FYS-TS@FINHUT.BITNET (01/30/86)
The shuttle accident has been naturally an international event and the main news media also in my country gave a lot of lines and airtime for the disaster. The explosion was of course a tragedy, however - which I find natural - the tone of the mail to 'space' has been directing to future. Paul Dietz, you gave a short summary of possible future options. Transfer of the shuttle program to military would seem strange to me; how could military be a better choice than NASA? They might be able to hide some disasters if wanted to, but that's about it. About the cause of the explosion; the TV-broadcast I saw gave me the impression, that the flames had started from the SRB's. Does anyaone know yet, whether the SRB casings were previously used or were they brand new? The SRB's left the fireball; did the chute's work(is it possible? timed pyrotechnics, perhaps?) or did the casings survive the impact to water? If so, have any burnthroughs been found? About future shuttle configurations; The current Hermes concept pictures the spaceplane sitting on the Ariane 5 booster. Has there been made assesments on the possibility of survival of the shuttle in that type configuration in case of a fuel explosion? Previously there has been discussion in the mailing list of the cost of shuttle vs. Sat.V. During this discussion appeared also the question of the fifth shuttle. Would it be - decent - economical - technically sensible to build a replacement, perhaps a somewhat developed version of the shuttle to replace Challenger(sort of an intermittent stage between current shuttle technology and next generation TAV's, etc..)? Steve Dennett, you wanted comments and opinions; here's something: 1. As far as I know, since the test flights, shuttle has not had an escape mechanism. 2. I think, that the future of your space program and the need to find the guilty and punish them should be somehow separated. If someone is directly responsible, the burden of responsibility must be carried, but the space program is so much more than those to punish. 3. Perhaps a dramatical way of putting it, but if the space program is political- and financial-wise severely damaged - by intention - because of this accident, would't the dead seven then have died somehow for nothing? 4. The redirection of the focus of the manned program might not be such a bad idea. ESA is planning the Hermes/Ariane 5 system, which combines the possibility of manned access to orbit and the security aspects of unmanned telecommunications satellite launches. To 'Bob Czech': One of my dremas has been to experience the launch of the shuttle; I hope it still might come true. Playing with words, but I agree that, this should not be BLOWN OUT of proportion. Remember Solar Max and others. And the other side of the coin: What if the soviets would announce, that they have a Salyut crew in distress and you would have a shuttle on the pad? There is time for human tragedy and for human rescue, time for sorrow and time for joy. The best way to deal with this incident would be to treat it openly and thoroughly and without too much looking for scapegoats and people to punish. If someone is really guilty, he or she will carry it his/her mind. That might be punishment enough. To find the cause and to prevent future explosions, that's the point. If someone by any chance has got the impression, that I would under- estimate the human tragedy involved, I can't help it. That's not my purpose. However, I have seen some comments, that especially shocking was, that there were two women on board. Mrs. McAuliffe's being on is somewhat special, but I remember Sally Ride commenting after her first flight, something that she would like to see the day, when woman in space is nothing special. To sum: Six ASTRONAUTS and a passenger are dead - may they rest in peace and I hope their memory be respected with a thorough and open inspection. Tero Siili Helsinki University of Technology, Finland FYS-TS@FINHUT.BITNET