How to MODIFY the Space Shuttle to fly SAFELY in the next 15+ years!

[spacebatman]

.

I think that retire the Shuttles in 2010 and use only some SMALL (and POOR) crew/cargo capsules is a BAD idea

the Space Shuttle is an old machine but its main problem (compared with past and future capsules) is that it has NO ESCAPE SYSTEM so, if something goes wrong after lift-off (like in the Challenger accident) the crew has no way to survive

in my new article (with animation) "The SAFE Space Shuttle" I suggest to MODIFY the Shuttles to fly WITH a crew but SAFELY (to fill the gap between the Shuttles' retirement in 2010 and the first Orion flight in 2015 + delays)

.

[polo_pro]

Ok, I'll be the first to say it. I think Mr_Laurenzano has a run for his money to get his 2006 award, eh? 8^) 8^) 8^)

ps - One good thing is this thread is in Science & Technology where almost anything goes. I'm not trying to censor anyone with the above comments.

[spacebatman]

Originally Posted by plo

...this thread is in Off Topic...

the section's title means Science & Technology "in general" (I suppose)
.

[Cody2526]

you mean like Escape Pods?

everything in space should have them, or anything that can launch them to the nearest planet with land on it.

[spacebatman]

Originally Posted by Cody2526

you mean like Escape Pods?

escape pods (seats?) like used in military fighters may be a good and cheaper solution (that was already used in first few Shuttle's flights) but it can work only between lift-off and 5-15 km. altitude (that, however, is the most dangerous part of a flight) while, beyond it (in the vacuum) they need a pressurized lifeboat (with its own thermal shield)

.

[macgeek]

Originally Posted by Cody2526

you mean like Escape Pods?

everything in space should have them, or anything that can launch them to the nearest planet with land on it.

I think The lawyers at apple would object to that name!



Jonathan

[pam]

They'd have to go back and sue a TON of SF writers, if they object. That term has been around for ages.
Pam

[KSagal]

I thought that the shuttle has a cockpit that can eject from the rest of the craft shortly after launch or booster rocket problems. Must be that 5 to 15 KM issue... That is where the majority of previous problems have been...

Heat shields are needed for high speed re-entry into the atmosphere. Would a non-powered, in atmosphere (Thin at that altitude, but still in atmosphere) decent need one?

I know of skydiver records above 40,000 feet (And I thought one near 100,000 feet) and the cold was a far greater factor than the heat...

[BillPaxton]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I thought that the shuttle has a cockpit that can eject from the rest of the craft shortly after launch or booster rocket problems. Must be that 5 to 15 KM issue... That is where the majority of previous problems have been...

Heat shields are needed for high speed re-entry into the atmosphere. Would a non-powered, in atmosphere (Thin at that altitude, but still in atmosphere) decent need one?

I know of skydiver records above 40,000 feet (And I thought one near 100,000 feet) and the cold was a far greater factor than the heat...

Yeah I read that in OMNI and saw the thing on discovery channel about some guy who bailed out of a weather balloon at 19 or 20 miles up (so around 100,000 feet is right on target). But I'm thinking if they could drop and entire 4200lb reentry module from all the way out there and stop it with parachutes, you could make the entire cabin pop right out like a bagel from a toaster at the slightest hint of danger.

Bet those astronaut suites wouldn't smell so good on landing tho!

+B

[polo_pro]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I thought that the shuttle has a cockpit that can eject from the rest of the craft shortly after launch or booster rocket problems. Must be that 5 to 15 KM issue... That is where the majority of previous problems have been...

Heat shields are needed for high speed re-entry into the atmosphere. Would a non-powered, in atmosphere (Thin at that altitude, but still in atmosphere) decent need one?

I know of skydiver records above 40,000 feet (And I thought one near 100,000 feet) and the cold was a far greater factor than the heat...

Now Karl, please don't introduce any ugly facts into his flight of fancy.

But since, we're on the topic, what about the complexity of deploying parachutes from a dissentigrating vehicle travelling thousands of miles per hour possibly in a parabolic tragectory (on the way up). I'm not saying that this is an insurmountable problem (ie. balistic chutes and strong materials), but given the payload weights involved...it'd be challenging to say the least.

ps - My understanding was that the shuttles crew cabin does not eject. This was not part of the design due to the weight and volume requirements (and in the space lift industry it's all about how much you can toss up there for the obscene amounts of money that are spent).

I thought the best escape plan they've come up with stick a pole out the top of the crew cabin to guide the departing astronauts (probably with his own parachute, insulation and breathing system) around things like the tail as they depart the vehicle travelling at outrageous speeds. Needless to say few people really consider this to be a realistic escape plan given the high altitudes involved, the amount of time needed to execute it and the circumstances it'd be executed in!