Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Will we lose another orbiter
Message-ID: <1990Apr11.041856.21663@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <1990Apr6.024844.16083@utzoo.uucp> <2836@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1990Apr8.050005.23425@utzoo.uucp> <450@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <SHAFER.90Apr9095556@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 04:18:56 GMT

In article <SHAFER.90Apr9095556@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) writes:
>   ... Can the crew survive a belly landing,
>   can the vehicle survive such a landing...
>
>It's highly probable that the crew will survive and that the vehicle
>will survive with only minor damage.  Airliners land gear-up fairly
>often, are repaired, and fly again quite nicely, for example, and the
>Shuttle is much sturdier than an airliner...

Sure about that, Mary?  My impression was the other way around:  the
orbiter is relatively fragile.  Certainly a ditching in water is
considered completely unsurvivable, with serious structural failure
likely (unless the assessments have been revised radically since the
Rogers report); that's why the crew now has a bailout system.  I can't
find a definitive statement about a belly landing, although (astronaut)
Paul Weitz told the Rogers commission:

	"My feeling is... strong that the Orbiter will not survive
	a ditching, and that includes land, water, or any unprepared
	surface..."

>I've always thought that a landing accident is somewhat likely, BTW,
>but I think it likely that the vehicle won't be destroyed, just
>damaged.  The crew is very likely to survive, probably uninjured.

As I recall, both NRC and OTA (in studies on future shuttle operations)
hinted that a hard landing was the single most likely reason to write
off an orbiter, and that the crew would quite possibly survive.
-- 
With features like this,      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
who needs bugs?               | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
