Re: STS51L Accident Questions

From: Peter Stickney (p-stickney_at_Mineshaft.local)
Date: 03/17/05 

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:00:58 -0800

In article <113gsnkljvlbp21@corp.supernews.com>,
        Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> 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			
p-stickney@nospam.adelphia.net
Without data, all you have are opinions

Relevant Pages

  • Re: mineral,ore,rock,metal
    ... >1)Oxygen can supply burning whereas nitrogen does not. ... probably learn in higher classes as to what causes the flame to appear ... blue or yellow when the air hole is closed. ... about trivial details such as whether calcium oxide is solid or not, ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: Harmless flame on my skin... how?
    ... Are there any burning material that produce a flame at very a low ... burning temperature would prevent any damage to the skin.. ... One can burn whiskey in the cup of ones palm without burning oneself ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: What are your bad smoking experiences to help a depressed newbie
    ... >> Reason being? ... > Men can't multitask? ... I can't see where the flame is being applied nor what is not burning nor ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Ride the Lightning....literally
    ... Now it's time to die ... Burning in my brain ... I can feel the flame ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)