Talk:Space disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.

Contents

[edit] Ground accidents

If you move ground accidents you had better move Apollo 1 too which is just silly. And all the training AIRPLANE crashes. Please we don't need another page. Rmhermen 23:15, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Neither of the launchpad accidents mentioned involved a crewed spacecraft, unlike Apollo 1... This material was originally expanded from the Astronaut page. Maybe calling it "Astronaut Deaths" or something would clarify? Rlandmann 10:23, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Why should it need it be restricted to astronauts when ground crew, in fact, have suffered the majority of the casualties related to manned space flight? Rmhermen 13:40, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
Really? That's an interesting claim. When have ground crew been killed in connection with a human spaceflight launch? --Rlandmann 03:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
March 19, 1981 during a Shuttle Dry Countdown Demonstration Test in preparation for STS-1. Some reports say 2 and some reports say 3 ground crew died from lack of oxygen when they entered the Columbia's engine area that had been purged with nitrogen. Rusty 20:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I don't understand why Apollo 1 would even be considered a ground accident instead of a training accident, unless it is merely out of respect for the dead, which is not what an encyclopedia should necessarily do when trying to be factual. The fire was almost a month prior to the planned launch, and was not even named "Apollo 1" until well after the accident. And they were in the capsule training. 70.153.99.149 14:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It isn't. It is in the training accidents section. There is no ground accidents section at all in the article. There is a section for "ground crews", that is, not astronauts. Rmhermen 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you're right. But the article's first section, Space Fatalities, goes at length considering scenarios whether Apollo 1 and an X-15 flight should be counted among the space fatalities, and that is what I thought the poster above was referring to. That being said, I don't understand why the article proper would even entertain the idea that Apollo 1 represents a space fatality, even hypothetically. 70.153.99.149 21:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My Uncle was Albert Treib who died during the construction of pad 39B. With the great rush to get the Apollo launch pads ready in time they had to bypass normal safety procedures. Going to work on a giant steel structure with a lightning storm in the area was either very stupid or very patriotic. What would you have done had your boss asked you to volunteer to work on a stormy day in order to meet the greatest deadline ever put forth by mankind? BTreib

[edit] ICBM accidents

Are we now going to start including ICBM accidents as well? The R-16 of the Nedelin disaster wasn't a space launch vehicle. --Rlandmann 03:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. At this point in history (and even more so in the 1960s) ICBMs and space launchers are pretty well connected. I'm unsure of the lineage of the R-16 with respect to launch vehicles, but if the first test launch of the R-7 had been a disaster, would it be listed on this page? Maybe splitting off the launch disasters into a Rocket Disasters page would make sense. Rocketry is not inherant in spaceflight.
Agreed that booster and ICBM development are/were very closely bound up, but there are still many ICBMs (like the R-16) that have no direct relationship to any booster, and some (few!) boosters that are not derived from ICBMs. If the first launch of an R-7 had been a disaster, I would still argue that it wasn't a space-related accident, since spaceflight was not what the R-7 programme was about at that point... In any case, I don't think there are any actual incidents where it's unclear whether it was a booster or an ICBM involved in an accident. If someone can think of one, I guess we'll all work out what to do with it then! --Rlandmann 23:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It was initially reported as a space-related incident (a Mars probe launch), and probably contributed to the 'Lost Cosmonaut' theory. It should be at least addressed as a mistake. CFLeon 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial accidents

What about industrial accidents related to space programs. Like the 6 Indian just killed at while Dhawan Space Center while testing/transporting/loading solid rocket fuel? Rmhermen 20:40, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adams

I have moved the paragraph about Michael Adams and the X-15 crash from the Training Accidents section to the In-flight accidents. He died while earning his astronaut wings flying an X-15 operational mission. It was also a suborbital flight above 50-miles, not a training flight. Rusty 18:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fifty miles (80km) is the American definition of space, not the international one (100km. As this is an international article (ie not exclusively about US disasters), Adams died while flying an aircraft, not a spacecraft. He never reached space on any X-15 flight. Dan100 09:46, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

