USAF: Orion Crew Will Not Survive Early Mission Abort.

[CalliArcale]

There are always trade-offs.

One thing worth mentioning is that the Gemini system gave them a remarkable advantage over Vostok

That is an unfair, apples v oranges, situation for Vostok.

True, that Leonov, (the only "Vostok" EVA,) had a 'slight' problem getting back in! That doesn't reflect that the design was never intended for second generation activities, like EVAs or multiple passengers. Both exercises carried enormous risks, as lashed up, sans abort ability.

Well, that's kind of my point with Voskhod. Gemini was built for EVAs, Voskhod really was not. It couldn't accomodate two suited crewmembers, for one thing. Mainly, though, I was just speaking to the fact that a nice side-benefit of the ejection seats was two quite large hatches. Heck, I don't think any other spacecraft ever built has had the theoretical capability of letting two crewmen egress simultaneously. Even the ISS Quest airlock can only let one person through at a time.

Don't get me wrong; I think Voskhod 1 was a remarkable mission and a huge triumph in many ways. I'm a big fan of the Russian space program, and I think they were in an excellent position to beat us to the Moon. They had the technological prowess; the reason they failed was mostly political. Sort of the same problem that's kept us from going back to the Moon and onward to places like Mars over the past forty years.

EDIT: I may have misunderstood your objection. Are you saying that Voskhod was *not* just a slightly beefed up Vostok? The Soviets should probably have waited until Soyuz (or one of the competing designs) was ready, instead of wasting time with Voskhod just so they could beat the Americans at an EVA and a three-man spaceflight. It was ultimately meaningless, but the sort of mission that Khruschev preferred. Unfortunately, it caused delays in the development of the *real* second-generation spacecraft, the vastly more capable Soyuz which does in fact remain in operation today, having greatly outlived Apollo and shortly to outlive Shuttle as well.

 

[JonClarke]

There are always trade-offs.

One thing worth mentioning is that the Gemini system gave them a remarkable advantage over Vostok when performing spacewalks...

No spacewalks were done from Vostok, and none were planned. You are thinking of Voskhod, which, as its' name suggests was intended for EVAs.

Jon

 

[JonClarke]

True, that Leonov, (the only "Vostok" EVA,) had a 'slight' problem getting back in! That doesn't reflect that the design was never intended for second generation activities, like EVAs or multiple passengers. Both exercises carried enormous risks, as lashed up, sans abort ability.

Voskhod, not Vostok. And it is not often remembered (and certainly was not mentioned at the time) that the first Gemini EVA also came very close to disaster. The hatch proved very difficult to close, only after a herculean effort by Ed White was it actually shut. Frank Borman has opined that, had it been anyone else but Ed White, generally considered the strongest of the astronauts, the hatch would not have shut and the spacecraft and crew would have been lost.

Jon

 

[newsartist]

Voskhod, not Vostok.
Jon

Of course, that's why I put "Vostok" in quotes. In retrospect, I should have been clearer. (Same family, but more of a cousin than a sister.)

 

[mr_mark]

Mr. MARK: SPACE SHUTTLE CREW WOULD NOT SURVIVE SRB EXPLOSION

Well for what it's worth this is my attempt at humor about a humorless and groundless USAF report that goes against all logic saying that the Ares 1 crew capsule would not survive an SRB explosion. Well, hate to say it but, the space shuttle uses 2 SRB's with no means of crew escape. I'm sure those astronauts would be in the SRB blast and fallout zone as well. Why is it allowed to launch with 2 SRB's and Ares is not allowed to launch? Sounds pretty illogical and plenty fishy to me. I have no proof but I bet someone at the air force is getting a hefty payout from some contractor somewhere. Me thinks there is some stinky politics at play here. :evil:

 

[mr_mark]

Re: Mr. MARK: SPACE SHUTTLE CREW WOULD NOT SURVIVE SRB EXPLOSION

In fact, it was an o ring leak that caused the challenger disaster. Funny how shuttle flights continued? Oh, I wonder, politics and greed are such interesting games? :roll:

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Mr. MARK: SPACE SHUTTLE CREW WOULD NOT SURVIVE SRB EXPLOSION

I am going to merge this with the other Orion Unsurvivablity thread. A part of the reason is your use of all capital letter titles, the other is, that it really belongs in that thread, since that is the issue you are addressing.

