CAIB Scenario -- Who's Read It?

[James Oberg]

And what's interesting in it?

I'm interested in what I can't find in it -- what killed the crew.

[Brian Gaff]

"James Oberg" > wrote in message
. ..
| And what's interesting in it?
|
| I'm interested in what I can't find in it -- what killed the crew.
|
|
|
|
Unsurvivable aerodynamic forces?

Come on, lets leave the obvious and downright gory bad taste stuff out of
it.

Well, I will anyway.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10/07/03

[John Maxson]

I didn't notice your "flat spin" consensus mentioned.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)



James Oberg > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I'm interested in what I can't find in it -- what killed the crew.

[Reed Snellenberger]

"James Oberg" > wrote in news:UEyQa.59579
:

> And what's interesting in it?
>

I've only skimmed it, but thought that the structural analysis of the
wing's gradual deterioration pretty interesting. I agree with an
earlier poster that it was amazing that the wing held together as long
as it did. I also was interested in the analysis of the spread of the
thermal effects through the wing structure and into the mid-body.
Finally, the level of aero/thermodynamic analysis of flowfields around
the orbiter, and how the damage to the leading edge could pull the
vortices into the OMS pods.


> I'm interested in what I can't find in it -- what killed the crew.
>

I don't think that it's part of the CAIB charter, necessarily, and I'm
not sure what value a reconstruction of the crew's last microseconds
would have. Unlike the Columbia accident, we know that the crew module
didn't survive the aerodynamic breakup intact -- the biggest piece was
the one that included the nose cap, and at least some of the crewmembers
clearly separated from the module at high altitude -- so it's probably
safe to assume that they expired very shortly after the module broke
into shards of jagged aluminum. I also think it's fairly safe to assume
that the orbiter broke into pieces similarly to Challenger (aft body,
mid-fuselage, and crew module), and that the crew module probably failed
when the rear bulkhead rear windows was exposed to re-entry heating.

I would be most interested in a kinematic reconstruction of the
orbiter's flight path & attitudes, both real-time and slowed-down. The
NTSB has done it for some of their accident investigations (notably for
the 737 crashes that were caused by rudder malfunctions), and it's a
useful way to visualize what happened...

--
Reed Snellenberger

[Boris Nogoodnik]

"James Oberg" > wrote in message
. ..
> And what's interesting in it?
>
> I'm interested in what I can't find in it -- what killed the
crew.
>

I think they said specifically at least once before that this is
out of scope of their investigation.

[James Oberg]

"Boris Nogoodnik" > wrote
> I think they said specifically at least once before that this is
> out of scope of their investigation.

Gehman explicitly said that this material was under his direct control, and
you're right, since it was not germane to what caused the accident, it's not
in THAT line of investigation.

However, what I would suggest IS germane is what additional crew equipment
might have been adequate to allow some chance of survival. For 'Challenger',
we found out that equipment of the type actually later worn by the
'Columbia' crew would probably have saved most if not all of their lives.

The question of how close, even equipped as they were, the crew came to
survival may sure look ghoulish -- but my engineering interest in seeing
what reasonable modifications to the crew cabin and to crew equipment might
have enhanced the chances of survivability in a similar future case.

After all, even the NASA crew equipment documents examine this. Although the
ACES/LES suits are designed for bail-out from level flight, the option of
bailout from uncontrolled flight IS discussed.

[Dosco Jones]

"James Oberg" > wrote in message
.. .
>

> However, what I would suggest IS germane is what additional crew equipment
> might have been adequate to allow some chance of survival. For
'Challenger',
> we found out that equipment of the type actually later worn by the
> 'Columbia' crew would probably have saved most if not all of their lives.


James, which equipment are you referring to here?

Dosco

[JGM]

James Oberg wrote:

>For 'Challenger',
>we found out that equipment of the type actually later worn by the
>'Columbia' crew would probably have saved most if not all of their lives.

Wow. This is the first I've heard of this. Have you written this up
anywhere? I'm familiar with the assumptions that at least some of the
Challenger crew were conscious until impact, but what is the scenario that the
improved suits would have allowed survival after high-G impact and sinking of
the cabin?

JGM

[Lynndel Humphreys]

> >> And what's interesting in it?
> >>
> >> I'm interested in what I can't find in it -- what killed the crew.
>

Who found what where? School kids on the way home from school?






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[OM]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:34:37 GMT, "Boris Nogoodnik"
> wrote:

>"James Oberg" > wrote in message
. ..
>> And what's interesting in it?
>>
>> I'm interested in what I can't find in it -- what killed the crew.

....Which is quite a bit more morbid than what needs to be in the
report, IMHO. What purpose would it serve to include information along
the lines of:

8:04:03.43 CST: A load-bearing structural member of the crew cabin
shears loose from its mounting point to the port side of the inner
wall of the crew cabin. Moving in a downward arc relative to the
flight deck, it penetrates the helmet of at least one of the crew on
the lower deck - based on microscopic fragments of helmet, bone and
blood found imbedded in the debris identified as the structural member
in question - before penetrating the bottom of the crew cabin and
creating another breach in cabin integrity.

8:04:03.45 CST: The starboardmost front window on the flight deck
breaks free of its mounts, and shatters into at least 24 fragments,
each 2-4" in diameter. Five of these impact the Pilot at speeds of
300mph at the minimum, of which two penetrate the chest just above the
aorta...

I mean, seriously, Jim - is *this* what we really want? Or *need*, for
that matter?

>I think they said specifically at least once before that this is
>out of scope of their investigation.

....Correct. And besides, in this case, as opposed to Challenger or
Apollo 1, the point would be almost moot. With the previous two
mishaps, knowing how and why the crews perished gave insight to how
they could have survived or might have been saved within reasonable
limits. With Columbia, at Angels 200 and Mach 16+, survivability from
an orbiter breakup under those reentry conditions was practically
impossible. And that includes a dreamland scenario where everyone on
board had access to a MOOSE they could have thrown on and bailed out
with, IMHO.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On 14 Jul 2003 17:49:02 GMT, (JGM) wrote:

> I'm familiar with the assumptions that at least some of the
>Challenger crew were conscious until impact, but what is the scenario that the
>improved suits would have allowed survival after high-G impact and sinking of
>the cabin?

....The notion is that had they been conscious, there could have been
an attempt made to bail out from the tumbling crew module. Which
brings up two issues here:

1) Were there parachutes on board Challenger? They're on all orbiters
post-Challenger, but were they standard flight items beforehand?

