STS51L Accident Questions

In article ,
Pat Flannery writes:


James Nicoll wrote:


Was the anti-fog device described in _Glide-Path_ based on something
someone tried? In the novel, the British try to disperse fog with a gajillion
gallon/minute array of torches. It was a partial success: the fog did lift
but the updrafts were very nearly lethal to the test pilot.



I'm pretty sure that systems employing fire near runways that have been
successfully used to disperse fog near airfields; all one has to do is
raise the air temperature by a few degrees to make it disperse; I
imagine the soot in the smoke also gives the water vapor something to
condense around and makes it precipitate out of the air. There really
isn't going to be much of an updraft from that little of a temperature rise.
They had two ideas similar to that that were interesting though; one was
an huge upward-facing flame-thrower for ships designed to set Luftwaffe
aircraft alight like so many Hun moths that had drawn too close to the
flame of British civilization. This didn't work; the planes could just
fly though the flame.

In the cae of the flame guns, yes. FIDO (The fog clearer) was a
danger. The real solution was GCA, (Talkdown stuff), and ILS.

The other one was a real terror and would probably have worked- put
perforated pipes offshore at suspected beaches that the Germans might
land on in time of invasion, and pump gasoline through them- this rose
to the surface and was ignited (by some chemical that had been added to
it IIRC), turning the sea into a mass of flames.
I'd hate to think what the landings at Normandy would have been like if
the Germans had had enough gasoline to implement a scheme like that.
Even if the fire itself didn't get you, the burning gasoline would
superheat the air while depleting its oxygen.

It wouldn't have worked - the wave action would break up the burning
oil slick, which would have 2 effects - gaps in the flames, and the
burning oil would turn into a mass of small burning oil puddles, which
wouldn't receive enough fuel to keep burning.

The real bright thing they came up with was PLUTO. Now _that_ was a
harebrained scheme - that actually worked.

--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

Neil Gerace wrote:

The crew of a Caravelle taking off from Zurich tried to disperse a fog with
their own engines. They taxied down the runway at low speed but high thrust,
cooking their brakes and causing an inflight fire that brought the plane
down and killed everyone on board.



Surplus jet motors have been used for fog dispersal; also for spraying
decontaminent on vehicles that have been exposed to NBC warfare*, and
blowing out oil well fires.

* Surplus MiG-15 engines in this case.


Pat

Peter Stickney wrote:

It wouldn't have worked - the wave action would break up the burning
oil slick, which would have 2 effects - gaps in the flames, and the
burning oil would turn into a mass of small burning oil puddles, which
wouldn't receive enough fuel to keep burning.



I've seen films of test of this thing...it's horrifying... an area of
ocean a couple of hundred of feet wide and around five hundred feet
long goes up in flame; this isn't like you dump a little oil and ignite
it, the fuel keeps coming up from underwater and feeding the fire as
more of it is pumped into the line. It would be like sailing through a
sea of burning napalm.

The real bright thing they came up with was PLUTO. Now _that_ was a
harebrained scheme - that actually worked.



I keep wondering if one was an offshoot of the other. Although the fire
obstacle came first; one can almost picture it something like this:
"I say, the damn thing has sprung a leak...look, the petrol is floating
to the surface- that's a major hazard, that....wait a minute... wait a
minute!"

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:


Remember that story about the bats running into the F-117 because they
couldn't see it with their sonar? And the camera that used a acoustical
focusing system not being able to focus on it? Did they even have those
back then?


That sounds like a bull**** story, because sound doesn't behave like
radar.

To paraphrase a certain former submariner,

"ROTFLMAO. Stick to sub stories. There you have a clue."

--
Dave Michelson

Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:

However, I have come to agree with some, like
Len Cormier, who believe that NASA got off onto the wrong track
from the
very moment they decided to put spam-in-a-can and lob it into space
atop a
ballistic missile, rather than continuing the evolutionary
development path
followed by the X-planes up through the X-15.



I've been saying that for years.



If we'd gone that route, I doubt we would have ever made it to the
Moon
by 1970. We weren't the only ones to go the expendable route rather
than
use transatmospheric vehicle technology- the Soviets, British,
Germans,
and French all looked at reusable spacecraft technology in the late
50's
and early 60's... they all found the ideas to be unworkable due to
weight and cost of development constraints. Then in the late 70's and

early 80's they did it all over again....with the same results.
Since there hasn't been any really big breakthroughs in propulsion or

reentry thermal protection technology*, the situation would be about
the
same today.

*Although if they could get that forward facing plasma airspike
concept
to work reliably they could cut back the weight of the TPS markedly,
which would help.

Pat

There were--and are--workable solutions. They just
haven't been tried. Instead, official funding has
gone into unnecessarily complex technical approaches.
Two-stage--or even some assisted single-stage--
space transports with existing rocket technolgy, plus
clever system design, will work. This approach was
almost tried in 1972, before being drowned out by the
Space Shuttle. It was almost tried again two decades
later in a black program before being preempted by NASP.

