Just a quick question. Why weren't the space shuttles designed with survivable crew compartments? I mean something like, the computer senses that something is going drastically wrong, and ejects the crew compartment. I mean, sure you lose a shuttle, but the crew survive. You just give it an unpopulated aproach path, and no one dies.
Because at the time of the design and build, the 70's it was "not technically feasible" (i've had talks with shuttle engineers from VAB at KSC about this and proposed some new ideas for reentry vehicle design) PEace
Great. So we've lost two crews, plus the first civilian in space. Well she would've been anyway. Was it not technically feasable to design one after the challenger? Is it not technically feasable to design one into the next reuseable orbital vehicle? These aren't sarcastic questions, TooSicks, I really want to know. I've just typed out all that, and thought to myself, why not go to www.nasa.gov ? Anyway, off to the research.
"not technically feasible" roughly translated means... not financially feasable due to budget and time constraints ie, the willpower wasnt there.
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch9.htm Look under crew escape options. Basically says, would add too much weight, and too much cost.
AKA not technically feasible. Not impossible, but also not "worth it" Later versions of the shuttle were "built" from the same production runs as the first, and were basically spare parts that weren't needed and were assembled into additional launch vehicles.
Okay, cost I'll never understand as a reason when it comes to saving lives. But weight that could affect center of gravity and flight dynamics. That I can understand. Also, space exploration is a vastly complex operation. I can understand accidents will happen when we're still less than forty years since we landed on the moon.