gjl@ihwpt.UUCP (g licitis) (01/30/86)
While watching the news coverage about the shuttle disaster I couldn't help but notice how most of the commentators made a big deal about the shuttle's lack of ejection seats. When NASA people pointed out that they didn't think anyone could survive an ejection in the event of a shuttle disaster the news people seemed to ignore them. I must have heard the ejection seat issue argued on every channel from cable news to the networks. The news people should stick to reporting the news and not to try to second guess NASA engineers. 10 to 1 they will have ejection seats on the next shuttle. I am also appaled at the networks treatment of the families involved. There is no reason to show over and over the grief of the families as they realize what is happening. How do they expect people to feel.
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (01/31/86)
> While watching the news coverage about the shuttle disaster > I couldn't help but notice how most of the commentators > made a big deal about the shuttle's lack of ejection seats. I didn't watch the TV coverage much, and didn't hear the ejection seat issue discussed to death (the Channel 2 (PBS Boston) News commentator raised the question to one guest, was told it wouldn't have helped and were bagged because they were too heavy and too unreliable, and let it drop), but from what I heard from almost all the commentators, such stupidity would not have been unbelievable. > The news people should stick to reporting the news and not to try > to second guess NASA engineers. AMEN! > 10 to 1 they will have ejection seats on the next shuttle. Not too likely, since the later shuttles were designed without them. Only Columbia was designed to have them (and they took them out). > I am also appaled at the networks treatment of the families involved. > There is no reason to show over and over the grief of the families > as they realize what is happening. How do they expect people to feel. > Again, I didn't see much TV coverage, but what I did see I did not find excessive (which surprised me no end). The TV people seemed content with showing the same films over and over, rather than continually trying to wrench new agony out of the families. As a side note, however, notice that the newspeople were banned from Concord High School, and asked to leave town by the mayor, because they WERE pestering the school children for new agony. Overall, I'd give the TV and radio news coverage a 2 out of 10, but setting their average to a 5 would turn that into about an 8.5 or so... -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA This space dedicated to Challenger and her crew, Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Ronand E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, and Crista McAuliffe. "...and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (02/02/86)
In article <667@ihwpt.UUCP> gjl@ihwpt.UUCP (g licitis) writes: >The news people should stick to reporting the news and not to try >to second guess NASA engineers. 10 to 1 they will have ejection seats >on the next shuttle. Your second sentence contradicts your first. Think about the implications of ejection seats: 1. They don't work at shuttle speeds. 2. They are only viable for about a minute into the flight, unless you make the crew wear pressure suits. 3. The shuttle can ditch into water if necessary, and anything that would preclude this is probably going to happen too fast to eject anyway. 4. How the h*ll do you construct a blowaway canopy for a space shuttle? The reason NASA is not speculating is because they don't want people jumping to conclusions. They want facts supported by evidence. Let's show the same scientific approach. I doubt very few of us here have all but the most superficial knowledge of shuttle construction and operation. I don't mean to get down on everyone, but I really believe that we shouldn't over-speculate. Sean -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or 915 Patterson Office Tower {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA Lexington, Ky. 40506-0027 BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNET
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/04/86)
In article <2612@ukma.UUCP> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes: > >Your second sentence contradicts your first. Think about the implications >of ejection seats: > >1. They don't work at shuttle speeds. >2. They are only viable for about a minute into the flight, unless you > make the crew wear pressure suits. >3. The shuttle can ditch into water if necessary, and anything that would > preclude this is probably going to happen too fast to eject anyway. >4. How the h*ll do you construct a blowaway canopy for a space shuttle? > Not to mention: 5. Due to the great speed of the shuttle(well over mach 1), wind shear would smash the ejection seat into the shuttles tail(or wings or ...) -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
dino@bucsb.UUCP (T.H.) (02/12/86)
Some ejection seats are modules. I believe the FB-111 and the B-1 have the type of ejection system where both pilots are ejected together still inside the cockpit. (Remember when the B-1 crashed, they showed the ejected module lying on the desert floor) This, I would imagine, would take care of the problem of the ouside air killing the pilot/ passengers on contact and the problem of ejection through the roof of the craft. Ofcource the module would be fried by the exhaust..... -- ###### # # # # # #### # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ###### # # # ####
kwan@smeagol.UUCP (Richard Kwan) (02/14/86)
In <139@bucsb.UUCP>, Dino writes: > Some ejection seats are modules... > ... This, I would imagine, > would take care of the problem of the ouside air killing the pilot/ > passengers on contact and the problem of ejection through the roof of > the craft. > > Ofcource the module would be fried by the exhaust..... CAVEAT: On this subject, I must rely on very old neurons, and I don't have access to the sources any longer, so if you come upon them and can show otherwise, feel free to correct me. I believe A. Scott Crossfield tells in his autobiography "Always Another Dawn" that ejection capsules/modules had been mandated by the Air Force in the 1950s. The X-15 design team, faced with this constraint, decided that it would impose too much weight on the craft. They obtained an exemption from the Air Force on the basis of their alternative. The pilot wore a fairly bulky pressure suit, and a boom would protrude sufficiently far in front of the seat so that the shock wave would not intersect pilot or seat. The seat would be propelled out and away from the craft by a solid rocket motor, out of the way of tail and engine exhaust. (BTW, the fleet of three X-15s made 199 flights with only one pilot fatality late in the program. On one other flight, the pilot had to crash land and was seriously injured; following surjury and recuper- ation, he returned to flight duty.) Of course, as mentioned elsewhere in this news group, this depends on being able to blow the canopy or a small exit in your craft. If the diagrams I've seen are correct, the shuttle crew seems to be spread on two decks at launch. An ejection option would require an easy access path from seats on the lower deck, thru the upper deck, and out thru the skin of the craft. Rick Kwan JPL Spacecraft Data Systems Disclaimer: this is not to express an opinion for or against ejection seats. That, to me, is an engineering decision.
patc@tekcrl.UUCP (Pat Caudill) (02/15/86)
I believe that high mach ejections are survivable since apparently several such ejections have been made from the SR-71. However they require special equiptment. According to the book SR-71 Blackbird in action (ISBN 0-89747-136-9) pp 11. "Crew escape at Mach 3 and 80,000 ft is accomplished through the use of a pressure suit, which provides enough protection to survive an ejection at speed and altitude. The suits are custom made for their owners and cost $100,000 per copy. (Gloves are manufactured in sets of three pair, at $6,000 per set.) The ejection system has been proven on several occasions, though none have been publically documented." The suits require the crew to breath pure ox for an hour before take off to prevent the bends on ejection. These suits (and seats) are the same as used on the Columbia for it's first launches. At that time I remember them saying that the system was designed and tested for Mach 10 at 100,000 ft. And the crew armed the seats at that time during re-entry. Of course ejecting into the exhust of a burning SRB would be somewhat harder to survive but the speed and altitude of the shuttle when the explosion occured were not the primary deterents to ejection. Tektronix!tekcrl!patc
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/23/86)
> ... the shuttle crew seems to be spread on > two decks at launch. An ejection option would require an easy access > path from seats on the lower deck, thru the upper deck, and out thru > the skin of the craft. No, you can eject the lower-deck seats downward. This is what's done on the B-52, which has two decks. Of course, this means you need ejection hatches or blowaway panels or whatever on the underside. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) (02/25/86)
In article <6421@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >No, you can eject the lower-deck seats downward. This is what's done >on the B-52, which has two decks. Of course, this means you need ejection >hatches or blowaway panels or whatever on the underside. >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Ejecting through the external tank may prove to be quite a trick. If you can figure out how to do that, may I suggest you apply at JPL (:-) ? -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 tektronix!tekigm2!timothym @@ 'Who said that?' PO Box 3500 d/s C1-465 Vancouver, WA. 98665
dab@msudoc.UUCP (David A. Bright {msucl Systems}) (02/25/86)
In article <6421@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >No, you can eject the lower-deck seats downward. This is what's done >on the B-52, which has two decks. Of course, this means you need ejection >hatches or blowaway panels or whatever on the underside. >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry "Downward" ejection wouldn't work on the shuttle because the external fuel tank is "below" the shuttle cabin (I won't comment on whether ejection seats in general are feasible on the shuttle, as that is beyond my expertise). /eom dab
hammen@puff.UUCP (Marvin the Paranoid Android) (02/26/86)
In article <6421@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) types: > > ... the shuttle crew seems to be spread on > > two decks at launch. An ejection option would require an easy access > > path from seats on the lower deck, thru the upper deck, and out thru > > the skin of the craft. > > No, you can eject the lower-deck seats downward. This is what's done > on the B-52, which has two decks. Of course, this means you need ejection > hatches or blowaway panels or whatever on the underside. And a nice big hole in the external tank for the seats to pass through...:-) > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Robert J. Hammen U. of Wisc. CS Dept. Manta Software Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!puff!hammen !gumby!hammen
ins_argr@jhunix.UUCP (Robert G Roberds) (02/27/86)
> > ... the shuttle crew seems to be spread on > > two decks at launch. An ejection option would require an easy access > > path from seats on the lower deck, thru the upper deck, and out thru > > the skin of the craft. > > No, you can eject the lower-deck seats downward. This is what's done > on the B-52, which has two decks. Of course, this means you need ejection > hatches or blowaway panels or whatever on the underside. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry One probulum. The external tank is there. Assuming the impact didn't kill them and/or set off an explosion, the aborting astronauts would quickly find themselves "Medium Cool" in a bath of cryogenic fuels, with a one-way ticket to nowhere... -- Give me an ocean and some sun-screen lotion. Bob Roberds@The JohnSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Hopkins University
hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (02/27/86)
In article <2016@jhunix.UUCP> ins_argr@jhunix.UUCP (Robert G Roberds) writes: >> > ... the shuttle crew seems to be spread on >> > two decks at launch. An ejection option would require an easy access >> > path from seats on the lower deck, thru the upper deck, and out thru >> > the skin of the craft. >> >> No, you can eject the lower-deck seats downward. This is what's done >> on the B-52, which has two decks. Of course, this means you need ejection >> hatches or blowaway panels or whatever on the underside. >> -- >> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > >One probulum. The external tank is there. Assuming the impact didn't >kill them and/or set off an explosion, the aborting astronauts would >quickly find themselves "Medium Cool" in a bath of cryogenic fuels, >with a one-way ticket to nowhere... > >Bob Roberds@The JohnSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Hopkins University Hello people! Why hasn't anyone suggested ejection modules as are used on the B-1 and FB-111, where the entire crew compartment is ejected? -dave -- David Hsu Communication & Signal Processing Lab, EE Department <disclaimer> University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 hsu@eneevax.umd.edu {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu "Godzilla has been spotted in Sector 5!"
