![]() ![]() Once activated, this system would jettison the tops of the crew module and forward fuselage and extract the crew using tractor rockets. This concept is not being pursued because of late availability, extensive vehicle modifications, and crew size limitations.Īnother extraction concept investigated was a tractor rocket system that would extract up to six seated crew members. The estimated first availability of the ejection seat concept is mid-1990. The addition of ejection seats would require major structural modification of the overhead consoles, flight deck floor, crew module structure, and forward fuselage structure.Ī new ejection seat design would be required because the ejection seats used during the orbital flight test program are very large, and installation of five seats would affect orbiter aft flight deck payload station usage. During operation, this concept would jettison the tops of both the crew module and the forward fuselage before propelling the crew out of the opening in individual ejection seats. These options are summarized in the following paragraphs.Īn ejection seat concept that would extract up to five astronauts was assessed. Each option considered the crew size, the required orbiter modifications, and the implementation schedule. The study, completed in September 1986, considered ejection seats, tractor rocket extraction of seated crew members, bottom bail-out, and tractor rocket extraction through the side hatch. However, a recommendation to provide a launch to landing escape system would have shut down the program, which at the time was supposed to be the sole US launcher of payloads. ![]() Make all efforts to provide a crew escape system for use during controlled gliding flight. ![]() Note that the Rogers Commission recommendation re: escape was only. Much of this work is mentioned in the NASA report IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS which summarized the work done after the STS-51L failure to return the STS to flight operations. Studies were done regarding retrofitting escape systems into the existing Orbiter. Note that SpaceX's proposed Starship has no escape system, using similar rationale.Īfter the failure of STS-51L which destroyed the Challenger Orbiter and killed its crew, the rationale for not including such an escape system was heavily scrutinized by the press, public, and government. They concluded no escape system would be required due to what they considered a completely safe design. The STS designers had an idée fixe that STS would be an "airliner to space" and would operate with airliner levels of safety. One of the major errors in the Space Transportation System (STS) design was the lack of a crew escape system usable from launch to landing.Įscape systems are costly, take up mass allowance that can be used for payload, and can cause problems on their own. So in hindsight, I am thinking that it could have been designed as a "last resort survival cabin", should the shuttle catastrophically fail, and could have been equipped with parachutes, so that the cabin could descend on parachutes into the ocean? The shape of the cabin (visible in the footage immediately following the explosion) does seem (at least remotely) similar to the shape of the moon-landing Apollo-era cabins. The fact that the cabin part of the shuttle stayed intact at least demonstrates that the shuttle was designed in such a way that upon some catastrophic scenario, the very cabin of the shuttle was durable enough to "break off intact". The space shuttle was probably not designed for such scenario, but could the crew have survived if the cabin was equipped with parachutes, just like the cabins used for moon landings from the Apollo era? (To be clear: I mean parachutes attached to the cabin, not for crew members!) Some sources point out that the shuttle cabin stayed intact following the solid rocket booster explosion, and that in fact, it is likely the crew died upon the cabin impact into the ocean. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |