Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
Largechris said:
Eric Mc said:
People have died in and around launch pads so timely reminders are never out of place. People forget that the Space Shuttle killed more than the 14 crew who died on Challenger and Columbia.
Erm, I’ve forgotten, who else died?19 March 1981 - Forrest Cole, Rockwell International quality control, died 1 April 1981 after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
19 March 1981 - Nick Mullon, Rockwell International mechanical technician, died at Complex 39A after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
14 March 2011 - James E. Vanover, United Space Alliance, died from a fall at Complex 39A while preparing orbiter Endeavour for its final launch
From http://mail.afspacemuseum.org/ccafs/fatalities/
jingars said:
19 March 1981 - John Bjornstadt, Rockwell International, died at Complex 39A after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
19 March 1981 - Forrest Cole, Rockwell International quality control, died 1 April 1981 after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
19 March 1981 - Nick Mullon, Rockwell International mechanical technician, died at Complex 39A after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
14 March 2011 - James E. Vanover, United Space Alliance, died from a fall at Complex 39A while preparing orbiter Endeavour for its final launch
From http://mail.afspacemuseum.org/ccafs/fatalities/
Ok thanks, so one incident with three deaths and one fall. 19 March 1981 - Forrest Cole, Rockwell International quality control, died 1 April 1981 after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
19 March 1981 - Nick Mullon, Rockwell International mechanical technician, died at Complex 39A after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
14 March 2011 - James E. Vanover, United Space Alliance, died from a fall at Complex 39A while preparing orbiter Endeavour for its final launch
From http://mail.afspacemuseum.org/ccafs/fatalities/
I know that at its peak Apollo had 100,000 people working on the project, so not being funny but I suspect there were a lot more heart attacks and natural causes deaths than accidental deaths.
jingars said:
19 March 1981 - John Bjornstadt, Rockwell International, died at Complex 39A after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
19 March 1981 - Forrest Cole, Rockwell International quality control, died 1 April 1981 after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
19 March 1981 - Nick Mullon, Rockwell International mechanical technician, died at Complex 39A after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
It wasn't the launchpad that killed them, it was Columbia. You can't can't count consequential losses like the helicopter; they are separate accidents.19 March 1981 - Forrest Cole, Rockwell International quality control, died 1 April 1981 after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
19 March 1981 - Nick Mullon, Rockwell International mechanical technician, died at Complex 39A after exposure to 100% gaseous nitrogen in aft engine compartment of orbiter Columbia
It was in response to my comment that a number of people in general had died during the Space Shuttle programme over and above those killed in the actual Shuttle accidents.
Working with rockets (whether on a launch pad or anywhere else) is an inherently dangerous activity due to the noxious substances, dangerous gases and risk of explosions and fires.
During the countdown to the launch of Artemis 1 the Red Team were sent out to the pad, when the rocket was pretty much fuelly fueled, to tighten up some nuts to try and stop those pesky hydrogen leaks. That was a pretty risky thing to do because, apart from the general rule that you keep people away from fully fueled rockets, the base of a fully rocket is an extremely dangerous environment. It was in that area where we had the fatalities just before the launch of STS-1 in 1981 mentioned above. The casualties were asphyxiated by nitrogen gas.
Working with rockets (whether on a launch pad or anywhere else) is an inherently dangerous activity due to the noxious substances, dangerous gases and risk of explosions and fires.
During the countdown to the launch of Artemis 1 the Red Team were sent out to the pad, when the rocket was pretty much fuelly fueled, to tighten up some nuts to try and stop those pesky hydrogen leaks. That was a pretty risky thing to do because, apart from the general rule that you keep people away from fully fueled rockets, the base of a fully rocket is an extremely dangerous environment. It was in that area where we had the fatalities just before the launch of STS-1 in 1981 mentioned above. The casualties were asphyxiated by nitrogen gas.
Eric Mc said:
It was in response to my comment that a number of people in general had died during the Space Shuttle programme over and above those killed in the actual Shuttle accidents.
Working with rockets (whether on a launch pad or anywhere else) is an inherently dangerous activity due to the noxious substances, dangerous gases and risk of explosions and fires.
During the countdown to the launch of Artemis 1 the Red Team were sent out to the pad, when the rocket was pretty much fuelly fueled, to tighten up some nuts to try and stop those pesky hydrogen leaks. That was a pretty risky thing to do because, apart from the general rule that you keep people away from fully fueled rockets, the base of a fully rocket is an extremely dangerous environment. It was in that area where we had the fatalities just before the launch of STS-1 in 1981 mentioned above. The casualties were asphyxiated by nitrogen gas.
All true. But is a little sign saying 'Danger' suddenly going to make them think 'OMG better not go there'? These are not dumb members of the public, they're experts.Working with rockets (whether on a launch pad or anywhere else) is an inherently dangerous activity due to the noxious substances, dangerous gases and risk of explosions and fires.
During the countdown to the launch of Artemis 1 the Red Team were sent out to the pad, when the rocket was pretty much fuelly fueled, to tighten up some nuts to try and stop those pesky hydrogen leaks. That was a pretty risky thing to do because, apart from the general rule that you keep people away from fully fueled rockets, the base of a fully rocket is an extremely dangerous environment. It was in that area where we had the fatalities just before the launch of STS-1 in 1981 mentioned above. The casualties were asphyxiated by nitrogen gas.
Are you suggesting that they don't need "Danger" signs to warn people when there is danger present?
It's not a new thing. Lots of danger indicators have been festooned on aircraft, launch towers and dozens of other apparatuses since the year dot.
Think of the danger triangles you see on ejector seat equipped aircraft. They've been around forever.
It's not a new thing. Lots of danger indicators have been festooned on aircraft, launch towers and dozens of other apparatuses since the year dot.
Think of the danger triangles you see on ejector seat equipped aircraft. They've been around forever.
Maybe I'm missing something or I'm due a parrot but it looks to me like it's just a warning sign on a door, presumably related to what's in there.... 
I think its reasonable to assume anyone who is allowed on there knows the big rocket above their head is dangerous for all sorts of reasons!
I think its reasonable to assume anyone who is allowed on there knows the big rocket above their head is dangerous for all sorts of reasons!
Simpo Two said:
All true. But is a little sign saying 'Danger' suddenly going to make them think 'OMG better not go there'? These are not dumb members of the public, they're experts.
They may be experts in many different specialisms but they won't all be experts on electrical switchgear, lift machinery, fuel plumbing or whatever is behind that door. On that basis a warning sign is a sensible precaution like any other workplace. It's not a sign warning about the big rocket above. Hill92 said:
They may be experts in many different specialisms but they won't all be experts on electrical switchgear, lift machinery, fuel plumbing or whatever is behind that door. On that basis a warning sign is a sensible precaution like any other workplace. It's not a sign warning about the big rocket above.
I like the idea that a cupboard of electrics warrants a Danger sign, but the big rocket next to it filled with 1,000 tons of instant death doesn't 
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff