Posted on 05/08/2008 10:35:56 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Every time the Shuttle launches from Cape Canaveral, there is an Air Force officer overseeing events for the first two minutes of the mission. So who is this officer and what does he/she do? The launch safety officer has very big responsibility, not only to the people in mission control, but to the astronauts on board the launching Shuttle and the people on the ground in towns and cities under the flight path. Should the Shuttle spin off course, it could crash, killing hundreds or even thousands of civilians. This is why the Shuttle's two solid rocket boosters are armed with explosives, linked to the controls at the Air Force officer's fingertips. Flipping one switch would arm the explosives; another switch would detonate the spaceship, killing everyone on board.
...Should something go wrong after booster separation, they will have limited options to prevent crash landing in a populated area. They can either steer the Shuttle into an orbital path (if it is high enough) and fly over the Earth to line themselves up for an emergency landing at California's Edwards Air Force Base, or they would have to ditch in the Atlantic Ocean. But that's not the scary part. Before ditching, the astronauts would have to "bail out" at around 20,000 ft without the help of ejection seats. They would need to do it the old fashioned way. "After Challenger, we installed parachutes, survival suits and individual rafts, as well as an extendable pole used to clear the escapees from the wing when they exit the hatch [while in flight]," says Bryan O'Connor, a former shuttle commander and NASA’s chief of safety and mission assurance.
The upcoming Orion space vehicle will be kitted out with a special rocket-powered escape pod should the worst happen during launch emergencies.
(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...
What is news to me is that this imbecile thinks this is news
Wow! I knew about the “pole” used for abandoning ship, and read that there was only a 20% chance of survival for a crew that used it (still better than zero, if the ship is doomed).
I was not aware of any option to sacrifice the crew, and thought (perhaps naively) that the flight path reduced any risk to populations to near zero.
Sounds to me (a scientific novice, with some passing interest) that the Shuttle never lived up to its high expectations, and was not the best system.
I hope Orion will be much better. Apollo seemed to work pretty darned well to me.
Anybody remember the Delta IIa rocket and satellite that were “accidenatlly” self-destructed after a perfect launch about seven years ago?
Some guy got antsy on the trigger.
Article makes no mention of the Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL) option or Abort to Orbit (ATO) [consider the various calls as the launch is progressing - e.g. “Press to ATO”]. More sensationalism than info. May God guide the hand of that Air Force officer, however, says one in the potential impact area.
“Before ditching, the astronauts would have to “bail out” at around 20,000 ft...”
If the astronauts have bailed out, is it still considered “ditching?”
Oh, great. Wait until Dr. Evil finds out about this.
In other words, if something goes badly wrong, they’re screwed.
No, a “ditch” is a crash landing at sea.
There are three TAL sites at the other side of the pond: Moron and Zaragoza AFB’s in Spain and Istres in Southern France.
Every launch, teams are prepared in Europe to provide a safe landing of the orbiter if needed.
You can hear during the ascents the phrases, “Saragosa, two engine” or “Moron, two engine” when launch control informs the crew that if one of the liquid engines shuts down they have already enough speed and altitude to proceed with a TAL with the rest of the power.
Could somebody imagine to cross the Atlantic in just fifteen minutes?
I’ve always wonder if the shuttles had a ejection capsule like the F-111s had. Seems to me that if they knew they had to abandon ship while in atmo they could jettison in something like that a lot safer then blowing up the ship around them and hoping for the best.
Columbia had an ejection system during the first flights.
Nope.
Never did as the whole idea for the shuttle to have that system was deemed too expensive. It would work.
I'm not impressed by the pole escape system. I saw the test as it went well out of a C-141 flying straight and level at speeds not even close to the shuttle's if they have to escape
“I was not aware of any option to sacrifice the crew, and thought (perhaps naively) that the flight path reduced any risk to populations to near zero.”
There was/is and shall remain a flight safety officer for every launch of a rocket since day one.....the first rockets ever fired by this country.
If, for example, one of the solid-rocket boosters would malfunction and divert the path to Miami, for example, then the crew would be sacrificed. Crewmembers are aware of this before they volunteer. They volunteer anyway. Speaks to their bravery.
“If, for example, one of the solid-rocket boosters would malfunction and divert the path to Miami, for example, then the crew would be sacrificed. Crewmembers are aware of this before they volunteer. They volunteer anyway. Speaks to their bravery.”
Ah, yes. The infamous ‘Pinwheel Mode’.
“Article makes no mention of the Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL) option or Abort to Orbit (ATO) [consider the various calls as the launch is progressing - e.g. “Press to ATO”]. More sensationalism than info. May God guide the hand of that Air Force officer, however, says one in the potential impact area”
Also, RTLS (Return to Launch Site), tho that may no longer be an option dur to safety concerns.
Amazing - in the age of slide rules and carbon paper.
But they had dedication, which more than made3 up for it.
made3 = made
They are very brave, yes.
Thanks for the explanation. It does indeed make sense to have such a capability, in case the truly unexpected malfunction occurs.
It’s also not a surprise to me that it’s not all that well-publicized.
Indeed. Morón AFB was built by the Americans in the 1950’s. I cannot easily imagine why they did not choose simply the neighbouring town to avoid misinterpretations!
In the ample Spanish joking mood, the issue would have had huge consequences, up to the point of demoralizing the troops stationed there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.