I've read & heard repeatedly that a failure of the landing gear would've been utterly cataclysmic. I doubt an orbitter could possibly be repaired after one; but it often seems to me that it wouldn't necessarily have lead to a breakup so thorough as completely to wreck the crew compartment.

So I wonder what the goodly folk @ this Channel reckon in that connection.

Frontispiece image from

#####this Call to Fly

wwwebsite .

Say after main engine ignition, one of the engines failed so violently that a piece pierced the liquid hydrogen tank, & liquid hydrogen came pouring-out, ignited. … or something pierced the liquid hydrogen tank with that result. Could an arm with a covered gangway on it have swung over, & engaged with the cabin door, & the crew escaped along it?

Because such a liquid hydrogen conflagration would not necessarily (if my understanding of how explosions work is @all acccurate) have been explosive in the sense of a true forceful explosion occuring that would've wrecked all the surrounding ancillary structures. There would obviously have been a colossal conflagration; but it seems to me that if a gangway could've swung-over & the crew escaped along it in less time than it would take for it to become so hot that running along the length of it were no-longer viable, then the crew could possibly have escaped that way. And even in the midst of so colossal a conflagration, I reckon probably if they made it as far as that huge stout tower next to the vehicle (there's probably a proper name for it!) then they would be safe.

Because, in addition, I understand that in one respect hydrogen fires are less dangerous than hydrocarbon fires: they're hotter, but they also tend to rush very rapidly upward, conveying the heat @ a very rapid rate way-above the location of the fire. Or that's what I once gathered a long time ago, anyway: maybe it's not altogether accurate, though.

Also, the fire wouldn't necessarily be more intense than the Hindenburg one shown in-proportion as the hydrogen supply was more concentrated - ie liquid versus gas - because the main limitation on the rate of combustion would become the supply of atmospheric oxygen.

And so the fire would not be particularly focussed on the gangway; & I'm figuring there might just possibly have been time for the crew to escape along it before it heated-up too much.

However … I'm leaning towards figuring that if the liquid oxygen tank also ruptured during the course of such an attempted escape, then then they would be utterly doomed.

I've often wondered about this, & considered that if it's not , then there wouldn't be all that much left that would yield gas upon combustion: the hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene doesn't constitute a very large proportion of the mix. But it's just occured to me that I could ask here .

I've seen the melting point quoted as 2,072°C (3,762°F; 2,345K), & the boiling point as 2,977°C (5,391°F; 3,250K) . And I'm having difficulty finding a precise quote for the temperature inside an SRB, although I've recently seen 5000°F = 2772°C quoted

#####NASA — Rocketology: NASA's Space Launch System — Tag: ammonium perchlorate: We’ve Got (Rocket) Chemistry, Part 2 ,

which wouldn't quite be above the boiling point of aluminium oxide. But maybe that quote's a bit low: maybe right inside the booster it's a bit higher. But if that figure's not grossly amiss then Al₂O₃ is going only just to be a gas, & will condense very shortly after passing out through the nozzle.

Might be an odd question, but I was wondering if there's any photos out there showing more than just 2 shuttles together. So like, maybe photos of Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavor (or even Columbia or Challenger) together when not being readied for a mission. Was that even something that could've been possible or were the Shuttles not stored nearby enough when not on a mission for that to have been possible?