[londons_explore]

A cleverer ejection seat could track the tail and body of the craft, and adjust the rocket force based on the trajectories in each case.

Then you don't have to use enough force to avoid the tail in every case, but merely enough force to avoid the tail in this case, which will normally be far less.

[sokoloff]

The aircraft being exited is often not in a factory nominal condition.

[TylerE]

Solid fuel rocket, so no throttle.

[krisoft]

Yes. And if someone is curious why are we using solid fueled rockets in this application:

The big benefit of solid fueled rockets is that they are very reliable, and require no maintenance. They are basically a big “candle” composed of a mix of fuel and oxidizer. You can lit it a day after it was made or twenty years later it will work the same.

The liquid fueled options have valves and other moving parts which can jam, corrode and degrade with time. So it would require frequent maintenance and would still be likely less reliable than the solid fueled variety.

[b112]

I think the reliability part is what most are missing here.

Devs, you have to think like the 90s. You are shipping software on a CD or floppy l, with no updates ever. Ever.

You get it right, or you may bankrupt the company.

That is an ejection seat, and the simplier the design, less to QA! And on top of this?

The hardware under your software is possibly decaying, and your software still must work.

Sort of like designing software for an apollo mission.

[HPsquared]

You could use an array of motors, and only activate however many are needed.