S
SpaceForAReason
Guest
When I was a kid, I first heard the account of the brave/stupid men that would put themselves in a padded barrel and go over Niagra Falls. I admired their daring. I was shocked by their stupidity. Once in the river they were committed to the plunge, successful or not. There was no way to abort the attemt once they were committed. All of them were convinced that they had planned sufficiently to survive the fall. Many died. The practice is now illegal for the obvious reasons.
I was reading some of the threads and thinking of all the advances we have made over the years and how we still have one of the biggest problems still facing us: How to handle a landing (or launch) that has gone wrong.
If the Space Shuttle were to be in a "commit-to-land" status (and I would also say you are committed to land if your spaceship will not reach orbit) and needed to divert or abort, could it? Now, thinking ahead, if a capsule were in a "commit-to-land" status and needed to divert or abort, could it? (I don't want to land in unfriendly territory either. A bit of control would be nice.)
When astronauts return from orbit, they are relatively helpless. They do not possess the ability to return to orbit if something goes wrong. There is no 'safe-eject' system. They do not possess the ability to perform a landing abort to fly around for a second try. They cannot divert or abort once they are committed to land. They have one chance.
A number of years ago I was on a connecting flight from Dallas/Fort-Worth to Shreveport. The weather at Shreveport was rainy with thunderstoms in the area. The jet was cleared for departure and left DFW heading toward Shreveport and the bad weather. The pilot was obviously confident in the fact that no matter what the situation, a successful landing could be made. As we neared the destination, buffeted by turbulence and frequently lit by the relatively close lightning, it became apparent that a 'safe' landing would not be possible at Shreveport. The decision was made to divert to the airport in Monroe, LA. The only inconvenience was an two-hour bus ride. Believe me, I was still thankful not to be sitting in DFW waiting for the weather to clear as I still had a schedule to keep. Time is money.
What can we do better to improve our ability to commit to a landing and have it work even if we have to divert or abort the attempt?
Escape towers work fine on launches where the first stage can be shut-down. It does not work so well when it is at the top of a raging roman candle that won't turn off (SRB/Ares I). The roman candle wins the F=ma battle every time unless the little escape tower can out-muscle it; is that likely? :shock:
High altitude para-gliders, vehicle thermal airbags, powered abort systems, ejectable cockpits like the X-15 that can survive vehicle destruction? :?:
What do you think? Is there something we can do about it? Does it matter?
I was reading some of the threads and thinking of all the advances we have made over the years and how we still have one of the biggest problems still facing us: How to handle a landing (or launch) that has gone wrong.
If the Space Shuttle were to be in a "commit-to-land" status (and I would also say you are committed to land if your spaceship will not reach orbit) and needed to divert or abort, could it? Now, thinking ahead, if a capsule were in a "commit-to-land" status and needed to divert or abort, could it? (I don't want to land in unfriendly territory either. A bit of control would be nice.)
When astronauts return from orbit, they are relatively helpless. They do not possess the ability to return to orbit if something goes wrong. There is no 'safe-eject' system. They do not possess the ability to perform a landing abort to fly around for a second try. They cannot divert or abort once they are committed to land. They have one chance.
A number of years ago I was on a connecting flight from Dallas/Fort-Worth to Shreveport. The weather at Shreveport was rainy with thunderstoms in the area. The jet was cleared for departure and left DFW heading toward Shreveport and the bad weather. The pilot was obviously confident in the fact that no matter what the situation, a successful landing could be made. As we neared the destination, buffeted by turbulence and frequently lit by the relatively close lightning, it became apparent that a 'safe' landing would not be possible at Shreveport. The decision was made to divert to the airport in Monroe, LA. The only inconvenience was an two-hour bus ride. Believe me, I was still thankful not to be sitting in DFW waiting for the weather to clear as I still had a schedule to keep. Time is money.
What can we do better to improve our ability to commit to a landing and have it work even if we have to divert or abort the attempt?
Escape towers work fine on launches where the first stage can be shut-down. It does not work so well when it is at the top of a raging roman candle that won't turn off (SRB/Ares I). The roman candle wins the F=ma battle every time unless the little escape tower can out-muscle it; is that likely? :shock:
High altitude para-gliders, vehicle thermal airbags, powered abort systems, ejectable cockpits like the X-15 that can survive vehicle destruction? :?:
What do you think? Is there something we can do about it? Does it matter?