Meteor

[Senior Maldonado]

Where did the poisonous cloud come from if the fumes where not toxic? Senor Maldonado states both things!
Why should Tibo have climbed the cedar in that scenario?

It would be interesting to see, where I stated that. Perhaps, you refer to Sergey Sogrin's view of the events. Mr. Sogrin indeed says that the tent was affected by poisonous cloud (nitric acid evaporations, if I remember correctly) from the R-12 missile. Thibo, according to him, climbed high on the Cedar tree, fell, and cracked his skull against the tree's protruding roots. But that is Mr.Sogrin's theory, not mine! I consider nuclear powered rocket with environmentally friendly LH2 in the tanks, although H₂ mixed with air burns like hell. Thibo in my theory is a victim of explosion, which caught him and 3 more hikers in the ravine.

You are obviously right about Krivonischenko's burns. They are not beta burns. It's clear that not only his body was burnt, but also pants and underpants. But it also means that he received the burns not in a fire near the Cedar tree. Even if he had been desperate to warm his leg directly in the fire, he would have put off his pants, underpants, the sock before stretching the leg into flame. The hikers were short with clothes, why should he destroy his frost protection?

[Missi]

Of course it's just a theory. I believe, we won't get more than a theory that far away from the actual time the incident happened. But even a theory should be sound and not contradicting itself. That's why I tried to show all details contradicting each other.

I do agree, that there's not only concepts on paper and then there's a functional engine. Yet, the first prototype, according to your excerpt (you might want to share its source?) was much later than 1959. I do agree that there were probably models tested or experiments with parts of the components. But those would have been either small scale or at the direct vicinity of the research institution, not far away in the Urals. If they were real life size, they would've called it a prototype.
I believe you refer to the radioisotope rocket, when you say radioisotope engine? I couldn't find that specific combination of words. I also couldn't find a hint that there were other developers than one in the USA, which in my opinion doesn't mean much. Do you have any sources that hint to the USSR experimenting with those? Referring to the research in the USA it's said however, that it was during the 1960s, so too late.

You are right, I read the summery you provided of Sogrin's statement and took it for your words. Then, if you don't suggest the hikers left intoxicated and in a rush to flee the gases, what do you think was the reason for their hurried abandoning of the tent area? And if they were not intoxicated, what made them pick those horrible choices as to leave their equipment behind?

Still, I'm not sure how those in the ravine would have been that much affected by the assumed explosion. Shouldn't the layout of the land have provided them with protection against a shockwave?

And finally: If we agree, that Krivonischenko's burns are not from a beta emitter and not from the fire by the cedar: What caused them, according to your theory?

Please understand, I'm trying to understand what you suggest happened.

[Senior Maldonado]

Missi, you ask very valid questions, and I hope I will manage to answer at least majority of them.
 

you might want to share its source?

The source is this article:
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1200421/
 

The first prototype, according to your excerpt was much later than 1959. I do agree that there were probably models tested or experiments with parts of the components.

The article talks about nuclear engines with reactors. These are advanced models that can handle engine's thrust. I fully agree that their prototypes came later than 1959. For DPI I consider much simpler engine, which is powered by radioisotope's natural decay and cannot handle thrust at all -- it works non-stop and cannot accelerate or brake. To build such engine is much easier than to build engine with a reactor. Basically, you need a container with radioisotope and a pump which runs LH2 through the container. The implementation and radioisotope selections could be like that (1 - H₂ tubes; 2 - isotope's container, 3 - nozzle):




 

if you don't suggest the hikers left intoxicated and in a rush to flee the gases, what do you think was the reason for their hurried abandoning of the tent area? And if they were not intoxicated, what made them pick those horrible choices as to leave their equipment behind?

In short, I think that when the rocket bumped the slope, all hikers were inside the tent. The rocket did not explode, but on falling from cosmic hight it produced something like an earthquake, which collapsed northern part of the tent and piled up some amount of snow on it. The natural action in that situation would be to leave the collapsed tent asap. So the cuts were made, and all hikers escaped through them. But they did not run immediately downhill. While most of the hikers grouped at about 7-8 meters from the tent, one or two guys  returned to the tent and strated inspecting it with a torch. At the same time, two other guys, Krivonischenko and Doroshenko, were sent to investigate the fallen object, which created all that mess. It was key to understanbd what had arrived from sky and what were the risks. On approaching the object (rocket), they were affected by cryogenic H₂ and extreme heat from isotope's container (or burning H₂). They signaled the rest to retreat immedeatly, and all the group started descent to the forest.
 

I'm not sure how those in the ravine would have been that much affected by the assumed explosion. Shouldn't the layout of the land have provided them with protection against a shockwave?

The ravine is right in front of the treeline, which means it is not protected by the trees. It is not deep at all. Shock wave from an air explosion, which happens at certain height, would reach the ravine's bottom no problem.

[Ziljoe]

I believe the ravine is side on to any blast coming from the tent direction and the ravine in question has a number of trees Infront of it to perhaps a distance of over 100 meters before we get to the ravine . There are trees before the ravine and the ravine would act as protection if they were in it. There is also a line of trees ( spruce I think) close to where Zina was found that would be in the direct path of any shock wave . We also have the Mansi chum photo that shows a free standing construction that wasn't blown over. Why would all these trees not be damaged?.

[SURI]

The same goes for the den. The shock wave will throw the hikers off and not even touch the den a few meters away? And will it line up the hikers in a row on one square meter?

[Missi]

Thank you, Senior Maldonado. And also thanks for the link. I'll try to look into it, as well as the explanation about the rocket part.

Relating to the evacuation of the tent:
Something I can't judge, because I lack any experience in winter hiking, is the effect the impact would have had. I'm reasonable sure, the earth would react and one would feel it. But would it feel similar to an earthquake? Similar to an avalanche? Would a mountain hiker consider that feeling as sign or maybe possible cause for an avalanche? If so, the escaping could be seem indeed necessary as soon as possible and the cutting of the tent may be reasonable, because once in the forest, one can cope by building shelters. If there was not the feeling of imminent danger, no sane person would have cut open the tent in the middle of a storm on a mountain with days away from other people. In the end, this is a point, I think, we can't prove wrong or right, because we can't ask how they judged the situation and the danger.
I can only say, that, camping in summer, I'm always very reluctant of leaving my tent to evacuate, when there's a storm, even if it's not in the middle of nowhere and I'm not about to freeze when stepping outside. But then again, there's no danger of avalanches there.

Relating to the ravine:
According to Teddy, you have to move through the ravine to get to the cedar. That means, at least the bigger part of the forest is not shielding the ravine from possible blasts. Some sketches and drawn maps show trees between ravine and tent. I don't know, I've never been there and especially I haven't been there back then. It might have changed by now.
I was rather referring to how a blast wave travels and that it might not be possible to get into a ravine. That was indeed a question or maybe a suggestion, because I simply don't know. I'm also not sure if it might be possible to duck close to the nearer edge to get cover from a blast when waiting for it to arrive, after witnessing the light from an explosion. I do somehow doubt however, that injuries as bad as found by the pathologist would have been acquired inside the ravine. Open for proof however. :)

And then there's what SURI and Ziljoe suggested: How would it be possible, that all trees in the vicinity weren't affected at all, if the blast wave was SO hard, it caused that much injury on the hikers?
Plus: Where did it happen, that it didn't leave marks on the tent?

[Senior Maldonado]

I believe the ravine is side on to any blast coming from the tent direction and the ravine in question has a number of trees Infront of it to perhaps a distance of over 100 meters before we get to the ravine . There are trees before the ravine and the ravine would act as protection if they were in it. There is also a line of trees ( spruce I think) close to where Zina was found that would be in the direct path of any shock wave . We also have the Mansi chum photo that shows a free standing construction that wasn't blown over. Why would all these trees not be damaged?.

Ziljoe, I wonder where you see tree protection for the ravine in 1959?



On next picture I will try to illustrate where the rocket landed and where the cloud of H₂ had exploded.

[Senior Maldonado]

The same goes for the den. The shock wave will throw the hikers off and not even touch the den a few meters away? And will it line up the hikers in a row on one square meter?

What do you expect to hapрen with the den? The den had been already laying at the bottom of the ravine. The shock wave mostly acted from UP to DOWN. Thus the den could be pressed deeper into snow only. Probably, that was the case.

Talking about 4 hikers in the ravine -
The shock wave did not send them into long flight for dozens of meters. It kicked them down to the bottom of the ravine, leaving their heels where they were. It's important that Thibo's skull and Ludmila's & Semyon's ribs were not cracked directly by the wave. The bones were cracked by hard landing on the creek's rocks. The rocks were partially covered by snow. Where a body met a rock, it was a crack. Where a body met snow, there was nothing.

[Ziljoe]

Sorry Senior Maldonado , I was assuming the blast was from the crashed rocket close to the tent. As I understand it , the rocket fell from orbit releasing gas or fuel on its way down . 30 minutes later there is the explosion from this gas cloud which I would think is 360 degrees or ultimately in every direction.

I would expect multiple broken branches and a layer of needles and at least twigs at the time of the explosion. This layer of debris would have shown up with the discovery of the clothing and twigs in May would it not?

If you say the cracks and injuries occurred from the impact with the ground then that differs from the blast wave implied by the doctor , I think the autopsy says injuries caused by , fall, crush or squeeze. I think a shock wave t or air blast causes different damage .

In the photo of the ravine you show , many of the shrubs and small trees are buried by the snow in that photo which means 3 meters of snow was drifted into a basically empty ravine in the 3 weeks of the incident . All the hikers would have suffered the blast would they not?

What happened to the crashed rocket out of interest?

[Senior Maldonado]

The rocket fell from orbit releasing gas or fuel on its way down . 30 minutes later there is the explosion from this gas cloud which I would think is 360 degrees or ultimately in every direction.

Ziljoe, let me comment on this.

I think that the rocket was 3-stage, and the upper stage was experimental LH2 radioisotope stage. It was expected that the 3rd stage got to an orbit, where it would be flying powered by its primitive nuclear engine. But it had never reached the orbit. Something went wrong, and instead of flying up, the 3rd stage crashed to the Earth. As the 3rd stage never started, it had full tanks of LH2. Isolated in tanks, hydrogen cannot explode, it needs oxydizer for that. So, an explosion did not happen when the rocket touched the ground. However, the tanks were leaking, H₂ penetrated the air and was dragged by the wind the direction of the forest and the ravine. The explosion happened not in 30 min, but in 3-4 hours after the rocket had landed. The hikers had time to descend to the Cedar tree, to light a fire, to make a den.

Sure, when H₂ cloud blasts in the air, shock wave goes 360 degrees. And it is important that shock wave from such a blast is not like shock wave from exploding a bomb! But here we come to explosions theory, which is a separate topic.

[Senior Maldonado]

What happened to the crashed rocket out of interest?

Evaquation team came to the DP in the next few days after the incident. They took the crashed stage and at the same time discovered the empty and collapsed hiker's tent. Since evaquation team is supposed to evaquate rockets' parts and not corpses, they did not even attempt to find the bodies. They reported their finding to headquarters, and it was further reported to Moscow. And Moscow started shadow criminal case, asking local residents (like Mr. Popov), if they know anything.

Or do you think better idea was to leave the rocket to Mansi?

[Missi]

Okay, I hadn't completely grasped, what you build up here.
Let me get that straight:

The group is inside the tent. The rocket stage crashes close by. The hikers leave the tent in panic, because they think, there's an avalanche or an earthquake. While some still grab some equipment, some go and investigate. Finally they move down the slope, while a cloud of hydrogen builds up from the damaged tanks of liquid hydrogen.
Then what? The ravine 4 were in the ravine, where they were hit by the blast? Why weren't the others with them, if the den seemed to be a good shelter? Why did someone climb that damned tree? Shouldn't the blast have popped their eardrums, if - as you suggest - it was bad enough to pop their eyes? Taking it there was a storm going on, would there even be a cloud of hydrogen? Why did it explode in the first place? If the crash site of the rocket stage was near enough to affect the snow as much that the hikers decide to abandon the tent, why was the tent not ripped to shreds by the explosion? Why weren't there any signs of smoldering on it?

There was a part I wanted to add about the evacuation of the rocket stage, but I can't think of it right now. Maybe it will come to me again later...

[Senior Maldonado]

The group is inside the tent. The rocket stage crashes close by. The hikers leave the tent in panic, because they think, there's an avalanche or an earthquake. While some still grab some equipment, some go and investigate. Finally they move down the slope, while a cloud of hydrogen builds up from the damaged tanks of liquid hydrogen.

Yes, this is how I see it. The tent has no windows. When it collapses, there is no way to see from inside what happened outside, people feel like trapped in a sack. The only desire should be to get out asap. When they are inside it is not possible to understand what the danger is -- avalanche, earthquake, meteor, etc. When the hikers got out, they recognized that the mess was triggered by an object, which had fallen from sky. Next action is to evaluate what threat it incurs. Two scouts were sent to investigate the object better -- Krivonischenko and Doroshenko. That were their footprints that kept separately at the beginning.

Then what? The ravine 4 were in the ravine, where they were hit by the blast?

Yes, the ravine 4 were hit by the blast, when they started emergency retreat from the den down the creek. But that was the very last episode of the DPI.

Why weren't the others with them, if the den seemed to be a good shelter?

When the den was being constructed, two Yuris lay dead under the Cedar tree. Three more hikers (Zina, Rustem, Igor) lay dead or uncoscious on their way back to the tent.

Why did someone climb that damned tree?

There is no proof that anybody climbed the tree. A torn off branch was observed at about 5m height, but it is not clear what happened with the branch.

Shouldn't the blast have popped their eardrums, if - as you suggest - it was bad enough to pop their eyes?

Not all shock waves tear eardrums. To do that, front of the wave should be really strong. It is more typical for shock waves from bombs and shells to tear eardrums and also arms and legs.

Taking it there was a storm going on, would there even be a cloud of hydrogen?

Maybe, a cloud was not formed in a usual sense. We can talk about hydrogen concentration in the air. Concentration of 4% is enough to lead to volumetric explosion, if source of ignition is present.

Why did it explode in the first place?

Something ignited the cloud -- sparkle from the fire at the Cedar tree, strike of a match, short circuit in the rocket's equipment...

If the crash site of the rocket stage was near enough to affect the snow as much that the hikers decide to abandon the tent, why was the tent not ripped to shreds by the explosion? Why weren't there any signs of smoldering on it?

Rocket's stage crash site and explosion's epicenter are two different spots with a good distance between them. H₂ was dragged by wind away from the rocket, and the highest concentration was formed far away from the rocket and the tent. At the moment of explosion the tent lay collapsed, its 80% buried under snow, the wave was not able to damage it.

[Missi]

Okay, now I think, I know a little better, what you suggest. Let me ask some questions.

The separated footprints, didn't they go downhill? Does that mean, you think the rocket stage crashed somewhere downhill? How could it be responsible for snow on the tent?

(Plus I myself can not imaging cutting my tent, even if it collapses on top of me, but that's a different aspect.)

So the ravine 4 tried to retreat from the den. Where to? What had happened to the others by then? Why did they separate? Why did Zina, Igor and Rustem try to go back up the hill?

There is mentioning of someone climbing the tree:

Maslennikov
”The lower dry branches of the cedar were broken up to 2 m high. Somebody climbed the tree, because the branches 4 or 5 m high were also broken.”

And I thought I read somewhere, that traces of skin or something were found on the cedar, but I can't find that one right now, so maybe I imagined that...
So what do you suggest happened to the branch?

About the eyes, it seems, that it would be possible to have a blast that doesn't hurt the ears but the eyes get hurt even though by shrapnel. So you might have a point there...

About the cloud: I don't care what exact form you imagine. I think that's rather beside the point. Relevant is: Where do you think the aggregation of gas would build up? And yes, if it is enough, it's possible that heat or a spark would ignite it. But: If it's ignited by heat of the crashed rocket, the gas must be near enough. If it's ignited by the fire by the cedar, it must be close enough to said fire. And if it is, I would imaging, that it'd singe the Yuris as well as some trees.
I very well can imagine the gas cloud being far enough away from the tent not to hurt that and far away from the cedar not to hurt the trees there. But then the central point of ignition can't be near the tent or the fire at the cedar. And if it can't be close to the tent but was ignited by the rocket somehow, then the rocket too must have been quite some distance away from the tent. Leading back to the question why its crash influenced the area of the tent that much, that the hikers left it in panic, even if they couldn't see what was happening outside. We have to keep in mind, that that tent was somewhat of their lifeline, their lifesaver in an ocean of snow and cold and loneliness.

[Senior Maldonado]

And I thought I read somewhere, that traces of skin or something were found on the cedar, but I can't find that one right now, so maybe I imagined that...

You have read that in Lev Ivanov's article "Mystery of the fireballs":
"On the bark of the tree there were frozen (it’s scary to even say it!) their skin of their inner thighs and scraps of underwear. All this covered the cedar bark."

However, we do not have evidence from anybody else on the subject. And it's highly unlikely that Ivanov found that biological material at 5m height. I doubt he climbed that high. So, it leaves us a question mark what happed with the upper branch. Of course, it could be torn off by a hiker, who climbed there. It also could be torn off by weight of snow, which accumulated on it. Or maybe that was result of the blast. For me that branch is just minor thing which gives us nothing, as we are lacking evidence.

Does that mean, you think the rocket stage crashed somewhere downhill? How could it be responsible for snow on the tent?
Where do you think the aggregation of gas would build up?

No, in my theory the rocket's stage crash spot was higher than the tent's level. It was either almost at the top of the ridge or even at the other side of the slope close to the ridge. I want once again drag your attention to the photo taken by Lev Ivanov in May 1959.



You can see on the slope a kind of dark river, which runs from the ridge and gets wider. It ends up with a kind of dark lake at the bottom of the slope. I think this "river" represents a path along which gas from the rocket advanced towards the forest. The main aggregation of the gas was above "the lake", and that was the epicenter. The hikers footprints got preserved at the intersection of their path down and the gas' path towards the forest.

[Missi]

And I thought I read somewhere, that traces of skin or something were found on the cedar, but I can't find that one right now, so maybe I imagined that...

You have read that in Lev Ivanov's article "Mystery of the fireballs":
"On the bark of the tree there were frozen (it’s scary to even say it!) their skin of their inner thighs and scraps of underwear. All this covered the cedar bark."

However, we do not have evidence from anybody else on the subject. And it's highly unlikely that Ivanov found that biological material at 5m height. I doubt he climbed that high. So, it leaves us a question mark what happed with the upper branch. Of course, it could be torn off by a hiker, who climbed there. It also could be torn off by weight of snow, which accumulated on it. Or maybe that was result of the blast. For me that branch is just minor thing which gives us nothing, as we are lacking evidence.

You're right, that was the source of my memory. Good, it was interfering with Teddy's theory as well. So we can scrap that part.

Concerning the other part of your post:

I believe, there were about 300m from the tent to the top of the ridge. Would that be enough for your rocket stage to land and your theory all together?
If the stage landed on the other side of the ridge, would the gas really been blown over the ridge and down the other side? Is that plausible?
Why did the gas meander down and not go straight? Doesn't the wind blow straight down the hill?

And what about the point of crash? Wouldn't there be damage to the stone, if the stage crashed near the top of the ridge? There are usually areas in which the snow has completely blown away or just a very thin cover stays.

[Senior Maldonado]

I believe, there were about 300m from the tent to the top of the ridge.

About 150m, according to this source:
https://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-309-312

If the stage landed on the other side of the ridge, would the gas really been blown over the ridge and down the other side? Is that plausible?
Why did the gas meander down and not go straight? Doesn't the wind blow straight down the hill?

To be precise, we are talking about hydrogen. Hydrogen is very light, and it goes up, when it leaks to atmosphere. But when wind blows from top of a hill down, at least part of hydrogen has to follow the wind and go down. Sure, major part of hydrogen goes up, the dangerous concentration was formed not at the ground level, but high in the air.

And what about the point of crash? Wouldn't there be damage to the stone, if the stage crashed near the top of the ridge? There are usually areas in which the snow has completely blown away or just a very thin cover stays.

Have you heard anything about Mikhail Sharavin's circle of blown snow? Mikhail was the first who saw the tent on February 26th. His interview can be found here:
https://samlib.ru/p/piskarewa_m_l/sharavinkontakt.shtml

From the interview:

"Question: In one of your interviews, you said that not far from the Dyatlov group's tent, there was a circular area of blown snow that was clearly visible. Do you think it could have been a trace left by a helicopter landing there? You saw helicopters landing and taking off many times after that. Can you compare them? Did they leave similar traces?

Or was the snow melted and icy, i.e., as if it had been melted? But again, in the shape of a circle?

M. Sharavin: As for the patch of blown snow, this was reported in a radiogram message from the search team.

The circle of blown snow was larger than that left by a helicopter propeller. Later, this notebook with all the search reports was confiscated by the “competent” authorities, the room was closed, and the duty was terminated. This is evidenced by one of the duty girls at the time, Galya ..., who made a confession, i.e., a statement 50 years later."

That patch of blown snow perfectly matches rocket's stage crash spot, imho.

[Missi]

150m is even closer to the top, than I remembered. Thanks for the link.

Hydrogen, yes, I agree with what you say according to how hydrogen behaves. My questions are of a very specific kind, because details are very plausible. But do those details fit together?
You say, the rocket stage could have landed on the other side of the ridge. Assuming it did. What could have made the hikers leave the tent? The impact? A light or explosion? Would it be possible that enough hydrogen was blown over the top of the ridge exactly to were the tent was to make them leave the area altogether? If not, what else made them leave the tent?

And then we're back at the question: If most of the hydrogen went up in the air and the explosion you suggest happened up there, what ignited the gas? Up there was no fire and no hot remnants of the rocket and no electric sparks, if there was not by chance a lightning storm as well.

How do you suppose the hydrogen made that dark area down the slope?

Yes, I did read about that circle. I always attributed it to helicopters. You believe it might have been the exact point, the rocket stage hit? Isn't it very improbable that it landed in that form and not on its side? And wouldn't it leave marks on the stone of the mountain as well?

[Senior Maldonado]

You say, the rocket stage could have landed on the other side of the ridge. Assuming it did. What could have made the hikers leave the tent? The impact? A light or explosion? Would it be possible that enough hydrogen was blown over the top of the ridge exactly to were the tent was to make them leave the area altogether? If not, what else made them leave the tent?

Nevermind where exactly the stage landed, it shook the slope (like artificial earthquake), which in turn collapsed the tent at its northern side. The hikers found themselves trapped inside and had no idea what had happened and what would be next. In such situation of total uncertainty natural reaction is to escape the tent asap. When tent's roof lay on their heads and bodies, and the exit was blocked by their equipment and packed food, cutting the tent for emergency exit might had been a right idea.

In the next few minutes they sent two scouts to the crash spot, as they needed to know what had arrived from sky and how it could hamper their camp. On approaching the rocket the scouts faced its exhausts (extreme heat and extreme frost) and received severe burns and frostbites. They ran away and signaled the rest of the group to retreat immediately, as the wind dragged the exhausts the direction of the tent.

If the crash spot was on the other side of the slope, it is clear why the search team had not found anything on the tent's side.

And then we're back at the question: If most of the hydrogen went up in the air and the explosion you suggest happened up there, what ignited the gas? Up there was no fire and no hot remnants of the rocket and no electric sparks, if there was not by chance a lightning storm as well.

Candidate number one is a spark from the fire at the Cedar tree. Igor Dyatlov got frozen in 300m from Cedar, which for me indicates presense of cryogenic hydrogen at that distance. In some time hydrogen cloud might have moved much closer to Cedar. The ignition might have caused at first hydrogen deflagration, but when it came to the core of the cloud it turned into detonation. Imho, many models of initial ignition and further flame expansion can be built.

[Missi]

In order to evaluate the effects and the possibility of your suggestion, it is important where exactly the stage landed, because depending on the exact spot, the effects are different, that's why I insist repeatedly on the exact spot.
Anyhow, I agree, the crash should have produced something that feels like an earthquake. It might have collapsed part of the tent.
I try to imagine, what a situation like that might feel like. I have experience in camping. Although I sometimes use modern tents, I also know canvas tents. I know what it's like, when you're inside, while it's not fully build up (holding poles and stuff) and I've lived through storms inside that tent, although my experience was during summer. This experience makes me think, that even if you don't know what's happening outside (noise and earthquake) and you want to leave as soon as possible, you don't cut your tent. Out in the wild, that tent is your home, it's what protects you from wind, cold and rain and gives you a little shelter at night, which makes you feel a little safer. They knew that. They wouldn't have cut the tent if it wasn't beyond repair in the first place or there was NO other way. And you don't place all your stuff in front of the entrance. Beside it, yes. Sometimes there's only a slim way left and you have to maneuver to not trip and fall, but you don't block your entire entrance. There's always one who's gotta pee in the middle of the night.

But let's go on. It sounds probable that scouts were sent. The concentration of hydrogen should be enough in a proximity of 10 to 30 m to be dangerous (this is what perplexity suggests). Furthermore there obviously can be an area that's both cold and hot enough to create burns and injuries because of the cold, while still not producing an explosion (I'm surprised perplexity suggests this is possible), but this would lead to frost bites and similar injuries on exposed skin and singed clothing rather than explicit burns to the skin. I believe the most fitting victims would be the two Yuris. But then there's still the mystery why they ventured outside scouting without boots and jackets!

Furthermore, it seems to be theoretically possible for a hydrogen cloud to build up and the wind blowing down some kind of gaseous fuse, that's ignited by the fire. However the probability of such a cloud building plus a fuse building, that's highly concentrated enough and doesn't have missing parts plus an ignition happening in such manner, that it actually reaches the cloud seems to be rather small. In most cases (it seems) the ignition under circumstances like those on the pass leads to the gas just burning silently away.

I don't say it couldn't have been. I only say it's rather improbable, it seems. Although I must admit, that it's one of the most consistent theories I've read so far. There's still things I find strange though.

[sarapuk]

If a blast was responsible for the demise of the group how come bodies were found in various locations and positions with some injuries that were very unusual.

It is important to understand that the blast killed only Ravine-4 hikers. Those hikers were the only ones who managed to keep alive till then. All other hikers had been either dead or unconscious by the time of the blast. Many people think that a rocket should explode immediately when it hits the ground. Probably, for most cases that is true. But DPI is different -- the blast had happened IN A FEW HOURS after the rocket bumped the slope. We can recall Evgeniy Okishev words from his 2013 interview:

"Shortly before that we met with a worker of one of the prison camps in the North Urals. He described strange flashes of light which he and his wife saw late that evening on their way home from the cinema. The light came from the direction of the supposed accident with the hikers. We also received evidence from other local residents, and all of them spoke about a similar phenomenon".

So, local residents saw the flash from the explosion late in the evening, while the hikers ran from their tent early in the evening (they had not finished to change their clothes after climbing the slope and had not started their evening meal). That gives 3-4 hrs gap between the rocket's landing and the blast.

For the hikers, who were not Ravine-4, cause of their death was not the blast. It was hypothermia. You may object that hypothermia does not work that fast, so people get dead within 3-4 hrs. And you will be right, if we consider natural environments. But we should keep in mind that typical rockets' fuel components are cryogenic liquids -- LOX, LH2, etс. If there is a leakage of such stuff from a tank, it boils and evaporates mixing with air. Air temperature that in winter is low by itself, on getting cryogenic add-on might become EXTREMELY LOW. We remember that winds of the Pass blow from top of the slope downhill, the direction of the Cedar tree and the Ravine. Any attempt to return from the Cedar tree to the tent means that hikers have to get closer to the rocket's leaking tanks and face extremely low temperatures. Thus hypothermia would develop very quickly. Zina, Rustem, and Igor attempted to return, and they got frozen in dynamic poses.

Where is the evidence that the 4 in the ravine died because of blast injuries and where is the evidence of the timescale of the deaths of the group ??

[sarapuk]

Yes, the ravine4 died of different injuries than the ones who died of hypothermia, but we should also keep in mind YuriK’s terrible leg burns. Pain from burns is extreme and it is suggested he bit off his finger in his attempt to bear the pain. So yes, the end results was probably hypothermic death, but the burns played a significant role.

I guess that Krivonischenko received his burns not from the Cedar's tree fire. All hikers reached the Cedar tree together. Other hikers would not had allowed him to put his leg in the flame and receive the burns. In my view he received the burns, when he tried to approach the fallen rocket's stage at the very beginning of the incident. Working rocket's engine is a good source of heat. It's also possible that they were beta burns, since a mysterios beta emmiter might had arrived with the rocket.

Where is the evidence for a fallen rocket stage ?

[sarapuk]

I have added some marks to your article, the blue ones, which state that although the idea was already there in the late 1950s, the main research came later and it was during that later time, when the practical aspects were addressed and the first prototype was build. So it's highly improbable that this kind of rocket was the culprit for the demise of the dyatlovites...

First, I want to say that what I suggest is just a theory, and as it cannot be proved 100% there might be different options within it.

Yes, USSR had been attempting to create robust nuclear rocket engine for decades, and that is understandable. It is not possible to jump from nothing to a fully industrial nuclear engine immediately. Very long and hard work is required to reach this goal. Nobody expects that USSR had rocket engine powered by nuclear reactor already in 1959. However, much simpler experemental models could have come already. In a simple scenario you still have traditional chemical rocket, but you add radioactive material to preheat chemical components of its fuel, which are probably cryogenic.



Another simple approach is to build radioisotope engine, which uses thermal energy of natural decay of an isotope. Such engine has obvious drawbacks, but they are not so critical if you put the engine in an upper stage. Upper stage starts when it is in cosmos already, where engine's thrust is not significant and main benefit is high specific impulse.

I also believe that conceptualy new rocket engine cannot be designed on paper only. In this case it will fly on paper only as well. At each step you need to make experiments to select best way to proceed. E.g. you need to define which isotope you will use in the final model. and for that you need to try many of them in practice.

Actually it cant be proved any percent. There is zero evidence for rockets or such like.

[sarapuk]

Missi, you ask very valid questions, and I hope I will manage to answer at least majority of them.
 

you might want to share its source?

The source is this article:
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1200421/
 

The first prototype, according to your excerpt was much later than 1959. I do agree that there were probably models tested or experiments with parts of the components.

The article talks about nuclear engines with reactors. These are advanced models that can handle engine's thrust. I fully agree that their prototypes came later than 1959. For DPI I consider much simpler engine, which is powered by radioisotope's natural decay and cannot handle thrust at all -- it works non-stop and cannot accelerate or brake. To build such engine is much easier than to build engine with a reactor. Basically, you need a container with radioisotope and a pump which runs LH2 through the container. The implementation and radioisotope selections could be like that (1 - H₂ tubes; 2 - isotope's container, 3 - nozzle):




 

if you don't suggest the hikers left intoxicated and in a rush to flee the gases, what do you think was the reason for their hurried abandoning of the tent area? And if they were not intoxicated, what made them pick those horrible choices as to leave their equipment behind?

In short, I think that when the rocket bumped the slope, all hikers were inside the tent. The rocket did not explode, but on falling from cosmic hight it produced something like an earthquake, which collapsed northern part of the tent and piled up some amount of snow on it. The natural action in that situation would be to leave the collapsed tent asap. So the cuts were made, and all hikers escaped through them. But they did not run immediately downhill. While most of the hikers grouped at about 7-8 meters from the tent, one or two guys  returned to the tent and strated inspecting it with a torch. At the same time, two other guys, Krivonischenko and Doroshenko, were sent to investigate the fallen object, which created all that mess. It was key to understanbd what had arrived from sky and what were the risks. On approaching the object (rocket), they were affected by cryogenic H₂ and extreme heat from isotope's container (or burning H₂). They signaled the rest to retreat immedeatly, and all the group started descent to the forest.
 

I'm not sure how those in the ravine would have been that much affected by the assumed explosion. Shouldn't the layout of the land have provided them with protection against a shockwave?

The ravine is right in front of the treeline, which means it is not protected by the trees. It is not deep at all. Shock wave from an air explosion, which happens at certain height, would reach the ravine's bottom no problem.

Its all very well posting these drawings etc but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest a rocket crashed.

[Senior Maldonado]

Where is the evidence that the 4 in the ravine died because of blast injuries and where is the evidence of the timescale of the deaths of the group ??
Where is the evidence for a fallen rocket stage ?
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest a rocket crashed.

You are desperately looking for evidence, aren't you? I am afraid that the only person, who can help you, is Lev Ivanov, as it is his professional responsibility to find evidence and to put it into the case files. But Ivanov died at the end of 90s, so I really do not know who else could help you with getting evidence.

While you are in search for the evidence, we may have a look at another interesting piece of information. In 1962, CIA made a report on the early days of the USSR's Space program. In that report we can see:



CIA reports quite high failure rate for USSR's lunar and interplanetary launches -- about 70%. However, if we take official results of the 1959 launches, we will see that 3 out of 4 launches to the Moon were successful, which gives us impressive 25% failure rate. Definitely, we have a considerable mismatch here. Could it be that there were more launches, but they were not reported? And CIA also mentions that USSR had issues particularly with upper stages...

[sarapuk]

Where is the evidence that the 4 in the ravine died because of blast injuries and where is the evidence of the timescale of the deaths of the group ??
Where is the evidence for a fallen rocket stage ?
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest a rocket crashed.

You are desperately looking for evidence, aren't you? I am afraid that the only person, who can help you, is Lev Ivanov, as it is his professional responsibility to find evidence and to put it into the case files. But Ivanov died at the end of 90s, so I really do not know who else could help you with getting evidence.

While you are in search for the evidence, we may have a look at another interesting piece of information. In 1962, CIA made a report on the early days of the USSR's Space program. In that report we can see:



CIA reports quite high failure rate for USSR's lunar and interplanetary launches -- about 70%. However, if we take official results of the 1959 launches, we will see that 3 out of 4 launches to the Moon were successful, which gives us impressive 25% failure rate. Definitely, we have a considerable mismatch here. Could it be that there were more launches, but they were not reported? And CIA also mentions that USSR had issues particularly with upper stages...

Well if I'm desperately looking for evidence then I'm not alone. The whole point of this forum and other forums and sites is to try and figure out what happened and that requires us to search for evidence.

[Senior Maldonado]

Well if I'm desperately looking for evidence then I'm not alone. The whole point of this forum and other forums and sites is to try and figure out what happened and that requires us to search for evidence.

You are right, we all want to know what happened at DP in February 1959. But I do not think we can find any extra evidence besides those pieces found in 1959. Lev Ivanov and his colleagues had been working hard for a few months, and we have to leverage on what was found those days. Of course, sooner or later new evidence will come, but it will not be due to our efforts. There is a chance that old USSR secret archives will be made public, and then we will get to know true cause of the incident. Before it happens, we are to make a best guess, IMHO.

Another topic is what could be called "evidence". In theory, evidence should be provided by case files. The question is: what is status of the known case files? If we go deeper into this topic, it will become clear that the case files is unofficial document, which has the same level of credibility as recollections of Mr.Sharavin, Mr.Sogrin, Mr.Okishev, provided many years after. The case files were fabricated by Ivanov at request from the Moscow big boss - Leonid Urakov. The case files' only purpose was to provide a due folder for the investigation's closing statement, and having that statement on hand to finish the investigation and stop any further attempts to understand what happened with the hikers. The case files has no number, which means this documets has been concealed from official registration, which is mandatory. Inside, it has a lot of violations of USSR's Code of Criminal Procedure, but all these violations "were overlooked" by Ivanov's supervisors. Yes, the case files contain a lot of genuine documents, but alltogether they give no clue what was the cause of DPI. The case files offer very shaky evidence!

[amashilu]

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/new-map-shows-frequency-of-small-asteroid-impacts-provides-clues-on-larger-asteroid-population/

This is a NASA paper reflecting the number of bolide events around the globe.
I was amazed to see that maybe the largest concentration of such events across the world occurs right where the DPI was. Image below.