How then would you classify the Challenger crew, who only reached 50,000 ft? Smith, McAuliffe and Jarvis were being launched on their first mission. Were they also only flying an aircraft? Reubenbarton 20:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Space Shuttle is a spacecraft, the X-15 was a high-altitude research aircraft. Dan100 21:10, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Challenger, if it had completed its mission, would have reached space by international standards. X-15-3, even if it had completed the mission, would not. --Carnildo 22:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So in your opinion, astronauts are only those individuals that meet the strict FAI rules? Reubenbarton 21:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd define as astronaut as someone who had flown in what is described as space by FAI rules, or is/was clearly going to, ie is in training (eg Chaffee). Correct me if I'm wrong, but Adams was not part of the NASA astronaut program at the time of his death. Dan100 21:47, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

The FAI rules are a farce. By strict FAI rules, none of the Vostok cosmonauts made spaceflights. Strict FAI rules state that the occupants must take off and land in the spacecraft. All of the Vostok cosmonauts ejected before landing. If you want to strictly follow the "FAI rules" then Alan Shepard was the first space traveler not Yuri Gagarin. Reubenbarton 23:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are referring to the FAI 'sporting' rules, which I agree are farcical. No-one would deny that Gargarin was the first man in space. However the fact remains that outside the US, 100km is regarded as the border of space. Dan100 00:55, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the tag on the article from {{npov}} to {{disputed}}, since the dispute here seems to be over the facts of the article, not the neutrality of the writing. --Carnildo 02:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not just say "the inclusion of Adams in this list is sometimes disputed as his X-15 was only intended to fly to altitude X, which is higher than the altitude of space defined by the United States Government but lower than the altitude defined by the FAI" in the article after this list? That would seem to lay all the information out without telling the reader which standard to accept as the "real" one. Bryan 02:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought that was already the change I made. Rmhermen 04:21, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, nertz. I didn't check because I thought that if it had said anything like that there'd be no need for the disputed tag; I just assumed the problem was still unresolved. I vote to remove the tag, in that case. Bryan 05:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My explanatory paragraph includes all the facts and explors the issue from both sides (NPOV). That's why I'm reverting to it, and why I added the npov tag, not the dispute tag. Dan100 10:47, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Compromise. Removed the line "As such, Michael Adams is not regarded as an astronaut outside of the USA", and altered wording of next paragraph so nothing is duplicated anywhere. Dan100 23:46, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Nothing is duplicated? Here is your text:

(Michael J. Adams reached a maximum altitude of 81.08km (50.38 miles) in his X-15, and so was posthumously awarded Astronaut Wings for his last flight by NASA, as 50 miles is regarded as the edge of space in the USA. However, this is below the internationally recognized boundary to space of 100km.)

Here is the text from the next section which describes each accident in depth:

Michael J. Adams died while piloting a sub-orbital spaceflight in a rocket plane. Major Adams was a U.S. Air Force pilot in the NASA/USAF X-15 program. During X-15 Flight 191, on 15 November 1967, on his seventh flight, the plane first had an electrical problem and then developed control problems at the apogee of its flight. The pilot may also have become disoriented. During reentry from a 50.38 mile (81 km) apogee, the X-15 yawed sideways out of control and went into a spin at a speed of Mach 5, from which the pilot never recovered. Excessive acceleration led to the break up of the X-15 while in flight at about 65,000 feet (19.8 km). Adams was posthumously awarded astronaut wings as his flight had passed an altitude of 50 miles (80 km); however, it can be disputed if the incident technically counts as a "spaceflight accident" given that the flight fell short of the internationally recognized 100 km boundary of space.

Allowing for apogee as a synonym for "reached a maximum altitude", I fail to see a single word of your edit which is not contained in the detailed description. I am also very confused by your need to add this edit but not apparently seeing any need to add extra explanation to for Roger Chafee, or Gus Grissom, and Ed White. The fatalities section notes each exception and the following section give the particular details/ Why is this not sufficient? Rmhermen 15:19, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • I never realised you were talking about much further down the article, I honestly thought you were talking about the next paragraph. I understand now! I still contend my paragraph should remain as it explains why two different sets of figures are given in the intro, and that the info on the dispute in detail of the accident should be correspondingly altered.
"(This includes Roger Chaffee (who never flew in space) and Michael J. Adams (who reached the U.S. but not the international defintion of space) in the spaceflight total and Grissom, White, Chaffee and Adams (the crew of Apollo 1) in the killed total)."
This version explains each exception in a concise manner that does not interfer with the statistics and each case is equally explaned in depth further in the article. This seems the most equitable solution to me. You fail to explain why you think additional explanation is needed beyond this or why unequal depths of explanation should be applied to the three cases. Rmhermen 15:59, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

However, why have you now made such drastic changes to the page? Dan100 15:35, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what happened. I was just doing a sectional edit to link astronaut wings to astronaut badge. Somehow it saved a complete blank and then a second save of just the section. Not sure what happened. I believe I have restored it. Rmhermen 15:52, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link

I removed the following from the article: To see the crash site of 56-6672, click here. The link leads to a page with extensive information about the crash of the X-15, but the page also has "Click here to own a piece of X-15A" link at the bottom. Should we include the link?