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (02/28/86)
> > ... the shuttle crew seems to be spread on > > two decks at launch. An ejection option would require an easy access > > path from seats on the lower deck, thru the upper deck, and out thru > > the skin of the craft. > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > No, you can eject the lower-deck seats downward. This is what's done > on the B-52, which has two decks. Of course, this means you need ejection > hatches or blowaway panels or whatever on the underside. Fine -- but this depends on *when* you eject. If you eject while the SRBs etc. are still attached -- well, you get my meaining. Barb
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/02/86)
> >... you can eject the lower-deck seats downward... > > Ejecting through the external tank may prove to be quite a trick... Various people have pointed out that I didn't think this through quite thoroughly enough, since there are, um, some obstructions underneath the orbiter. Sideways ejection might be feasible (this has been proposed for helicopters), but it runs afoul of a more subtle problem. The lower deck does not have direct access to the orbiter skin; it is just about surrounded by storage lockers and equipment bays. So much for that... Ejection capsules, a la the F-111 and the original B-1, have their problems too. Mostly, they are complex and heavy and put severe constraints on crew seating. E.g., the ejection capsule is a major reason why the F-111 crew sit side-by-side, which is in most other ways the wrong layout (it makes the aircraft wide and fat, while a supersonic fighter very badly wants to be long and skinny). How difficult it would be to put the shuttle crew in an ejection capsule I'm not sure, but it doesn't look easy. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
paul@pilchuckDataio.UUCP (Paul Brownlow in the rain forest) (03/03/86)
> > ... the shuttle crew seems to be spread on > > two decks at launch. An ejection option would require an easy access > > path from seats on the lower deck, thru the upper deck, and out thru > > the skin of the craft. > > No, you can eject the lower-deck seats downward. This is what's done > on the B-52, which has two decks. Of course, this means you need ejection > hatches or blowaway panels or whatever on the underside. > -- But this would require separation from the External Tank prior to ejection, otherwise the lower deck would get blown right into the fuel. -- ------- Paul Brownlow Data I/O Corp. Redmond, WA ..uw-beaver!teltone!dataio!pilchuck!paul "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"
kwan@smeagol.UUCP (Richard Kwan) (03/05/86)
> > > ... the shuttle crew seems to be spread on > > > two decks at launch. An ejection option would require an easy access > > > path from seats on the lower deck, thru the upper deck, and out thru > > > the skin of the craft. > > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > > No, you can eject the lower-deck seats downward. This is what's done > > on the B-52, which has two decks. Of course, this means you need ejection > > hatches or blowaway panels or whatever on the underside. > > Fine -- but this depends on *when* you eject. If you eject while the SRBs > etc. are still attached -- well, you get my meaining. > > Barb I didn't mention downward ejection because I assumed that the external tank was in the way, not to mention concerns for integrity of the thermal protection system. -- Rick Kwan JPL Spacecraft Data Systems sdcrdcf!smeagol!kwan (UUCP) ia-sun2!smeagol!kwan@csvax.caltech.EDU (ARPA) -------------------------------------------------------------------- "...jumpin' into hyperspace ain't like dustin' crops, boy." H. Solo --------------------------------------------------------------------
dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) (03/08/86)
In article <6421@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >No, you can eject the lower-deck seats downward. This is what's done >on the B-52, which has two decks. Of course, this means you need ejection >hatches or blowaway panels or whatever on the underside. First, There is the little matter of the external tank. Second, you would be talking about engineering into the system the means of it's own destruction. Any ejection seat is a live bomb. The blow-away panels are capable of making an awful mess of the shuttle during any critical flight period, such as re-entry. The underskin of the shuttle experiences a variety of thermal and mechanical stresses during flight, and I would not want to guess about the ability to design an expolsive that is totally safe in those conditions... -- -David B. (Ben) Burch Analyst's International Corp. Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) "Argue for your limitations, and they are yours"