fisher@star.DEC (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466) (01/29/86)
--- I was devastated by the disaster yesterday, as I am sure many of us were. However, we must go on to find the cause, fix it, and continue to explore! In that spirit of sorrow but unsquelchable interest: I have heard speculation that one of the SRBs exploded. After watching many slow motion reruns, I don't think this was the case. After all, they did take off on their own. One comentator (a Discovery Magazine writer, not a newshack) noted vapor appearing around the base of the ET just a few frames before the explosion. Looks to me like a LH2 or LOX leak. Which is in the bottom of the tank, LOX or LH2? Another thing: Are the SRB recovery aids autonomous? Any chance that they popped their chutes and landed intact after they finished firing? If they are recovered, that would be (obviously) good evidence about the SRB explosion theory. Burns ...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher
msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) (01/30/86)
> Another thing: Are the SRB recovery aids autonomous? Any chance that they > popped their chutes and landed intact after they finished firing? If they > are recovered, that would be (obviously) good evidence about the SRB explosion > theory. The SRB's were destroyed by the range safety officer within 20 seconds of the start of the "incident". Source: NASA Status Update 0845 hrs PST 29 Jan 86 -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@saber.uucp, sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{ihnp4,sun}!saber!msc "Boards are long and hard and made of wood"
hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (01/30/86)
In article <787@decwrl.DEC.COM> fisher@dec-star.UUCP writes: >--- >I was devastated by the disaster yesterday, as I am sure many of us were. >However, we must go on to find the cause, fix it, and continue to explore! >In that spirit of sorrow but unsquelchable interest: > >I have heard speculation that one of the SRBs exploded. After watching many >slow motion reruns, I don't think this was the case. After all, they did >take off on their own. One comentator (a >Discovery Magazine writer, not a newshack) noted vapor appearing around the >base of the ET just a few frames before the explosion. Looks to me like >a LH2 or LOX leak. Which is in the bottom of the tank, LOX or LH2? > >Another thing: Are the SRB recovery aids autonomous? Any chance that they >popped their chutes and landed intact after they finished firing? If they >are recovered, that would be (obviously) good evidence about the SRB explosion >theory. > >Burns It's Thursday now, and I'm still depressed. I was born the day Apollo 1 burned on the ground; one of my best friends celebrated his 23'rd on Tuesday. LH2 is in the lower tank, LOX in the upper. Although the umbilical area is located in the corrugated connector, I remember some other non-trivial connector being located in the lower mounting pylons near the bottom of the tank; does anybody know what this does? At least one of the SRB's appeared to have blown its chute, but as you know by now, ground control self-destructed both SRB's because one was threatening the Florida coast. I third the motion to rename this group. -dave hsu, explorer post 1275, Goddard Space Flight Center -- David Hsu Communication & Signal Processing Lab, EE Department <disclaimer> University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 hsu@eneevax.umd.edu {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu CF522@UMDD.BITNET "Vern Vern Vern Vern Vern Vern Vern, you've done it now, buddy..." -Ernest P. Worrell
jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) (01/30/86)
In article <787@decwrl.DEC.COM> fisher@star.DEC (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466) writes: >Another thing: Are the SRB recovery aids autonomous? Any chance that they >popped their chutes and landed intact after they finished firing? If they >are recovered, that would be (obviously) good evidence about the SRB explosion >theory. > The solid rocket boosters were destroyed by a remote detonation singal sent by an Air Force "Range Safety Officer" after he observed that one of the boosters was heading toward a ground-impact in a populated area. In reference to a previous question, both SRB's survived the shuttle explosion, and continued on their way--without guidance. Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS
bangs@h-sc1.UUCP (alex bangs) (01/31/86)
