What if someone dies in orbit?

I hope this never happens, but knowing NASA, they have a contingency plan. What happens if there’s some kind of incident in orbit and somebody dies? If the body is recoverable, will they ship it back to earth or give it a burial in space? If they bring it back to earth, how? Will somebody have to ride in a seat next to a strapped-in corpse? Is there some kind of burial in space protocol?

Yes, this question did occurr to as a stray morbid thought while reading about today’s Alpha spacewalk. I’m not wishing anyone ill or anything. I just thirst for knowledge.

NASA does indeed have a contingency plan. They carry body bags on the space station (and, IIRC, the shuttle as well), and the body would be returned to earth. I don’t know exactly where the body would be stowed onboard during the return trip, though.

Hmmm. If someone died on Alpha I would think they would try to return the body. Same thing with the Shuttle (I actually think I read somewhere that the shuttle has body bags on board for just such an emergency). If someone died on spacewalk the doubt the body would be retrieved unless it was pretty close to Alpha.

If EVERYONE died on a shuttle mission (but the shuttle itself was still intact) I think they can land it by remote control or autopilot if memory serves.

Interesting question…Well answered. Begets another question though. What would become of a body, released in space in a burial? Does’t seem it would decay. I’ve heard of the Tibetian Sky Burial with vultures, but a space burial might be interesting–circling the earth for eons.

It depends. If it were in Earth orbit, it would eventually enter the atmosphere and burn up. If it was farther out, well, it will still eventually get pulled into something’s orbit (the moon, another planet, the sun, another star) and either burn up in the atmosphere, crash into the surface (if the body had no atmosphere), or burn up in it’s photsphere (if it were star). Of course, this could take a very long time.

It also depends on how the body is, er, packed. Leave it inside the late astronaut’s space suit, and the body would eventually be consumed by the bacteria present in the body. Open it up to space, and you get freeze-dried corpse.

The Space Shuttle flies in a low orbit. Any body released into “space” wouldn’t last very long.

I consider the idea of “burial at space” really alarming. They’re already concerned about the possibility of spacecraft being damaged by colliding with debris. I don’t like the idea of having someone’s tourist shuttle flight in 2045 damaged by a collision with Grandpa.

As an aside, during the Apollo missions, NASA was often asked what would happen if the return rocket failed to fire and the astronauts were stranded in orbit around the moon. The answer was, then they’d stay in orbit around the moon for a pretty long time. When the batteries ran down and the life support systems cut out, they’d die. I think a lunar orbit is inherently a little unstable (due to tidal effects from the other two big bodies), but I think the duration we’re talking is centuries or millennia before they’d hit the moon. There was no contingency plan because there was just the one rocket; adding a second would have taken up too much mass. That said: (a) the rocket was designed so that all it took to work was opening two valves, and there were redundant valves; (b) they had to fire the same rocket to get themselves into orbit around the moon in the first place. If it didn’t fire then, they’d simply slingshot around the moon and come back to Earth*.
*This was the case up to Apollo 12; on subsequent missions, the trajectory no longer had a free-return option, since they were landing in more exotic locales. On Apollo 13, they had to correct their trajectory (using the LM’s rocket) to get back to Earth.

Huh. I was going to say you were full of it, but then I found this:

I don’t know if that really means it could land by autopilot, though Russian shuttle Boran (which was scuttled without ever flying with a crew) could and did land successfully without a pilot.

Guess that’ll teach me not to get my data from Space Cowboys. :slight_smile:

Whoops, sorry, the correct transliteration is “Buran”.

Where did I read it? I think it was in Richard Feynmann’s What Do YOU Care What Other People Think?, where he details his experience in the investigation of the Challenger accident.

Anyway, I believe it was Feynmann who wrote that the entire landing sequence is controlled by computer, once a button is pushed to indicate which landing site to use–except that an astronaut gives the command to lower the landing gear. Feynmann (I believe) felt this was for the benefit of the astronauts’ egos. I believe he also wrote that the command to lower the landing gear could be given from Mission Control as a backup.

That rings a bell, Windfish. I’ll look it up in my copy this evening if someone else doesn’t get to it first.

Let’s just hope that computer isn’t running on Windows. :smiley:

The computers that run the Space Shuttle are much worse than Windows. Besides, Windows 1.0 didn’t originate until 10 years after the shuttle’s initial development. The computers on the space shuttle are so obsolete that the manufacturer’s don’t make them anymore. They use ferrite core memory (!). Today’s memory chips are much more reliable and have error checking built-in. The shuttle’s programs cannot be split into logical modules for payload and avionics like modern programs. The people at Johnson SC essentially have to rewrite the in-flight program for every mission. Needless to say, they’re testing and debugging procedures are strict and extraordinarily thorough.

I promised to reply with information about the automatic take-off and landing procedures used ont he Shuttle. I’m not going to quote all three pages, but you can find the information on pages 190-192, plus others in Richard P. Feynman’s “What Do You Care What Other People Think?”. Paraphrasing follows:

The shuttle is essentially operated by computer. Once the engines are lit up and it starts to go, nobydy inside does anything because there’s tremendous acceleration. At various altitudes the computer adjusts engine thrust and drops the boosters and tanks. The astronauts have little to do until the shuttle reaches orbit. The shuttle’s ancient computers cannot hold all the programs necessary for the whole flight.

Once orbit is reached, the astronauts take out some tapes, and load the program for the next phase of the flight - sometimes 6 tapes in all. At the end of the flight, one more tape is added that controls the descent. There are four computers on board that must all run in agreement. If one differrs, it is removed from operations. If only two computers agree, the shuttle must be brought back to Earth immediately. There’s a fifth computer which can barely hold the ascent and descent programs. It’s wries take paths which are different fomr all other on board computers. If all normal computers fail, this computer can be used to return the shuttle to Earth. It’s never been used.

When the flight is over, the astronauts push one of three buttons marked Edwards, White Sands, and Kennedy. After that, the descent is automatically controlled by computer. At about 35k feet the shuttle slows to less than the speed of sound, and manually steering can be performed if necessary. At 4000 feet, the pilot’s only responsibility is to lower the landing gear. Feynman confirms that this last step is a psychological one. Pilots can’t stand the idea that the shuttle will fly just fine without their intervention. The engineers added options to handle this process remotely as well, so technically it is not necessary. Originally, the pilots controlled braking, but they did it so poorly, thata computer program had to be written to handle it.

End of paraphrasing.

To sum it up - the pilot is essentially ballast. The shuttle can take off and land without passengers. If a catastrophe occurs in orbit that does not damage the backup computer (or computers 1-4 if the descent program is loaded), the shuttle can be brought safely back to Earth, corpses and all.

[sub]* Please note: Feynman’s notes on this subjects was written in about 1988 after the investigation in to the Challenger explosion. Details may have changed since then. Considering the enormous expense in changing any of these details, it is safe to assume that the procedures and technology have remained relatively unchanged.[/sub]

The fact that the Shuttle goes up with a gazillion tons of payload and comes back lacking equal ballast STILL blows my little mind. Gotta love it. They program new angles of athmospheric penetration and such based on return gross weight.

HOWEVER. To answer the O.P. in terms of the Apollo missions? BIG problem. Each ounce was carefully accounted for. Yes, they took a golf club and balls, etc. I’ll wager that rather than risk a flight error, the people in Houston did indeed know EVERY ITEM going on ever flight, down to the clubs and balls. That is the only way they could adhere to such close margins, in terms of fuel/payload ratios.

The point is that they’d have to come back with a body. Tossing a 170 lb. body into space would screw up the payload weight too drastically, and they’d be off-balance. IMHO.

Cartooniverse

One fact about bodies being tossed off into orbit…
The sun produces both a solar-wind pressure (basically hydrogen) and a photon pressure (visible light, etc). Not very strong in absolute terms, these factors nevertheless produce a cumulative effect. I think they would tend, over time, to make orbits less circular-- raising the apogee and lowering the perigee-- until the perigee lies within the atmosphere.

Now, this is for Earth orbit. Anyone want to take a swing at what these factors would do to a body in solar orbit?

On Apollo 13, which was scheduled to bring home X pounds worth of rocks, they had to transfer an equal amount of “stuff” that would’ve been left on the LM on the moon.

i read somewhere that the PCU in a Gameboy is more powerful than the computers they used in the Apollo missions. and not even those new Gameboy Advances, but like the original ones that came out five years ago, which are now generally regarded as pieces of crap.

<------pounding on jon’s back heartily in an attempt to dislodge the Kentucky Fried Rat he was choking on so that he can return to the emails he was forwarding to ten of his closest friends so that Bill Gates will give him $ 650,000.

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Okay, had to have my fun. Seriously? I’ve heard similar things. I saw some story on Air Traffic Controllers ( Surely a downtrodden and overworked industry…). The reporter alledged that an Intel 486 DX-100 could run an entire airport’s control tower better than the hardware they were using. Let’s see now…

Cost of new aircraft… 10 million Cost of 436 human lives lost...Incalculable Cost of used 486 DX-100 Laptop.... 75.99

**DUH ??? **

Let’s look at this.

The original Game Boy, released in 1989, used the Zilog Z80 processor, released initally in July 1976. The Z80 is an eight-bit chip with a 2.5 MHz clock rate. Pretty pitiful by today’s standards, but still usable in some limited applications (like, for instance, Texas Instruments graphing calculators).

Microsoft Windows 1 was released in 1985, after a total of 55 man-years of programming. It only allowed tiled windows.

The STS-1 mission, the first Space Shuttle mission, was begun by the orbiter Columbia on 12 April 1981.

So it seems that the Space Shuttle predates Windows 1 by almost a half-decade (okay, four years). The Space Shuttle was first launched 14 years after the Z80’s release, however. So we have a question: Why would the Space Shuttle use core memory and other outdated equipment when better technology obviously existed? How could the Space Shuttle’s computers be out-performed by a chip a decade and a half older than them? Maybe you’re right, probably you’re wrong, either way I think I’ve earned my Geek Stripes. :smiley: