[net.space] Space shuttle abort to orbit

@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:rsf@Pescadero (07/30/85)

From: Ross Finlayson <rsf@Pescadero>

Dick King asks why the shuttle couldn't attain its required orbital speed
simply by burning its two remaining engines longer than usual.  My guess is 
that since the fuel that would have been burned up by the third engine is
burned up more slowly than usual (now that only two engines are working), the 
shuttle doesn't lose weight (due to fuel burning) at the same rate as 
before.  That is, some of the fuel gets to be lifted a little higher than 
before, leading to a a decrease in the shuttle's final kinetic energy.  I'm 
sure this isn't the whole story; I'll leave it to the experts to fill in more 
details.

Also, in this morning's paper, I read that apparently a second engine was
beginning to show signs of overheating (after the first had already been shut
down).  This can't have been as serious, however, because apparently the crew 
manually shut down the backup sensor for this engine, to prevent the computers
from shutting down this engine as well.

Does anyone know what plans exist for aborting a shuttle launch from 
Vandenberg?  Since the shuttles will be launched in a north-to-south 
direction for polar orbits (correct?), where could they land following an
early abort?  The only places that come to mind are the Galapagos Islands, and 
Easter Island, but I don't know if there are sufficiently long runways there.
I'm sure NASA would rather not have the shuttle land in Antarctica!

	Ross.

@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:dsmith%hp-mars.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa (08/01/85)

From: David Smith <dsmith%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>

> Does anyone know what plans exist for aborting a shuttle launch from 
> Vandenberg?  Since the shuttles will be launched in a north-to-south 
> direction for polar orbits (correct?), where could they land following an
> early abort?  The only places that come to mind are the Galapagos Islands, and 
> Easter Island, but I don't know if there are sufficiently long runways there.
> I'm sure NASA would rather not have the shuttle land in Antarctica!

NASA is negotiating to put an emergency landing strip on Easter Island.

		David Smith
		ucbvax!hplabs!dsmith

moriarty@fluke.UUCP (John) (08/08/85)

[Remotely posting this for John... Moriarty]

In article <2900@mordor.UUCP> @S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:dsmith%hp-mars.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa(Dave Smith) writes:
>
>NASA is negotiating to put an emergency landing strip on Easter Island.
>


Does any one out there in the know wish to comment on the suggested military 
applications of such an agreement?  I am just not sure, given that NASA has 
unfortunately come under a much greater military influence during this
administration.....

	Thanks in advance for any commentary.



		0 0		  (Crises?.... What Crises?)
                 ^            
                \_/               John
                                  Phoenix@ucbtopaz       ucbvax!ucbtopaz!phoenix