Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Challenger: Final Flight on Netflix...

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    The Sticks, TN
    Posts
    4,161
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Grand58742 View Post
    Only Enterprise and Columbia had ejection seats and they weren't used after the first four missions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_...#Ejection_seat
    This made me think of one of my ROTC instructors in college that was a CH53 pilot who was involved in the early testing and development of the V22 Osprey. He said the fixed wing pilots involved wanted ejection seats while the rotary wing pilots were like “WTH? You got 27 Marines in the back and you are going to eject?”.
    Philippians 2:10-11

    To argue with a person who renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. ~ Thomas Paine

    “The greatest conspiracy theory is the notion that your government cares about you”- unknown.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,884
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    The pilots had ejection seats, but everybody else was on their own. It says something about those two men that they HAD a way out but refused to leave their crewmates behind.

    A rather perplexing design decision from the worst of British practice, "pilots get bangseats but everyone else has to jump and hope for the best." Personally, if it was up to me I wouldn't allow any platform to be combat or space crew-rated unless it has enough Zero-Zero seats for everybody...
    In a perfect world, the crew compartment would be designed as an independent life raft / escape vehicle. Not sure what that would cost, but I think it would have been money well spent.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,404
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    In a perfect world, the crew compartment would be designed as an independent life raft / escape vehicle. Not sure what that would cost, but I think it would have been money well spent.
    The original design had two jet engines so you could punch the Shuttle off the stack for a "flyback abort." Guess what was the first thing cut for cost?

    But "ah, they all volunteered, they all know the risks and it's a dangerous business..."
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,884
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    The original design had two jet engines so you could punch the Shuttle off the stack for a "flyback abort." Guess what was the first thing cut for cost?

    But "ah, they all volunteered, they all know the risks and it's a dangerous business..."
    Yeah that is some Arkansas economics right there.

    Cost of shuttle with safety features against cost of shuttle program being scrapped because of Challenger / Columbia.

    If your stated goal is a space vehicle that makes space travel so safe passengers need not be astronauts who have a 20 year career as test pilots, then you better actually make something like a Space Bus. Because if you say that is what you have and then examples prove otherwise, then you really don't have anything.

    And that is what we ended up with after the second shuttle fiasco to the point where we had to hitch a ride with the Russians.

    If we can make a plane like the X-15 which can achieve sub orbital space flight (in 1963 btw) then there is no reason we shouldn't be capable of making a larger payload vehicle capable of the same 50 years after the fact.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,404
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    Yeah that is some Arkansas economics right there.

    Cost of shuttle with safety features against cost of shuttle program being scrapped because of Challenger / Columbia.

    If your stated goal is a space vehicle that makes space travel so safe passengers need not be astronauts who have a 20 year career as test pilots, then you better actually make something like a Space Bus. Because if you say that is what you have and then examples prove otherwise, then you really don't have anything.

    And that is what we ended up with after the second shuttle fiasco to the point where we had to hitch a ride with the Russians.

    If we can make a plane like the X-15 which can achieve sub orbital space flight (in 1963 btw) then there is no reason we shouldn't be capable of making a larger payload vehicle capable of the same 50 years after the fact.
    X-15 also required a B-52 to drop it. A prof and I had doodled a Single Stage To Orbit-capable vehicle in college, but it had three big problems: cost as much as some entire air forces, required sixteen of the largest engines ever built, and we're talking an airframe FOUR HUNDRED feet long weighing a thousand tons--and there ain't many places you can land a ship 400' long with a 300'-plus-wingspan even with it designed for full amphibious Sea-to-Space-to-Land-and-do-it-all-over-again capability.

    Not to mention that the beast would easily suck entire tanker squadrons dry to fill its tanks... actually, this project was around Columbia's timeframe and one of our goals was "clamp a crippled Shuttle onto its back and bring them both through safe reentry."

    w-SV.jpg Yes, that Saturn V is to-scale, and the speck in front of #8 exhaust nozzle is the Sketchup standard human figure model for further illustration. (The bird illustrated is a VBSS variant, meant to seize and secure hijacked airliners in midair.)
    Last edited by Diamondback; 09-22-20 at 21:36.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,884
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    X-15 also required a B-52 to drop it. A prof and I had doodled a Single Stage To Orbit-capable vehicle in college, but it had three big problems: cost as much as some entire air forces, required sixteen of the largest engines ever built, and we're talking an airframe FOUR HUNDRED feet long weighing a thousand tons--and there ain't many places you can land a ship 400' long with a 300'-plus-wingspan even with it designed for full amphibious Sea-to-Space-to-Land-and-do-it-all-over-again capability.

    Not to mention that the beast would easily suck entire tanker squadrons dry to fill its tanks... actually, this project was around Columbia's timeframe and one of our goals was "clamp a crippled Shuttle onto its back and bring them both through safe reentry."

    w-SV.jpg Yes, that Saturn V is to-scale, and the speck in front of #8 exhaust nozzle is the Sketchup standard human figure model for further illustration. (The bird illustrated is a VBSS variant, meant to seize and secure hijacked airliners in midair.)
    I know with the Shuttle we had to give a little to get a little and that is the way of all new, cutting edge technology. I just think we should have given a little more in some areas. Think of what would have happened during the Challenger event IF the crew compartment was blown free and parachuted into the ocean with people banged and bruised but otherwise in great condition for just participating in a vehicle explosion.

    Confidence, not to mention investment, into the shuttle program would have soared. You couldn't have purchased that kind of faith for any amount of money. The world would have taken notice, a momentary setback would have quickly turned into a great victory. But it seems NASA just didn't think like that.

    Granted some things are unavoidable because we couldn't reasonably imagine the Apollo 1 fire. Hatches that opened inside rather than outside prevented them from escaping even if it was humanly possible during a fire in a pure oxygen environment.

    These are the unforeseeable tragedies that nobody can reasonably trouble shoot. We can eventually accept them because they aren't a O rings that basically has a real world design flaw and has documented histories of failure.

    In 1980 The British SAS decisively brought their Iranian hostage crisis to a conclusion. Literally only a week before our efforts to rescue our hostages in Iran met with disaster. Granted England was working on home territory with fewer challenges and we were going over there to fight our way in, grab our guys and fight our way out.

    One rescue failed and one rescue succeeded. We carried the failure of our attempt for years, England's daring operation had everyone believing James Bond was real and he worked for something called the SAS. With a few variables the roles could have been reversed with us bringing home our rescued hostages with a ticker tape parade in NYC and the Iranian Revolution with the shattered confidence of Kaddafi after we brought his shit home to him.

    At the same time the London raid could have been a disaster where they breached doors wired with explosive, hostages killed by terrorists and the loss of key members of the team.

    And this is why if you can spend another 5% on what is likely to ensure a better outcome, you spend the money.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    2,984
    Feedback Score
    0
    The previous year I had returned to the States from Honduras/Nicaragua, just got promoted, and was in my 21 week Aviation Captain's Career Course at Fort Rucker, Alabama. Didn't see it live but some NCO came in to our group discussion room and let us know what had happened. It was one of those events where you always remember where you were.
    Maj. USAR (Ret) 160th SOAR, 2/17 CAV
    NRA Life Member
    Black Mesa Ranch. Raising Fine Cattle and Horses in San Miguel County since 1879

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •