
1962 U.S. Military Ejects Bear from B-58 to Test Escape Capsule - peeze
http://airpigz.com/blog/2010/4/2/b-58-proves-supersonic-ejection-to-be-bear-able-in-1962.html
======
toomanybeersies
The comments from different people who were allegedly involved in the project
seem to contradict each other. So I did a bit of hunting to find out what
injuries the bears suffered, if any, and what their fate was.

I've managed to find the "white paper" referenced by one of the commenters:
Impact Acceleration Stress, 1961 [1]. There is also a feel-good propaganda
movie that you can watch, detailing the program while missing out that they
killed the bears [2], instead saying that they went under a "customary
detailed examination".

One bear died while ejecting, as it was suffering from hydrocephalus (build up
of spinal fluid in the brain) before flying, and with the added stress of the
ejection must have caused terminal brain injuries. One bear suffered
laceration to the liver, attributed to being over-sedated. At least one bear
suffered whiplash and a fractured pelvis.

It doesn't specify exactly how many bears were used in testing, but I counted
7 from the tests they did (6 ejecting from the jet, one on a sled), plus one
chimpanzee ejected form the jet. I highly doubt there were hundreds of bears,
they cannot have been cheap to acquire or easy to keep.

All the animal test subjects were killed and autopsied afterwards.

Robert Sudderth, the Project Officer that commented, corroborates this paper,
saying that the bears were not used a second time. John H Watson says that no
bears were injured, but that could be just that he wasn't told.

[1]
[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WTQrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92&dq...](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WTQrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92&dq=b-58+bear&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fp_PUM3pNu-n0AHah4HwBA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

[2] [https://youtu.be/-KLnqorLgDM](https://youtu.be/-KLnqorLgDM)

~~~
weinzierl
> It doesn't specify exactly how many bears were used in testing, but I
> counted 7 from the tests they did (6 ejecting from the jet, one on a sled),
> plus one chimpanzee ejected form the jet. I highly doubt there were hundreds
> of bears, they cannot have been cheap to acquire or easy to keep.

The number of seven bears fits the comment by Robert Sudderth but isn't a
direct contradiction of the other comment by Lauren Anderson that says:

> 'Several hundred' bears were acquired for this purpose, all of which were
> destroyed 'in or after the testing process, by the testing process or by gun
> shot to the heart to preserve cranial damage from impacts'.

 _' Several hundred'_ and _' in or after the testing process, by the testing
process or by gun shot to the heart to preserve cranial damage from impacts'_
are obviously quotes from the mentioned whitepaper and both make sense. The
part between them is in my opinion a misinterpretation by the commenter. Given
that the bears had to fulfill some obvious requirements (size and weight) and
a lot of not so obvious ones (healthy, no previous injuries, etc.), it
wouldn't surprise me if they acquired and examined several hundred bears for
the project but ended up using only a few.

I believe the paper you linked to is not the one from the comment above
because I couldn't find the quotes. It's also probably not the one describing
the experiments in the original post. The original post talks about "The first
live, inflight supersonic test of the escape capsule [which] took place on
March 21, 1962". The experiments in the paper you linked took place in 1961 or
before. The data it contains regarding the bears are measurements of drop test
from various heights (9'9" to 14') and not data from in flight tests.

------
cyberferret
Those were innovative ejection seats, but sadly, similar style 'capsule'
ejection seats failed during the ultimate test during the prototype XB-70
Valkyrie accident. [0]

In that case, the centrifugal forces generated by the aircraft going into a
spin meant that the second pilot, Carl Cross, waited just a few seconds too
long to initiate the ejection sequence, and his seat was unable to be
retracted into the capsule for ejection, so he ended up riding the aircraft
all the way to ground impact.

[0] - [https://tacairnet.com/2014/10/27/crash-of-the-
valkyrie/](https://tacairnet.com/2014/10/27/crash-of-the-valkyrie/)

------
bediger4000
The "Wings Over The Rockies" museum in Denver, CO, has one of these escape
capsules, plus a little display about development and testing. The display
does mention that they used bears in testing of the capsules.

If you're at all interested in military or naval aviation, you should visit
Wings Over the Rockies. It's like nothing else.

------
protomyth
Wow, do yourself a favor and read the comments section since the Project
Officer, tracking antenna designer, a co-worker of one of the engineers, and a
trajectory dynamics engineer for General Dynamics. They all dispute the one
comment saying the bears were hurt / destroyed although the chimpanzee was
slightly injured.

