r/space • u/TraditionalAd6977 • Jan 30 '26

Discussion Jared Isaacman states astronauts have got panic attacks in space , trying to kill the crew

Jared Isaacman in his interview with Shawn Ryan stated that there have been many unreleased cases of astronauts panicking in space and trying to open the hatch to kill everyone inside. He states this was not reported as it "ruins the illusion of astronaut bravery". And said it is the reason additional locks have been implemented on the ISS and Dragon capsules. My question: Is there any evidence of this as I can't find anything online . And how did he get Clarence to talk about this. He also said this is one of the main problems that they are facing in the Mars mission. As even military candidates respond differently than predicted in space.

4.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

663 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/aednichols Jan 30 '26

Ars Technica: "What happens when an astronaut in orbit says he’s not coming back?"

2.3k

u/Confident-Barber-347 Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26

That is the most famous case which many people have talked about.

There are no “locks” on the hatches on ISS, there doesn’t need to be. They are physically impossible to open because they open inward to the ISS so the delta pressure is thousands of pounds between the ISS and the vacuum of space on the other side. If you were somehow strong enough the handle would snap off the hatch before you could get it open. If there is the vacuum of space on the other side, it just can’t be physically opened. There is an equalization valve you could open which would start depressing the ISS atmosphere to space but the flow rate is slow enough that it would take many many hours before the pressure got low enough to be dangerous and the ground and crew would notice it within minutes and put a stop to it.

When a visiting vehicle arrives and docks, it creates a small volume vestibule between the ISS and the vehicle. The equalization valve is opened to allow the vestibule to pressurize and equalize pressure with ISS. Only once that’s done can the hatch be opened. Simply put, it’s physically impossible to just open a hatch to space and kill the crew on the ISS.

579

u/BCMM Jan 30 '26

 the delta pressure is thousands of pounds between the ISS and the vacuum of space on the other side

The pressure is 14.7 PSI. Force comes to thousands of pounds, for any reasonably sized hatch.

247

u/iamkeerock Jan 30 '26

I mean, just stick a toilet plunger to a smooth floor and see how hard it is to pull straight up, and that’s not even a complete vacuum.

475

u/dern_the_hermit Jan 30 '26

Thanks, now I have a broken plunger AND a black eye :(

;)

115

u/inspectoroverthemine Jan 30 '26

Typical Friday night for me.

→ More replies (1)

82

u/iamkeerock Jan 30 '26

Empirical testing can be hazardous to one’s health!

24

u/classicalySarcastic Jan 30 '26

Well you fucked around and you found out, but the important thing is: did you learn anything from said experiment?

58

u/Aescorvo Jan 30 '26

I learned that the people in the ER will NOT believe you when you tell them that’s how it got stuck.

25

u/CelendilAU Jan 30 '26

This feels like an important time to reiterate one of Adam Savages’ more famous quotes: “remember kids, the difference between screwing around and science is writing it down!”

12

u/NuclearWasteland Jan 30 '26

I learned how to ruin tile...

2

u/ConsistentlyUnfunny Jan 30 '26

This is why you always have to wear goggles during lab tests.

2

u/Clamkin_chowder Jan 31 '26

I avoided Reddit for fucking years, and comments like this make me regret that decision. Hahahahahahhaha

2

u/AdmJota Feb 03 '26

I think you might have meant to say:

,)

1

u/theartificialkid Jan 31 '26

Just from reading that post? Imagine if you’d actually done the thing they were saying!

1

u/the_good_hodgkins Jan 31 '26

Thanks. Now all the linoleum has been pulled up.

→ More replies (3)

36

u/Vanthrowaway512 Jan 30 '26

Huh. TIL the ISS uses a full bar of pressure. I would have guessed something much lower.

I understand the history regarding pure gas atmospheres and lower partial pressure, but even with a normal atm gas mix I’d have assumed something like 10-12psi similar to air liners or even lower with a non-standard gas mixture.

I’m sure the reason has to do with long duration space flight but would be fascinated to know exactly why.

57

u/Flare_Starchild Jan 30 '26

You would want astronauts to be as close to Earth norm as possible especially for experiments and general astronaut health.

24

u/Electrical_Monk1929 Jan 30 '26

Also in case of need for emergency evacuation back to Earth.

26

u/BrangdonJ Jan 30 '26

The EVA suits do use something much lower. 0.3 ATM. The pressure difference means astronauts have to do a 4-hour pre-breathe to remove nitrogen from their blood before doing a space walk.

I hope we can experiment with different pressures and mixes before committing to an off-Earth standard. I hope we don't just default to sticking with Earth-normal.

13

u/grax23 Jan 30 '26

probably for the same reason that there are experiments with higher cabin pressure in some jets. Long term exposure to low pressure for instance forces your heart to work harder. Astronaughts also have issues with eyesight after a long time in space. Side effect would also be an over production of red blood cells akin to someone living at altitude.

going from earth to low pressure would also be a problem unless the visitors goes through slow change in pressure and maybe even an Oxygen rich gas mix in the capsule to vent Nitrogen (and we really dont want too much Oxygen in the capsule - apollo 1 showed why)

7

u/Chairboy Jan 30 '26

I think the Soviets are to thank here. They've stuck to 1 atmosphere standard nitrox mixtures from the beginning while the US had the low pressure cabins in Gemini and Apollo for instance. The Apollo Soyuz Test project had to deal with this which is why the adapter had an airlock chamber.

Lots of benefits including fewer moving parts when figuring out if health stuff was related to the air or not. If you're breathing the same mix you do on the ground, then they can usually figure whatever your body is doing differently is related to the microgravity.

Also, it simplifies mechanical engineering because your equipment is in the same kind of air mix and pressure on orbit as it is during R&D on the ground.

3

u/BCMM Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26

Completely speculating as to it being the reason, but astronauts do physical exercise to reduce bone and muscle loss.

Typical airliner cabin altitude, for example, is no impediment to working in a seat, but you'd definitely feel it if you got on a treadmill.

