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!"