Explosives aboard space shuttle??

I was relaxing tonight watching the history channel and they where doing a few episodes on space stuff. Called "Extreme space missions" or something close to that. One of the guys that works for NASA that was being interviewed stated that if a shuttle veers off coarse it can be detonated by explosives to prevent ground casualties, " the crew is expendable" per his words.

Now that struck me as an odd operating procedure. Why not just steer the shuttle into some trees, patch of land, water, I mean, if you're the pilot, your prepared to die, why not give it a shot at maybe surviving an ugly crash?? Why do you need to go blowing things into oblivion? Unless I thought that crash wreckage could not run the risk of being discovered. Rather blow it all up versus having it wreck somewhere. I don't think this is a policy any other ship flying acronym does if the flight isn't going to make it. You don't incinerate your bowing 747 do ya? Of coarse not.

first post by the way....!!

anyone got anything on this?

Call me conspirasy crazy, but I think there are much more things going on in the heavens above that we are not privy to. If things go south for whatever reason I believe the PTB will ice a mission as needed. Not backed by data, a gut feeling.

I would assume they would call for an attempted crash landing if there was nothing special on board. Top Secret or otherwise. If something went wrong and something special was on, they would probably destroy it rather than have anyone discover it was there. Otherwise, the crew would probably go for a somewhat mostly destroying of a crash landing

It was just the way the guy said " the crew is expendable" as if the preservation of life is no longer the top priority. Seriously that short segment in that episode just added a bit more cement to the mixture with WTF is going on in outer space that the complete destruction of an "off coarse shuttle" or rocket is what is safe for everyone. sure...I bet.

he also said that "every shuttle has explosives on board" WHY?!?!?

makes no sense whatsoever with the supplied reason. To protect people on the ground...hell, they take off from Cape Canaveral Fl, They Head in a South East direction...they are over the ocean a good bit of the way. Garbage if you ask me....thats their safety policy.

Without seeing the video in question, I can't say anything too definite. If you (or someone else) could post *exactly* what was said, it would be very helpful.

That said, an out-of-control Shuttle isn't like an out-of-control Boeing 747. On the way up, there's no way to shut off the power, or even to throttle it very far back (prior to SRB separation. at least). On the way down, there's no power available. In either case, your options as mission commander are pretty limited. You can't look for "an empty patch of ground", then finesse your aircraft onto it. Because your recovery options are limited, there are self-destruct charges fitted, just like there were to the Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury boosters. As for the crew being 'expendable", of course they are...just like the pilot of a military aircraft operating over civilian property is "expendable" in the event of a crash. He (or she) is expected to do everything in his power to get the aircraft clear of civilians, even if it means not using that fancy Martin-Baker ejection seat. Given the damage that a shuttle stack could do to a populated area, I can promise you that the folks at NASA would blow it rather than risk a major impact...and I'd be willing to bet that the crew would second the decision, assuming there was time to ask them.

It's got nothing to do with 'top secret' contents, either in the payload bay (anything really sensitive back there is going to be destroyed just as completely by an impact as by a self-destruct charge), or in the shuttle itself (the technology there is 10-20 years old). It's simply a continuation of the 'just in case' planning that's always been a part of manned (and unmanned) launches.

Brother Storm Hammer,
That makes a lot of sense. I see it your way as well. Thank you for your clarification.

regards,
Sounder