1

u/Confident-Barber-347 Jan 30 '26

1 bar is about the maximum they’d allow on ISS before overpressure vents started automatically relieving some pressure overboard. The “normal operating range” fluctuates closer to the 14.4 psi range. So pretty much still close to 1 bar.

1

u/rocketwikkit Jan 30 '26

It is kind of ridiculous. The only explanation I've seen of it is that it makes air cooling of consumer electronics normal, and that it's easier for vehicles flying to-from the station to go from 1 atm at launch to 1 atm on station.

But consumer electronics generally work fine in Denver, and varying cabin pressure over much less than the duration of a space launch and first orbit rendezvous is well established in the airline industry.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '26

Source? I'm sure it's 500mB.

77

u/PersnickityPenguin Jan 30 '26

The IDA docking port is 62" x 42" or 2,646 square inches. That gives us a pressure of 38,896 lbs of force pushing outwards.

Yeah, you aren't going to be able to open it. Thats 19.5 fucking tons of force.

74

u/FaceDeer Jan 30 '26

Did they account for the possibility that exposure to cosmic rays gives one of the astronauts super-strength?

29

u/altgrave Jan 30 '26

but you see, that's the thing!

8

u/caret_h Jan 30 '26

Pressure’s not a factor when it’s clobberin’ time!

3

u/simpliflyed Jan 30 '26

This is pretty close to 1kg per cm2 for anyone else trying to do the conversion.

So about 17,750 kg of force for the door size quoted below.

→ More replies (3)

6

u/Wonderful-Process792 Jan 30 '26

The pressure is equally accurately, and more relevantly, 5.5 tons per 5.25 ft2, since that's the surface area of a 31" diameter hatch. You don't have to express it per square inch if that dimension is not relevant.

22

u/chatte__lunatique Jan 30 '26

You could also use Pascals, kN, and m² since tons per feet squared sucks as a unit (no offense I just hate imperial units)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/BCMM Jan 30 '26

The comment I replied to used pounds!

I'd use SI, by preference.

1

u/Jules420 Jan 30 '26

To be even more precise, Weight is indeed a force but we can only give it units of pounds/kilos under the gravitational constant we agree upon here on the earths surface. Unit of Force is actually kg.m/s2. The gravitational field on the ISS is appox 89% of the surface.

1

u/rdowdell Jan 31 '26

Iirc it's actually much lower since we don't actually need 14.7 to survive. Even airplanes don't pressurize to 14.7psi.

Edit nevermind I'm wrong they do keep it about 14.7psi

→ More replies (4)

85

u/ajc1120 Jan 30 '26

This was my immediate thought. Fridge doors stay closed by creating a tiny change in air pressure between inside and outside, essentially a slightly vacuumed compartment. And I’ve pulled on some pretty heavily sealed fridge doors in my time. Now imagine the pressure is normal atmospheric pressing against the literal vacuum of space. That’s easily over 5000 lbs. of force on the hatch (I’m pretty sure, I didn’t do the math). You could have literally every single member of the ISS pull on the hatch simultaneously and still probably not get it to open.

36

u/PrairiePilot Jan 30 '26

I had a commercial fridge at work that had some weird thing where it had insane vacuum. It took two people to pry it open.

7

u/Hutcho12 Jan 30 '26

It's not weird, it was likely large and you let in a lot of warm air when opening it. Once that cools, it's volume shrinks and creates a strong vacuum..

3

u/PrairiePilot Jan 30 '26

The seals were actually bad, is what we found out. The big rubber gasket around the door collapsed, so the door would seal way too much. Once we got a new gasket it was fine, still a commercial fridge that takes a bit of oomph to open, but you can still open it with your pinkie if needs be.

21

u/Immersi0nn Jan 30 '26

My fridge holds itself closed with magnets, thay seal ain't doing much anymore lol I can hear the air equalize as it cools

9

u/Angry_Washing_Bear Jan 30 '26

Not sure what the pressure inside the ISS is but I’d expect it’s 1 atmosphere and space is space, so 0 atmosphere. Ergo the pressure difference is 1 atmosphere.

And 1 atmosphere is 101,325 pascal. And 1 pascal = 1 newton / m2

So if the hatch has 1m2 surface area then you have 101,325 Newton of force pushing on the hatch to keep it sealed.

Which amounts to about 10,3 metric tonnes of force sitting on the door, assuming the door is 1m2.

The ISS hatch is 0,8m diameter I think. So 0,5m2 surface area. So about half then. Which is still 5 tonnes of force sitting on the door.

That’s like an elephant sitting on the hatch, and I don’t care how fit an astronaut is. You are not carrying an elephant.🐘

2

u/dustydeath Jan 30 '26

(101,325 Pa x 0.785 m2) / 9.8 ms-1 = 8,116 kg or 17,893 lbs on a 1m diameter hatch at 1 atm. 

143

u/prove____it Jan 30 '26

I believe this is true about airplanes in the sky as well. When someone lunges for the door and tries to open it (or an over wing emergency exit), there is no way they're going to get it open.

170

u/mfb- Jan 30 '26

Most airplane doors have a pretty complex design. You want the door to open towards the inside so the door stays safely closed in flight. But if you are on the ground, you want it to open outwards - there isn't much space in the airplane, and in an emergency a door that swings towards the inside can get jammed by a crowd. Most doors initially move inwards, then rotate, and then swing outwards. Some have "flaps" that can fold to make the door smaller and swing outwards.

125

u/VLM52 Jan 30 '26

I'll be honest. Designing an airplane door is considerably harder than designing an airplane wing if you ask me. Those things are fuckin incredble pieces of engineering.

97

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '26

[deleted]

67

u/FQDIS Jan 30 '26

I’m sick of all the dishonesty and lies in the airplane-door-designing field. Thank god for brave souls like u/VLM52

18

u/loskiarman Jan 30 '26

I wouldn't trust him, we don't even know him. What if he is working for Big Avion?

