cja@zippy.eecs.umich.edu (Charles J. Antonelli) (09/20/88)
In article <1988Sep17.073035.29265@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >[discussion of challanger disaster forensic report deleted] >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. i suppose that this point has been rehashed before, but i'll ask it anyway: if the air packs cannot prevent loss of consciousness at the breakup altitude, then what good are the air packs? they could be used to provide breathable air in the event of a cabin fire at low altitude, i suppose. but why not enrich the oxygen content so that the packs would work at high altitude as well? it might be that the designers assumed that any problems that occur at extreme altitude severe enough to require emergencey breathing equipment would probably be fatal anyway. the challenger disaster certainly seems to have followed that model, and in this case the presumed loss of consciousness on the part of the flight crew before impact was probably a blessing. it may also be that lots of oxygen canisters in the cabin constitute a risk in themselves. anybody in the know care to mail me an answer? Charles J. Antonelli Internet: cja@crim.eecs.umich.edu 44 ATL, 1101 Beal Ave. Uucp: {uunet,rutgers}!umix!eecs.umich.edu!cja The University of Michigan Phone: 313-936-9362 Ann Arbor, MI 49109-2210 "When the going gets tough, the tough reboot."
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/22/88)
In article <1177@zippy.eecs.umich.edu> cja@zippy.eecs.umich.edu (Charles J. Antonelli) writes: >if the air packs cannot prevent loss of consciousness at the breakup altitude, >then what good are the air packs? ... As I think I mentioned in that same article (sigh), they were meant for escape on the ground, not in the air. >it might be that the designers assumed that any problems that occur at >extreme altitude severe enough to require emergencey breathing equipment >would probably be fatal anyway. I believe that's correct. >it may also be that lots of oxygen canisters in the cabin constitute a >risk in themselves. Oxygen in general is not something you want to play with unless you have to -- it is, after all, a very strong oxidizer! I doubt that this was much of a consideration, though. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu