems
around the cabin, and explosive bolts at the rear of the cabin to allow the cabin to separate,
parachute down at a survivable rate of descent and impact, and float for rescue.


CJ

Quoted: As a point of interest,  before the wreckage of the Challenger was buried in the Minuteman missile silo that is also where the Apollo 1 capsule was buried,  (and later, also the Columbia remains),  the rescue crews at KSC were given the opportunity to test their rescue tools on the Columbia wreckage....and the titanium framing members of the cabin and fuselage are so strong that the rescue crews broke all their Hurst tools on them. In retrospect, it might have been feasible to design the crew cabin with a large two stage drogue and main parachute system at the back of it,  with automatic flotation systems around the cabin, and explosive bolts at the rear of the cabin to allow the cabin to separate, parachute down at a survivable rate of descent and impact, and float for rescue. CJ

The problem is that by the time you know you need to activate said cabin escape system, the orbiter has already ripped apart and your escape system is probably no longer functional.

The crews only (and still tiny) chance of escape was pressure suits and personal parachutes.

Quoted: As a point of interest,  before the wreckage of the Challenger was buried in the Minuteman missile silo that is also where the Apollo 1 capsule was buried,  (and later, also the Columbia remains),  the rescue crews at KSC were given the opportunity to test their rescue tools on the Columbia wreckage....and the titanium framing members of the cabin and fuselage are so strong that the rescue crews broke all their Hurst tools on them. In retrospect, it might have been feasible to design the crew cabin with a large two stage drogue and main parachute system at the back of it,  with automatic flotation systems around the cabin, and explosive bolts at the rear of the cabin to allow the cabin to separate, parachute down at a survivable rate of descent and impact, and float for rescue. CJ

The remains of the Apollo 1 command module are in a warehouse at Langley Research Center.  It has been suggested by Gus Grissom's brother that the CM be entombed at Launch Complex 34, where the fire took place.

Quoted: As I understand it, some of the emergency air supply tanks in the spacesuits of the Challenger astronauts were empty.  They used it all up. Under panic breathing conditions, that's at LEAST two minutes, and the supply has to be turned on manually. The same thing was discovered among some of the Columbia astronauts as well, and some of them were thrown clear of the shuttle when it tore itself apart,  and were unharmed with intact spacesuits, but for the impact with the ground. CJ

The Challenger crew wasn't wearing space suits.  Some of their emergency personal beathing systems were activated.

There were no intact bodies recovered from Columbia.  Nothing even close.  Having your ship break up around you at Mach 19 and 39 miles would preclude the possibility of any remains being intact.

Quoted: Quoted: As I understand it, some of the emergency air supply tanks in the spacesuits of the Challenger astronauts were empty.  They used it all up. Under panic breathing conditions, that's at LEAST two minutes, and the supply has to be turned on manually. The same thing was discovered among some of the Columbia astronauts as well, and some of them were thrown clear of the shuttle when it tore itself apart,  and were unharmed with intact spacesuits, but for the impact with the ground. CJ The Challenger crew wasn't wearing space suits.  Some of their emergency personal beathing systems were activated. There were no intact bodies recovered from Columbia.  Nothing even close.  Having your ship break up around you at Mach 19 and 39 miles would preclude the possibility of any remains being intact.

Correct. The Columbia crew were shredded and burned.

Quoted: The remains of the Apollo 1 command module are in a warehouse at Langley Research Center.  It has been suggested by Gus Grissom's brother that the CM be entombed at Launch Complex 34, where the fire took place.

Correct, the Apollo-204 capsule is still stored here in Hampton, VA.  NASA moved it last year to a newer, secure climate-controlled storage building because it was wasting away in the old non-a/c locked storage building.  

Quoted: As a point of interest,  before the wreckage of the Challenger was buried in the Minuteman missile silo that is also where the Apollo 1 capsule was buried,  (and later, also the Columbia remains),  the rescue crews at KSC were given the opportunity to test their rescue tools on the Columbia wreckage....and the titanium framing members of the cabin and fuselage are so strong that the rescue crews broke all their Hurst tools on them. In retrospect, it might have been feasible to design the crew cabin with a large two stage drogue and main parachute system at the back of it,  with automatic flotation systems around the cabin, and explosive bolts at the rear of the cabin to allow the cabin to separate, parachute down at a survivable rate of descent and impact, and float for rescue. CJ

I visited that silo back in '89 or '90.  Although it's behind locked gates, there's enough of an opening that you can walk in and look around.  The silo door is closed and you can't access it, but there's a another entrance off to the side that's full of green water.  I assume the silo is full of water also, being only a mile or so off the beach (can't find my KSC map right now).

Merlin

Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More...

Why bother putting a capsule in the back of the shuttle, when a better solution is to use one-shot capsules like Apollo?

And IIRC, all of the remaining shuttle missions have the cargo bay completely full, the shuttle program would have to be extended by years to add the pod and reshuffle the cargo (if that can even be done, some ISS parts are an exact fit in the bay).

Kharn

I was a USAF SP stationed at Minot AFB, ND, was sitting in my dorm room after a mid shift, drinking beer and watching the launch.  When they finally announced that the Shuttle had blown up I was in a daze, just couldn't believe it happened.  My folks let me stay home from school to watch every single Apollo launch, all the moon landings, etc.  

Quoted: Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like Apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More... Why bother putting a capsule in the back of the shuttle, when a better solution is to use one-shot capsules like Apollo? And IIRC, all of the remaining shuttle missions have the cargo bay completely full, the shuttle program would have to be extended by years to add the pod and reshuffle the cargo (if that can even be done, some ISS parts are an exact fit in the bay). Kharn

I agree with what you said about the Apollo type system, but it's unlikely NASA will be willing to go back to that even if it is more practical. They seem to be going to the space-plane concept.

As far as adding years, that goes back to my point about NASA not being willing to do what it takes to ensure the safety of the astronauts.

Can you name me even ONE Navy vessel, merchant marine vessel, or oil rig that does not have some sort of lifeboat on board? The fact that is has been proven possible, and they have  not done it is inexcusable, if we claim we are not like the Russians where an astronaut is assumed to be expendable. Or maybe that is really NASA's view also and I missed it.

Either way, those in charge at NASA for the last 30 years have not done all they can to ensure our Astronauts stay alive. Payloads can be sent up other ways besides the shuttle, they do it with satellites several times a year. Astronauts lives should be worth more than a piece of equipment. That's just my layman's opinion.

Lifeboat FTW.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like Apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More... Why bother putting a capsule in the back of the shuttle, when a better solution is to use one-shot capsules like Apollo? And IIRC, all of the remaining shuttle missions have the cargo bay completely full, the shuttle program would have to be extended by years to add the pod and reshuffle the cargo (if that can even be done, some ISS parts are an exact fit in the bay). Kharn I agree with what you said about the Apollo type system, but it's unlikely NASA will be willing to go back to that even if it is more practical. They seem to be going to the space-plane concept.

NASA's dropping the space plane idea, New launch vehicles, in favor of capsules.

Kharn

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like Apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More... Why bother putting a capsule in the back of the shuttle, when a better solution is to use one-shot capsules like Apollo? And IIRC, all of the remaining shuttle missions have the cargo bay completely full, the shuttle program would have to be extended by years to add the pod and reshuffle the cargo (if that can even be done, some ISS parts are an exact fit in the bay). Kharn I agree with what you said about the Apollo type system, but it's unlikely NASA will be willing to go back to that even if it is more practical. They seem to be going to the space-plane concept. As far as adding years, that goes back to my point about NASA not being willing to do what it takes to ensure the safety of the astronauts. Can you name me even ONE Navy vessel, merchant marine vessel, or oil rig that does not have some sort of lifeboat on board? The fact that is has been proven possible, and they have  not done it is inexcusable, if we claim we are not like the Russians where an astronaut is assumed to be expendable. Or maybe that is really NASA's view also and I missed it. Either way, those in charge at NASA for the last 30 years have not done all they can to ensure our Astronauts stay alive. Payloads can be sent up other ways besides the shuttle, they do it with satellites several times a year. Astronauts lives should be worth more than a piece of equipment. That's just my layman's opinion. Lifeboat FTW.

The Russians do not regard their astronauts as expendable… far from it, the Russian Buran space shuttle had ejector seats to allow the crew to eject at up to 100,000ft and Mach 4.

