Brett Sargeant Wrote:
> You could try and build in a capsule eject function ( like the f-111 cockpit)

> though that might be a bit costly and difficult to implement on an existing
> vehicle.

I think they've already provided an escape system for the crew. Of course
building one for a tourism module would be pretty much impossible because you'd
have to either have sections of the cargo bay doors blow out or blow the whole
doors off to get the people out. Good luck on that one.

Mike Combs Wrote:
> When I fly on a passenger jet, there's no escape system to eject me from the
> vehicle if it should break up around me. I simply depend on it not to do
> so. Most of the time it doesn't.

Yes. But the space shuttle has never been tested anywhere near as well for
safety as a 747. In fact you wouldn't even be able to get a certification
given the low number of flights the shuttle has done.

Mike Combs Wrote:
> On the other hand, I suppose someone could make the point that there probably

> aren't many passenger jets flying with a 1% failure rate.

I haven't heard of many of them. If there were they'd never have been
certified and airlines wouldn't be able to fly people in them.
Brad Welsh Wrote:
> The contractual restrictions they placed on putting the shuttle under
corporate
> control were so onerous no corporation has bid for them.

What corporation would bid for them anyway given their cost?

Brad Welsh Wrote:
> They probably despise the idea that all their science and engineering
expertise
> might be harnessed for theme park operations for a zero-G Disneyland.
I could see them getting a lot more science if they went ahead with a space
theme park because it would require a lot more earth to orbit capacity thereby
allowing more space probes to be launched. Besides the engineering of orbital
theme parks would be a lot of experience. Just make sure you use Polyethene
for the walls of the theme parks (for when they pass through the SAA).

Brad Welsh Wrote:
> It seems to me that with the STS/Buran they chose a lemon to copy in the
first
> place.
Yes, although they might be able to do it a little bit cheaper.

Brad Welsh Wrote:
> Let's hope NASA can do better with the next generation reuseable launchers
now
> in design/competition phase.

I wouldn't expect anything from the NASA design of the next launcher. In
reality it should be done like an X program.

panamabob Wrote:
> Can we modify a 727 into becoming a space vehicle? Can a chasis designed for
> 600 mph flight do well at 20,000 mph? Perhaps... Maybe the clue is
conventional
> flight to less dense air at 100,000 before kicking in orbital engines?

The problem is with the stresses, sure the air is less dense but with the speed
you'll be hitting it you've got a lot of friction on the surface of the craft.
Also the air pushing on the craft trying to break it. You really do need
something designed to handle hypersonic flight.

> Maybe we need to get an aboriginal person from the rainforest jungle, teach
> them basic physics and give them the problem to solve without prejudice of
> our technology history :-)

Problem is that they'd probably have to know a bit about our technological
history to be able to solve the problem.

Al Globus Wrote:
> If you have to have an ejection system for the tourists, I don't think you
have
> a market. The reliability needs to improve.

I agree with you on this one.

Al Globus Wrote:
> Just for a nice reality check on dollars, one production 747 off the assembly

> line costs around $180 million.

You could have at least checked the figure at
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/

Turns out it's higher then $180 million.

Ryan Healey wrote:

> Brett Sargeant Wrote:
> > You could try and build in a capsule eject function ( like the f-111
> cockpit)
>
> > though that might be a bit costly and difficult to implement on an
> existing
> > vehicle.
>
> I think they've already provided an escape system for the crew. Of course
> building one for a tourism module would be pretty much impossible
> because you'd
> have to either have sections of the cargo bay doors blow out or blow
> the whole
> doors off to get the people out. Good luck on that one.

I was thinking along the lines of having the whole module where the
tourists sit eject, You wouldn't necessarily have to have the cargo
doors, as you could build the module to sit in the bay and take their
shape, but is just an idea :)

IIRC the escape system for the crew is only available in certain
sections of the flight profile, and involves extending a pole from the
shuttle, along which the astronaut slides, which is supposed to guide
you past the control surfaces to where you can drop clear of the vehicle
and deploy the chute. I cannot remember the length of time this is
supposed to take, but from memory it takes a lot longer than most
accidents would allow.

B

Passenger jets have about a 1 in 2,000,000 failure rate.

> Mike Combs Wrote:
>> On the other hand, I suppose someone could make the point that there
>> probably
>
>> aren't many passenger jets flying with a 1% failure rate.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect and
deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html