Xref: utzoo sci.space.shuttle:2161 sci.space:8738
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!skep2!slr
From: slr@skep2.ATT.COM (Shelley.L.Rosenbaum.[ho95c])
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Fuel based explosions [was: Re: USSR and the Moon ]
Summary: flames are not the problem
Message-ID: <341@skep2.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Dec 88 20:33:33 GMT
References: <880@cernvax.UUCP> <18263@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <18420@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <3055@sugar.uu.net> <368@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US>
Reply-To: slr@skep2.UUCP (46321-Shelley.L.Rosenbaum.[ho95c],4M415,x3615,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Center 4632, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 25

In article <368@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes:
>
>I saw a show on Nova (I think) about "Why Planes Burn", [...]
>It was believed and then tested that the new fuel mixture 
>did in fact burn at a lower temperature than normal fuel, and thus, the 
>fire did not penetrate the plane's body.  It is believed that this alone 
>may have resulted in much fewer casualties.  The had cameras inside the
>aircraft the whole time, and minus smoke, the people were not particularly
>burned (that is the DUMMY people :-) severely.


Actually, this doesn't help a whole lot.  For years, firefighters and
NASA have been urging the airlines to have "hoods" available for each
passenger to allow them to escape through the smoke.  In the 5000-6000
deaths each year in the U.S. due to fire, almost none are due to burns;
nearly all are from smoke inhalation.  So the fact that the fire did
not burn through the fuselage didn't help a whole lot.

BTW, isn't this a more appropriate discussion for rec.aviation?

-- 
Shelley L. Rosenbaum, Air Traffic Control Systems, AT&T Bell Laboratories
{allegra, att, arpa}!ho95c!slr     slr@ho95c.att.arpa      (201) 949-3615

"I've got my two-tones through the floorboards already!"