Here is a link to a site that has the alleged post explosion crew "conversations" as they were going down.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/challenger.asp

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like Apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More... Why bother putting a capsule in the back of the shuttle, when a better solution is to use one-shot capsules like Apollo? And IIRC, all of the remaining shuttle missions have the cargo bay completely full, the shuttle program would have to be extended by years to add the pod and reshuffle the cargo (if that can even be done, some ISS parts are an exact fit in the bay). Kharn I agree with what you said about the Apollo type system, but it's unlikely NASA will be willing to go back to that even if it is more practical. They seem to be going to the space-plane concept. As far as adding years, that goes back to my point about NASA not being willing to do what it takes to ensure the safety of the astronauts. Can you name me even ONE Navy vessel, merchant marine vessel, or oil rig that does not have some sort of lifeboat on board? The fact that is has been proven possible, and they have  not done it is inexcusable, if we claim we are not like the Russians where an astronaut is assumed to be expendable. Or maybe that is really NASA's view also and I missed it. Either way, those in charge at NASA for the last 30 years have not done all they can to ensure our Astronauts stay alive. Payloads can be sent up other ways besides the shuttle, they do it with satellites several times a year. Astronauts lives should be worth more than a piece of equipment. That's just my layman's opinion. Lifeboat FTW. The Russians do not regard their astronauts as expendable… far from it, the Russian Buran space shuttle had ejector seats to allow the crew to eject at up to 100,000ft and Mach 4.

I didn't realize that, then I stand corrected,  Sounds like they were one up on us.
It's too bad they could not keep the Buran flying.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like Apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More... Why bother putting a capsule in the back of the shuttle, when a better solution is to use one-shot capsules like Apollo? And IIRC, all of the remaining shuttle missions have the cargo bay completely full, the shuttle program would have to be extended by years to add the pod and reshuffle the cargo (if that can even be done, some ISS parts are an exact fit in the bay). Kharn I agree with what you said about the Apollo type system, but it's unlikely NASA will be willing to go back to that even if it is more practical. They seem to be going to the space-plane concept. NASA's dropping the space plane idea, New launch vehicles, in favor of capsules. Kharn

That very interesting then.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like Apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More... Why bother putting a capsule in the back of the shuttle, when a better solution is to use one-shot capsules like Apollo? And IIRC, all of the remaining shuttle missions have the cargo bay completely full, the shuttle program would have to be extended by years to add the pod and reshuffle the cargo (if that can even be done, some ISS parts are an exact fit in the bay). Kharn I agree with what you said about the Apollo type system, but it's unlikely NASA will be willing to go back to that even if it is more practical. They seem to be going to the space-plane concept. As far as adding years, that goes back to my point about NASA not being willing to do what it takes to ensure the safety of the astronauts. Can you name me even ONE Navy vessel, merchant marine vessel, or oil rig that does not have some sort of lifeboat on board? The fact that is has been proven possible, and they have  not done it is inexcusable, if we claim we are not like the Russians where an astronaut is assumed to be expendable. Or maybe that is really NASA's view also and I missed it. Either way, those in charge at NASA for the last 30 years have not done all they can to ensure our Astronauts stay alive. Payloads can be sent up other ways besides the shuttle, they do it with satellites several times a year. Astronauts lives should be worth more than a piece of equipment. That's just my layman's opinion. Lifeboat FTW.

Lifeboats for everyone only came about in the mid 1910s after Titanic.

NASA is opting to go back in time to capsules.

Quoted: Here's a question.  If there are no chances for abort during a SRB burn, WHY are they basing the new Ares launch vehicles on SRBs?  Once you light that candle, you're screwed until it goes out, right?

ARES has an escape rocket like Mercury, Gemini and Apollo


www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html

Quoted: From the NASA report - and an important fact: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. No matter what they were wearing or emergency equipment they had, the Shuttle crew was doomed. The only thing pressure suits would have done is kept the crew alive long enough to hit the water. Av.

Get the fuck out of this thread with your knowledge and logic.

This thread is for baseless accusations and flawed understanding of physics ONLY.

Thank you.

Quoted: Quoted: Here's a question.  If there are no chances for abort during a SRB burn, WHY are they basing the new Ares launch vehicles on SRBs?  Once you light that candle, you're screwed until it goes out, right? ARES has an escape rocket like Mercury, Gemini and Apollo www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html

There are so many ways to die on a spaceflight, it should only be thought of as a suicide mission.

When the Eagle landed on the moon, they ran short on fuel, then for about 10 minutes they thought the decent stage was going to blow up due to a plug of ice in a fuel line.

There is no way to make it safe.

On board camera Launch sequence


On-board cockpit view during launch


Another cockpit launch view


Talk about shitting your pants...

Quoted: until they hit the water maybe then they would be dead anyways. look at air liners every one dies and I don't think they would be going as fast as the shuttle would be from falling from so high.

Terminal velocity: Height is meaningless.

PEAP's won't keep you conscious.

Quoted: Quoted: Remember all the NASA jokes? No, I don't.  But I do remember watching Challenger blow up on live TV, in my morning History class (7th grade).  Fuck anyone that made jokes about that crew.

I have the exact same memory... Right down to 7th grade, except it was Language class.  It was one of the defining images in my life so far.  Probably #2, after 9/11.  Maybe tied for #2 with Reagan's shooting.

I remember it well. I was in high school.

Quoted: On board camera Launch sequence On-board cockpit view during launch Another cockpit launch view Talk about shitting your pants...

I'd scream like a little girl the whole ride, and then barf in zero gee.

I guess that's why I don't get to go into space...

Av.

Quoted: The Russians do not regard their astronauts as expendable… far from it, the Russian Buran space shuttle had ejector seats to allow the crew to eject at up to 100,000ft and Mach 4.

Ejection seats in an unmanned spacecraft? Why?

Since Buran is basically a copy of the STS Orbiter, ejection seats would only be available to the 4 or 5 crew on the main flight deck. The cosmonauts on the mid-deck are hosed. I believe that Buran only had ejection seats mounted in the Commander and Pilot locations, and then only for atmospheric glide testing. I don't think the Buran ejection seats would have made the trip on manned orbital missions.

I don't really have any objection to the capsule-based manned platform. It should be a reusable vehicle, though, not a one-shot deal. I'm really surprised that the Russians have not started reusing Soyuz re-entry vehicles.

For sending cargo into orbit (or out of orbit!) a reusable craft like the Orbiter makes sense. If the current generation of Orbiters were stripped of all the support systems that make them man-rated, they could continue to be fairly effective trucks to haul components to space for orbital assembly. As ISS grows, there's a rapidly diminishing need for the Orbiter as a science platform. For missions like the Hubble repair, launch an Orbiter with all the fixtures and tools, unmanned. Rendezvous, even capture and docking, can be accomplished remotely, if not autonomously.

If the astronauts only need to take themselves and their immediate life-support needs, their vehicle is greatly reduced in complexity. However, with simplicity comes flexibility. Look at how much utility the Russians have gotten from the Soyuz/TM/Progress platform! It's crude and cheap, but very effective.  Ares can be this, but so much better.

Quoted: On board camera Launch sequence On-board cockpit view during launch Another cockpit launch view Talk about shitting your pants...

There's a neat video out there taken from a camera mounted on one of the SRB's.  Shows the whole trip, from launch to splashdown in the ocean.  

Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More...

How does the crew get from their normal seats to the ejection seats under eleventy billion Gs?

How does the crew in a situation like the Challenger blast get to an escape posture during an explosion they have no prior knowledge of?

The point being at some point the risk takers have to depend on the build of the product and then way the odds of a failure.

For example we could all have escape pods in a commercial plane or we could all have parachutes etc etc but weight, cost, design limitations, practicality all weigh in and knock the options out.

The simple fact is that if you build an escape pod that can handle most issues you pay for it elsewhere. I bet you'd have a hard time convincing one of those astronauts that they can have an escape system BUT it will drastically reduce their effectiveness, payload, ability to even get off the ground etc.

You can't plan or prepare for everything you can reduce risk but never get rid of it. I don't think with present technology and shuttles we'll see a viable escape system.

NASA and the Air Force both agree that the human body can sustain up to 13 G's of impact with out passing out, and can sustain 9 G's for 30 seconds.

If you've ever seen video of people passing out from fighter jets, you'll know that they don't stay passed out very long. IE; we're talking seconds, not minutes.

Add in that every person on the trip had trained extensively to compensate for excessive G-force, and it seems to me it would be highly unlikely every one of them would have been passed out.. At the very least, most of them would have likely woken up shortly after the estimated 12 G's caused by the separation subsided.

It may have been something else, but G-force was likely not the reason for loss of consciousness if there was any.


I was just a kid, but reading this topic makes me sad.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like Apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More... Why bother putting a capsule in the back of the shuttle, when a better solution is to use one-shot capsules like Apollo? And IIRC, all of the remaining shuttle missions have the cargo bay completely full, the shuttle program would have to be extended by years to add the pod and reshuffle the cargo (if that can even be done, some ISS parts are an exact fit in the bay). Kharn I agree with what you said about the Apollo type system, but it's unlikely NASA will be willing to go back to that even if it is more practical. They seem to be going to the space-plane concept. As far as adding years, that goes back to my point about NASA not being willing to do what it takes to ensure the safety of the astronauts. Can you name me even ONE Navy vessel, merchant marine vessel, or oil rig that does not have some sort of lifeboat on board? The fact that is has been proven possible, and they have  not done it is inexcusable, if we claim we are not like the Russians where an astronaut is assumed to be expendable. Or maybe that is really NASA's view also and I missed it. Either way, those in charge at NASA for the last 30 years have not done all they can to ensure our Astronauts stay alive. Payloads can be sent up other ways besides the shuttle, they do it with satellites several times a year. Astronauts lives should be worth more than a piece of equipment. That's just my layman's opinion. Lifeboat FTW.

gosh if only NASA had ARFCOMMERs working there we'd be ok. We don't let facts or reality get in our way of what should be done according to us.

Sir the program is what it is, life is a system of risks, capabilites and limitations.

A system that could protect all crew members under all or even some or most situations would be a massive burden on the structure of the craft, the budget, the ability to do experiments, etc. Please don't sit here and accuse NASA or anyone else for that matter  of not doing all they can or whatever. Just because you can dream it up doesn't make it so, just because you on the outside think it can be done doesn't make it so.

The forces at work here are a whole other ballpark than what a navy ship or other ship has to deal with. A navy ship having an escape method is irrelevant here.

The difference between you, your ideas and suggestions and NASA is they are forced to make the stuff work within the bounds of reality.

If you have a feasible plan to make an escape pod or whatever please do so but to throw out accusations without having the burden of having to actually make the stuff work is WEAK.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like Apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More... Why bother putting a capsule in the back of the shuttle, when a better solution is to use one-shot capsules like Apollo? And IIRC, all of the remaining shuttle missions have the cargo bay completely full, the shuttle program would have to be extended by years to add the pod and reshuffle the cargo (if that can even be done, some ISS parts are an exact fit in the bay). Kharn I agree with what you said about the Apollo type system, but it's unlikely NASA will be willing to go back to that even if it is more practical. They seem to be going to the space-plane concept. As far as adding years, that goes back to my point about NASA not being willing to do what it takes to ensure the safety of the astronauts. Can you name me even ONE Navy vessel, merchant marine vessel, or oil rig that does not have some sort of lifeboat on board? The fact that is has been proven possible, and they have  not done it is inexcusable, if we claim we are not like the Russians where an astronaut is assumed to be expendable. Or maybe that is really NASA's view also and I missed it. Either way, those in charge at NASA for the last 30 years have not done all they can to ensure our Astronauts stay alive. Payloads can be sent up other ways besides the shuttle, they do it with satellites several times a year. Astronauts lives should be worth more than a piece of equipment. That's just my layman's opinion. Lifeboat FTW. The Russians do not regard their astronauts as expendable… far from it, the Russian Buran space shuttle had ejector seats to allow the crew to eject at up to 100,000ft and Mach 4.

Did those systems ever get used in real life? There is speculation that the craft never even flew with many thinking it was totally faked. Additionally the damn thing was destroyed when the damn hanger fell on it due to shitty maintenance.

In other words they can't even keep it intact on the ground due to bad repair of the hanger so I think using this as an example of how we do it is silly.

Quoted: Quoted: From the NASA report - and an important fact: During the period of the flight when the Solid Rocket Boosters are thrusting, there are no survivable abort options. No matter what they were wearing or emergency equipment they had, the Shuttle crew was doomed. The only thing pressure suits would have done is kept the crew alive long enough to hit the water. Av. Get the fuck out of this thread with your knowledge and logic. This thread is for baseless accusations and flawed understanding of physics ONLY. Thank you.

I know all the experts come out of the wood work. Guys that prefer to work at Best buy instead of NASA really know the deal.

I love the logic path of, Navy ships have lifeboats> NASA has none> therefore NASA doesn't care + Russia has a space shuttle with a rescue pod, that many say never even flew so THEY care more about the astronauts than we do. Even though the Russian Space Program is full of debacles.

This is one of those topics where if you aren't a Space Shuttle doctor it is best to just say wow that is is neat instead of trying to act like a program manager.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like Apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More... Why bother putting a capsule in the back of the shuttle, when a better solution is to use one-shot capsules like Apollo? And IIRC, all of the remaining shuttle missions have the cargo bay completely full, the shuttle program would have to be extended by years to add the pod and reshuffle the cargo (if that can even be done, some ISS parts are an exact fit in the bay). Kharn I agree with what you said about the Apollo type system, but it's unlikely NASA will be willing to go back to that even if it is more practical. They seem to be going to the space-plane concept. As far as adding years, that goes back to my point about NASA not being willing to do what it takes to ensure the safety of the astronauts. Can you name me even ONE Navy vessel, merchant marine vessel, or oil rig that does not have some sort of lifeboat on board? The fact that is has been proven possible, and they have  not done it is inexcusable, if we claim we are not like the Russians where an astronaut is assumed to be expendable. Or maybe that is really NASA's view also and I missed it. Either way, those in charge at NASA for the last 30 years have not done all they can to ensure our Astronauts stay alive. Payloads can be sent up other ways besides the shuttle, they do it with satellites several times a year. Astronauts lives should be worth more than a piece of equipment. That's just my layman's opinion. Lifeboat FTW. The Russians do not regard their astronauts as expendable… far from it, the Russian Buran space shuttle had ejector seats to allow the crew to eject at up to 100,000ft and Mach 4. Did those systems ever get used in real life? There is speculation that the craft ever even flew with many thinking it was totally faked. Additionally the damn thing was destroyed when the damn hanger fell on it due to shitty maintenance. In other words they can't even keep it intact on the ground due to bad repair of the hanger so I think using this as an example of how we do it is silly.

Ya think?  The USAF were VERY interested in the Russian K-36 series ejection seats, interested enough to test them and were very suitably impressed.

K-36 seats in action…

Quoted: Ya think?  The USAF were VERY interested in the Russian K-36 series ejection seats, interested enough to test them and were very suitably impressed. K-36 seats in action…

Russian seats are technologically impressive (exiting the aircraft, then changing direction to vertical so the pilot is always shot towards safety rather than into the ground), but they also use much higher acceleration than NATO seats, to the point where its usually a career-ending ride, IIRC.

Kharn

height=8

Quoted: NASA failed to build a recovery system for the crew compartment thinking it wouldn't matter anyway if it blew. Now they realize it would matter and don't want us to know how miserably they failed those poor people. Guilty conscience, basically.

Need more Germans.

Quoted: The Russians do not regard their astronauts as expendable… far from it, the Russian Buran space shuttle had ejector seats to allow the crew to eject at up to 100,000ft and Mach 4.

The ejection seats were largely theoretical as the craft never flew a manned mission. I'm not even sure if they completed the life support system for the ship.

Quoted: Quoted: NASA failed to build a recovery system for the crew compartment thinking it wouldn't matter anyway if it blew. Now they realize it would matter and don't want us to know how miserably they failed those poor people. Guilty conscience, basically. Need more Germans.

They want to boost ~20 tons of cargo to orbit, not 2 tons.

Kharn

Quoted: Ya think?  The USAF were VERY interested in the Russian K-36 series ejection seats, interested enough to test them and were very suitably impressed.

It's a great ejection seat, no doubt, but that doesn't address the feasibility of it's use with regards to the Shuttle Orbiter.

Putting aside the whole issue of most likely being unable to plan, design, test, retrofit, then test again before the 2010 deadline, and considering the lack of utility of such a system during descent phase (>1500 C temperatures, >Mach 10 speeds, >50km altitude), we're already limited the utility of such a system on the Orbiter to launch phase.

The utility of such a system would be further impacted during launch phase, as two minutes into the launch phase the shuttle has already exceeded both the maximum height AND maximium speed ratings of such an ejection system. I'll probably get flak for doing this, but using the Challenger incident as a baseline would fit the profile of a potential use condition for such an ejection system.

First issue is one of time. Unfortunately the STS is one of those systems where when something does go wrong to the point of considering ejection, in most cases it is a catastrophic (especially during launch). From the time the crew registered an issue with the flight profile, most likely from the changing acceleration profile of the detaching SRB, to the time the orbiter began disintegrating was roughly half a second. That is from first indication of issue to the disintegration of the orbiter itself. That is simply not enough time to allow for an ejection event to be initiated.

