Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pdn!rnms1!dave From: dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron (Consultant)) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: What happened? Could risk be higher? Message-ID: <6852@pdn.paradyne.com> Date: 21 Dec 89 17:57:28 GMT References: <5082@jane.uh.edu> <1989Nov29.163242.1165@utzoo.uucp> <6791@pdn.paradyne.com> <1989Dec1.040218.26158@utzoo.uucp> <6801@pdn.paradyne.com> <2991@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> Sender: usenet@pdn.paradyne.com Reply-To: dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron ) Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida Lines: 25 In article <2991@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) writes: >In article <6801@pdn.paradyne.com> dave@rnms1.paradyne.com (Dave Cameron ) writes: > >[concerning how fast the Challenger crew would have lost consciousness] > >time of useful consciousness (not time to total loss) is: [data deleted] > >(source - USAF Manual 160-5) > >I wonder how they define "useful" consciousness... It is defined as a state in which the person can: a) recognize a hazard and b) take controlled and effective action to correct it (and therefore fly a plane) By this definition some people are NEVER in a state of useful consciousness :-). >I have >heard that one would stay conscious for thirty seconds or so >in a total vacuum, but I don't know how "useful" it would be. I have heard 9 seconds for SURVIVAL in vacuum, but that is from memory. Any real answers out there ?? Dave "sometimes useful" Cameron