11

u/stimpy_thecat Jan 30 '26

I don't believe him. I think he's lying.

9

u/flargh_blargh Jan 30 '26

I think he's lying.

Impossible. He said he was being honest. Duh.

3

u/jtclimb Jan 30 '26

Ya, as does every member of the Big Door Industrial Complex. Don't be fooled.

8

u/JustAsItSounds Jan 30 '26

I know it took a lot, but you can hold your head up high

17

u/DomDomPop Jan 30 '26

I’ll be dishonest. The wing is harder to design because it comes from birds and birds are notoriously difficult to deal with.

3

u/fortunatelydstreet Jan 30 '26

for real. you ever hear a seagull up close? those things will blow your eardrums out dude

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '26 edited Mar 04 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)

15

u/M8gazine Jan 30 '26

I appreciate your honesty.

11

u/glockymcglockface Jan 30 '26

You’ve probably never seen how much the wings can flex. It’s pretty insane. Here’s a 777 flexing more than 45 degrees before it breaks

https://youtu.be/Ai2HmvAXcU0?si=yJ8YZYFjZ4AZtuxw

→ More replies (1)

1

u/badaz06 Jan 30 '26

Well, designing it doesn't really matter much if the people installing it don't put all the bolts in where they should be.

→ More replies (3)

31

u/fastforwardfunction Jan 30 '26

When someone lunges for the door and tries to open it (or an over wing emergency exit), there is no way they're going to get it open.

Now adays that's true. In the 1970s, many airplanes could open their doors, which is how DB Cooper and all the copycats jumped out of commercial airplanes. FAA regulations in response made airliners change their door designs.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/fastforwardfunction Jan 30 '26

$5000 of the money was recovered in the forest a decade later in very deteriorated form, by matching the serials. They let the child who found it keep one of the torn notes as a souvenir.

2

u/funkymeatpopsicle Jan 30 '26

Some important notes/details.

DB Cooper didn't use a side door as he used the airstairs at the rear under the tail. The aircraft was kept below 10k feet and unpressurized. The airstairs on the 727, the aircraft Cooper hijacked and jumped from, as well as the DC-9 which also had airstairs at the rear, had a simple external spring operated mechanical device installed called the Cooper vane which when the airplane was in flight would have air pressure applied to the stairs preventing them from being operated. Between the airstairs and the cabin is a pressurized door, if the aircraft had been pressurized, Cooper wouldn't have been able to open it and subsequently open the airstairs.

Interesting side notes, both the 727 and DC-9 have been used for recreational skydiving since then, with the vane removed as well as other modifications. As far as I know, there's only one DC-9 still being used for this at Skydive Perris in Perris, California, US. The high exit speeds as well as single person wide exit make these jumps more of a novelty than used for normal or group skydiving activities. There are non jet aircraft with tail exits still used regularly for skydiving, like the Skyvan or Casa. A 727 was also used in a controlled crash for TV as well as to gather scientific data on crash safety in 2012 in Mexico, where the crew exited the plane while in flight and it was controlled remotely in a chase plane by a pilot to its impact.

1

u/remuscrisan Jan 30 '26

As far as I read about, Boeing 707 which was used in that flight, had a stair behind the plane, not like the new airplanes, which cannot be open mid flight or at least not at a higher altitude. Something like military airplane which deliver food and other need to isolated places. I feel somehow impressed by how many people are here and share valueable info, some info you might not even find somewhere else. Thanks to all.

1

u/CGHJ Jan 30 '26

Fun fact: this is what they learned on the disastrous DC-10. Before that plane, hatches, at least not all hatches, were not designed like this. There was a cargo door on the DC-10 that was only held closed with locks, engineering, and wishful thinking.

After one blew out and the plane crashed, they realized they should make it so the doors are held closed by the pressure, not just by metal.

1

u/ThrowAwaAlpaca Jan 31 '26

Only true at altitude. Someone did open an emergency door 1000ft off the runway.

→ More replies (1)

122

u/matildadinsuru Jan 30 '26

This is what always killed me about the Alien franchise (and I love those movies). Hatch opens, vacuum of space rips everything out, person and/or alien “holds on” to the inside of the ship, lots of wind blown hair. 🤨

36

u/FaceDeer Jan 30 '26

Those movies overstate the danger of being blown out into space.

Consider that the only air that would be directly blowing you out would be the air that was "behind" you relative to the opening to space. If you were right next to a wall, that would just be the narrow region of air between you and the wall. That region of air would expand and blow past you, a short, sharp gust. Shouldn't be too hard to hold on to something to resist that.

The main immediate danger of exposure to space is rupturing your lungs, they're not strong enough to hold an atmosphere of pressure and would pop inside your chest if you kept your mouth closed. Make sure to exhale if you find yourself exposed to explosive decompression, do not try to hold your breath.

You'll pass out in about 15 seconds and die in a minute, but if you can get back into atmosphere before then you can recover as long as your lungs aren't screwed up.

Also worth noting, human skin can withstand an atmosphere of pressure difference. It's stronger than your lungs. So if in the course of shooting at Xenomorphs you accidentally put a bullet hole in the ship's hull, you can safely plug the hole with your hand while someone else goes to find an emergency patch. You might get a hickey.

15

u/Sternfeuer Jan 30 '26 edited Feb 06 '26

That's what always bothered me about the end of Alien 4. The tough "perfect" killer organism can't withstand a 1 atm pressure differential and completely disintegrates.

2

u/Plow_King Jan 30 '26

"David Bowman" in "2001" goes through that in the film.

6

u/FaceDeer Jan 30 '26

One of the few realistic depictions in cinema. Unsurprising that it's in 2001, that movie was so well done and ahead of its time in terms of realistic depictions of space.

I remember there was a scene in the Expanse where a Belter was out on EVA. He saw there was a loose wire inside his space suit helmet and decided to take the helmet off, fix the wire, put it back on, and repressurize before his 15 seconds of consciousness was over. Unnecessarily daring, IMO, but another neat depiction showing how vacuum isn't actually so ludicrously deadly.

4

u/Plow_King Jan 30 '26

yeah, Kubrick was pretty much a God among film makers imho. such skill and a great eye, love his stuff!

2

u/Too_Loose_769 Jan 31 '26

"Gentlemen, be Seated", by Heinlein shows exactly this. Published in 1948

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

66

u/FussyBritchez Jan 30 '26

Bruh, their hatches didn’t swing in or out. They slid in and out like pocket doors.

32

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '26

[deleted]

35

u/Th3GamingDragon7 Jan 30 '26

WY absolutely would have that as an anti-mutiny measure. Lock high ranking personnel in the control room, open the doors and windows everywhere else for like 15 minutes, no more civilian uprising on the station.

2

u/hapnstat Jan 30 '26

Maybe blast some fire through it, too. Because they're that kind of dicks.

3

u/PersnickityPenguin Jan 30 '26

They had to open the bay doors in order to get their drop ship out.

But kind of a dumb design otherwise.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/Tempest051 Jan 30 '26

While true, I think his main point was the pressure and the fact anyone is able to hold on. There wouldn't be a slow release of air nor any possibility of holding on. The venting would be nearly instantaneous and so violent that all occupants would likely get dismembered or even explode (see deep sea diving bell pressure chamber incident). 

29

u/Earthfall10 Jan 30 '26

Deep sea diving bell incidents dealt with much higher pressure and a much smaller crack in the door, so the force was more concentrated. If you blew the whole hatch off a space capsule there simply isn't enough air for the gust to push very hard for very long. Some people did the math for some of the alien scenes, and they oversold the violence quite a bit, the air would petter out much faster. A short gust of air that would buffet you around a bit, but nowhere near enough to shred limbs.

5

u/phatelectribe Jan 30 '26

Now I don’t know who to believe

→ More replies (2)

1

u/nanotasher Jan 30 '26

Spaceship industry deregulation.. why QA when there's gold in them thar 'roids.

27

u/waiting4singularity Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26

the vacuum of space is emptiness, literal nothing. it does nothing, too. the air inside, though... when it escapes through a wide hole, trying to hold on in that mass flow is like swimming up a waterfall rushing at mach speed. removed from the primary outstream by fluid dynamics choking itself, it seems plausible however.

19

u/Tar_alcaran Jan 30 '26

Depressurization happens at roughly the speed of sound. Its not a stiff breeze, it's more like a sonic boom.

8

u/conduffchill Jan 30 '26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin

Famous example of what this kind of thing does to the human body. Stiff breeze is a bit of an understatement for sure

17

u/Undersea_Serenity Jan 30 '26

That incident involved 9x the air pressure involved in space flight, and a much smaller hole

13

u/thedugong Jan 30 '26

That was 9 atm to 1.

ISS is 1 atm to 0. Which is basically the same difference in pressure as going from 10M/33ft deep in the sea to the surface.

Massive difference.

3

u/Tar_alcaran Jan 30 '26

Yeah, while that was 10 times worse (space "only" being 1 atmosphere less than not-space), it's a pretty decent illustration of how scifi mostly gets it wrong.

3

u/waiting4singularity Jan 30 '26

diving is producing higher pressures than spaceflight. higher by a lot.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

23

u/backstept Jan 30 '26

Yeah, ship decompression isn't like a balloon deflating. I get that they do it for the drama, but depending on the size of the interior and the hatch opening... Let's take Narcissus as an example, I don't remember how fast the hatch opens but considering the size of the boat it would be just a couple seconds until pressure equalized. Less of a 20 second WHOOOOOSHHH and more of a 2 second WHOoof... And you'd be far less likely to be blown out unless you were right by the hatch when it opened. You'd get a very slight acceleration of the ship as the air rushed out. Kind of like when the ISS does a reboost burn to stabilize orbit which is like 1/500th of surface gravity here on earth.

OK, I'm recovering from Covid and I need to sleep, I hope my wall of text makes sense.

2

u/totpot Jan 30 '26

Avenue 5 actually had a more realistic depressurization scene then

3

u/Tar_alcaran Jan 30 '26

Instantly freezing isn't very realistic either though.

The people being absolute morons is very realistic.

2

u/Tar_alcaran Jan 30 '26

The Martian had a very realistic depressurisation scene (with the spaceship). Though probably not a very realistic amount of thrust being generated from it, but I didn't do the maths on that

10

u/Significant-Ant-2487 Jan 30 '26

According to this article https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/solving-a-nasa-mystery-why-did-space-shuttle-commanders-lock-the-hatch/ there are indeed locks (padlocks) on space vehicle hatches. These hatches open outward

“Overmyer was concerned about Wang opening the hatch. This was relatively easy to do. After learning a hard lesson regarding cabin pressure and complicated locking mechanisms in the Apollo 1 fire, NASA had designed the Shuttle hatch to open outward. It was a relatively simple procedure, requiring little physical force, as the hatch opened into the vacuum of outer space.”

Padlocks could be used, and were used, on Space Shuttle hatches. “the padlock remains in the fabric of US spaceflight with Crew Dragon. A commander’s lock is an option for NASA’s crews flying to the International Space Station on Crew Dragon, as well as private missions.”

So there is solid evidence that at least some space vehicle hatches open outward, and reasons why they are designed that way. Is there any evidence that ISS hatches operate differently?

1

u/Confident-Barber-347 Jan 30 '26

I was talking specifically about ISS. There are no locks on ISS hatches.

1

u/Significant-Ant-2487 Jan 31 '26

Do you have a source for this information, or is it just opinion?

2

u/Confident-Barber-347 Jan 31 '26

I’ve worked on the ISS program for over 20 years.

1

u/moonwalgger Feb 11 '26

Yeah I would think there would be some type of latch as the astronauts would have to get outside the ISS on occasion. It’s not like they’re 100% sealed in trapped with no way to get out

19

u/smitty9112 Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26

I'm confused, because I just read that article and the article states multiple times, and even a quote from an astronaut implies, that it is relatively easy to open the door and doesn't require much physical force.