The other half of my 1962 position was to rely
on Saturn 1 and rendezvous in LEO to get to the
moon. Like the Manhattan project, I would not
have put all the eggs in one basket. Rather, I
would have gone for one or more competitive
aproaches--competition is probably always cheaper
than concentrating resources without competition. My
competitive suggestion was to go for a (reusable) two-stage
space transport (reusable being a redundant word, IMO).
I think the LEO rendezvous approach could have
been done just as quickly and cheaply as developing
a whole new direct flight vehicle such as Saturn V.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

Peter Stickney wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

That sounds like a bull**** story, because sound doesn't behave
like radar.

To paraphrase a certain former submariner,

"ROTFLMAO. Stick to sub stories. There you have a clue."

So, like, you might want to Reset & Run From 0 on your assessment of
Derek's assessment of Ben Rich's (quite misleading, if no downright
inaccurate) claims.

I'm not defending Ben Rich's claim, only taking serious issue with
Derek's blanket and dismissive claim that "sound doesn't behave like radar".

Sound *does* reflect and diffract like radar to a large extent. I just
returned from CTIA Wireless 2005 where ETS Lindgren was promoting the
use of dual purpose RF/acoustic anechoic chambers:

http://www.ets-lindgren.com/pdf/Dual_chamber.pdf

The wavelength of ultrasonic waves is comparable to microwaves, i.e., of
the order of centimetres. The mathematics are almost identical, except
sound is described by a scalar wave equation and RF is described by a
vector wave equation. That is, EM waves have polarization, sound waves
do not. There are, of course, differences in material properties, hence
boundary properties. But that's a detail. Shapes that are stealthy at
microwave frequencies will exhibit stealthy properties at ultrasonic
frequencies.

Had Derek acknowledged that sound does behave like radar to a large
extent, but there are specific differences or issues that make him doubt
Ben Rich's story, I wouldn't have taken issue. As it stands, Derek made
no useful contribution to the discussion and unfairly maligned Pat in
the process.

--
Dave Michelson

Dave Michelson wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

Remember that story about the bats running into the F-117 because they
couldn't see it with their sonar? And the camera that used a acoustical
focusing system not being able to focus on it? Did they even have those
back then?

That sounds like a bull**** story, because sound doesn't behave like
radar.

To paraphrase a certain former submariner,

"ROTFLMAO. Stick to sub stories. There you have a clue."

In this instance - I am. I've studied sonar, and operated both active
and passive sonars.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Dave Michelson wrote:

Sound *does* reflect and diffract like radar to a large extent. I just
returned from CTIA Wireless 2005 where ETS Lindgren was promoting the
use of dual purpose RF/acoustic anechoic chambers:

Unlike you seem to; I appreciate there is a difference between sound
behavior in air and water due to the extreme differences in density.
But then, I have experience in the field, and you have nothing but the
desire to flame.

You accuse me of not being detailed in my response, but then behave
the same yourself. Look to your own glass house.

Had Derek acknowledged that sound does behave like radar to a large
extent, but there are specific differences or issues that make him doubt
Ben Rich's story, I wouldn't have taken issue. As it stands, Derek made
no useful contribution to the discussion and unfairly maligned Pat in
the process.

Which of us has actually studied and practiced sonar and submarine
stealth, both from inside and outside the community for over twenty
years... And who has not?

Like Henry and many others in this group, I have no need to append my
professional qualifications and extensive background material to each
and every post. (And unlike them, I can't provide details. Winters
in Kansas suck. So do summers for that matter.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On 2005-03-17, Peter Stickney wrote:

Let's see now - Three Points:
Bats use their echolocation to detect food in the air,
at distances long enough to allow maneuvering to intercept the target.
Are you suggesting that an F-117 has a lower acoustical cross-section
than a Mosquito?

Yes.

It probably has a much bigger one than a mosquito, though...

--
-Andrew Gray

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Not only that, but Congress isn't real likely to fund an ongoing
series of manned missions to nowhere...

Nice theory, but in Our Timeline they did exactly that (with the shuttle),
and did so *knowingly* - since in the same swipe they indefinitely deferred
the space station that the shuttle was to have serviced. And they
*continued* to do so for twelve years, until Space Station Freedom was
first funded.

The key difference is that in Our Timeline the shuttle had a large
cargo capacity which could be used for a large variety of purposes,
and could recover said cargo. In the Alternate Timeline, Apollo CSM's
atop S-IB's... Can't. The Shuttle can carry it's destination with
itself, where the CSM has to have one provided.

Equally, the STS in Our Timeline can be viewed as being kept alive and
busy while waiting for the space station. In the Alternate Timeline,
there is no future plan, just a hope that 'something' will develop in
the future.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL