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