Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!umbc3!cbw1!brian From: brian@cbw1.UUCP (Brian Cuthie) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Shuttle Escape Systems Message-ID: <177@cbw1.UUCP> Date: 9 May 88 18:18:47 GMT References: <48048@ti-csl.CSNET> Reply-To: brian@cbw1.UMD.EDU (Brian Cuthie) Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046 Lines: 34 In article <48048@ti-csl.CSNET> DMeyer@mips.csc.ti.com (Dane Meyer) writes: >I received quite a few responses to my original posting, both here and >e-mail -- all of them were very good. Thanks. I sent a copy of one >particularily thorough response to Ken Scofield, who was asking about >this in the first place, and he still had the following comments. Many [ken's comments:] >... Why >not just jettison the entire shuttle craft from the tank/booster assembly? >As I see it, the tank/booster assembly would just continue on its merry way >until it self-destructed, but the shuttle could glide off into the sunset >(sunrise?) and live happily ever after. Two arguments I've heard against >this are: The shuttle would break up due to aerodynamic forces, and/or it > >Ken Scofield Well, whoever told you that was exactly right. If you read the presidential commission's report on the Challenger you will see that the actual cause of the destruction of the craft was from aerodynamic forces rather than the large fire ball seen in the pictures. It seems that the large fire ball was mostly burning hydrogen, which had been dispersed when the tank ruptured. The force of that explosion was minimal compared to the aerodynamic forces seen by the shuttle when it suddenly was thrown sideways into the wind at several times the speed of sound. Looking at the pictures in the report reveals that the orbiter really broke into three major sections. It even looks as though the crew compartment is almost *completely* intact. It is best not to underestimate the force of wind at Mach > .5 :-) -brian -- Brian D. Cuthie uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian Columbia, MD brian@umbc3.umd.edu