From: Ken MacLean (kenmaclean1@rogers.com)
Date: Sat Feb 01 2003 - 14:43:49 PST
The speed at which things happen and the violence of re-entry into the
atmosphere from orbital speeds is difficult to imagine. To withstand the
forces at work here, an escape capsule or capsules would have to be very
heavy. So heavy that the existing shuttle could not accomodate them, never
mind get off the ground.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul A. Thomas" <bluewhale@jaxkneppers.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] Columbia and escape modules...
> Could not individual pods be set so that they fired out backward (
assuming
> they had time to notice the shuttle was blowing up ) from the shuttle's
> trajectory and be ... steerable until they can get to a lower altitude and
> use a chute? Just a little single person slip stream pod for each person?
> Or is science fiction still too far ahead of physics as we know it?
> I wonder if pilots in WWII did not believe in the idea of an ejection
seat?
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> At 11:40 AM 2/1/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> >Hi Jay, and list...
> >
> >Sad day for all of us, but I don't think the escape module would have
> >helped in this instance. If I remember right, the design was based on a
> >launch failure like Challenger's... not a "pod" that would withstand
> >re-entry speeds and heat.
> >
> >Chris Davis
> >MVPA#20000
> >Lake Elsinore, CA
> >
> >At 12:23 PM 2/1/03 -0600, J Travis wrote:
> >>> Looks like that decision to cut costs by eliminating the crew escape
> >>>module to save on the budget might not have been such a great idea
after
> >>>all, huh? Thanks, Mr. Clinton. I'm sure all those public school library
> >>>copies of "Billy has Two Daddies" bought with the "savings" on the NASA
> >>>budget are a real comfort to the families of the astronauts...
> >>>
> >>>What we REALLY need is to go ahead and fund the development of the
space
> >>>plane, to replace the Orbiter (space shuttle) system that SHOULD have
> >>>been done in the late eighties. But between cutting the NASA budget to
> >>>fund politically motivated social agendas and not being willing to
> >>>overhaul the industry built around continuing the support of this
> >>>obsolete technology, we now find ourselves right back where we were in
> >>>1986 with Challenger. My sympathies to the families of those lost
today.
> >>
> >>
> >>Jay Travis
> >>
> >>
> >>Ryan Gill wrote:
> >>
> >>>At 9:48 AM -0500 2/1/03, Alan R Wise wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Terrible day, February 1, 2003.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Damn it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> >>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> >>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
<mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> >>To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> >To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> >To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> >To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:25:23 PDT