Re: Alternate Landing Site - why not use Vandenberg?

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:j1Twg.3845$bP5.3524@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9809AAB97C1E4jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

How would that happen? All the hydrazine (and other assorted nasty
toxic) tanks are outside the cabin, in vacuum - a leak in the cabin
would have positive pressure due to the air going *out*, so that no
hydrazine could leak *in* until the air was gone... at which point
you're back to the
first
scenario: no air, therefore no avionics, therefore dead orbiter,
therefore no point in trying to return incapacitated crew.


Hmm, trying to recall if it was an espide of The Cape or real-life
where a suit became contaminated with hydrazine and there was concern
about it outgassing in the crew-cabin.

Real life. STS-98, it was Bob Curbeam's suit, and it was anhydrous ammonia,
not hydrazine. They made him use the ammonia brush and bake it off in the
sun before returning to the crew cabin.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
.

Quantcast