~~~
alemhnan
It's bit controversial anyway cause another comment tells a different story
altogether:

'''According to the government white paper on the subject all bears were
destroyed shortly on return to base. All but the last three bears suffered
serious internal injuries and multiple broken bones. 'Several hundred' bears
were acquired for this purpose, all of which were destroyed 'in or after the
testing process, by the testing process or by gun shot to the heart to
preserve cranial damage from impacts'.'''

~~~
protomyth
That’s the comment I referenced, but notice the white paper is never linked or
even titled.

~~~
toomanybeersies
I found the paper: Impact Acceleration Stress. 1962

[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WTQrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92&dq...](https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WTQrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92&dq=b-58+bear&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fp_PUM3pNu-n0AHah4HwBA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

None of the bears suffered serious injuries beyond broken bones and whiplash,
but they were killed and autopsied afterwards. The paper doesn't explicitly
state how many bears were used, and I think hundreds might be an exaggeration,
but at least a couple of dozen bears were used based on the number of tests
run.

~~~
Waterluvian
Respectfully, what's your thinking for why hundreds seems like an exaggeration
and is probably dozens instead?

~~~
toomanybeersies
There were only 7 tests done using bears, and one using a chimp.

It seems like it would be prohibitively difficult to source several hundred
bears when you only plan on doing a few tests. You have to buy them and then
you need to find somewhere to put them. Even if money wasn't an issue (and
likely wouldn't be on those Cold War budgets), just the logistics of the
problem would make it unlikely they'd source more bears than they needed.

~~~
Waterluvian
Aha, yes that does make hundreds seem absurd.

------
danschumann
There is a historical reenactment of this at
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfkNvOOiZ_8&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfkNvOOiZ_8&feature=youtu.be&t=1m56s)

------
runwerks
did this have anything to do with the bear in the ejector pod in spaceballs?

~~~
danschumann
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfkNvOOiZ_8&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfkNvOOiZ_8&feature=youtu.be&t=1m56s)

------
Pxtl
Imagine being the guy trying to strap in a bear.

"Are you sure it's too drugged to move?"

"Yes"

"Its claw twitched... its humongous claw twitched."

"That's fine. Pick her up and strap her in."

------
hn20lo
It seems like this could have been a grizzly endeavor.

------
adamnemecek
Humans need to have some fucking respect.

~~~
valuearb
A bear ain't going to treat you nearly as well when the tables are turned.

~~~
fao_
... that's really no excuse?

1\. How many animals have humans driven to extinction now? Perhaps they would
not be extinct were people to treat them with greater respect.

2\. If you treat an animal with respect the tables will never have an
opportunity to turn, because you won't be blatantly trespassing on it's turf.

~~~
thatswrong0
Using animals as test subjects isn't really comparable in magnitude to the
damage we do on a global scale to ecosystems, which is what is actually
causing extinction

~~~
jacquesm
That we do even worse is really no excuse.

~~~
coldtea
Who said an excuse is needed? That's what nature is. Species using other
species for food, for starters...

------
thirdreplicator
Go bears! ;)

------
Bromskloss
They had cooler dreams about the future back then.

------
sitkack
This is horrible science. A bear surviving an ejection is nothing like a human
surviving an ejection.

~~~
tekklloneer
Early this on, the process of building physically accurate "fake humans" was
not really possible.

Bear tests were probably more an early proof of viability than anything else.
The bears survived, proving that humans wouldn't be completely annihilated.

Animal testing cruelty wasn't really being thought about heavily in post WWII
military aerospace development. It's unfortunate but a historical footnote
reminding us of the importance of proper testing.

~~~
coldtea
> _Animal testing cruelty wasn 't really being thought about heavily in post
> WWII military aerospace development_

Considering that the endpoint is machines killing actual people, it would be
the height of hypocrisy in my books for them to care about "animal testing
cruelty".

~~~
uhtred
By "actual people" do you mean "who cares about animals dying in horrendous
ways when people will be dying?"

~~~
coldtea
More precisely, if a project is about making killing machines for people, that
it might kill some animals to test them is the least of its moral problems.