[edit] CAIB

Consider adding a link to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) report? -- Ryan 02.17.05

[edit] Soyuz 18-A

In the article, it states that "On April 5, 1975, the Soyuz 18a mission nearly ended in disaster when the rocket malfunctioned during launch. The Soyuz's escape system pulled the capsule clear, but subjected the crew to an extremely rough return to earth." This is a common misconception about the flight, but in fact they were too far into the mission for the escape system to be used. In fact, only one Soyuz mission ever used the launch escape system, and it wasn't this one. (It was Soyuz 10a, which was the only operational use of any kind of emergency escape system to save a crew's life.)

A normal Soyuz launch profile, even with the modern Soyuz-TMA variant, goes roughly like this. After about 2.25 minutes, the four strap-on boosters separate. At three minutes, the launch escape tower fires, pulling away the payload shroud that protects the Soyuz capsule during the criticial max-Q phase of ascent (breaking the sound barrier). At a little over 5 minutes, the core stage (referred to as the second stage in rocketry parlance) shuts down and the third stage ignites. This burns until the desired trajectory is acheived; it generally shuts down between eight and nine minutes into the flight, which is pretty typical for manned flights to low Earth orbit on any launch vehicle.

What went wrong with Soyuz 18a was that at five minutes, the second stage failed to jettison. But the third stage ignited anyway, its flames presumably shooting out of the mesh interstage. The crew experienced dramatic gyrations, but these were not showing up on telemetry at mission control. Eventually, the crew did persuade the ground to issue the abort command. (Soviet missions generally could not be aborted by the crew.) The Soyuz separated from the violently gyrating booster at 192 km (alas, I do not know whether that is altitude or downrange distance). The Soyuz underwent normal reentry procedures, jettisoning the orbital and service modules. But this neccesitated a severe ballistic reentry. The crew endured forces of at least 20.6 Gs. They were lucky to survive. They traveled over a thousand miles downrange by the time the reentry was complete, and landed in the Altai Mountains, where the capsule tumbled down the slope, stopping in some vegetation just short of a cliff that would probably have killed them. The crew feared that having survived reentry, they'd find themselves in China (which at the time was openly hostile towards the Soviet Union). But it was Russian farmers who found them. Lazarev, the mission commander, suffered internal injuries due to the severe G-forces and was never able to fly again.

Soyuz 18a was a closer call than most people realize. -- User:Calli Arcale

Do you have a source for this? --Carnildo 18:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Check Aviation Week, Space World, Time, or Newsweek for the period between the failed launch and before the launch of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project that July. Congress insisted on the Soviets making a report before allowing the joint mission to go ahead. CFLeon 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not really a list

This seems to be more of an article rather than a list. I suggest renaming the article to something more appropriate, since lists are just that, and don't contain much information on the items listed besides their name. --tomf688(talk) 23:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestions? --Carnildo 03:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Space Disaster is an old location of this page and current redirect but I would suggest something a bit more precise like Human spaceflight disasters or History of human spaceflight disasters. This page doesn't cover unmanned spaceflight at all. Rmhermen 15:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "LLRV No. 1" listed twice

Under the "Near misses" section of the article, it is stated that:

"Three of the five Lunar Landing Research and Training vehicles (LLRV & LLTV) were destroyed in crashes near Houston, Texas. LLRV No. 1 crashed on May 6, 1968 at Ellington AFB, Texas, Neil Armstrong was flying the craft at the time and had to eject. LLTV No. 1 crashed on December 8, 1968 at Ellington AFB, Texas causing MSC test pilot Joseph Algranti to eject safely. Another LLTV crashed at Ellington AFB, Texas on January 29, 1971. NASA test pilot Stuart Present ejected safely."

Since I am not an expert I can't check this by myself (or it would be time consuming), so I am asking you folks here. You see, it first says that "LLRV No. 1 crashed on May 6, 1968 at Ellington AFB, Texas", and later it says "LLTV No. 1 crashed on December 8, 1968 at Ellington AFB, Texas".

I am wondering should it be LLTV No. 2 instead in the second case ?? -- regards Wayfarer-Talk , August 1, 2005 at 1:45 GMT

[edit] Actual "in space" deaths

Since most of the deaths noted here occurred within the Earth's atmosphere upon take-off or landing/re-entry I wonder if it might be worth noting which accidents technically occurred "in space". I'm uncertain about Soyuz 11 as the article seems to suggest the deaths might have occurred during reentry since presumably someone conscious needed to initiate reentry. The Columbia breakup occurred above the 50 mile theshold so may be the first confirmed case of deaths in space, but I'm hesitant to note this if it's incorrect. It's a bit of a morbid milestone, but still a notable one. Thoughts? 23skidoo 04:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Except that the international definition of space is at 100 km and Columbia was below 64 km when it broke up. Rmhermen 05:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be some discrepency on this as other space-related articles on Wikipedia make use of the US definition which is IIRC 50 km. There needs to be some standardizing. My question still stands, then -- has anyone actually died in space? 23skidoo 16:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Please list here or on Wikipedia:WikiProject Space missions any instances you find of confusion of the two definitions of the boundary of space. We have made a strong effort to clearly identify any uses of the American definition. As to who has actually died while in space, the Soyuz 11 crew are the most likely, if any have. Rmhermen 16:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New article title?

"Space disaster" gets a measly 14,100 hits on Google, and is also a title I personally found quite hilarious upon first seeing it, as the lack of plurality, while arguably in keeping with Wikipedia's "stay singular!" rules, makes it sound like one incident called "the space disaster" rather than like a page about space disasters in general. Recommend this be moved to a suitable synonym, or at least to something clearer, like Space exploration accident (which doesn't require that the accident be in space, as the current title implies, just that it be involved in space exploration). -Silence 20:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"List of space disasters" might fit convention better, even though this is more than a list. gparker 04:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time article picture

I noticed, for me at least, on the "In-flight accidents", where the Time article picture is positioned, it causes some of the formatting to not display properly. The Challenger and Columbia disasters don't show small square boxes in front of them. This causes it to look like one huge article. Does anyone else get this problem? If so, I suggest moving the picture to the right side. Phaldo 19:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A quick explanation of my edit

Both the chart at the bottom of this article and the Vostok rocket page list the deaths due to the fueling accident on 18 March 1980 as numbering 48; the article body listed the number as 50. I have corrected the "50" (which I'm guessing was just a rounded report) to "48." I figured that I ought to post an explanation before someone thinks that I'm a vandal. --CrazyDreamer 12:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

I removed some biased phrasing, and cleaned up a bit. Also, gave some more detail about the pre-Gagarin rumors. CFLeon 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone want to try to cut down on the verbage on some of the accidents? I really don't think we need to go into as much detail as there is in some spots, especially when there are dedicated entried for them. Also, I'm going to put up a mention of the 'Fallen Astronaut' statue left on the Moon by the Apollo 15 astronauts. CFLeon 04:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discrepancy

The account of the Challenger disaster in this article does not seem to match the account in the article devoted to the Challenger. Specifically, the point of death for the astronauts, plus a few other details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amity150 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

Can you be more specific? I don't clearly see what you're talking about. The Challenger account in this article is an abbreviated account and doesn't contain all the details of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster article, so naturally there will be some differences. I adjusted slightly the wording of one sentence in this article to be be sure, but I didn't see any clear discrepancy. If you could state exactly what the problems are I'll be happy to fix them. Joema 12:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Cosmonaut fatalities" section

Does the "Cosmonaut fatalities" section need to exist? It doesn't appear to add anything, and it seems strange to call out the Soviet/Russian results separately. gparker 04:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Material in English is usually US-centric, though. That gives it some validity --Kizor 11:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esrange fatal accident in Sweden

One male was killed during a fatal accident involving a rocket at Esrange, Sweden. Anyone recall anything more about it? Regards Alexmcfire

What year?

[edit] Steven Owens

Should we include that Steven Owens died while working on a warehouse at the Kennedy Space Center. [1] 999mal 11:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/a/Talk%7ESpace_disaster_fc35.html"