|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
"Mark B." wrote:
: :Not according to the audio, that has never been released to the public. :Even the men were screaming like little girls. : Never been released to the public so you just make it up? Jesus, go try to find a clue. See you in 30. plonk -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message It's probably pretty
merciful that they were either unconscious or dead before this all happened due to the loss of cabin pressure. Not according to the audio, that has never been released to the public. Even the men were screaming like little girls. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
ne... in that three of them didn't have their gloves on when things started to go wrong (as well as one not having their helmet on); As if any of this would have made a difference at 10,000 degrees fahrenheit. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
"Craig Fink" wrote in message But, to me, it looks like
for some future vehicle's occupants might survive such a breakup. Congratulations for the dumbest post yet. You would have a higher chance for survival swimming in the lava of an active volcano, than in a shuttle disintegration during reentry. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
Alain Fournier wrote:
Craig Fink wrote: 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. In a car accident, you want to protect the occupants by keeping the g forces to a minimum. In an orbital reentry accident, the g forces on the occupants are a secondary issue, not to be ignored completely, but not the main issue. You want the occupants to have breathable air and you don't want them to fry. Keeping the pressure vessel around the occupants intact is a wise choice for a reentry vehicle. Gee forces can go both ways as the vehicle breaks up. Many parts probably went the other way. 3 gee to 10 or 20 gees, depending on the ballistic coefficient. Keeping the Vehicle pressure vessel intact is preferable, but not necessary, as long as the personal pressure vessel is intact. Keeping the some temperature resistant part between the occupant and slip stream keeps them from frying. The statement that it wasn't survivable is really only applicable for that particular vehicle, and really isn't even true in this case. There were survivors who lived through the Columbia Disaster, just not human ones. http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules...cle&sid= 1821 A couple of seats essentially few together, side by side reasonably well, page 2-31. With or without occupants. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/298870main_SP-2008-565.pdf Page 2-129 shows the a almost intact middeck accommodation rack, very close to the size and weight of an astronaut and seat. Pages 3-10, 3-11 are interesting. "Nearly all seat fractures occurred at minimum thermal cross-sectional areas (minimum thermal mass), away from any large heat sink locations." The Aluminum really didn't perform well, essentially melting/burning apart. Like flying in a burning wooden airplane. -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
In accordance with their training, they spent that time trying to
regain control of the orbiter, rather than sealing up their suits. "The crew was doing everything that they had been trained to do, and they were doing everything right," Melroy said during a press conference Dec. 30. seems that a priority should be suits sealed, so if they regain control they can breathe and remain concious |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
From Craig Fink:
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. "Nice" is not a word that entered my mind in skimming through that myself. But yes, it's certainly detailed. 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. Helmets, parachutes, seat belts didn't work? What kind of a conclusion is that? Didn't work to do what? I hope that someone on this investigation team had a flash of insight that the reason why the crew didn't bother with putting on a helmet, putting on gloves, closing visors and locking inertial reels was because they were all well aware that these actions would only *prolong their death* in a situation where the vehicle fell apart above 200kft. And an altitude sensing HiTech chute deploy would spare their charred corpses from that final impact with the ground. If you want a mishap like Columbia's to be survivable, the critical first step is to decide that you value the crew's lives enough to design it to be survivable. It is of little productive value to later tell us how their seat belts sliced their bodies to pieces after their inertial reels didn't lock, and all that other gory stuff. 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. The sport of autoracing has had phenomenal improvements in safety. Katherine Legge walking away from her Road America mess and Ryan Briscoe surviving his Chicagoland inferno are dramatic examples of Jerry Bruckheimer proportion. And I don't think that either driver even had the HANS device. Maybe some occupants of some future vehicle will survive such a Disaster that Columbia was. We are in total agreement on your last statement. You may remember how much I have emphasized on this forum in years past of how easy it would have been to design the shuttle with crew escape capability where Challenger & Columbia scenarios could have been survivable. Just design the rigid pressure vessel to separate from the debris in an aerodynamically stable way similar to the F-111/B-1 capsules (drogue chutes, etc), thermally protect it to prevent it from burning up itself, then when it has decelerated sufficiently, the crew can pop the hatch, bail out and parachute to safety. So now we are given these 400 pages of technobabble detailing how each crew member was killed 11 times over. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. It was never designed to be survivable (as deliberately decided by NASA). Detailing their deaths is rubbing salt into the wound in the worst way possible. I am particularly sickened to see it publish statements like, "the crew had no role in causing the accident". All of that CAIB analysis, and we didn't even learn that it was a horribly bad decision for the crew to board Columbia and launch STS-107. The SOFI damage alarm was sounded just 3 months prior with STS-112, ironically the first flight of the ETcam. This SCSIIT report has brought back a flood of memories in my disappointment on how the CAIB report fell way short. (I don't even remember it addressing the option of sending an astronaut on EVA at the end of the arm to look at the wing from the top to get an idea of how badly it was damaged.) ~ CT |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
New Columbia loss report out today
Stuf4 wrote in
: (I don't even remember it addressing the option of sending an astronaut on EVA at the end of the arm to look at the wing from the top to get an idea of how badly it was damaged.) 1) Columbia did not carry the RMS on STS-107. 2) The CAIB addressed the option of an inspection EVA - without the arm - in Volume 1, Section 6.4, page 173. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Followup [FAQ] Minor notice Columbia Loss FAQ | dave schneider | Space Science Misc | 1 | July 10th 04 05:58 PM |
[FAQ] Minor notice Columbia Loss FAQ | OM | Space Shuttle | 2 | July 9th 04 06:16 PM |
[FAQ] Minor notice Columbia Loss FAQ | OM | Policy | 2 | July 9th 04 06:16 PM |
[FAQ] Minor notice Columbia Loss FAQ | OM | History | 2 | July 9th 04 06:16 PM |