Second issue is one of environment. Taking a consideration that A) the crew was aware of the situation, and B) had time to engage an ejection system, the STS is NOT a Mig 29. The Mig-29, for example, carries about 1100 gallons of fuel. The STS carries over 500 times that much fuel. The point the crew would have ejected would have been in the middle of a combustion event involving several hundred thousand gallons of fuel, not to mention filled with debris travelling at extreme speeds. This is not the kind of environment accounted for in ejection seat design.

The third I borrow from the National Geographic's "Seconds From Disaster" segment on the incident....take your engineering hat off and put your management hat on. Consider that:
A) the entire shuttle program would have to be shelved for anywhere from 1-5 years, possibly more, while the ejection system is designed, the retrofit of the shuttle is planned, the systems are tested, modified, retested, and eventually fielded.
B) The extreme cost involved in shutting down the manned space program, in retrofitting the aging and already overly modified space shuttle design.
C) The extremely limited set of circumstances in which such a system would be viable.
D) The simple fact that a shuttle launch is one of the most dangerous environments one could possibly experience. The pilots are basically strapped onto some 1.6 million pounds of fuel, and are being hurtled through the atmosphere atop the most powerful engines ever built by mankind, at some of the fastest speeds ever encountered, over which they have pretty much zero control.

When you get right down to it, considering that with those conditions just about any error that would bring a crew to desire ejection would be an absolute catastrophe in which the crew will realistically not have the time to eject, and also experience the kind of conditions under which an ejection would not be a survivable event. This is a simple, logical, and rational assessment of the situation. An ejection system which would be able to contend with the conditions under which a shuttle operates during launch is simply not realistically feasible. Not from a cost perspective, not from a design impact perspective, and not from a utility perspective.

What's more, every single one of the men and women who strap themselves in for that hellride to the stars KNOWS THAT, and they accept it. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to make them safer, it just means that people need to realize that this is pretty much one of the most extreme events man experiences on this planet, and as such there are some risks that simply cannot be mitigated, no matter our desire.

Morbid, probably, but this thread reminds me of Savitsky's "The Rocket Rider's Prayer"....

When the rocket stands before us like a tower of glass and steel Then no words in any language can express the way we feel Mingled joy and hope and terror as we're starting on our way And we suddenly consider that it just might help to pray.    Refrain: So pray to great green Mother Earth and the grim old god of Space,    And the gods of flame and metal whom we've summoned to this place.    Oh you gods of flight and physics, now you have us in your care;    We hope that you will listen to a rocket rider's prayer. So first let's pray to Vulcan, ugly god of forge and flame, And also wise Minerva, now we glorify your name, May you aid our ship's designers now and find it in your hearts To please help the lowest bidders who've constructed all her parts! As we're lifting off it's Mercury who'll help us in our need Not only as the patron god of health and flight and speed We hope that he will guard us as we're starting on our trip As the god of Thieves and Liars, like the ones who built this ship. If we make it into orbit where the sky is starry black We'll have time to praise old Mother Earth and hope she wants us back And tell all the other deities who've helped us on our way That it's nice to visit Heaven, but we didn't come to stay. Now we're coming down from orbit back to where the air is thick With no engines and the glidepath of a highly polished brick And with nothing but those tiles between our hides and flaming Hell, Better pray to Hell's own Pluto that they glued those suckers well. So now we're back on Earth again; the sky's a lovely blue. All you deities we didn't name, you know we love you too. We hope that you're not angry and you'll keep us in your grace; We may need your help the next time that we're heading into space.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Atmosphere proof escape pod, that won't burn up no matter the attitude of the craft. parachute after reentry, just like Apollo. It can be done. There is room for such a thing in the cargo bay, but likely NASA won't give up any of the payload, not even to save it's astronauts. Many designs have been submitted. Nothing has been done. It's all forgotten, until the next accident. i31.tinypic.com/f9hyy1.jpg More... Why bother putting a capsule in the back of the shuttle, when a better solution is to use one-shot capsules like Apollo? And IIRC, all of the remaining shuttle missions have the cargo bay completely full, the shuttle program would have to be extended by years to add the pod and reshuffle the cargo (if that can even be done, some ISS parts are an exact fit in the bay). Kharn I agree with what you said about the Apollo type system, but it's unlikely NASA will be willing to go back to that even if it is more practical. They seem to be going to the space-plane concept. NASA's dropping the space plane idea, New launch vehicles, in favor of capsules. Kharn

All it takes is money, my friend.  As my father (one of the NASA higher-ups) says:  "We can do anything if you can fund it."

Next time you pay your taxes, throw in another check made payable to NASA.