 

[aaron38]

Okay this is going to sound a bit crass, and I'm not saying not to have an escape system if it's doable, but why is it mandatory?
When I get on an airliner as a civilian, I don't get an escape system. If an engine fails or fuel tank explodes, I'm dead, end of story. It's the risk I take when I climb on board. Now yes, the risk of spaceflight is much higher, but the passengers are much less in number. Basically, if it's acceptable to launch millions of people without an escape system at low risk, it should also be acceptable to launch a few people without an escape system at high risk.

Otherwise it seems to me that the life of the average air traveler is held in much less regard than the life of an astronaut. I mean, 747's were never grounded after TWA 800, the Airbus A330 is still flying all over the planet, despite one just killing 228 people for no good reason. Neither of them had an escape system. When that JetBlue A320 had the stuck front landing gear and no one knew if it could land, were the passengers parachuting to safety? No, their fate was sealed to the plane's. Yet we continue to insist that we can't send explorers (who accept the risk) into space unless they can survive catastrophic malfunctions, when I can't take a flight from Chicago to LA with the same guarantee. Why the double standard?

So like I said, if they can build the escape system, fine. But if they can't, launch the sucker anyway. Because that's how everyone else files. And I say this as a true supporter of space colonization - if we don't accept at least the same risk in manned spaceflight that general aviation accepts, we're never getting off this rock. The first death on Mars will be the end of manned Mars missions forever unless we get everyone to start accepting that as part of the upfront cost.

The day the 747 and A330 are grounded is the day I'll accept the need for an abort system on manned spacecraft.

 

[clint_dreamer]

Well said Aaron. I totally agree with you.

In the 60's NASA was launching men into orbit to win the space race and the rockets being built now are far more dependable than those of a few decades ago.

 

[trailrider]

IIRC, a recent article regarding survivability rate for all ejections from aircraft equipped with seats, capsules, extractors, etc., measured since ejection seats were introduced, still runs only about 54 percent! Again, IIRC, an article in Air Force Magazine, back in the 1980's stated the rate was about 50 percent. In other words in twenty years the likelihood of surviving a bailout (from an aircraft...not a bankruptcy :roll: ) has only improved by about 4 percent!

Chuck Yeager couldn't have bailed out of the Bell X-1 as it had no ejection seat, and the hatch was on the side, exactly in line with the right wing! Likewise, in the Bell X-1A, he didn't have a seat! After the X-1A "departed" from controlled flight and he fell something like 30,000 ft before regaining control and landing, he was quoted as saying that if he had had an ejection seat, he wouldn't have stayed in the aircraft! When the NF-104 he was flying could not be pulled out of a flat spin (typical of high T-tail aircraft), he ejected, barely surviving the process!

The reason that civilian airliners and military transports don't have escape devices is that it just isn't practicable to build them to take care of that many passengers. Still, your chances of being involved in an accident or incident, while certainly not zero, are less that the probability of having one while driving to the airport!

Even if your chances of surviving an explosion or other problem are only 54 percent, as a test pilot or astronaut (or a family member!!!), I'd still want the availability of an escape system on something as dangerous as a rocket-propelled vehicle!

While one can accuse the Air Force of either being "against" Ares I, or simply covering their "sixes", they would be remiss to the highest degress if they didn't "call 'em like they see's 'em!" So, I don't think they are saying "don't fly" the Ares I (or any other type of launch vehicle), just that if you do fly it, here are your probable chances!

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[newsartist]

In other words in twenty years the likelihood of surviving a bailout (from an aircraft...not a bankruptcy :roll: ) has only improved by about 4 percent!

The bulk of ejections, worldwide, is in the same equipment now as in the 1980s. I wouldn't be surprised to see identical results, and the difference is probably statistical, based on small numbers. With such small samples, a few incidents can sway the results.

Most ejection failures are the result of using them in desperate situations, beyond the ability of the seat.

Possibly the new survey also reflects the new generation of Russian seats? They are GOOD, and there was a push to buy them for the F-22, which was blocked.

 

[steve82]

In other words in twenty years the likelihood of surviving a bailout (from an aircraft...not a bankruptcy :roll: ) has only improved by about 4 percent!

Possibly the new survey also reflects the new generation of Russian seats? They are GOOD, and there was a push to buy them for the F-22, which was blocked.

The guy who works on my 172 has an aerovochodny L39 with russian-type seats. He said they're the best. the plane is in pieces all over his shop with all kinds of cyrillic writing on the parts. I just hope he doesn't take off in the thing after he's opened my cowl and started my annual.