zeke@fornax.UUCP (Zeke Hoskin) (06/18/88)
Since the most important end of an orbiter did in fact survive the non-detonation burning of an ET with the energy of a few dozen Hindenbergs, and the aerodynamic forces following separation, and whatever amount of SRB plume happened to impinge on it, which question are we trying to answer? (1) How do we set things up so the chance that the orbiter can fly away from an ET/SRB failure and land undamaged outweighs the extra cost? (2) How do we get astronauts out of an orbiter that has had its wings and tail ripped off, before it hits the water? I'm afraid that the answer to (1) is: to make the inequality "basecost*extrachance > extracost" hold, increase basecost without limit. On the other hand, there are lots of feasible solutions to (2). I favor a drogue chute to stabilize everything at Mach 0.3 or so and proven ejection seats. If we MUST separate the stack while the SRBs are burning, blow off the nose cones. Presto: either zero thrust or a giant leap in ramjet technology. -- What makes one step a giant leap|Zeke Hoskin/SFU VLSI group,Burnaby,BC,Canada Is all the steps before | ...!ubc-cs!sfu_fornax!zeke