Arthur E. Sowers arthures at access5.digex.net
Fri Feb 2 02:51:16 EST 1996

On 29 Jan 1996, Scott Zasadil wrote:

> "Arthur E. Sowers" <arthures at access5.digex.net> wrote:
> >Although it was a high profile techno-disaster, I would maintain that in 
> >terms of the propensity of human beings to do things that turn out bad 
> >instead of good that they should have been able to predict and avoid, the 
> >Challenger disaster was a drop in the bucket compared to many other 
> >"comparable" disasters. 
> >
> Several examples given.
> >5. The use of pure oxygen atmospheres in the early 3-man space
> >   capsules (I don't remember the names & dates etc, but 3 guys were
> >   burned to a crisp in about 2-3 secs and there was a committee report
> >   recommending against the pure oxygen for safety reasons).
> Apollo 1: Grissom, White, and Chaffee. I believe it was on January 25, 1966 
> - almost ten years exactly prior to the challenger explosion. BTW their
> spacesuits protected them from a lot of the fire. Their official cause of
> death was listed as suffocation from the toxic fumes.

Thanks for the extra details. I was never good for a memory ... thats why 
I didn't go into history. Cant remember names and dates. 

I wanted to make a minor correction on a sentence I wrote. As I 
recall, the responsible committee made the recomendation against the pure 
oxygen atmosphere BEFORE they made a decision to go with that atmosphere. 
There were some complex rationalizations, but it did get coverage in an 
issue of our journal _Science_, which I have been reading continuously 
for over 30 years now. I have the feeling that safety considerations, as 
parts of various projects, are happily starting to be get at least a teeny 
bit more respect these days than they did when I was much younger. This 
"awareness" is good. I find it infuriating that after, not before, something 
bad happens, then people can find out why they shouldn't have done some 
particular something.

Art Sowers

More information about the Bioforum mailing list