"There was no mass or power available in the LESS for an Inertial Measurement Unit to measure acceleration and tell the astronauts where they were, where they were going or how fast they would be getting there, or even for a radar altimeter to show altitude above the lunar surface."
If I had a spare billion bucks laying around when the shuttle program ended, I thought it would been fun to actually try out an RTLS. Tie up the necessary loose ends on the autopilot, stack up an empty shuttle, invite a lot of people, and let it go. No real use to it, but it would have been a great "Hey y'all, watch this" moment.
I get images of Topgears Renault Robin space shuttle clone in my head. While obviously not hitting the heights the shuttle can it was an impressive endeavor that might satisfy your curiosity; http://youtu.be/pJdrlWR-yFM
Top Gear (along with Fox News), hold the dubious honour of having had to defend themselves in court for their right to lie in segments presented as factual reporting. This is probably part of the reason why they moved away from car reviews and onto doing stunts.
They may have faked the explosion at the end, and obviously their explanation is total nonsense, but the launch looks pretty authentic, see this alternate angle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoMKy043j_I
It's not? Seriously I worked NASA and that episode was entirely plausible (except for the explosion after effects), and not as expensive as other things Top Gear has done. Why are you saying it was faked?
Almost as good as sliding 200ft from the base of an exploding Saturn V to a rubber room, a quick crawl to the blast room, slam the door shut, cover yourself in a fire blanket and if you survive long enough light oxygen candles until the rescuers arrive. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1211/19rubberroom/
Insane is a better word for it. Although to be fair there are a lot of aspects of the shuttle's design and operation that will be remembered that way.
He even glosses over the SRB issue. Thanks to the SRB's, there were no abort modes for the shuttle during the first 123 seconds. Until they had expended themselves any abort would have required separating the SRB's while they were still firing at full thrust. They would have accelerated forward of the stack, their hot exhaust impinging directly on the external tank while it was still full of fuel.
"In the book, the Space Shuttle Atlantis launches on a polar orbit flight from Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California. During the launch, the main engines cut off prematurely and the shuttle is forced to make an emergency landing on Rapa Nui, better known to most of the world as Easter Island."
Not really. The controversy here is over whether or not it would work if they needed it. Range safety is something everyone agreed with the necessity of, and there wasn't a lot of concern that it wouldn't work. (It was basically a small explosive charge sitting on the SRB and a radio control - very well understood).
The RTLS abort mode, everyone agreed was necessary (in the "no other options" sense, but as the article explains, no one can be sure it would actually work.
Range safety is a necessary evil. RTLS is doing a bootlegger turn in a very large, very fast vehicle without even a horn that can blow dixie while doing so.
I grew up in the English countryside a few miles away from a US airbase which was designated as one of the possible landing sites in the event of an aborted launch, due to it's long runway.
There was an American couple living in our village and the guy's job was to be on call during a shuttle launch. Suffice it to say he and his buddies spent most of their days playing poker.
I wrote a paper while I was doing my phys/astro degree on why the shuttle was bad for the US space program. This was a major reason for it because every accident was guaranteed death for the astronauts, which then guaranteed a shutdown of all manned launches for months. NASA has been cash-strapped since the 70s but they can still absorb and recover from lost rockets (with astronauts ejected vertically), whereas lost life leaves a scar on the organization.
You're right that KSP physics would make it a bit easier than in real life. Even with FAR aerodynamics and Deadly re-entry it would probably be somewhat possible.
But Kerbal Space Program has very crude instruments and controls (especially when using the keyboard). It is very difficult to fly any kind of aircraft let alone gliders.
Perhaps using the built-in flight assists in FAR to maintain a steady pitch trim you could try to make it. But you'd still need to understand the best glide airspeed and other aerodynamic characteristics of the craft to make a deadstick landing.
It might be possible but extremely difficult to pull off an RTLS abort maneuver in KSP.
The hardest part of RTLS and the part that would result in infinite internet argument if they ever tried it, is if nothing goes wrong there's no purpose for it other than seeing if it works, and if anything goes wrong it probably won't work. APU failure. Control system failure. Total computer crash. Total electrical system failure. Exploding main engine takes out the back 15 feet of the shuttle. Engine gimble hydraulics jams one engine full one direction, maybe damaging the other engine nozzles by smooshing into them. Window blows out, probably taking out the deck crew but maybe the guys below survive. Back when the shuttle was in the commercial space truck biz, one of the boost stages in the cargo bay ignites (well that probably takes out the whole ship, how about the vibration of launch causes a short circuit that causes an electrical fire or propellant breach that damages stuff passing thru the bay, like electrical power and control lines.)
I found it very difficult to picture what exactly was supposed to go on in each maneuver based on the text. It would help to have more diagrams and to move the diagram near the bottom up to the top. The simulation video also didn't help, because it was in a first-person view for all of the interesting parts.
"Of the 135 Space Shuttle launches, only one (STS-51F on 7/29/85) experienced an abort-inducing failure during ascent. In the case of 51F, they safely made a lower-than-planned orbit and carried out the mission. All of the other flights cleanly avoided the dubious honor of settling the RTLS bet."
All but one. Did the writer just forget about the Challenger mission, or did that one somehow count as "cleanly avoiding" an "abort-inducing failure"?
(Someone in the comments to the article has brought this up as well.)
No abort options were available while the solid rocket boosters were burning, as they were in Challenger's case. (I agree, though, that a failure during SRB firing doesn't really count as "cleanly" avoiding demonstrating RTLS.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems
"There was no mass or power available in the LESS for an Inertial Measurement Unit to measure acceleration and tell the astronauts where they were, where they were going or how fast they would be getting there, or even for a radar altimeter to show altitude above the lunar surface."