In article <787@decwrl.DEC.COM> fisher@star.DEC (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466) writes: >Another thing: Are the SRB recovery aids autonomous? Any chance that they >popped their chutes and landed intact after they finished firing? If they >are recovered, that would be (obviously) good evidence about the SRB explosion >theory. After the explosion, a chute was seen -- some thought, incorrectly, it belonged to a crew member. It was one of the SRB chutes. Only one chute popped, as far as I know, so that does not necessarily mean the SRB's were not the cause. I saw an article here which brought up the point that a year ago they had a near burn-thru problem with one of the SRB's. They said then that two more minutes of firing of the SRB's in that case could have been disasterous. Also, when the SRB's were being put on the shuttle this time, one of the boosters was supposedly scraped against a bolt -- it apparently only penetrated the booster insulation slightly, and was also not in the area where the explosion would have occurred. Any further info on that? I should point out that the explosion occurred right after throttle-up. That would tend to hint toward an ET problem. I heard an engineer familiar with the shuttle said that he thought it was possible some of the fuel feed equip- ment was damaged somehow and led to the problem. I also heard they were having tile problems before takeoff -- any possibility a tile falling off during takeoff could have done such damage? On the topic of ejection seats, there was no verbal response from the shuttle before the explosion. This makes me think there was not much time for ejection, or speaking. In addition, those seats would have to move people pretty damn fast to get them out in time. Considering the speed they are travelling at takeoff, ejection sounds pretty hokey. I hope that uninformed press and public do not force NASA to do alot of unnecessary work before the shuttle continues its work (which I, for one, certainly hope it does continue with full strength). Sorry for the length, but one more thing. Net.challenger is a good idea. -- Alex L. Bangs Harvard University net: bangs@h-sc4.UUCP bangs@h-sc4.HARVARD.EDU
szyld@duke.UUCP (01/31/86)
In article <787@decwrl.DEC.COM> fisher@star.DEC (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466) writes: > >Another thing: Are the SRB recovery aids autonomous? Any chance that they >popped their chutes and landed intact after they finished firing? If they >are recovered, that would be (obviously) good evidence about the SRB explosion >theory. > >Burns As you may know by now, they were detonated by remote control after separation, since they were headed towards populated areas. -- Daniel B. Szyld, Dept.of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-3048. Telex 802829 DUKTELCOM DURM CSNET: szyld@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!szyld ARPA: szyld%duke@csnet-relay or na.szyld@su-score
ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/31/86)
In article <787@decwrl.DEC.COM> Burns Fisher writes: > >Another thing: Are the SRB recovery aids autonomous? Any chance that they >popped their chutes and landed intact after they finished firing? Nope, they were destroyed by an Air Force official who was in charge some 20 seconds after the explosion. I think they carry explosive charges that can be detonated from earth for such emergencies. They claimed the SRBs were headed towards populated areas of Florida and thus their destruction was in order. Too bad. -- Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell
naftoli@aecom.UUCP (Robert N. Berlinger) (01/31/86)
> Another thing: Are the SRB recovery aids autonomous? Any chance that they > popped their chutes and landed intact after they finished firing? If they > are recovered, that would be (obviously) good evidence about the SRB explosion > theory. > > Burns > > > ...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher I heard a report that NASA had to blow up the SRBs because they were heading toward a populated area. -- Robert Berlinger ...{philabs,cucard,pegasus,ihnp4,rocky2}!aecom!naftoli
jlg@lanl.ARPA (01/31/86)
In article <899@h-sc1.UUCP> bangs@h-sc1.UUCP (alex bangs) writes: >In article <787@decwrl.DEC.COM> fisher@star.DEC (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466) writes: >After the explosion, a chute was seen -- some thought, incorrectly, it belonged >to a crew member. It was one of the SRB chutes. Only one chute popped, as far The parachute seen on some of the Kennedy Space Center monitors has been incorrectly identified as both a crew member and an SRB. The 'chute was one of the paramedics dropped by the recovery team in the first minutes after the disaster. J. Giles Los Alamos
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/31/86)
[] > Which is in the bottom of the tank, LOX or LH2? The ET is really 2 tanks. The one containing LH2 is on the bottom. >Another thing: Are the SRB recovery aids autonomous? Any chance that they >popped their chutes and landed intact after they finished firing? If they >are recovered, that would be (obviously) good evidence about the SRB explosion >theory. > >Burns The SRBs are reported to have been detonated by the range safety officer because one of them was heading for a populated area. (There is apparently no way to destroy only one.) -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cat and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ngp.{ARPA,UTEXAS.EDU} [Old/New Internet; depends on nameserver operation]
jlg@lanl.ARPA (01/31/86)
In article <557@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: >The parachute seen on some of the Kennedy Space Center monitors has been >incorrectly identified as both a crew member and an SRB. The 'chute was >one of the paramedics dropped by the recovery team in the first minutes >after the disaster. In an effort to reduce misinformation on the net, I have inadvertently added to it. A NASA release Thursday indicated that no paramedics were parachuted into the recovery area as previously reported. The parachute seen was assumed to be the remains of one of the SRB's. Sorry for the error. J. Giles Los Alamos
wholmes@bbnccv.UUCP (William P. Holmes) (01/31/86)
Just a few more comments... I just got off the phone with a friend that has been working on the TDRS sat for the last year or so. He was down there for the liftoff and saw the whole thing. It was the first time he saw a liftoff "live". He said it was hard to describe the feelings of the people that were there except to say they were devastated. They are now going to use the next in line for the lost TDRS and the spare that was planned, now must be included also. January 28th, 1986 was my 25th birthday and one I'll never forget. [raig Macfarlane cmacfarlane@bbnv.arpa
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (02/04/86)
The following is the second posting I've read worrying about ejection seats: > On the topic of ejection seats... I hope that uninformed > press and public do not force NASA to do a lot of unnecessary work before the > shuttle continues its work.... Well, excuse me for asking -- but how you gonna put ejection seats in the durn thing anyway? Think, folks (and I hope the 'Powers' in their finite wisdom do, too) -- ejection seats on fighter aircraft depend on the fact that the canopy can be blown clear first (and a few pilots have died when it wasn't). Is it feasible to put a removable canopy in a shuttle??? Or are we going to eject them through the roof? There is no smiley here because too many people -- no doubt uninformed people -- have phrased the question seriously. Barb
peterb@pbear.UUCP (02/06/86)
> ..... Think, folks (and I hope the 'Powers' in their >finite wisdom do, too) -- ejection seats on fighter aircraft depend on the >fact that the canopy can be blown clear first (and a few pilots have died >when it wasn't). Is it feasible to put a removable canopy in a shuttle??? >Or are we going to eject them through the roof? There is no smiley here >because too many people -- no doubt uninformed people -- have phrased the >question seriously. > >Barb Not only that Barb, some people think that if the ejection seats were in the Challenger then the occupants would had a better chance of surviving. This is impossible. First if there was enough time for the astronauts to eject, they would have been become crispy critters when their ejection seats are fried by the intense heat of the blast, or riddled by millions of white hot pieces of shrapnel. Ok, if they had about 15 seconds time they would be out of the danger zone, but problems in the shuttle turn sour far faster than that... Second, I don't know about you, but I would NEVER eject from an airplane at Mach 3+ (the shuttle was moving at 2900 feet per second, or 1977 mph). The wind shear would rip your hide apart. I quote an excerpt from Tom Wolfe's _The_Right_Stuff_ top of page 17: In time the Navy would compile statistics showing that for a career Navy pilot, i.e. one who intended to keep flying for twenty years as (Peter) Conrad did, there was a 23 percent probability that he would die in an aircraft accident. This did not even include combat deaths, since the military did not classify death in combat as accidental. Furthermore, there was a better than even chance, a 56 percent probability, to be exact, that at some point a career Navy pilot would have to eject from his aircraft and attempt to come down by parachute. In the era of jet fighters, ejection meant being exploded out of the cockpit by a nitroglycerine charge, like a human cannonball. The ejection itself was so hazardous -- men lost knees, arms, and their lives on the rim of the cockpit or had the skin torn off their faces when they hit the ``wall'' of air outside -- that many pilots chose to wrestle their aircraft to the ground rather than try it . . . and died that way instead. So if an astronaut chose to eject a few seconds before the explosion (if there was enough warning to warrant the ejection), the followin chain of events would occur with a high rate of probability: First the ejection seat would intercept the wind shear layer. Loose articles of clothing overstressed(ripped) by the supersonic wind. Super cooling would occur since astronauts do not wear insulated flight suits. Explosive decompression occurs due to traumatic shift of felt altitude (sea level to 54000 feet. Second the seat would intercept the orbiters exhaust path and become super heated by the hot gasses. Thirdly the astronaut would asphyxiate while seat drops to 15000 feet before chute opens. Fourthly the shute would fail since it was crisped by the exhaust gasses and seat would plummet to the ground. Conclusion: Ejection seats are just added weight since they would not improve the chances of survival. I do not reccomend their placement in the shuttle. Peter Barada ...!ihnp4!ima!pbear!peterb
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (02/07/86)
> How are you going to put ejection seats on the durn thing anyway? > ... There is no roof to be blown clear ... Besides these issues people have been bringing up, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the result of ejecting a human being (even if clothed in a helmet, flight suit, etc.) out of an aircraft moving at the speed of the shuttle. People have gotten killed in the past just ejecting out of a conventional fighter plane, because of the force of the air rushing past them when they were ejected into the air; remember that they are moving both forward at the speed of the aircraft, and also upward at the speed of the ejection seat. This would exert a considerable shearing force on the body of the person being ejected. -- UUCP: Ofc: jer@peora.UUCP Home: jer@jerpc.CCUR.UUCP CCUR DNS: peora, pesnta US Mail: MS 795; CONCURRENT Computer Corp. SDC; (A Perkin-Elmer Company) 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 xxxxx4xxx
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/07/86)
In article <503@oliven.UUCP> barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) writes: >The following is the second posting I've read worrying about ejection seats: >> On the topic of ejection seats... I hope that uninformed >> press and public do not force NASA to do a lot of unnecessary work before the >> shuttle continues its work.... > >Well, excuse me for asking -- but how you gonna put ejection seats in >the durn thing anyway? Think, folks (and I hope the 'Powers' in their >finite wisdom do, too) -- ejection seats on fighter aircraft depend on the >fact that the canopy can be blown clear first (and a few pilots have died >when it wasn't). Is it feasible to put a removable canopy in a shuttle??? >Or are we going to eject them through the roof? There is no smiley here >because too many people -- no doubt uninformed people -- have phrased the >question seriously. > >Barb The astronauts could ride in a rigid, enclosed escape pod during liftoff. The whole unit, aerodynamically designed, (with parachutes, or perhaps even with control surfaces for a controlled descent) would blow clear of the shuttle. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying I favor such a thing, but I do think that if we decide that it is a necessity, we'll find a way to do it. I'm sure that putting Neil Armstrong on the moon took more ingenuity than putting ejection capability into the shuttle. I think the real question here is: would such a device be cost effective (costs being $$ and weight and volume, etc.)? If it would only be usable during 2 minutes of the flight, but it weighed two thousand pounds and caused strange engineering kluges to get instruments interfaced correctly, and required X cubic meters of space, etc. etc. etc. - is it worth it? I hear a lot of people saying things like: "Sure, we lost a shuttle, but the most important thing, the biggest tradgedy, is that we lost 7 human beings." The fact of the matter, however, is that the human beings are indeed the most expendable element of the space program. Those astronauts knew the risks and accepted them. I would be stunned to hear any astronaut say that the manned space program should stop because it's too dangerous. Let's face it - as others have already pointed out - pioneer mortality is the price you pay for exploration. And I'd be willing to bet that none of the astronauts would be in favor of making the trade-offs involved with putting an ejection mechanism into the shuttle. It seems to me that the only people who want "ejection seats" are people who know nothing of the technical aspects involved, and are not even affected by the decision, anyway. However... with civilians in space, it may be a whole new ballgame. --MKR
lmc@cisden.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (02/09/86)
> I hear a lot of people saying things like: "Sure, we lost a shuttle, > but the most important thing, the biggest tradgedy, is that we lost 7 human > beings." The fact of the matter, however, is that the human beings are > indeed the most expendable element of the space program. Those astronauts > knew the risks and accepted them. I would be stunned to hear any astronaut > say that the manned space program should stop because it's too dangerous. Let's > face it - as others have already pointed out - pioneer mortality is the > price you pay for exploration. It seems to me that if the shuttle is to become the DC3 of space then eventually the public will have to begin becoming to some extent callous to the loss of personnel on the flights. If, everytime a person dies in a shuttle, we halt the program, hold 15 different investigations, traumatize the populace, and cause layoffs in all the related industries, then we aren't there yet. It may sound completely callous of me (and I was as distracted as anyone by the accident), but until we rank these deaths in the same category as "industrial accidents" then we cannot really regard the shuttle (or any other system) as an operational system. Which only means, I suppose, that the shuttle is still in an experimental stage in some sense. This is my first incursion into the group with my opinion, as opposed to hard facts. I'm sure to be flamed for what I've said, but it has to happen. Lyle McElhaney ...hao!cisden!lmc