home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!camcus!sl25
- From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
- Subject: Re: Low-Pressure O2 Atmosphere
- Message-ID: <1992Nov10.232426.20495@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Sender: news@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk
- Organization: U of Cambridge, England
- References: <BxI4o7.2Mq.1@cs.cmu.edu>
- Distribution: sci
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:24:26 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <BxI4o7.2Mq.1@cs.cmu.edu>, flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554") writes:
- |> Carl J Lydick <carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> writes:
- |> > Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
- |> > giglio@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Louis Giglio) writes:
- |> > >The oxygen had to be diluted with something.
- |> > >They would have died otherwise.
- |> >
- |> > You would be correct had the vehicle been pressurized to 1 atmosphere.
- |> > However, your conclusion does not follow if the cabin pressure was .2
- |> > atmosphere.
- |>
- |> But in pure O2 lots of things burn that "shouldn't", like
- |> asbestos fibers. This actually happened long before that
- |> Apollo capsule burned up, and should have alerted NASA.
-
- Once again. IT ISN'T THE PURITY IT'S THE PARTIAL PRESSURE!!
- In a 0.2 atm 100% O2 environment things burn just like they do on
- the ground. In a 1atm 100% O2 atm things burn much better, people
- get ill after a while and so on.
-
- The Appolo capsule that burnt had 1atm of pure O2 on the pad, which
- would have been reduced to 0.2atm after launch. Later Appolo designs
- used 1atm of air on the pad, reducing to 0.2atm of O2 after launch.
-
-
- There are possible physiological problems with breathing 0.2atm oxygen for a long
- (weeks) period, but they are associated with the low total pressure rather than
- the purity of the gas.
-