The thing I remember most about that entire debacle is the people whining "There should have been an escape mechanism!" and looking for safety features.
Look, you blithering idiots, they're 10 miles up and moving 18 times the speed of sound. Add an ejection mechanism? Sure. They eject. Now they're OUTSIDE THE SHUTTLE, 10 miles up and moving 18 times the speed of sound.
i think the idea was that they should have deisgned the shuttle's crew compartment to be an emergency escape pod. i'm not sure how feasible it woudl be, but couldn't they build into the next reusable orbital, a crew cabin that can sperate from the main craft and protect the crew? i dunno.. you're the rocket scientist .p
Ok, now design such a beast that's (a) lightweight, (b) low-maintenance, and (c) reliable anywhere from Florida heat and humidity to hard vacuum. Oh, and it has to survive returning, essentially unaided, from nearly-hard-vacuum. Consider even partial reentry heat.
Let us know, eh? I think you'll be at it for a while. Cheers, &c.
hey... that's why i'm not a rocket scientist... besides.. it's gonna take them a while to be able to design a new orbital anyways... i think if it's feasible, they should atleast try and work it into the deisgn.
It's all they can do to make the current shuttle survive re-entry while carrying all the stuff it *needs* to carry to get up there and survive with a crew as-is. Trying to add a completely separable re-entry vehicle is, for all practical purposes, impossible.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-13 09:39 am (UTC)Old Albert would be inpressed.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-13 03:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-13 04:31 pm (UTC)Look, you blithering idiots, they're 10 miles up and moving 18 times the speed of sound. Add an ejection mechanism? Sure. They eject. Now they're OUTSIDE THE SHUTTLE, 10 miles up and moving 18 times the speed of sound.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-13 06:18 pm (UTC)i dunno.. you're the rocket scientist .p
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-14 12:19 am (UTC)Let us know, eh? I think you'll be at it for a while.
Cheers, &c.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-14 12:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-14 03:28 pm (UTC)It's all they can do to make the current shuttle survive re-entry while carrying all the stuff it *needs* to carry to get up there and survive with a crew as-is. Trying to add a completely separable re-entry vehicle is, for all practical purposes, impossible.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-14 04:08 pm (UTC)