ST9@jane.uh.edu (Rich Bainter AKA Pug) (11/29/89)
I know this is a sensitive subject and so E-Mail replies are fine... I was told recently by a person who *might* know that the reason they pushed so hard for a shuttle capsule escape system was that the crew of the challenger had not only survived the explosion but that they were alive for the two minutes until the shuttle hit the ocean. Supposedly the cockpit had been blown intact apart from the rest of the shuttle and was intact until it hit the ocean. On a related note: It is my opinion that if the pilgrims had been as safety concious about the US as we are about space it seems that the new world would have never been settled. If we could accept a higher mortality rate could we get a substantially higher amount of people into space? Personally, if I had a choice of exchanging a 10% chance of death for a shot at colonizing the moon for example I am not so sure I wouldn't go for it. As it is now it doesn't seem anything major will happen in my lifetime. --- Stephen McLeod (aka Bandolar)
bruno@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III) (11/29/89)
In article <5082@jane.uh.edu> ST9@jane.uh.edu (Rich Bainter AKA Pug) writes:
]On a related note: It is my opinion that if the pilgrims had been as safety
]concious about the US as we are about space it seems that the new world would
]have never been settled. If we could accept a higher mortality rate could we
]get a substantially higher amount of people into space?
We have lots of trained astronauts but only 3 orbiters. We can't afford to
have them blow up every couple of missions.steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) (11/30/89)
ST9@jane.uh.edu (Rich Bainter AKA Pug) writes: >... >I was told recently by a person who *might* know that the reason they pushed so >hard for a shuttle capsule escape system was that the crew of the challenger >had not only survived the explosion but that they were alive for the two >minutes until the shuttle hit the ocean. ... Yes, there is apparently evidence to support that hypothesis. As I recall, a valve on an emergency oxygen supply was turned on -- at least. I believe there was more evidence, but my memory fails me. The TROPIC magazine of the Miami Herald had (in my opinion) a rather good article on this and related subjects about a year or two ago. One interesting item, as I recall, was the inability of the public coroner's office to examine the remains -- the guards wouldn't allow it. --Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/30/89)
In article <5082@jane.uh.edu> ST9@jane.uh.edu (Rich Bainter AKA Pug) writes: >I was told recently by a person who *might* know that the reason they pushed so >hard for a shuttle capsule escape system was that the crew of the challenger >had not only survived the explosion but that they were alive for the two >minutes until the shuttle hit the ocean. Supposedly the cockpit had been blown >intact apart from the rest of the shuttle and was intact until it hit the >ocean. Here's a piece I posted a while ago on this subject: The most relevant document here is the medical and forensic report from the team headed by (astronaut and MD) Joe Kerwin. The stresses involved in the disintegration of the orbiter and external tank were well within normal human limits, and are quite unlikely to have caused either death or major injury of the astronauts. (The external tank did not explode, it came to pieces and the propellants burned rapidly. The orbiter, somewhat damaged, was thrown out of control and was torn apart by the hypersonic slipstream.) The crew cabin survived as a single unit and hit the ocean slightly battered but basically intact. Several of the emergency air packs, intended to provide breathing during an emergency escape on the pad, had been activated. It appears vanishingly unlikely that this could have been caused by anything but human action. It is impossible to avoid concluding that most or all of the crew survived the orbiter breakup, and at least some of them were conscious for at least a few seconds afterward. Almost certainly they were killed by impact with the ocean, not by the accident itself. (There were no voice or other recorders running for more than a fraction of a second after breakup, the cabin was badly smashed by the water impact, and the bodies were under water for weeks before recovery, so it is hard to be positive of most of this.) One remaining uncertainty is whether the crew were conscious all the way down. The key question is whether the cabin held pressure. The emergency packs held *air*, not *oxygen*, and would not have prevented quick loss of consciousness at the breakup altitude. Consciousness probably would not have been regained before impact, once lost. Kerwin's team worked very hard to try to determine whether the cabin had held pressure, but ultimately could not be sure -- the impact damage was just too great. In particular, it was not possible to determine with certainty whether any of the windows had broken during the breakup. If one had to guess, the best guess [in my opinion -- Kerwin's team did not guess] is that the cabin lost pressure quickly and the astronauts rapidly lost consciousness, but certainty is not possible. -- That's not a joke, that's | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology NASA. -Nick Szabo | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
ce202a2@prism.gatech.EDU (THOMAS, PETE (TEACHING ASSISTANT)) (11/30/89)
In article <5082@jane.uh.edu> ST9@jane.uh.edu (Rich Bainter AKA Pug) writes: >Personally, if I had a choice of exchanging a 10% chance of death for a shot at >colonizing the moon for example I am not so sure I wouldn't go for it. Would you be willing to risk the chance that transportees (involuntarily) took in Heinlein's _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_?" 50% of new chums (colonists) died from accidents, etc. In an uncontrolled environment its possible--of course, in our oh-so-carefully designed laboratories and stations, you would hope the death rate would be lower... But we must accept that in any pioneer effort people will die. I am more than willing to lay down my life in this effort, and I know that others are too. --Pete >As it is now it doesn't seem anything major will happen in my lifetime. -- Peter L. Thomas (E GR 1170Z{1,2}, UTA) "Figures never lie, but liars always figure." Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 Internet: {gt5139c,ce202a2}@prism.gatech.edu
ce202a2@prism.gatech.EDU (THOMAS, PETE (TEACHING ASSISTANT)) (11/30/89)
>One interesting item, as I recall, was the inability of >the public coroner's office to examine the remains -- the >guards wouldn't allow it. I don't believe that the public coroner had any jurisdiction, -- Peter L. Thomas (E GR 1170Z{1,2}, UTA) "Figures never lie, but liars always figure." Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 Internet: {gt5139c,ce202a2}@prism.gatech.edu
steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) (11/30/89)
ce202a2@prism.gatech.EDU (THOMAS, PETE (TEACHING ASSISTANT)) writes: >I don't believe that the public coroner had any jurisdiction, As I recall, the article quoted the coroner's office as stating that they did indeed have jurisdiction -- according to Florida law. And, since NASA is non-military, there was no overriding national law. Also, I believe the coroner's office didn't have much confidence in the forensic knowledge and experience of the NASA-appointed medical team that performed the investigation. The primary investigator, as I recall, was not a forensic specialist. My memory's about had it (and was never too good to begin with). If you want further information, I suggest you read the TROPIC article. --Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu
dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron (Consultant)) (12/01/89)
In article <1989Nov29.163242.1165@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: [good stuff deleted] >the best guess [in my opinion -- Kerwin's team did not guess] is that the >cabin lost pressure quickly and the astronauts rapidly lost consciousness, ??????? I assume that one would like to consult the tables of "time of useful consciousness" against altitude before drawing a conclusion. Those times are longer than many people think. However I think this is an emotional issue rather than an engineering one (guilt and horror). The reality is that only TEST craft and MILITARY craft should have real ejection capacity. Other craft should be designed to not fall apart - and the effort directed there. All high energy systems are dangerous. Dave Cameron
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/01/89)
In article <6791@pdn.paradyne.com> dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron ) writes: >>the best guess [in my opinion -- Kerwin's team did not guess] is that the >>cabin lost pressure quickly and the astronauts rapidly lost consciousness, > ??????? > >I assume that one would like to consult the tables of "time of useful >consciousness" against altitude before drawing a conclusion. Those >times are longer than many people think. The "rapidly" was from the Kerwin report, as I recall -- the only thing they didn't express an opinion on was whether the cabin had actually lost pressure. They were pretty clear on what would have happened if it had. I'd be interested to know what the tables have to say -- I don't have them handy. The breakup was at 46,000 ft and apogee for the cabin was something like 80,000. -- Mars can wait: we've barely | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology started exploring the Moon. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) (12/01/89)
As I recall from AW&ST, Ellison Onizuka's [sp?] emergency oxygen supply was not found. The other six were. Dick Scobee's had been turned on but no oxygen had been used; the other five had been turned on and partially exhausted. Makes me sick to think "what if ...?"