2) And if they were, there's the issue of whether they could have
gotten out considering the downward spiral of the crew cabin. From
what I've been able to gather over the years, based on the brief
glimpses of the crew cabin as it arced away from the disintegration of
Challenger, the cabin may have been rotating as fast as 4-6 RPM along
a somewhat uncertain rotational axis - the quality of the long
distance image hampers accuracy here. An untrained human equilibrium
can usually handle only 2-4 RPM in a confined space that size before
disorientation besets incapacitation. Trained, however, the tolerance
increases, but I'll admit ignorance in that I'm not sure what training
the Challenger crew - or *any* Shuttle crew, for that matter - were
given on how to get out of a tumbling crew module.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On 14 Jul 2003 17:54:16 GMT, (Richard F. Drushel,
Ph.D.) wrote:

> BTW, I have read the entire CAIB Scenario, printed it out in color
>and had it bound. It is a well-written document. The final Report and the
>Appendices should make very interesting reading, when they finally appear.

....And I'll take this moment to make two points:

1) Thanks to the dozen-plus-one of you who offered to send me the PDF
via e-mail and/or making it available on your own websites. I now have
three copies thanks to downloading from one site while two of you guys
were sending it to me in e-mail :-P

2) I've skimmed through it, although I'm probably going to start
printing the damn thing out on my inkjet as soon as I get a couple
extra ink cartridges. From what I can gather from the once-over, tho,
had the Warren Commission report been this detailed, concise and
illustrated, the Lone Nutters would have gone totally unopposed, and
the Grassy Knoll would be known only for its fence.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Reed Snellenberger]

OM
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facilit
y.org>
wrote in :

>
> ...Correct. And besides, in this case, as opposed to
Challenger or
> Apollo 1, the point would be almost moot. With the
previous two
> mishaps, knowing how and why the crews perished gave
insight to how
> they could have survived or might have been saved within
reasonable
> limits. With Columbia, at Angels 200 and Mach 16+,
survivability from
> an orbiter breakup under those reentry conditions was
practically
> impossible. And that includes a dreamland scenario where
everyone on
> board had access to a MOOSE they could have thrown on and
bailed out
> with, IMHO.
>
>

Think about it... vehicle breakup occurred approximately
over Corsicana, and a large portion of the crew cabin was
found in Nacogdoches -- that's only 130 mi away. Her speed
of approx 16,000 ft/sec (Mach 16), or 3 miles/sec, puts an
*absolute* upper bound on the time from breakup to the
cabin's destruction of 40 seconds.

The actual time would be much less -- the nosecap wreckage
was found near Hemphill, which is 60 miles from
Nacogdoches. For these to have been separated by such a
large distance, it stands to reason that the cabin was
destroyed shortly after the vehicle broke up -- they had a
few seconds, at most.

--
Reed Snellenberger

[OM]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:16:41 -0500, "Chuck Stewart"
> wrote:

>Parachutes and the bail-out pole would have done them no good in
>the tumbling cabin in the time they had left.

....On the other hand, the pole wouldn't have been required for the
bailout,as they wouldn't have had to worry about hitting the wings or
the OMS pod on the way out.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[David Corsi]

> However, what I would suggest IS germane is what additional crew equipment
> might have been adequate to allow some chance of survival. For
'Challenger',
> we found out that equipment of the type actually later worn by the
> 'Columbia' crew would probably have saved most if not all of their lives.

James I don't understand this comment. While I understand the new suits
would have allowed the Challenger crew to likely remain concious and alert
till impact with the water there is no evidence that aerodynamic forces
would have allowed them to get out of the remains of the crew cabin and
certainly they would still have been killed at impact with the ocean. What
am I missing?

[David Corsi]

James your reporting is top notch but I hope where you are going with this
is simply to determine if they survived long enough for some new fangled
escape system to get them out in the future. To make a MSNBC website article
with the sole point of trying to point out just how long the crew survived
and how horrible they must have suffered is gholish and shouldn't be done. I
have trust you won't.

[Hallerb]

>Unsurvivable aerodynamic forces?
>
>Come on, lets leave the obvious and downright gory bad taste stuff out of
>it.
>
>Well, I will anyway.
>
>Brian

Thats all well and good BUT!

We might larn somewthing useful. Ignoring the subject is short sided.

After all lots of stuff survived, perhaps thats useful info to have.

[Doug...]

In article >, says...
> James Oberg > spake unto the ether:
>
> : However, what I would suggest IS germane is what additional crew equipment
> : might have been adequate to allow some chance of survival. For 'Challenger',
> : we found out that equipment of the type actually later worn by the
> : 'Columbia' crew would probably have saved most if not all of their lives.
>
> What flight/pressure suit would save you from a 200-G impact with
> the Atlantic Ocean? From what I've read, it seems that this would only
> have allowed the _Challenger_ crew to be conscious when the crew compartment
> hit the water (i.e., they probably all survived the aerodynamic breakup
> at +73 seconds, but likely passed out from depressurization well before
> the end of the 2-minute fall into the ocean).

With the ACES suit and its attached parachute, the Challenger crew
wouldn't have lost consciousness from cabin depressurization -- the
suits would have pressurized and kept them alive and conscious during
the free-fall descent. They obviously weren't all knocked out by the
break-up of the vehicle, and according to tracking images, the crew cabin
was relatively stable as it descended. They could have disengaged the
window that's designed to come out after water landings and jumped from
the descending crew cabin, parachuting to a safe landing in the ocean.
At least some of them (probably the crew on the flight deck) would likely
have survived.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[James Oberg]

No, I won't. I have significant amount of info on crew recovery, none of
which is worthy of publication this year, even this decade. What's important
is info needed for future decisions and designs.



"David Corsi" > wrote in message
news:jLEQa.61830$H17.19397@sccrnsc02...
> James your reporting is top notch but I hope where you are going with this
> is simply to determine if they survived long enough for some new fangled
> escape system to get them out in the future. To make a MSNBC website
article
> with the sole point of trying to point out just how long the crew survived
> and how horrible they must have suffered is gholish and shouldn't be done.
I
> have trust you won't.
>
>

[Jorge R. Frank]

Reed Snellenberger > wrote in
.158:

> Think about it... vehicle breakup occurred approximately
> over Corsicana, and a large portion of the crew cabin was
> found in Nacogdoches -- that's only 130 mi away. Her speed
> of approx 16,000 ft/sec (Mach 16), or 3 miles/sec, puts an
> *absolute* upper bound on the time from breakup to the
> cabin's destruction of 40 seconds.
>
> The actual time would be much less -- the nosecap wreckage
> was found near Hemphill, which is 60 miles from
> Nacogdoches. For these to have been separated by such a
> large distance, it stands to reason that the cabin was
> destroyed shortly after the vehicle broke up -- they had a
> few seconds, at most.

My own take on it is that the initial main-body breakup occurred cleanly
along structural lines, similar to Challenger. After the cabin separated
from the forward fuselage, it would have naturally stabilized in a nose-
forward position. I don't know if it stayed intact long enough to
stabilize. The cabin would have been in pure ballistic flight, pulling 6-8
g on a structure designed for 3 g. At zero alpha, the upper surface tiles
would have been exposed to entry temperatures beyond their design limits.
It's a tossup, then, whether structural or thermal loads were the first to
cause the cabin to rupture. But I suspect that you're right, and it
happened within seconds of the main-body breakup.

Another wildcard is that the thermal and structural loads could have caused
the forward RCS tanks to rupture and burn hypergolically. I suspect this
could not have happened until the cabin had already ruptured, but it's
impossible to be sure. A sudden hypergolic burn of the FRCS propellants
could have imploded the forward bulkhead of the cabin. It could also
explain some of the more curious debris trends, such as why the OEX
recorder (below the middeck floor) survived intact, while most of the gear
in the avionics bays (right behind the forward bulkhead) were almost
completely destroyed.

This hypothesis could be tested against the debris record (e.g. were the
FRCS tanks recovered intact or not?), but I haven't had time to look.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Reed Snellenberger]

Reed Snellenberger > wrote in
.154:

> and cabin walls to break away. Structures below the midbody, as well as

gah, stupid fingers! I meant mid-deck, of course...

--
Reed Snellenberger

rs/

[Paul F. Dietz]

David Corsi wrote:

> James I don't understand this comment. While I understand the new suits
> would have allowed the Challenger crew to likely remain concious and alert
> till impact with the water there is no evidence that aerodynamic forces
> would have allowed them to get out of the remains of the crew cabin and
> certainly they would still have been killed at impact with the ocean. What
> am I missing?

The additional crew equipment includes parachutes.

Paul

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:50:35 GMT, "David Corsi"
> wrote:

> James I don't understand this comment. While I understand the new suits
> would have allowed the Challenger crew to likely remain concious and alert
> till impact with the water there is no evidence that aerodynamic forces
> would have allowed them to get out of the remains of the crew cabin and
> certainly they would still have been killed at impact with the ocean.

Why do you assume this? There are other causes of unconsciousness
than just hypoxia. I have always assumed they suffered from g-LOC,
g-induced Loss Of Consciousness. It's not just ultimate g level that
can cause g-LOC, but also g onset rate. In addition, the crew wasn't
wearing g suits and would have been unprepared for the maneuvering.
This is pretty much a guarantee of impairment, if not g-LOC. With the
continued tumbling, g-LOC is pretty much inevitable.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Turn to kill, not to engage." LCDR Willie Driscoll, USN

[Charleston]

"Boris Nogoodnik" > wrote in message
...
> "James Oberg" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > And what's interesting in it?
> >
> > I'm interested in what I can't find in it -- what killed the
> crew.
> >
>
> I think they said specifically at least once before that this is
> out of scope of their investigation.

Are you kidding?

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=8028

Good grief.

[Charleston]

"JGM" > wrote in message
...
> James Oberg wrote:
>
> >For 'Challenger',
> >we found out that equipment of the type actually later worn by the
> >'Columbia' crew would probably have saved most if not all of their lives.
>
> Wow. This is the first I've heard of this. Have you written this up
> anywhere? I'm familiar with the assumptions that at least some of the
> Challenger crew were conscious until impact, but what is the scenario that
the
> improved suits would have allowed survival after high-G impact and sinking
of
> the cabin?

sigh.

[James Oberg]

Thanks, Rich, I tend to agree but want to check out all leads. The cabin
would have crushed in the g-forces and heating as aluminum failed. Even in a
pressure suit thrown free at that alt/velocity, a human body would probably
have tumbled violently and overheated to charring levels within seconds.

"Richard Cochran" > wrote in message
om...
> "James Oberg" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > The question of how close, even equipped as they were, the crew came to
> > survival may sure look ghoulish -- but my engineering interest in seeing
> > what reasonable modifications to the crew cabin and to crew equipment
might
> > have enhanced the chances of survivability in a similar future case.
>
> For the moment, forget the issues of keeping the forces at
> survivable limits, maintaining a breathable atmosphere,
> avoiding breakup debris, and eventually landing in a
> survivable way. Regardless of these (serious) problems,
> you can't survive that hypersonic speed and altitude
> without some form of seriously rugged thermal protection.
> And the thermal protection will most likely only work
> if there's some kind of aerodynamic stability and control
> to keep the hot end pointed forward.
>
> It may well be that the astronauts were "redundantly killed".
> That is, whatever the proximate medical cause of death,
> if it had somehow been eliminated, there would have been
> another fatal cause right behind it. You've got to eliminate
> ALL the fatal conditions to achieve survival. And the
> thermal effects are going to be very hard to eliminate
> with a high altitude hypersonic breakup of the vehicle.
>
> The only reasonable way to survive re-entry is to make
> the crew cabin hold together under some semblance of
> aerodynamic control at least until bail-out altitude
> is reached.
>
> --Rich

[Charleston]

"Richard F. Drushel, Ph.D." > wrote in message
...
> James Oberg > spake unto the ether:
>
> : However, what I would suggest IS germane is what additional crew
equipment
> : might have been adequate to allow some chance of survival. For
'Challenger',
> : we found out that equipment of the type actually later worn by the
> : 'Columbia' crew would probably have saved most if not all of their
lives.

Thanks Jim. I believe your statement and others on crew escape here and on
MSNBC may help reshape the approach this newsgroup and hopefully NASA takes
on crew escape systems. I refer you to the following post of mine (in
response to yours ironically) shortly after Columbia was lost. I hope you
will consider an article on crew survivabilty and crashworthiness issues at
MSNBC in the future. Please feel free to e-mail for some insightful FOIA
data on the Challenger crew's fate.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V22C15445

> What flight/pressure suit would save you from a 200-G impact with
> the Atlantic Ocean?

It was not 200-gs, that is just a NASA myth. The orbiter impacted the ocean
at between 140 and 160 MPH, not 207 MPH as NASA claims. Recalculate the G
force based on 140 and 160 MPH to zero and you'll have a better idea of
what force the Challenger crew compartment experienced on water impact. My
point is the crew compartment was airborne longer than NASA has admitted (by
about 20 seconds). The Challenger crew had precious additional time in
which they may have escaped that ocean collision if properly equipped with
the current launch and entry suits, or even the older ones for the first
four flights for that matter. Of course they would have needed a rocket
extraction system or ejection system and such an escape can only occur from
the upper flight deck even with a relatively gentle tumble. Thus only five
crew can fly with such a system.

NASA (and I have the FOIA data on this) calculated Challenger's *forward
fuselage* impact velocity of 207 MPH, based upon the Space Shuttle's
developmental wind tunnel testing from the 1970's. In that testing, NASA
used a model of the forebody of the orbiter to make the calculations. The
only problem with that calculation is that a few seconds after structural
break-up, the forward RCS broke away taking the nosecap with it and spilling
its propellants across the sky in a notable display of rusty red vapor
followed by a brilliant hypergolic orange flash. This left the now
truncated forward fuselage (without its nose) to tumble earthward in what
soon became semi-stabilized flight. NASA tracked the slowly tumbling crew
compartment with long range camera E-202 among others which you can see
here:

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p30.htm

and the truncated forward fuselage minus its nosecap and forward RCS here:

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p34.htm

> From what I've read, it seems that this would only
> have allowed the _Challenger_ crew to be conscious when the crew
compartment
> hit the water (i.e., they probably all survived the aerodynamic breakup
> at +73 seconds, but likely passed out from depressurization well before
> the end of the 2-minute fall into the ocean).

This assumes a depressurization of the crew compartment and Dr. Kerwin
suggests that may have been what happened. The amount of air left in the
three Personal Emergency Air Packs which held six minutes of air was 1/8th
to 1/4th of capacity when recovered. This translates into 45 seconds to 1
minute 30 seconds. Such a volume is consistent with a highly stressed and
adrenalin affected astronaut recognizing a dire situation. The amount of
air found left in the PEAPs is not consistent with an astronaut in an
unconscious state. This is something Dr, Kerwin surely should have
recognized, but did not disclose in his memorable and undated letter to
Admiral Truly:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/kerwin.html

BTW, I have a copy of the letter, trust me it has no date. Furthermore, any
explosive decompression should have visibly damaged critical exhalation
components of the launch and entry helmet which was not designed for
anything other than escape at sea level from a noxious environment while at
the launch pad. Dr. Kerwin made no mention of this important potential
determining factor as to whether the crew compartment rapidly decompressed
or not.

<snip>

[Jon Berndt]

"Charleston" > wrote in message news:2AKQa.16262


> > What flight/pressure suit would save you from a 200-G impact with
> > the Atlantic Ocean?
>
> It was not 200-gs, that is just a NASA myth. The orbiter impacted the
ocean
> at between 140 and 160 MPH, not 207 MPH as NASA claims. Recalculate the G
> force based on 140 and 160 MPH to zero and you'll have a better idea of
> what force the Challenger crew compartment experienced on water impact.
My

I'm calling "bull****" on your 140 mph figure. Do you have anything to back
that up?

Jon

[Jorge R. Frank]

Mary Shafer > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:50:35 GMT, "David Corsi"
> wrote:
>
>> James I don't understand this comment. While I understand the new
>> suits would have allowed the Challenger crew to likely remain
>> concious and alert till impact with the water there is no evidence
>> that aerodynamic forces would have allowed them to get out of the
>> remains of the crew cabin and certainly they would still have been
>> killed at impact with the ocean.
>
> Why do you assume this? There are other causes of unconsciousness
> than just hypoxia. I have always assumed they suffered from g-LOC,
> g-induced Loss Of Consciousness. It's not just ultimate g level that
> can cause g-LOC, but also g onset rate. In addition, the crew wasn't
> wearing g suits and would have been unprepared for the maneuvering.
> This is pretty much a guarantee of impairment, if not g-LOC. With the
> continued tumbling, g-LOC is pretty much inevitable.

Good point. The Kerwin report indicates that the maximum *translational*
acceleration of the cabin was in the 12-20 g range immediately after
breakup, decaying to essentially free-fall within 10 seconds. This was
based entirely on calculations and analysis of launch photography, and may
not have been completely accurate. The Kerwin report also does not address
any g-level the crew may have experienced due to rotation.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Charleston]

"Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
...
> "Charleston" > wrote in message news:2AKQa.16262
>
>
> > > What flight/pressure suit would save you from a 200-G impact with
> > > the Atlantic Ocean?
> >
> > It was not 200-gs, that is just a NASA myth. The orbiter impacted the
> ocean
> > at between 140 and 160 MPH, not 207 MPH as NASA claims. Recalculate the
G
> > force based on 140 and 160 MPH to zero and you'll have a better idea of
> > what force the Challenger crew compartment experienced on water impact.
> My
>
> I'm calling "bull****" on your 140 mph figure. Do you have anything to
back
> that up?

No, I just made it up out of thin air Jon. Of course I have "anything" to
back it up.

Daniel

[David Corsi]

I agree.

"James Oberg" > wrote in message
.. .
> No, I won't. I have significant amount of info on crew recovery, none of
> which is worthy of publication this year, even this decade. What's
important
> is info needed for future decisions and designs.

[Reed Snellenberger]

"Charleston" > wrote in news:C4JQa.16050$zy.1843
@fed1read06:

> "Boris Nogoodnik" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "James Oberg" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > And what's interesting in it?
>> >
>> > I'm interested in what I can't find in it -- what killed the
>> crew.
>> >
>>
>> I think they said specifically at least once before that this is
>> out of scope of their investigation.
>
> Are you kidding?
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=8028
>
> Good grief.
>

No, that seems like a reasonable position, given the charter...

Although the commission's job is to ‘determine the facts’ in section 5.3,
there’s the usual clause at 5.6 which says it can determine which facts are
relevant and worth pursuing. The specific fates of the astronauts, from
all appearances, have been determined to be irrelevant to what caused the
accident.

Even if the board had determined that an action by the crew had directly or
indirectly caused the accident (mis-set switch, a disastrous control input,
etc.), they probably would have only pursued the situation leading up to
that error.


--
Reed Snellenberger

[Jon Berndt]

"Mike Speegle" > wrote in message news:bf0055$9k386

> In news:Charleston > typed:

> > No, I just made it up out of thin air Jon. Of course I have
> > "anything" to back it up.
>
> uh... Well?

It's a good candidate for a ballistic simulation. I don't think you can
just figure terminal velocity at sea level, which is not difficult. You are
starting at roughly 45 Kft., around 1,600 ft/sec (can't recall exactly what
the number was), at about a 45 degree attitude above the horizon. I figure
a decent value for CD might be around 0.9 - 1.1 (rough guess, again), and we
are talking about something roughly 15 feet in diameter. A key value,
weight, is harder to come by. Let's say there are 1,200 pounds of people
*alone*. What does the rest of the structure weigh? Is a good figure for
the weight of the capsule (with people) about 12,000 pounds? Too high/low?
A couple of rough calculations tells me that the 207 mph figure is
believable - though it seems low to me. If that is the figure to go by, and
the capsule essentially stops after going fifteen feet into the water (which
they say is like hitting concrete), then we'd have:

v=at
s=0.5at^2
s=0.5*v*v/a
a=v*v/30
a = 3072
= 95 g's

I could have done this too quickly; can someone tell me if I missed
something?

Jon

[Charleston]

"Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
...

> A couple of rough calculations tells me that the 207 mph figure is
> believable - though it seems low to me. If that is the figure to go by,
and
> the capsule essentially stops after going fifteen feet into the water
(which
> they say is like hitting concrete), then we'd have:
>
> v=at
> s=0.5at^2
> s=0.5*v*v/a
> a=v*v/30
> a = 3072
> = 95 g's
>
> I could have done this too quickly; can someone tell me if I missed
> something?

You missed something;-)

[Chuck Stewart]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:39:43 +0000, OM wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:16:41 -0500, "Chuck Stewart"
> > wrote:
>
>>Parachutes and the bail-out pole would have done them no good in
>>the tumbling cabin in the time they had left.

> ...On the other hand, the pole wouldn't have been required for the
> bailout,as they wouldn't have had to worry about hitting the wings or
> the OMS pod on the way out.

But would they have known that?

I admit that I was just adding everything related to crew survival
that came in post-Challenger, but it does raise an interesting
point re: Jim's question.

Assuming they had the suits to stay concious... how long would it
have taken them to asses their situation?... and would they have
assesed it correctly?

> OM

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

[Charleston]

"Reed Snellenberger" > wrote in
message .158...
> "Charleston" > wrote in news:C4JQa.16050$zy.1843
> @fed1read06:
>
> > "Boris Nogoodnik" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "James Oberg" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > And what's interesting in it?
> >> >
> >> > I'm interested in what I can't find in it -- what killed the
> >> crew.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I think they said specifically at least once before that this is
> >> out of scope of their investigation.
> >
> > Are you kidding?
> >
> > http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=8028
> >
> > Good grief.

<snip>

> Even if the board had determined that an action by the crew had directly
or
> indirectly caused the accident (mis-set switch, a disastrous control
input,
> etc.), they probably would have only pursued the situation leading up to
> that error.

To fully appreciate the charter, you have to research NASA's Mishap
Investigation Procedures which I have already done. Shortly after the
Columbia accident, I pointed out in a post here that NASA failed to properly
identify the ascent mishap involving tile damage, for what it was--a mishap.
As such, a whole host of mandatory investigative activities should have
ensued, perhaps resulting in a different conclusion than the Crater
analysis. Also, declaring an ascent mishap, would have resulted in the
cancellation of a vacation or two and been embarrassing when the crew spoke
with the news media.

The CAIB charter reads as follows at paragraph 5.4.

"Use the *established* NASA support structure of working groups, NASA Field
Center support, and supporting facilities to conduct the investigations, as
the Board deems appropriate. This includes staff advisors, as required, for
expertise in areas such as public affairs, legal, medical, safety, and
security. The Board may use non NASA support as it deems appropriate."

*emphasis added.

There is a working group regarding the lost astronauts. It is actually run
by other astronauts. Finally, the NTSB and FBI were called in to help on
this accident as well. One of the NTSB assignments is to determine
crashworthiness aspects of the vehicle involved in the accident. One of the
FBI's job is crew forensics. I hope that helps clarify the charter. I
don't have time to dig out all the mishap docs.

[Jon Berndt]

"Charleston" > wrote:

> "Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
>
> > v=at
> > s=0.5at^2
> > s=0.5*v*v/a
> > a=v*v/30
> > a = 3072
> > = 95 g's
> >
> > I could have done this too quickly; can someone tell me if I missed
> > something?
>
> You missed something;-)

Rrrrrrrr! I'm not in the mood for this. Let me restate:

If this is wrong, can someome tell me *what* I missed.

:-|

Jon

[Charleston]

"Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
...
> "Charleston" > wrote:
>
> > "Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
> >
> > > v=at
> > > s=0.5at^2
> > > s=0.5*v*v/a
> > > a=v*v/30
> > > a = 3072
> > > = 95 g's
> > >
> > > I could have done this too quickly; can someone tell me if I missed
> > > something?
> >
> > You missed something;-)
>
> Rrrrrrrr! I'm not in the mood for this. Let me restate:

Sorry that was to get even for tagging me with the bull****.

> If this is wrong, can someome tell me *what* I missed.
>
> :-|

Go here,

http://web.mit.edu/icl/index2.html

Professor Tomasz Wierzbicki, coauthored two papers on the crashworthiness of
Challenger's forward fuselage and crew compartment with D.K. Yue. This is
one of five or six different and independent sources that leads me to the
conclusion that NASA was wrong about the final velocity at water impact.
Dr. Eugene Covert, also of MIT, and one of the members of the Roger's
Commission endorsed the work of the two fine gentlemen above FWIW. Will you
guys ever believe me? I feel like I am ****ing in the wind around here and
it's a little frustrating.

[Charleston]

"Chuck Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:39:43 +0000, OM wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:16:41 -0500, "Chuck Stewart"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Parachutes and the bail-out pole would have done them no good in
> >>the tumbling cabin in the time they had left.
>
> > ...On the other hand, the pole wouldn't have been required for the
> > bailout,as they wouldn't have had to worry about hitting the wings or
> > the OMS pod on the way out.
>
> But would they have known that?
>
> I admit that I was just adding everything related to crew survival
> that came in post-Challenger, but it does raise an interesting
> point re: Jim's question.
>
> Assuming they had the suits to stay concious... how long would it
> have taken them to asses their situation?... and would they have
> assesed it correctly?

Uh, the second they saw the big bright flash out the payload bay windows
followed by the distinctly bright mid day sky I imagine.

[Charleston]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:04:46 -0500, "Jon Berndt" >
> wrote:
>
> >I'm calling "bull****" on your 140 mph figure. Do you have anything to
back
> >that up?
>
> ...Jon, just killfile him. He's a Maxson, You're wasting your time.
>
> (Since Jon's admittedly killfiled me, someone please pass this advice
> on to him, in hopes that he'll heed it. Thanks.)

I have a better idea. Why don't we all killfile your petulent little ass.

[Jon Berndt]

"Charleston" > wrote:

> Mike, I just had bull**** slung at me by Jon. Not a very nice thing to do
> Jon. Shame on you;-) I had to go wash that Texas bull****, which is much
> denser than Nevada bull****, off of my face.

Well, I didn't sling it, I called it. Sort of like bolting upright at the
poker table in the saloon after seeing something I didn't like; my right
hand at the ready, hovering and twitching next to my belted holster, ready
to draw my ... calculator.

> Having said that, Mike, what would it take to convince you?

What would convince me is a good back-of-the-playing-card calculation. I
posted what might be a decent program in a separate post, "Trajectory
Analysis". The listed program is adapted by the FAA from a program
originally developed by the NTSB. I don't believe I have a basic
interpreter on any of my machines, though.

It shouldn't be too hard to calculate a trajectory to the impact point. If
we know the real impact point, we could even tweak the inputs until it lands
where it's supposed to and get a more accurate result.

Jon

[Charleston]

"Charleston" > wrote in message
news:4tMQa.16510$zy.9751@fed1read06...

> I have a better idea. Why don't we all killfile your petulent little ass.

Excuse my typo it should read "petulant".

Daniel

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Charleston > typed:

> Sorry that was to get even for tagging me with the bull****.

But was being cute *twice* necessary?
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Charleston > typed:

> > uh... Well?
>
> Mike, I just had bull**** slung at me by Jon. Not a very nice thing
> to do Jon. Shame on you;-) I had to go wash that Texas bull****,
> which is much denser than Nevada bull****, off of my face. Having
> said that, Mike, what would it take to convince you?

You said you had "anything". My "well" meant "what is it?". Or is
cuteness your mode right now?
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Charleston > typed:

> Uh, the second they saw the big bright flash out the payload bay
> windows followed by the distinctly bright mid day sky I imagine.

Am I wrong to suppose that at Angels 200 they *wouldn't* be seeing a
bright ski but a fairly dark sky?
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[HOST Comp JimS]

> [they were aware of their situation] the second they saw
> the big bright flash out the payload bay windows...

They may have become aware at some point of the view
through the payload bay windows, but I doubt if it happened
quickly.

The crew was undoubtedly looking forward when the disaster
occurred, not backwards towards the payload bay windows,
and the bright flash certainly would have come through the
front windows, too. Might have even blinded them for a few
seconds like when a flash bulb goes off in front of you. Then
there was a period of several seconds of high g's and probably
some disorientation.

After that, I suppose some could have looked backwards.
But could they have even seen the windows behind them
considering that they were wearing helmets and tightly-
fastened shoulder harnesses?

Jim

[Charleston]

"Mike Speegle" > wrote in message
...
> In news:Charleston > typed:
>
> > Uh, the second they saw the big bright flash out the payload bay
> > windows followed by the distinctly bright mid day sky I imagine.
>
> Am I wrong to suppose that at Angels 200 they *wouldn't* be seeing a
> bright ski but a fairly dark sky?

I don't know I have never died before. Cute.

ski?

After the crew compartment was semi-stabilized, they had to reach down and
turn on their PEAP's. Resnik, IIRC, not only turned on her own PEAP but
also Mike Smith's which he could not reach since they were attached to the
back of the CDR and PLT seats. They did see a very bright flash.

[Jon Berndt]

"Charleston" > wrote in message

> Go here,
>
> http://web.mit.edu/icl/index2.html
>
> Professor Tomasz Wierzbicki, coauthored two papers on the crashworthiness
of
> Challenger's forward fuselage and crew compartment with D.K. Yue. This is
> one of five or six different and independent sources that leads me to the
> conclusion that NASA was wrong about the final velocity at water impact.
> Dr. Eugene Covert, also of MIT, and one of the members of the Roger's
> Commission endorsed the work of the two fine gentlemen above FWIW. Will
you
> guys ever believe me? I feel like I am ****ing in the wind around here
and
> it's a little frustrating.

I can't find it online, but I might be able to find this article from a
friend:

T. WIERZBICKI and D. YUE, Impact damage of the Challenger Crew Compartment.
Journal of Rocket and Space, 23, No. 6, pp. 646-654, 1986.

You're not ****ing in the wind. The allegation about impact velocity seems
a bit off to me. Nevertheless, even if the impact speed was 150 mph, if the
cabin was stopped just as the cabin became submerged (15 ft), the
acceleration is still 50 g's.

Jon

[Charleston]

"HOST Comp JimS" > wrote in message
...
>
> > [they were aware of their situation] the second they saw
> > the big bright flash out the payload bay windows...
>
> They may have become aware at some point of the view
> through the payload bay windows, but I doubt if it happened
> quickly.
>
> The crew was undoubtedly looking forward when the disaster
> occurred, not backwards towards the payload bay windows,
> and the bright flash certainly would have come through the
> front windows, too. Might have even blinded them for a few
> seconds like when a flash bulb goes off in front of you. Then
> there was a period of several seconds of high g's and probably
> some disorientation.
>
> After that, I suppose some could have looked backwards.
> But could they have even seen the windows behind them
> considering that they were wearing helmets and tightly-
> fastened shoulder harnesses?

They wore the old Launch and Entry Helmets back then which are more akin to
a motocycle helmet as far as neck restrictions go. The fact that PEAPS were
activated sort of speaks for itself. I am fairly certain they could see out
the PLB windows.

As for the flash, you are probably right, it was fairly all encompassing
then they would have seen the forward RCS flash and surely known what that
mean't.

[OM]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:05:29 -0700, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:50:35 GMT, "David Corsi"
> wrote:
>
>> James I don't understand this comment. While I understand the new suits
>> would have allowed the Challenger crew to likely remain concious and alert
>> till impact with the water there is no evidence that aerodynamic forces
>> would have allowed them to get out of the remains of the crew cabin and
>> certainly they would still have been killed at impact with the ocean.
>
>Why do you assume this? There are other causes of unconsciousness
>than just hypoxia. I have always assumed they suffered from g-LOC,
>g-induced Loss Of Consciousness. It's not just ultimate g level that
>can cause g-LOC, but also g onset rate. In addition, the crew wasn't
>wearing g suits and would have been unprepared for the maneuvering.
>This is pretty much a guarantee of impairment, if not g-LOC. With the
>continued tumbling, g-LOC is pretty much inevitable.

....And then there's the tumbling itself. Head * Velocity + Point Of
Impact = Knockout. No matter how good a helmet is, hit it hard enough
and enough force will be transmitted through to cause loss of
consciousness, if not severe disorientation. Ask anyone who was carted
off the gridiron about that one!


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:04:46 -0500, "Jon Berndt" >
wrote:

>I'm calling "bull****" on your 140 mph figure. Do you have anything to back
>that up?

....Jon, just killfile him. He's a Maxson, You're wasting your time.

(Since Jon's admittedly killfiled me, someone please pass this advice
on to him, in hopes that he'll heed it. Thanks.)


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Charleston]

"Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
...
> "Charleston" > wrote in message
>
> > Go here,
> >
> > http://web.mit.edu/icl/index2.html
> >
> > Professor Tomasz Wierzbicki, coauthored two papers on the
crashworthiness
> of
> > Challenger's forward fuselage and crew compartment with D.K. Yue. This
is
> > one of five or six different and independent sources that leads me to
the
> > conclusion that NASA was wrong about the final velocity at water impact.
> > Dr. Eugene Covert, also of MIT, and one of the members of the Roger's
> > Commission endorsed the work of the two fine gentlemen above FWIW. Will
> you
> > guys ever believe me? I feel like I am ****ing in the wind around here
> and
> > it's a little frustrating.
>
> I can't find it online, but I might be able to find this article from a
> friend:
>
> T. WIERZBICKI and D. YUE, Impact damage of the Challenger Crew
Compartment.
> Journal of Rocket and Space, 23, No. 6, pp. 646-654, 1986.
>
> You're not ****ing in the wind. The allegation about impact velocity
seems
> a bit off to me. Nevertheless, even if the impact speed was 150 mph, if
the
> cabin was stopped just as the cabin became submerged (15 ft), the
> acceleration is still 50 g's.

No doubt it was still instantly fatal Jon.

However 50g's is 150gs' less than NASA stated. The MIT prof's wrote what
they did in a polite and professional manner. My point aside from the NASA
myth of 200gs was that they were in the air an additional 20 seconds or so
and every second counts if you are trying to get out.

[OM]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 03:17:59 GMT, "James Oberg"
> wrote:

>Thanks, Rich, I tend to agree but want to check out all leads. The cabin
>would have crushed in the g-forces and heating as aluminum failed. Even in a
>pressure suit thrown free at that alt/velocity, a human body would probably
>have tumbled violently and overheated to charring levels within seconds.

....Read the FAQ :-). Under the section concerning where the debris
wound up, I do list that some crew remains were found showing signs
that they had been burned.


--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

[OM]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:10:33 -0600, "Mike Speegle"
> wrote:

> You said you had "anything". My "well" meant "what is it?". Or is
>cuteness your mode right now?

....He's a Maxson. What else did you expect besides confuddlement on
his part?


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[LooseChanj]

On or about Tue, 15 Jul 2003 02:04:27 -0600, OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> made the sensational claim that:
> ...Read the FAQ :-). Under the section concerning where the debris
> wound up, I do list that some crew remains were found showing signs
> that they had been burned.


Speaking of reading it, is there any chance of a pdf or something d/l'able?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

"Charleston" > wrote in message
news:brMQa.16500$zy.8490@fed1read06...
|| >
| > Assuming they had the suits to stay concious... how long would it
| > have taken them to asses their situation?... and would they have
| > assesed it correctly?
|
| Uh, the second they saw the big bright flash out the payload bay windows
| followed by the distinctly bright mid day sky I imagine.


And even without pressure suits they would have stayed conscious at least 20
seconds or more regardless of the O2 partial pressure. G-forces I can't
speak to.

"Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
...
| "Charleston" > wrote in message
| T. WIERZBICKI and D. YUE, Impact damage of the Challenger Crew
Compartment.
| Journal of Rocket and Space, 23, No. 6, pp. 646-654, 1986.
|
| You're not ****ing in the wind. The allegation about impact velocity
seems
| a bit off to me. Nevertheless, even if the impact speed was 150 mph, if
the
| cabin was stopped just as the cabin became submerged (15 ft), the
| acceleration is still 50 g's.
|
| Jon



Scott Crossfield walked away from almost 200 G's when an X-15 blew up on
the ground during an engine test. He said it damaged his night vision only
and "gave him a sore neck".

[Jon Berndt]

> wrote in message news:5USQa.96
>
> Scott Crossfield walked away from almost 200 G's when an X-15 blew up on
> the ground during an engine test. He said it damaged his night vision only
> and "gave him a sore neck".

200? Geez! Of course that was along the X axis only, and it helps if your
cockpit holds together.

What's the human body supposed to be able to take?

Jon

[Jan C. Vorbrüggen]

> What's the human body supposed to be able to take?

AFAIK, the main problem is due to the lungs - air is much more compressible
than water (which is what the rest of the body is). This allows, in
particular, the large blood vessels in the thorax - mainly the aorta - to
seperate from its attachments. This happens at about 80-100 g in the forward
direction. I believe that a large fraction of the 101 people that dies in
the Eschede high-speed train (ICE) crash in Germany some years ago died from
this.

Jan

[MasterShrink]

>However, what I would suggest IS germane is what additional crew equipment
>might have been adequate to allow some chance of survival. For 'Challenger',
>we found out that equipment of the type actually later worn by the
>'Columbia' crew would probably have saved most if not all of their lives.

At least until the cabin plowed into the Atlantic ocean.

Though I suppose maybe those below deck on Challenger might have had a chance
of blowing the hatch and getting out...

-A.L.

[HOST Comp JimS]

>Speaking of reading it, is there any chance
>of a pdf or something d/l'able?

If you're using Internet Explorer, you can save any page you're
viewing to your hard drive by doing a "Save As..." and choosing
"Web Archive" as the format.

Click the "Options" button for various options such as whether
or not to include the graphics, etc. You can also check "Download
Links" to include all linked pages at that site in one big file.

(I'm using the Mac version of I.E., but I presume the PC versions
have the same general setup.)

Jim

[OM]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:10:36 GMT, LooseChanj >
wrote:

>On or about Tue, 15 Jul 2003 02:04:27 -0600, OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> made the sensational claim that:
>> ...Read the FAQ :-). Under the section concerning where the debris
>> wound up, I do list that some crew remains were found showing signs
>> that they had been burned.
>
>Speaking of reading it, is there any chance of a pdf or something d/l'able?

....Not in my lifetime, I'm afraid.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[LooseChanj]

On or about Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:49:20 -0600, OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> made the sensational claim that:
> ...Not in my lifetime, I'm afraid.

Over your dead body? I'm sure that could be arranged...buahahahaha! :-P
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[Lynndel Humphreys]

Huh what did they say can't hear anything just a loud ringing in my ears.
Anybody got a hearing aid. What.....
>
> Oh my Lord, I needed that. :-)
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Charleston]

> wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
> ...
> | "Charleston" > wrote in message
> | T. WIERZBICKI and D. YUE, Impact damage of the Challenger Crew
> Compartment.
> | Journal of Rocket and Space, 23, No. 6, pp. 646-654, 1986.
> |
> | You're not ****ing in the wind. The allegation about impact velocity
> seems
> | a bit off to me. Nevertheless, even if the impact speed was 150 mph, if
> the
> | cabin was stopped just as the cabin became submerged (15 ft), the
> | acceleration is still 50 g's.
> |
> | Jon

> Scott Crossfield walked away from almost 200 G's when an X-15 blew up on
> the ground during an engine test. He said it damaged his night vision only
> and "gave him a sore neck".

I don't know that particular story but the number almost 200 sounds like an
approximation. White survived an estimated 43G landing, due in part to his
seat's crashworthy charactersitics after the XB 70 collision. We know the
approximate attitude of the Challenger forward fuselage at impact due in
part to how the outer forward fuselage absorbed the energy and fractured at
water impact. Anyone wanting to really get into the actual forces the crew
was exposed to must consider all factors such as the fact that there is an
inner crew module and outer fuselage, how and when the seats failed, and the
attitude at impact.

Daniel

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:10:36 GMT, LooseChanj >
> wrote:
>
> >On or about Tue, 15 Jul 2003 02:04:27 -0600, OM
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> made the
sensational claim that:
> >> ...Read the FAQ :-). Under the section concerning where the debris
> >> wound up, I do list that some crew remains were found showing signs
> >> that they had been burned.
> >
> >Speaking of reading it, is there any chance of a pdf or something
d/l'able?
>
> ...Not in my lifetime, I'm afraid.

No PDF, at last something we appear to agree on.

However, I might suggest wget to grab the HTML.


>
> OM
>
> --
>
> "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
> poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:32:25 +0200, Jan C. Vorbrüggen
> wrote:

> > What's the human body supposed to be able to take?
>
> AFAIK, the main problem is due to the lungs - air is much more compressible
> than water (which is what the rest of the body is). This allows, in
> particular, the large blood vessels in the thorax - mainly the aorta - to
> seperate from its attachments. This happens at about 80-100 g in the forward
> direction. I believe that a large fraction of the 101 people that dies in
> the Eschede high-speed train (ICE) crash in Germany some years ago died from
> this.

I believe that what happened to Princess Diana when the car she was in
struck the side of a tunnel at high velocity was that the arteries
inside her torso were torn loose, causing her to hemorrhage to death.

Then there was Dale Earnhardt and the two or three other drivers who
died in the same way after hitting the wall head-on.

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot

[John Maxson]

Giganews posts/hosts Bob Mosley's abuse for Illuminati Online.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:51:24 GMT, LooseChanj
> > wrote:
> >On or about Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:49:20 -0600, OM
> ><om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
> >made the sensational claim that:
> >
> >> ...Not in my lifetime, I'm afraid.
> >
> >Over your dead body? I'm sure that could be arranged...buahahahaha! :-P
>
> LOOSE CHANGE, YOU HAVE THREATENED ME WITH DEATH!
> I WILL SUE YOU AND TURN YOU OVER TO YOUR LOCAL LAW
> ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS! THEY ARE ALREADY BEING
> NOTIFIED OF YOUR SINS! I AM NOTIFYING YOUR ISP, AND WILL
> TURN YOU OVER TO WHOA AND LET YOU FEEL THEIR WRATH!
> I AM UNSTOPPABLE! YOU WILL PAY FOR YOUR LIBEL!!! THE
> ENTIRE GROUP WILL FEEL MY WRATH UNTIL YOU LEARN TO
> LEAVE ME ALONE! ALL I WANT TO BE IS LEFT ALONE! I DO NOT
> HARASS! YOU DO! I NEVER HARASS! SO DO NOT HARASS ME
> AND I WILL NOT HARASS YOU. FAILURE TO NOT HARASS ME
> WILL RESULT IN A LAWSUIT AND I WILL HARASS YOU.
>
> [/inbred_maxson]
>
> ...Blah. That impression left me feeing rather unclean :-(
>
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
> poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr

[marcus hall]

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
>Then there was Dale Earnhardt and the two or three other drivers who
>died in the same way after hitting the wall head-on.

Well, in this case we are more concerned about spinal injuries caused
by unrestrained forward movement of the head (with a heavy helmet).
Actually, I guess the problem is that the forward movement *is*
restrained, but by the neck only. This causes separation between
the skull and vertibre and spinal injury. The generally accepted fix
is the HANS (Head And Neck Support) device and similar systems that
restrict the forward movement of the helmet while allowing side-to-side
rotation for visability.

Dale Earnhardt in particular was against such things as he thought them
to be too confining. Unfortunately all too ironic..

Marcus Hall
(Also an amateur sports-car racer -- SCCA ITA)

[Derek Lyons]

"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote:
>Terminology quibbles aside, I agree: if the rudder pedals were found with
>the nose cap, while other parts of the crew compartment were found miles
>away, that would be a strong indication that the crew compartment lost
>integrity very early during the breakup.

We keep referring to the 'crew compartment breakup' as if it was a
single explosive event rather a process or series of events. It's not
impossible for the crew compartment to have lost integrity in a serial
fashion.

If the very forward end tore away and broke up, then it's very likely
that the lightweight and relatively aerodynamic rudder pedals would
end up downrange of the remainder of the crew compartment. Not to
mention, this also explains why the mid-deck was destroyed but the
lower equipment bay was relatively intact.

With the nose gone, zero alpha would no longer be a aerodynamically
stable position. The tumbling induced by the loss of the nose would
then have provided the stresses and heating that lead to subsequent
breakup events.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.