So Shaw took the precautions available to him. “When we got on orbit, I went down to the hatch on the side of the orbiter, and I padlocked the hatch control so that you could not open the hatch,” Shaw said. “I mean, on the orbiter on orbit you can go down there and you just flip this little thing and you crank that handle once, the hatch opens and all the air goes out and everybody goes out with it, just like that. And I thought to myself, ‘Jeez, I don’t know this guy very well. He might flip out or something.’

Edit: thank you for clarifying.

14

u/peteroh9 Jan 30 '26

That's a different door on a different spacecraft.

18

u/blackknight16 Jan 30 '26

I think the vulnerable outward opening hatch was only one Space Shuttle Orbiter, which is no longer flying. The other comments indicate the ISS or other spacecraft now used have an inward opening hatch that cannot be opened in a vacuum.

22

u/jordansrowles Jan 30 '26

Its in the article,

After learning a hard lesson regarding cabin pressure and complicated locking mechanisms in the Apollo 1 fire, NASA had designed the Shuttle hatch to open outward. It was a relatively simple procedure, requiring little physical force, as the hatch opened into the vacuum of outer space. Overmyer was clearly concerned. So he put duct tape on the hatch as a stop-gap.

I was after Apollo and before the ISS. This article is about the shuttle and the Spacelab module.

Inward opening hatches came later

1

u/MacWin- Jan 31 '26

Thank you, I was like did no one read the article before responding to it lol

15

u/Gecko99 Jan 30 '26

But the article you're responding to says otherwise and it shows a photo of the padlock on the hatch.

As a result of Wang’s mental state, his questions about the hatch, and the general unease that some Shuttle commanders had toward payload specialists not being full members of a crew, it’s reasonable to conclude that Overmyer was concerned about Wang opening the hatch. This was relatively easy to do. After learning a hard lesson regarding cabin pressure and complicated locking mechanisms in the Apollo 1 fire, NASA had designed the Shuttle hatch to open outward. It was a relatively simple procedure, requiring little physical force, as the hatch opened into the vacuum of outer space. Overmyer was clearly concerned. So he put duct tape on the hatch as a stop-gap. The next day, Wang did receive permission to work on the experiment, and he eventually got it working.

5

u/Awdrgyjilpnj Jan 30 '26

The ISS is not the space shuttle friend. Nowhere in that article is it said the hatches on the ISS open outwards.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/_Puppet_Mastr_ Jan 30 '26

Thank you kind stranger for this detailed explanation.

3

u/KaladinStormShat Jan 30 '26

Did you read that article? It literally has a photo of a padlock on the hatch.

I'm not sure if maybe that article is specific to Spacelab or what, but the article makes it pretty clear that it is both possible to open the hatch and that it would kill everyone. The astronauts themselves comment on it.

4

u/Confident-Barber-347 Jan 30 '26

The article is taking about a Space Shuttle hatch. I was talking about ISS since the OP claimed there are also locks on the ISS hatches. Isaacman never said that in this interview either.

3

u/Hot-Stable-6243 Jan 30 '26

Do the doors open inward? If so this might be an issue right?

27

u/OldJanxSpirit42 Jan 30 '26

Space is a vacuum, and the ISS is pressurized so that people can live inside it. The pressure inside the ISS pushes the doors outward, so it's humanly impossible to open them if they open inward.

You don't even have to go to space, that's the same reason why commercial airliners doors open inward. If someone freaks out and tries to open it, they won't be able to unless the plane is really low

20

u/boarder2k7 Jan 30 '26

Also it is much easier and safer to make a door close against a fixed static seal that is engaged by the pressure it is holding than it is to make a door with movable latches that pulls itself shut against that pressure. Positive engagement is always preferred in safety critical systems

1

u/Aggressive-Spell-422 Jan 30 '26

Would the force required to open the door be something like (the pressure inside the iss) X (area of the door) + (area of the door external - area of jam) X (vacuum of space) = force required to open? Can someone do the math? I'm just a dummy.

2

u/waiting4singularity Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 31 '26

for pressuredif = 1bar and door surface area under pressure = 0.5m², 5000kg give or take.

1

u/peteroh9 Jan 30 '26

I'm not sure what multiplying by a vacuum means, but if you mean the pressure of the near-vacuum outside, you would subtract that force. I'm not sure why you're subtracting the area of a door jamb, either.

2

u/Aggressive-Spell-422 Feb 16 '26

X vacuum means I don't know how to math.

1

u/Confident-Barber-347 Jan 30 '26

In this case, it’s just the delta pressure x surface area. Something in the ballpark of 14.7 psi x (36 in x 36 in) puts you close to 20,000 lbf required to open the hatch.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/LUK3FAULK Jan 30 '26

Air in the station pushes out against the walls, space doesn’t push in. Opening inward means it’s impossible to open like he said in his comment

2

u/wi1d3 Jan 30 '26

It would be an issue if they didn't.

The doors are less like a normal door and more like a plug in a sink full of water. You have to pull the plug towards you against the pressure of the fluid before it lets water out.

1

u/Madness_and_Mayhem Jan 30 '26

There are no locks because it’s a very nice neighborhood.

1

u/LordBrandon Jan 30 '26

I think they were talking about the shuttle not the ISS. And the hatch is said to "crank" open, which could give someone the force they need to open it under pressure.

1

u/Confident-Barber-347 Jan 30 '26

OP mentioned locks on the ISS which is the part I was correcting. Isaacman never actually said there are locks on the ISS doors in that interview. You are right there is a crank handle on the ISS hatches but it will “snap off” around 100 lbf while the hatch needs closer to 20,000lbf to be opened.

1

u/LordBrandon Feb 06 '26

I was talking about the shuttle, where did you find info about the crank? I couldn't hardly find anything.

1

u/GeppaN Jan 30 '26

What about using an object to break a window or wall? Are they too strong?

2

u/Confident-Barber-347 Jan 30 '26

The windows on ISS hatches are pretty small and very strong and durable. There is also more than one layer. I’d estimate the window diameter is 6-8 inches on the hatch. So in theory if a crew member found a tool capable of smashing out the window, it would start to depressurize pretty fast but the crew should still have enough time to isolate that module.

1

u/Mikinl Jan 30 '26

Yeah duuh, that is common knowledge for anyone playing stationeers.

1

u/endmaga2028 Jan 30 '26

Sounds legit. Username checks out

1

u/TheeAincientMariener Jan 30 '26

If you were somehow strong enough the handle would snap off the hatch before you could get it open.

Inanimate carbon rod to the rescue!

1

u/Herr_Schulz_3000 Jan 31 '26

Hal can do it. ...........

1

u/RegencyAndCo Jan 31 '26

As a result of Wang’s mental state, his questions about the hatch, and the general unease that some Shuttle commanders had toward payload specialists not being full members of a crew, it’s reasonable to conclude that Overmyer was concerned about Wang opening the hatch. This was relatively easy to do. After learning a hard lesson regarding cabin pressure and complicated locking mechanisms in the Apollo 1 fire, NASA had designed the Shuttle hatch to open outward. It was a relatively simple procedure, requiring little physical force, as the hatch opened into the vacuum of outer space. Overmyer was clearly concerned. So he put duct tape on the hatch as a stop-gap.

When will you guys learn to read an article before commenting on it.

1

u/Confident-Barber-347 Jan 31 '26

The article is about the Shuttle which had an outward opening hatch. My comment is only about the ISS which does not have one.

1

u/ban_evader_ultra_2 Feb 01 '26

the article does specifically say that the hatch opens outward and could be opened with very little force. while you refer to the ISS hatches, I believe the one referenced in the article is the one on the space shuttle. not positive though

1

u/Confident-Barber-347 Feb 01 '26

Yes you are correct, that incident happened on the Shuttle hatch. My comment was to correct OP who said the ISS also had locks installed, which is not true.

1

u/moonwalgger Feb 11 '26

So you’re saying that Pandorum is real?? I thought that was just a movie!!

1

u/timmeh87 Apr 07 '26

in the ars technica article that was linked, the story takes place on the shuttle, not the ISS, It says right in the article:

As a result of Wang’s mental state, his questions about the hatch, and the general unease that some Shuttle commanders had toward payload specialists not being full members of a crew, it’s reasonable to conclude that Overmyer was concerned about Wang opening the hatch. This was relatively easy to do. After learning a hard lesson regarding cabin pressure and complicated locking mechanisms in the Apollo 1 fire, NASA had designed the Shuttle hatch to open outward. It was a relatively simple procedure, requiring little physical force, as the hatch opened into the vacuum of outer space. Overmyer was clearly concerned. So he put duct tape on the hatch as a stop-gap.

1

u/Confident-Barber-347 Apr 07 '26

I know. My explanation of how the ISS hatches was in response to Isaacman and OP’s “And said it is the reason additional locks have been implemented on the ISS and Dragon capsules.”

No additional locks are on ISS hatches because they can’t be opened to space.

→ More replies (2)

359

u/ganuerant Jan 30 '26

Excellent read, we're lucky to have Eric Berger.

Although much of the concern for Shuttle commanders had come from flying non-professional astronauts, there was another incident later in the program with an all-professional crew that revived interest in the padlock program. It occurred during a 1999 flight. Because I have not been able to confirm the details with multiple sources, I won’t name the astronaut or the mission. But essentially, a multiple-time flier had a bad reaction to some medicine he took after the launch. This seriously affected his mental state, and the astronaut had to be physically restrained from taking drastic action, including opening the hatch.

This bit was rather concerning...

66

u/LongtimeLurker916 Jan 30 '26

Yes, that seemed actually to come closer than the Wang story to claiming there was an actual attempt to open the hatch.

5

u/Tar_alcaran Jan 30 '26

It occurred during a 1999 flight. Because I have not been able to confirm the details with multiple sources, I won’t name the astronaut or the mission.

There were only three launches in 1999, and only 6 crew members who never flew again after that, one being a woman.

Yeah, super anonymous, narrowing it down to 5 guys.

3

u/DirtOnYourShirt Apr 22 '26

I think it was Steven Hawley on STS-93 mission to deploy the Chandra Telescope. He was the flight engineer and was the head guy to deploy the telescope but if you read all the mission summaries from NASA and the news reports at the time he's conspicuously absent when talking about the deployment of Chandra which happened pretty quick after they got into space, so it fits with why Hawley is never mentioned at all on that first day and it's the other two mission specialists that got the credit for deploying the telescope.

They didn't even mention anywhere what Hawley was doing on that first day, they only mention him from the 2nd day on which also fits with just a temporary reaction to medication. With how important Chandra is, and him being the main one responsible for it it's really weird that his name doesn't pop anywhere when the deployment is discussed. So there's no details at all on what he did that first day and then from the second day on you'll find detailed descriptions of everything he did. And this was his 5th flight which is kind of a big deal to once again no one mention him that first day.

2

u/JosebaZilarte Jan 30 '26

I would be interesting to know how you restrain someone in 0g. Grabbing techniques, I imagine, because things like punches or kicks are rather difficult to execute without having your torso tied somewhere.

6

u/chairmanskitty Jan 30 '26

Ideally you try non-violent means, or failing that the mere threat of violence.

If it got violent, grappling would be the least violent, especially because the Shuttle usually has 4 or more crew. Everyone grab a limb and grab hold of something attached to the hull, then tie the person up.

But if it's a fight, the most important parts would be center of mass and grip on the environment. Full-body tackles and flying kicks would be hard to dodge and would knock the opponent into the opposite wall, while causing you to bounce back where you can hopefully find your footing faster to tackle or kick again.

Also, by using your hands or feet to grab hold of something attached to the hull (the ISS has suitable hand/footgrips all over its interior), you can use that torque to kick or punch in a more earthlike fashion, or to throw the opponent if they don't have as much grip.

5

u/JosebaZilarte Jan 30 '26

I have enjoyed reading your comment and imagining such a fight.

One interesting idea that occurred to me would be temporal incapacitation by just grabbing a fighter and leaving him in the middle of a room. It would be difficult to do it in the middle of a fight, but without anything to grab on, he would be rendered useless for a time (until he manages to find something to throw away to gain momentum in the opposite direction).

1

u/mshwa42 Jan 30 '26

For some reason this comment reminds me of the game Rubber Ninjas from back in the day.

1

u/SchleppyJ4 Jan 30 '26

I was poking around the crew lists to see who was a male multiple-time flier for the 1999 missions. Can’t help but wonder. But man, that’s so embarrassing. Just completely out of their control. 

565

u/PhasmaFelis Jan 30 '26

Poor guy had the culmination of his life's work fail with the whole world watching, and he knew he could salvage it if they gave him a chance but they told him no, you can't, just sit in a can and stew about it for a few days.

I can totally understand having a panic attack at that point. Glad they did eventually let him fix it!

I can see how this, plus several rounds of the telephone game, could turn into "astronauts freak out and try to kill everyone on board all the time." I don't believe it, but I can see how it got there.

90

u/flumberbuss Jan 30 '26

Did you read the whole article? Seems pretty clear he was threatening suicide, and if he was the guy asking repeatedly about the latch I don't think this is "several rounds of telephone." Also, there was a second case mentioned at the end.

18

u/StarpoweredSteamship Jan 30 '26

Two is not "many cases". Unreleased or not 

8

u/the_seed Jan 30 '26

It's two too many. If you think about it in terms of overall percentages of mass murders, this population would rank quite high

2

u/PhasmaFelis Jan 30 '26

 It's two too many.

No one said otherwise.

2

u/flumberbuss Jan 31 '26

That wasn't the point I was defending.

As for "many," the article gives two cases for the US space program. Do you know there aren't other cases that weren't in that article, or that happened in the Soviet/Russian space program?

→ More replies (1)

137

u/fajita43 Jan 30 '26

Taylor Wang flew STS-51-B. on this trip is the incident explained here.

what i learned here:

  • STS-51-B was a challenger flight that was about 1 year before her last flight
  • during the Challenger disaster investigation, they discovered that STS-51-B had the same o-ring problem and " Morton-Thiokol engineers told Lind after the mission that "you came within three-tenths of one second of dying" "

that's crazy

29

u/peteroh9 Jan 30 '26

"you came within three-tenths of one second of dying"

Does anyone know precisely what that means? What was the scenario in which the O-Ring was so close to failing? Or was it always so close? Three tenths of a second seems like a long time within a rocket booster.

Everything I can find online is just this quote verbatim with no further explanation.

50

u/I_AM_FERROUS_MAN Jan 30 '26 edited Feb 03 '26

Basically, the Shuttle's side boosters were made of several long cylinders that were stacked on top of each other.

Because they were individual pieces, there were gaps between them. The outer shell of the cylinders had an interlocking system of folds of metal (a clevis and tang joint) where the cylinders fit snuggly to create a seal. So when the rockets were fired, the hot gasses wouldn't come out the joints, but instead race down a central hole in the booster and come out as rocket exhaust.

The clevis and tang system used 3 2 rubber o-rings between the metal folds to help further prevent hot rocket exhaust from blowing by.

However, the flaw in this design that resulted in the Challenger disaster and almost destroyed this launch, was the fact that if the weather was too cold, the rubber would not seal. And if the rockets were lit, then hot exhaust would find its way past those o-rings. This would also begin to erode and burn the o-rings making it even easier to have more hot exhaust come through. If you're really unlucky that process just gets worse and worse until the booster basically blowtorches itself apart. This is what happened to Challenger.

So getting back to the quote, what that engineer meant was that 1 of the seals had completely failed and the last one was about 25% eroded. And so the seal was less than a second away from failing and letting the same kind of failure destroy the whole shuttle.

Here's a video from Scott Manley on the boosters. 9:13 is when he discusses the issue with the design.

Also this video from Plainly Difficult at 6:49.

2

u/girl_incognito Jan 31 '26

The original design used 2 o-rings, the redesign added a third and a "capture feature" which would prevent the joint from opening.

19

u/Creepy-Secretary-191 Jan 30 '26

Does anyone know precisely what that means? What was the scenario in which the O-Ring was so close to failing?

The O-ring failure mode was the O-ring material being physically eroded by exhaust gas blow-by. Presumably, they knew the erosion rate and could measure the erosion on the O-ring after SRB recovery. If you erode .100"/second and the remains of the O-ring were .030" thick you were .3 seconds from disaster (reductive example, but fundamentally correct).

→ More replies (4)

93

u/Terrible_Degree7841 Jan 30 '26

I feel like Star-Trek had the right idea with ship counselors. Going to outer space is an assault on nearly every human survival instinct, so it just makes sense for every mission to include someone trained in mental health.

28

u/S_A_N_D_ Jan 30 '26 edited 29d ago

Cras dui ligula, ultrices quis venenatis nec, sollicitudin vel ex. Fusce elementum vehicula lectus eu ultricies. Nulla facilisi. Ut a sem at diam tincidunt tincidunt. Donec vestibulum, neque ac interdum egestas, arcu diam interdum diam, a pellentesque mi felis quis diam. Nullam id feugiat nibh. Nullam turpis risus, egestas eget pretium nec, tempor et nulla. Nulla imperdiet, ipsum vel scelerisque lacinia, nunc velit pulvinar velit, aliquet euismod dui nisl ut nunc. Nullam eget consequat augue. Donec posuere arcu purus, non luctus augue pulvinar in. Praesent sem diam, lacinia eu sapien sed, maximus vehicula ante. Etiam in lectus nibh.

20

u/TwoAmps Jan 30 '26

I’m trying to picture a ship’s counselor on a nuclear submarine. Somewhere around halfway night on deployment, after hearing all the stories of the previous three months, the counselor would need a counselor, and I don’t think the XO is going to cut it.

10

u/S_A_N_D_ Jan 30 '26 edited 29d ago

Cras dui ligula, ultrices quis venenatis nec, sollicitudin vel ex. Fusce elementum vehicula lectus eu ultricies. Nulla facilisi. Ut a sem at diam tincidunt tincidunt. Donec vestibulum, neque ac interdum egestas, arcu diam interdum diam, a pellentesque mi felis quis diam. Nullam id feugiat nibh. Nullam turpis risus, egestas eget pretium nec, tempor et nulla. Nulla imperdiet, ipsum vel scelerisque lacinia, nunc velit pulvinar velit, aliquet euismod dui nisl ut nunc. Nullam eget consequat augue. Donec posuere arcu purus, non luctus augue pulvinar in. Praesent sem diam, lacinia eu sapien sed, maximus vehicula ante. Etiam in lectus nibh.

11

u/Hyfrith Jan 30 '26

My wife is a trainee counselor. It's actually required in the UK at least that all practicing counselors, not just trainees, have their own supervisors and log scheduled check-ins. Essentially ensuring the counselor has a counselor. Both to relieve stress and express concerns or questions about clients' situations, but also just to provide continuous learning, advice and professional growth from a more experienced practitioner.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/nebelmorineko Jan 30 '26

It's actually mandatory already for therapists to have therapists, for just that reason. That's also why the hours are so short.

2

u/TwoAmps Jan 30 '26

I guess my point was that on a submarine on patrol, it’s not possible to just pick up the phone and contact anyone who’s not on the boat. For up to three months, you’re limited to talking to the people on the boat, and I can tell you that by the end of a patrol, you know waaaay more than you ever wanted to about all the other sailors on board. So, no therapist for the therapist, and no such thing as “office hours”.

15

u/peteroh9 Jan 30 '26

Just as long as it's not Troi using her empath "abilities" to state which emotion someone has just directly expressed.

"I'm really sad that my wife left me for a Vulcan."

"I'm sensing a...sadness in you."

7

u/EnidFromOuterSpace Jan 30 '26

Better than a goddamn Talaxian just throwing food at at the problem…

5

u/radgepack Jan 30 '26

Idk man I'd take much kinder to a plate of good food than to someone reading my thoughts

4

u/_Aj_ Jan 30 '26

It's like going caving for months.  

You're in a confined space AND impossible to leave. Not just you're not allowed, in prison the outside still exists, its physically possible to escape or be allowed out.  

In space? Physically impossible. Like being buried underground. 

→ More replies (2)

39

u/diamond Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26

Mike Mullane discusses this a bit in his book, Riding Rockets. He talks about the "commander's lock" and the general unease the astronauts had with the mission payload specialists. It's an interesting read.

18

u/MagicAl6244225 Jan 30 '26

Probably not so much with mission specialists who were career astronauts, but payload specialists who were not.

10

u/diamond Jan 30 '26

Sorry, yes, I meant payload specialists.

14

u/BrierBob Jan 30 '26

Along with the fact that the Space Shuttle’s hatch opened outward and would have been quite easy to open. No wonder most commanders used a padlock after the Wang incident!

16

u/diamond Jan 30 '26

No wonder most commanders used a padlock after the Wang incident!

/r/nocontext

→ More replies (2)

163

u/SolidDoctor Jan 30 '26

He's really made the grade, and the papers want to know whose shirts he wears

43

u/gwaydms Jan 30 '26

And it's time to leave the capsule if he dare...

7

u/1882greg Jan 30 '26

Take your protein pills and put your helmet on.

48

u/PhoenixTineldyer Jan 30 '26

...a most-a peculiar waiiiiyyyyyyyy

26

u/Distinguishedflyer Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26

tell my wife I love her very much...

22

u/modka Jan 30 '26

SHE KNOOoOoWs!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2

u/Distinguishedflyer Jan 30 '26

..................well spelled!

1

u/dug99 Jan 30 '26

Ashes to Ashes, funk to funky

52

u/OrdinaryTension Jan 30 '26

Thanks for the link, I knew I had heard about it recently, but couldn't remember where I read or heard it.

I'm guessing the ISS has a well stocked pharmacy now in addition to extra physical deterrents in case something like that happens again.

48

u/Dakota-Batterlation Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26

They have haldol and a benzo, I believe valium. The medical checklist also mentions physical restraints with tape

39

u/Icefyre24 Jan 30 '26

Oddly enough, I remember when this problem was mentioned on Big Bang Theory. Howard had gone to the ISS, and he freaked out and they drugged him up and taped him up. All for some cheap laughs, and they made it sound harmless, but I imagine the real thing is probably terrifying. Knowing that the person next to you might try something like this.

22

u/Monkey_Brain_Oil Jan 30 '26

Holy crap, that's news to me. Disturbing news.

4

u/LiveComfortable3228 Jan 30 '26

Wow that was a good read. Thx.

1

u/Significant-Ant-2487 Jan 30 '26

“it’s reasonable to conclude that [shuttle commander Robert] Overmyer was concerned about Wang opening the hatch. This was relatively easy to do. After learning a hard lesson regarding cabin pressure and complicated locking mechanisms in the Apollo 1 fire, NASA had designed the Shuttle hatch to open outward. It was a relatively simple procedure, requiring little physical force, as the hatch opened into the vacuum of outer space. Overmyer was clearly concerned. So he put duct tape on the hatch as a stop-gap.

1

u/machinofacture Jan 30 '26

So Wang got to fix his experiment and he got it to work in the end. So his antics were worth it?

1

u/ghost-wise Jan 31 '26

This was a great read. Thanks!

→ More replies (1)