From: Chris Davis (cdavis@webworldinc.com)
Date: Sat Feb 01 2003 - 15:06:43 PST
Now that you mention it, I remember that "entire cockpit" option too... but
I also remember a bit from the movie "Apollo 13" (I was alive for the
actual event, but too young to pay much attention) anyway in the movie they
talk about the re-entry of the capsule having to occur at very precise
angles and speeds or the thing would burn up (despite its shielding) or
skip off the atmosphere like a stone skipping on a lake....
Even with todays computer controls, I bet it would be difficult to "eject"
a cockpit pod and get the attitude and direction right after the
separation. Things have to be happening awfully fast at that speed.
As for the funding cuts of past administrations... I agree with you. NASA
should have had more, not less funding. (And should today.)
Chris Davis
Chris DavisAt 04:04 PM 2/1/03 -0600, J Travis wrote:
>As I recall, one of the proposals put forward after Challenger was
>analyzed was for a cockpit "module" that could be seperated and would
>contain the entire crew, similar in function to the F-111 and the B1-B
>bombers (although engineered to meet the greater loads). It was later
>decided that it would be too expensive to retrofit the shuttles for NASA's
>budget during the Clinton administration.
>
>Jay Travis
>
>Chris Davis 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