ST9@uhvax1.uh.edu (Rich Bainter AKA Pug) (12/02/89)
> Makes me sick to think "what if ...?"
No! We are trying to colonize a new frontier. No wimps allowed. If the
current day attitude towards safety had applied, the USA would have never been
settled.
---
Stephen McLeodhulse@iris.Berkeley.EDU (C. Andy Hulse) (12/02/89)
> >Personally, if I had a choice of exchanging a 10% chance of death for a shot at > >colonizing the moon for example I am not so sure I wouldn't go for it. > > Would you be willing to risk the chance that transportees > (involuntarily) took in Heinlein's _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_?" Someone with a sense of humor suggested a while back that we send Dan Quayle on a one-way trip to Mars. Maybe it's my idealogical side speaking, but I'm young, resourceful(?), and, I daresay, expendable. I would volunteer tomorrow for a one-way trip to the Moon or elsewhere, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I agree that it would be instructive and less expensive to have a base in Antarctica for a while, but I'll bet the view is better from above. Besides, although I wouldn't count on it, I think that once someoe's there NASA would get a *lot* more funding :) I'd much rather work here on the ground (I'd love to work for NASA; I'd sweep the desert if they hire EE's to do it), but someone's going to have to go up and stay someday, right? --Andy Save an electron! Delete your signature!
dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron (Consultant)) (12/03/89)
In article <1989Dec1.040218.26158@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <6791@pdn.paradyne.com> dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron ) writes: [concerning how fast the Challenger crew would have lost consciousness] >>I assume that one would like to consult the tables of "time of useful >>consciousness" against altitude before drawing a conclusion. Those >>times are longer than many people think. >I'd be interested to know what the tables have to say -- I don't have >them handy. The breakup was at 46,000 ft and apogee for the cabin was >something like 80,000. OOPS - I had no idea they were that high (I guess we all saw telephotos). [and going UP yet!] time of useful consciousness (not time to total loss) is: for 40,000 ft - 15 sec above 65,000 ft - < 9 sec (source - USAF Manual 160-5) below 40k things improve rapidly, for example at 30k it is 1 1/2 min and only 2k lower it is 2 1/2 - 3 min Total loss of consciousness takes longer, but on the path you have described "rapidly" definitely covers it. Dave "i live at sea level" Cameron
dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (12/09/89)
In article <6801@pdn.paradyne.com> dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron ) writes: >>In article <6791@pdn.paradyne.com> dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron ) writes: > >[concerning how fast the Challenger crew would have lost consciousness] > >time of useful consciousness (not time to total loss) is: > >for 40,000 ft - 15 sec >above 65,000 ft - < 9 sec > >(source - USAF Manual 160-5) > >below 40k things improve rapidly, for example at 30k it is 1 1/2 min >and only 2k lower it is 2 1/2 - 3 min I wonder how they define "useful" consciousness... I have heard that one would stay conscious for thirty seconds or so in a total vacuum, but I don't know how "useful" it would be. Given that they almost certainly lost consciousness, the next morbid question is whether they regained it once they got below 12,000 feet or so... I wonder why people want to know such things. -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave
schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) (12/10/89)
Macho is not an excuse for stupidity, foolhardiness or wishful thinking.
willisa@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mark Willis) (12/13/89)
In article <2991@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: >I wonder how they define "useful" consciousness... I have >heard that one would stay conscious for thirty seconds or so >in a total vacuum, but I don't know how "useful" it would be. Asking how long can a person stay conscious in a total vacuum is similar to asking how long can a person hold his breath for, which is at least a minute, and probably a lot longer in a vacuum because you can't cheat. Mark ---- -- JANet: willisa@uk.ac.gla.cs ARPA: willisa@cs.glasgow.ac.uk
dmoore@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Douglas K. Moore) (12/14/89)
In article <2991@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: >In article <6801@pdn.paradyne.com> dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron ) writes: >>>In article <6791@pdn.paradyne.com> dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron ) writes: >> >>[concerning how fast the Challenger crew would have lost consciousness] >> >>time of useful consciousness (not time to total loss) is: >> >>for 40,000 ft - 15 sec >>above 65,000 ft - < 9 sec >> >>below 40k things improve rapidly, for example at 30k it is 1 1/2 min >>and only 2k lower it is 2 1/2 - 3 min > >I wonder how they define "useful" consciousness... I have >heard that one would stay conscious for thirty seconds or so >in a total vacuum, but I don't know how "useful" it would be. > >Given that they almost certainly lost consciousness, the next >morbid question is whether they regained it once they got below >12,000 feet or so... I wonder why people want to know such >things. The term Useful consciousness refers to the time when you can activly think preform tasks. one can ride in an altitude chamber and experience the effects of this. you rapidly lose motor skills. This is why airplanes have the oxygen system. if the plane loses preasure you will have between 15-30 seconds to get the mask on or you will lose the ability to follow the instructions to put it on. This is one reason why they tell you if your traveling with children to put yours on first. then put the childs on. (if this ever happens to you put one on anyone who dosent have one on too.) Once you are on oxygen things return to normal if it hasnt been too long. for this you have a couple of min. The pilot will also be doing everything he/she can to bring the plane below 15000 ft. you can breath without assistance at or below this altitude. Someone else remarked that one could stay concious in a vacuum. this doesnt seam to make sence to me. if you were say rapidly exposed to a vacuum the preasure diffrential would litterly rip the air from your lungs. secondly you would rapidly freeze, and if all that wasnt bad enough. At that preasure (=0) the water in you body would be very happy to boil and you would explode like something put in a microwave that dosent have a hole in it. (if you have never seen this try it, but in someone elses microwave (it makes a mess)). Sorry to be so grafic, but vacuums are not fun places to be. ... Doug Moore, Harvey Mudd College, sometype of disclaimer implied I am dyslexic so dont anyone flaming me for my spelling or grammer.
jenkins@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Steve Jenkins) (12/15/89)
In article <4014@samoa.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> willisa@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mark Willis) writes: >Asking how long can a person stay conscious in a total vacuum is similar >to asking how long can a person hold his breath for, which is at least a >minute, and probably a lot longer in a vacuum because you can't cheat. It's nothing like holding your breath. In particular, you can't oxygenate blood in a vacuum. Unless you're holding your breath already (and manage to exhale enough to avoid damaging your lungs at precisely the right moment), your arterial PO2 will drop below the threshold of consciousness well within 30 s. (Not to mention the risk of embolism.) -- Steve Jenkins jenkins@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (818) 354-0162
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (12/15/89)
In article <1989Dec14.164235.22678@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Rapid decompression to low-grade vacuum has been tried (on animals). >Nobody's tried whole-body exposure to vacuum on humans, that I know of, There has been at least one industrial accident involving a worker trapped in a poorly designed vacuum chamber. He suffered severe embolism, but after emergency treatment in a hyperbaric chamber he eventually recovered, apparently with no major neurological damage. I read about this maybe five years ago; sorry, no reference. Maybe look in the space medicine literature. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron (Consultant)) (12/22/89)
In article <2991@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: >In article <6801@pdn.paradyne.com> dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron ) writes: > >[concerning how fast the Challenger crew would have lost consciousness] > >time of useful consciousness (not time to total loss) is: [data deleted] > >(source - USAF Manual 160-5) > >I wonder how they define "useful" consciousness... It is defined as a state in which the person can: a) recognize a hazard and b) take controlled and effective action to correct it (and therefore fly a plane) By this definition some people are NEVER in a state of useful consciousness :-). >I have >heard that one would stay conscious for thirty seconds or so >in a total vacuum, but I don't know how "useful" it would be. I have heard 9 seconds for SURVIVAL in vacuum, but that is from memory. Any real answers out there ?? Dave "sometimes useful" Cameron