Stuf4 wrote:

From M :

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/298870main_SP-2008-565.pdf

It is the most detail accident report I have ever read in my life. I
had access to Air Force accident reports while I was in the service,
and I read AW&ST accident reports on airline accidents. This report is
very very detailed.

The Air Force doesn't do it and the FAA doesn't do it because it is a
pointless waste of effort. This NASA report is astoundingly
ludicrous. Columbia's wing came off in a region of the envelope that
was *way* outside of anywhere that was known to be survivable. Why
would anyone need a separate standalone report detailing how the crew
died? Published almost 6! years after the fact, no less. What's
next, NASA? How bout a timely 500 page analysis on exactly how
Geoffrey de Havilland died. Inquiring minds NEED to know! Be sure to
include the serial number of the panel that initially entered his left
temporal lobe, as well as all other pieces of hardware that had the
potential to become lodged into his cranium. Do the simulated
analysis of the forward cockpit dynamics as his jet disintegrated.
Then cite the intriguing fact that even if his body had not become
impaled, then he would have flailed to death by q-bar loads. And if
he had not become impaled or flailed to death, then he would have died
by drinking in the Thames. How is it that we've gone over 60 years
without this crucial study being funded with millions of taxpayer
dollars and the findings made public (so his family can soak in the
juicy details too)?

For STS-107, the crew had no hope of survival. SCSIIT asks, "What
events occurred that had lethal potential for the crew, even after the
crew became deceased?"

How's this for a major epiphany... If you don't design your
spacecraft with any way for your crew to survive a huge range of
mishaps, when those mishaps occur then the crew is expected to die.
So what was NASA trying to accomplish by burning all those boot
soles? Shuttle forebody dynamics simulation using Apollo capsule
damping moments?! With this embarrassing report, NASA has hit an all-
time low. How ironic for this to be released at the 40th anniversary
of one of the greatest accomplishments that NASA (or the human race at
large) ever did.

I will not be surprised if Obama pushes to dismantle NASA because of
its current state of buffoonery, exemplified by this "Crew Survival"
report.

Your being a bit harsh aren't you. The report is the culmination of years of
work by what is probably a relatively small group of people. The purpose of
the report is to improve the state of the art. Although NASA has chosen to
take the Space Program backwards, back to the 60s, with a remake of Apollo,
improvements can be made. It's a nice detailed report, maybe I'll read the
entire report.

But, to me, it looks like for some future vehicle's occupants might survive
such a breakup. Haven't read the specific recommendation yet, but what I've
gathered so far...

The bubble helmets aren't good ascent/entry helmets. The "non" conformal
bit. They should be more like crash helmets, NASCAR comes to mind, a helmet
that fits snuggly and protects the head from impacts as well as maintaining
pressure. Helmets that move with the head.

Another, manual closure of the helmets didn't work. A pressure sensing,
automated visor/pressurization safety system would be a good idea.

Another, the paracutes didn't work, no pressure sensing deployment.

Another, seat belts didn't work, maybe active restraints (not just locking)
like an ejection seat that pulls the occupants legs, arms, and in this case
shoulders back into the seat. Fully (or mildly) restraining the occupant
motion when activated would be a good thing.

Making an ascent/entry vehicle crash worthy, to protect the occupants.
Again, NASCAR comes to mind and they are way ahead of NASA in many
respects. The car is designed to come apart protecting the occupant,
reducing the loads all along the way, during the crash. Something that
could be incorporated in a future design.

Although unintended in it's design, this happened when the crew compartment
separated from the fuselage. 3 gees down to 1 gee. Designing it
structurally and aerodynamically to continue coming apart around the
occupants would keep the force loads down, just like a NASCAR car.

Aerodynamic bucket seats, like a NASCAR roll cage, the most structural part
surrounding the occupant. Designed to fly right, if ever thrown out into
the slipstream. Graphite/Epoxy, High temperature conformal foam/insulation,
The titanium tub of the A-10 that someone else mentioned.

High temperature materials aren't heavy, they're actually probably the
materials of choice from a weight perspective, just a bit harder to
manufacture. Use titanium or carbon/epoxy liberally around the occupants.
Stay away from low temperature materials, like aluminum.

Maybe some occupants of some future vehicle will survive such a Disaster
that Columbia was.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @