If a space shuttle was going to crash during a botched landing back on earth, is there any way for crew to eject safely before impact?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

If a space shuttle is going to crash during a botched landing back on earth, is there any possible way (emergency vessel, etc.?) for crew to eject and land safely away from the shuttle?

technology space space-travel spaceships science

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

Jon James

792

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

If a space shuttle is going to crash during a botched landing back on earth, is there any possible way (emergency vessel, etc.?) for crew to eject and land safely away from the shuttle?

technology space space-travel spaceships science

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

Jon James

792

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

If a space shuttle is going to crash during a botched landing back on earth, is there any possible way (emergency vessel, etc.?) for crew to eject and land safely away from the shuttle?

technology space space-travel spaceships science

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

Jon James

792

If a space shuttle is going to crash during a botched landing back on earth, is there any possible way (emergency vessel, etc.?) for crew to eject and land safely away from the shuttle?

technology space space-travel spaceships science

technology space space-travel spaceships science

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

Jon James

792

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

Jon James

792

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

Jon James

792

asked 3 hours ago

Jon James

792

asked 3 hours ago

Jon James

792

792

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

4 Answers
4

active

oldest

votes

up vote
3
down vote

No. That was one of the design tradeoffs in the shuttle. It was reasoned that, except for the last few seconds before la good landing, ejection would be an instant death sentence anyways, whether the unlucky astronaut was torn apart by wind shear, burned up by friction, or asphyxiated. The evidence is that all three happened with the Columbia accident

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

pojo-guy

6,53811121

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Unlesss... you have a shuttle in another shuttle
  – Shadowzee
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

Short answer is NO; not with the current design, and even if it was possible to add in escape capsules or some other ejection device, the chances are that your crew would never make it to them before complete destruction of the ship.

If we look at Challenger first, that ship blew up around 73 seconds after launch. It's highly doubtful that the crew felt a thing or knew what was going on before the ship exploded. Their reaction time to the event would have been as close to zero as can be imagined, and even an automated escape system could not have got them clear in time. It would have also greatly inhibited their ability to control the craft during flight, by the way.

As for Columbia, a stray heat tile fell off and struck the wing, and there is some evidence that the ship sensors were registering something wrong for around 12 seconds prior to the actual breakup of the ship. But they were travelling at more than mach 19; so fast that any form of ejection would have been extremely problematic, not to mention risky.

On top of that, the weight requirements would have meant less payload available in the ship, meaning that it's less commercially viable AND the ejection system still only provides a slight increase in surviveability. Ultimately if something goes wrong during reentry or landing, ejection or survival pods are unlikely to help. Hence, they were never designed into the system.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Tim B II

21.9k54792

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

You talk about "a space shuttle" ...

Well, there was "the Space Shuttle" which generally refers to the NASA design which was actually used, a Soviet design that was never flown with people in it, and various other designs which got not even that far. Notably, the ESA design got modified to allow for greater pilot survival chances, which reduced the payload by quite a bit before the program got scuttled.

Here is a writeup about escape options for the NASA Shuttle, including parachutes to be used at 25,000 feet.

The idea of a crew escape capsule sounds viable in many but not all situations, but it would take a significant bite into the payload capacity.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

o.m.

55.2k679183

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

Why not just make it an emergency crash landing? Or does it have to be a high octane ejection seat crash where the shuttle explodes afterwards?

share|improve this answer

answered 44 mins ago

Althaen

8917

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f128152%2fif-a-space-shuttle-was-going-to-crash-during-a-botched-landing-back-on-earth-is%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

4 Answers
4

active

oldest

votes

4 Answers
4

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
3
down vote

No. That was one of the design tradeoffs in the shuttle. It was reasoned that, except for the last few seconds before la good landing, ejection would be an instant death sentence anyways, whether the unlucky astronaut was torn apart by wind shear, burned up by friction, or asphyxiated. The evidence is that all three happened with the Columbia accident

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

pojo-guy

6,53811121

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Unlesss... you have a shuttle in another shuttle
  – Shadowzee
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

No. That was one of the design tradeoffs in the shuttle. It was reasoned that, except for the last few seconds before la good landing, ejection would be an instant death sentence anyways, whether the unlucky astronaut was torn apart by wind shear, burned up by friction, or asphyxiated. The evidence is that all three happened with the Columbia accident

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

pojo-guy

6,53811121

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Unlesss... you have a shuttle in another shuttle
  – Shadowzee
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

up vote
3
down vote

No. That was one of the design tradeoffs in the shuttle. It was reasoned that, except for the last few seconds before la good landing, ejection would be an instant death sentence anyways, whether the unlucky astronaut was torn apart by wind shear, burned up by friction, or asphyxiated. The evidence is that all three happened with the Columbia accident

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

pojo-guy

6,53811121

No. That was one of the design tradeoffs in the shuttle. It was reasoned that, except for the last few seconds before la good landing, ejection would be an instant death sentence anyways, whether the unlucky astronaut was torn apart by wind shear, burned up by friction, or asphyxiated. The evidence is that all three happened with the Columbia accident

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

pojo-guy

6,53811121

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

pojo-guy

6,53811121

answered 2 hours ago

pojo-guy

6,53811121

answered 2 hours ago

pojo-guy

6,53811121

6,53811121

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Unlesss... you have a shuttle in another shuttle
  – Shadowzee
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Unlesss... you have a shuttle in another shuttle
  – Shadowzee
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

Unlesss... you have a shuttle in another shuttle
– Shadowzee
2 hours ago

Unlesss... you have a shuttle in another shuttle
– Shadowzee
2 hours ago

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

Short answer is NO; not with the current design, and even if it was possible to add in escape capsules or some other ejection device, the chances are that your crew would never make it to them before complete destruction of the ship.

If we look at Challenger first, that ship blew up around 73 seconds after launch. It's highly doubtful that the crew felt a thing or knew what was going on before the ship exploded. Their reaction time to the event would have been as close to zero as can be imagined, and even an automated escape system could not have got them clear in time. It would have also greatly inhibited their ability to control the craft during flight, by the way.

As for Columbia, a stray heat tile fell off and struck the wing, and there is some evidence that the ship sensors were registering something wrong for around 12 seconds prior to the actual breakup of the ship. But they were travelling at more than mach 19; so fast that any form of ejection would have been extremely problematic, not to mention risky.

On top of that, the weight requirements would have meant less payload available in the ship, meaning that it's less commercially viable AND the ejection system still only provides a slight increase in surviveability. Ultimately if something goes wrong during reentry or landing, ejection or survival pods are unlikely to help. Hence, they were never designed into the system.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Tim B II

21.9k54792

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

Short answer is NO; not with the current design, and even if it was possible to add in escape capsules or some other ejection device, the chances are that your crew would never make it to them before complete destruction of the ship.

If we look at Challenger first, that ship blew up around 73 seconds after launch. It's highly doubtful that the crew felt a thing or knew what was going on before the ship exploded. Their reaction time to the event would have been as close to zero as can be imagined, and even an automated escape system could not have got them clear in time. It would have also greatly inhibited their ability to control the craft during flight, by the way.

As for Columbia, a stray heat tile fell off and struck the wing, and there is some evidence that the ship sensors were registering something wrong for around 12 seconds prior to the actual breakup of the ship. But they were travelling at more than mach 19; so fast that any form of ejection would have been extremely problematic, not to mention risky.

On top of that, the weight requirements would have meant less payload available in the ship, meaning that it's less commercially viable AND the ejection system still only provides a slight increase in surviveability. Ultimately if something goes wrong during reentry or landing, ejection or survival pods are unlikely to help. Hence, they were never designed into the system.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Tim B II

21.9k54792

add a comment | 

up vote
1
down vote

up vote
1
down vote

Short answer is NO; not with the current design, and even if it was possible to add in escape capsules or some other ejection device, the chances are that your crew would never make it to them before complete destruction of the ship.

If we look at Challenger first, that ship blew up around 73 seconds after launch. It's highly doubtful that the crew felt a thing or knew what was going on before the ship exploded. Their reaction time to the event would have been as close to zero as can be imagined, and even an automated escape system could not have got them clear in time. It would have also greatly inhibited their ability to control the craft during flight, by the way.

As for Columbia, a stray heat tile fell off and struck the wing, and there is some evidence that the ship sensors were registering something wrong for around 12 seconds prior to the actual breakup of the ship. But they were travelling at more than mach 19; so fast that any form of ejection would have been extremely problematic, not to mention risky.

On top of that, the weight requirements would have meant less payload available in the ship, meaning that it's less commercially viable AND the ejection system still only provides a slight increase in surviveability. Ultimately if something goes wrong during reentry or landing, ejection or survival pods are unlikely to help. Hence, they were never designed into the system.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Tim B II

21.9k54792

Short answer is NO; not with the current design, and even if it was possible to add in escape capsules or some other ejection device, the chances are that your crew would never make it to them before complete destruction of the ship.

If we look at Challenger first, that ship blew up around 73 seconds after launch. It's highly doubtful that the crew felt a thing or knew what was going on before the ship exploded. Their reaction time to the event would have been as close to zero as can be imagined, and even an automated escape system could not have got them clear in time. It would have also greatly inhibited their ability to control the craft during flight, by the way.

As for Columbia, a stray heat tile fell off and struck the wing, and there is some evidence that the ship sensors were registering something wrong for around 12 seconds prior to the actual breakup of the ship. But they were travelling at more than mach 19; so fast that any form of ejection would have been extremely problematic, not to mention risky.

On top of that, the weight requirements would have meant less payload available in the ship, meaning that it's less commercially viable AND the ejection system still only provides a slight increase in surviveability. Ultimately if something goes wrong during reentry or landing, ejection or survival pods are unlikely to help. Hence, they were never designed into the system.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Tim B II

21.9k54792

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

Tim B II

21.9k54792

answered 2 hours ago

Tim B II

21.9k54792

answered 2 hours ago

Tim B II

21.9k54792

21.9k54792

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

You talk about "a space shuttle" ...

Well, there was "the Space Shuttle" which generally refers to the NASA design which was actually used, a Soviet design that was never flown with people in it, and various other designs which got not even that far. Notably, the ESA design got modified to allow for greater pilot survival chances, which reduced the payload by quite a bit before the program got scuttled.

Here is a writeup about escape options for the NASA Shuttle, including parachutes to be used at 25,000 feet.

The idea of a crew escape capsule sounds viable in many but not all situations, but it would take a significant bite into the payload capacity.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

o.m.

55.2k679183

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

You talk about "a space shuttle" ...

Well, there was "the Space Shuttle" which generally refers to the NASA design which was actually used, a Soviet design that was never flown with people in it, and various other designs which got not even that far. Notably, the ESA design got modified to allow for greater pilot survival chances, which reduced the payload by quite a bit before the program got scuttled.

Here is a writeup about escape options for the NASA Shuttle, including parachutes to be used at 25,000 feet.

The idea of a crew escape capsule sounds viable in many but not all situations, but it would take a significant bite into the payload capacity.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

o.m.

55.2k679183

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

up vote
0
down vote

You talk about "a space shuttle" ...

Well, there was "the Space Shuttle" which generally refers to the NASA design which was actually used, a Soviet design that was never flown with people in it, and various other designs which got not even that far. Notably, the ESA design got modified to allow for greater pilot survival chances, which reduced the payload by quite a bit before the program got scuttled.

Here is a writeup about escape options for the NASA Shuttle, including parachutes to be used at 25,000 feet.

The idea of a crew escape capsule sounds viable in many but not all situations, but it would take a significant bite into the payload capacity.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

o.m.

55.2k679183

You talk about "a space shuttle" ...

Well, there was "the Space Shuttle" which generally refers to the NASA design which was actually used, a Soviet design that was never flown with people in it, and various other designs which got not even that far. Notably, the ESA design got modified to allow for greater pilot survival chances, which reduced the payload by quite a bit before the program got scuttled.

Here is a writeup about escape options for the NASA Shuttle, including parachutes to be used at 25,000 feet.

The idea of a crew escape capsule sounds viable in many but not all situations, but it would take a significant bite into the payload capacity.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

o.m.

55.2k679183

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

o.m.

55.2k679183

answered 1 hour ago

o.m.

55.2k679183

answered 1 hour ago

o.m.

55.2k679183

55.2k679183

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

Why not just make it an emergency crash landing? Or does it have to be a high octane ejection seat crash where the shuttle explodes afterwards?

share|improve this answer

answered 44 mins ago

Althaen

8917

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

Why not just make it an emergency crash landing? Or does it have to be a high octane ejection seat crash where the shuttle explodes afterwards?

share|improve this answer

answered 44 mins ago

Althaen

8917

add a comment | 

up vote
0
down vote

up vote
0
down vote

Why not just make it an emergency crash landing? Or does it have to be a high octane ejection seat crash where the shuttle explodes afterwards?

share|improve this answer

answered 44 mins ago

Althaen

8917

Why not just make it an emergency crash landing? Or does it have to be a high octane ejection seat crash where the shuttle explodes afterwards?

share|improve this answer

answered 44 mins ago

Althaen

8917

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered 44 mins ago

Althaen

8917

answered 44 mins ago

Althaen

8917

answered 44 mins ago

Althaen

8917

8917

add a comment | 

add a comment | 

 

draft saved

draft discarded

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f128152%2fif-a-space-shuttle-was-going-to-crash-during-a-botched-landing-back-on-earth-is%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Name Email

Name

Email

Name Email

Name

Email