Space shuttle explosion- did they die straight away?

[islamist]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE

Been thinking, did they die stright away? or on impact with the earth?

[Mr_annie_vxr]

islamist said:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE

Been thinking, did they die stright away? or on impact with the earth?

Apparently some them were alive until they hit the water - although were all unconscious from well before.

[Eric Mc]

islamist said:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE

Been thinking, did they die stright away? or on impact with the earth?

The Shuttle didn't explode for a start. It was technically a structural breakup instigated by the collapse of the External Tank. When the SRB punctured the tank, the structural integrity of the tank as lost and dynamic air pressure due to teh Shuttle's speed made it collapse. Once collapsed, the liquid hydrogen and oxygen in the tank mixed and combusted. The force of the combustion pushed the orbiter away from the tank structure. The Orbiter was then presented to the high speed airflow at an angle which it couldn't structutally withstand at which point the Orbiter broke up into separate and distinct companents. Both wings broke off in one piece as did the rear engine cluster (which continued firing due to residual fuel in the feed lines) and, of course, the flight deck section.
At least one crew member activated an emergency oxygen supply switch AFTER the break up had begun.

[V12Les]

Yep! The fker blew up!

[ShadownINja]

They would have been alive as it plummeted. The only bit to really survive was the cockpit area. Not very easy to land it safely when you have nothing to slow the fall.

[Racefan_uk]

Would I be right in thinking that with the Shuttle having a cockpit safety cell that, in theory at least, it should have had some sort of parachute device to slow its decent to earth, which didn't work, or failed in someway?

Just wondering what the purpose of the safety cell is, if there's no way of surviving it anyway. :S

[Eric Mc]

ShadownINja said:

They would have been alive as it plummeted. The only bit to really survive was the cockpit area. Not very easy to land it safely when you have nothing to slow the fall.

No - both wings broke away in one piece as did the engine assembly. They obviously sustained firther damage on impact with the ocean.

The two Solid Rocket Boosters broke away in one piece and continued to fire until they were deliberately destroyed by the Range Safety Officer.

[Dr Jekyll]

It's the first I've heard of the safety cellm but it could make a difference if a landing goes pear shaped. Also, one of the options if a launch goes wrong is supposed to be to jettison the tank and glide down to ditch in the sea.

[Eric Mc]

Racefan_uk said:

Would I be right in thinking that with the Shuttle having a cockpit safety cell that, in theory at least, it should have had some sort of parachute device to slow its decent to earth, which didn't work, or failed in someway?

Just wondering what the purpose of the safety cell is, if there's no way of surviving it anyway. :S

The Shuttle didn't/doesn't have a "safety cell" for the cockpit. The cockpit is a sealed pressurised unit and is therefore a somewhat separate entity within the overall structure of the Orbiter iteslf. However, it has not been built to withstand too much in the way of decelarative forces - mainly to save weight.

The Shuttle originally had no escape system whatsoever. However, the first four flights (in 1981 and 1982) were deemed to be "test flights" and only had a two-man crew. For those flights, the Shuttle was fitted with ejector seats - based on those used in the SR71. From flight number five onwards, when other crew members were carried, the ejector seats were disabled. Eventually, the ejector seats were removed and normal seats fitted.
The only Shuttle ever to be fitted with ejector seats was Columbia. None of the rest of the fleet ever was.

Since the Challenger accident, the Shuttle does have a rudimentary crew escape system which supposedly might allow a crew to jump clear of a crashing Orbiter. It can only be used in the final few minutes of flight as the Orbiter glides in to land and its speed has dropped to below 300 or 400 mph.
There is still no effective means of saving a crew during a launch mishap.

The new Ares system will feature a Launch Escape Tower similar to the one used on the Apollo and Soyuz space capsules.

[Taita]

Eric Mc said:

Racefan_uk said:

Would I be right in thinking that with the Shuttle having a cockpit safety cell that, in theory at least, it should have had some sort of parachute device to slow its decent to earth, which didn't work, or failed in someway?

Just wondering what the purpose of the safety cell is, if there's no way of surviving it anyway. :S

The Shuttle didn't/doesn't have a "safety cell" for the cockpit. The cockpit is a sealed pressurised unit and is therefore a somewhat separate entity within the overall structure of the Orbiter iteslf. However, it has not been built to withstand too much in the way of decelarative forces - mainly to save weight.

The Shuttle originally had no escape system whatsoever. However, the first four flights (in 1981 and 1982) were deemed to be "test flights" and only had a two-man crew. For those flights, the Shuttle was fitted with ejector seats - based on those used in the SR71. From flight number five onwards, when other crew members were carried, the ejector seats were disabled. Eventually, the ejector seats were removed and normal seats fitted.
The only Shuttle ever to be fitted with ejector seats was Columbia. None of the rest of the fleet ever was.

Since the Challenger accident, the Shuttle does have a rudimentary crew escape system which supposedly might allow a crew to jump clear of a crashing Orbiter. It can only be used in the final few minutes of flight as the Orbiter glides in to land and its speed has dropped to below 300 or 400 mph.
There is still no effective means of saving a crew during a launch mishap.

The new Ares system will feature a Launch Escape Tower similar to the one used on the Apollo and Soyuz space capsules.

Got a link about the escape tower?? And the Apollo / Soyuz ones? Sounds quite interesting.

[ShadownINja]

Eric Mc said:

ShadownINja said:

They would have been alive as it plummeted. The only bit to really survive was the cockpit area. Not very easy to land it safely when you have nothing to slow the fall.

No - both wings broke away in one piece as did the engine assembly. They obviously sustained firther damage on impact with the ocean.

The two Solid Rocket Boosters broke away in one piece and continued to fire until they were deliberately destroyed by the Range Safety Officer.

Sure, but that's not really important for the survival of the crew. Maybe I worded my reply badly.

[bobthemonkey]

Taita said:

Eric Mc said:

Racefan_uk said:

Would I be right in thinking that with the Shuttle having a cockpit safety cell that, in theory at least, it should have had some sort of parachute device to slow its decent to earth, which didn't work, or failed in someway?

Just wondering what the purpose of the safety cell is, if there's no way of surviving it anyway. :S

The Shuttle didn't/doesn't have a "safety cell" for the cockpit. The cockpit is a sealed pressurised unit and is therefore a somewhat separate entity within the overall structure of the Orbiter iteslf. However, it has not been built to withstand too much in the way of decelarative forces - mainly to save weight.

The Shuttle originally had no escape system whatsoever. However, the first four flights (in 1981 and 1982) were deemed to be "test flights" and only had a two-man crew. For those flights, the Shuttle was fitted with ejector seats - based on those used in the SR71. From flight number five onwards, when other crew members were carried, the ejector seats were disabled. Eventually, the ejector seats were removed and normal seats fitted.
The only Shuttle ever to be fitted with ejector seats was Columbia. None of the rest of the fleet ever was.

Since the Challenger accident, the Shuttle does have a rudimentary crew escape system which supposedly might allow a crew to jump clear of a crashing Orbiter. It can only be used in the final few minutes of flight as the Orbiter glides in to land and its speed has dropped to below 300 or 400 mph.
There is still no effective means of saving a crew during a launch mishap.

The new Ares system will feature a Launch Escape Tower similar to the one used on the Apollo and Soyuz space capsules.

Got a link about the escape tower?? And the Apollo / Soyuz ones? Sounds quite interesting.

Simple overview on wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_escape_system

Its a large solid rocket that pulls the crew capsule away from the exploding vehicle, and high enough (if aborting from the launchpad)for the parachutes to deploy. Think of it like a massive ejection seat, but rather than only ejecting the pilot, it brings the entire capsule with it. Only the Russians have ever used it in anger.

[Neil_H]

Some of the personal air supplies were activated after the break up, which indicates that they weren't killed immediately (it wasn't a pressurised supply so was useless anyway). They would either have died from altitude asphyxiation or from hitting the water at 200mph.

ETA: the wikipedia page is a good read (if a little morbid)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challen...

Edited by Neil_H on Saturday 29th November 17:16

[Eric Mc]

The following manned spacecraft were or will be fitted with launch escape tower systems for pulling the capsule off the top of a wayward rocket during the launch phase -

Mercury-Redstone
Mercury-Atlas
Apollo-Saturn 1B
Apollo-Saturn V
Ares
Voshkod 1-R7
Soyuz-R7

The following had ejector seats -

Vostok-R7
Gemini-Titan
Space Shuttle (first four flights only)

The following have/had nothing

Voshkod 2-R7
Space Shuttle after first four flights

[nigelfr]

Talking of the Columbia...At the time of the foam strike, the orbiter was at an altitude of about 66,000 feet (20,115 m), traveling at Mach 2.46 (1,870 mph, or 837 meters per second). The foam fragment was about 1.2 pounds (0.54 kg) in mass and impacted the wing at roughly 800 feet per second (244 meters per second).

That's a quote from the Wiki article on the accident.

What I don't understand is the huge difference in speed between the foam and the orbiter. The foam was probably no more than say 20m from the wing when it broke off. How did it manage to decelerate to about 250m/s before hitting the wing? That's a difference of 600m/s.

[MikeyT]

I read that the cockpit of Pan Am 103 'fell' away' in mid air after the break up and that the crew would have passed out due to lack of ocygen but that some may have come roundd as the height lessened. One was alive when found but then died shortly after.

But can't remember where I read it ...

[MarkK]

nigelfr said:

Talking of the Columbia...At the time of the foam strike, the orbiter was at an altitude of about 66,000 feet (20,115 m), traveling at Mach 2.46 (1,870 mph, or 837 meters per second). The foam fragment was about 1.2 pounds (0.54 kg) in mass and impacted the wing at roughly 800 feet per second (244 meters per second).

That's a quote from the Wiki article on the accident.

What I don't understand is the huge difference in speed between the foam and the orbiter. The foam was probably no more than say 20m from the wing when it broke off. How did it manage to decelerate to about 250m/s before hitting the wing? That's a difference of 600m/s.

It hit the wing at 250m/s that doesn't mean it's actual velocity was 250 m/s.

[Eric Mc]

There was still significant airflow around the Shuttle so as soon as the foam was dislodged it was swept back by the airflow into the wing leading edge. You can actually see it happen in the launch video recording. It's quite an impact.

[esselte]

A little O/T but...why does the shuttle have a programmed roll about 15 seconds into the flight...ie it seems that the orbiter starts off on the top but is subsequently underneath the fuel tank...

[RobboC]

So is there going to be a new shuttle soon then?