4 ms·
From http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash : Later, however, it was found that both
by m4x 13y ago
From http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash :
Later, however, it was found that both bombs were fully functional and that a single low-voltage switch was indeed all that stood between detonation.
The switch they're referring to is the arm/safe switch on the pilot's control panel. So the bombs didn't fail, one of them armed and tried to detonate exactly as designed when dropped from an aircraft. The only reason it didn't was because the pilot's arming circuit hadn't been activated. This isn't very reassuring because that arming switch may well have simply been a toggle switch under a cover, and even if it was better protected it still almost certainly boiled down to simply closing one or a pair of contacts, which can quite conceivably happen accidentally while bailing out of a spinning aircraft. Not exactly a one-in-a-billion chance.
There is a discrepancy between what TFA says (three out of four safety circuits) and what the wiki says (five out of six arming circuits) and I can't find anything to clear that up on my phone. Either way it's a disconcerting piece of history
- einhverfr 13y agoI think once you are dealing with an out of control aircraft that disintegrates in the air, all bets are off.
- nitrogen 13y agoA nuclear bomb has to detonate in the right way in order to produce a nuclear explosion. Otherwise, it should just break apart. From that I assume it should be possible to design a bomb and corresponding delivery system that are highly unlikely to detonate by accident, even if your plane blows up or rips apart in midair.
- einhverfr 13y agoIt should be possible to design a nuclear power plant to operate safely after a magnitude 9 earthquake and a tsunami following it, but I would still say in that case all bets are off. The problem is that there are certain sorts of disasters where you really can't be sure you have the unknowns down well enough..... That's why aircraft components are rigorously tested. The only really safe solution I can think of is to try to anticipate the problem and sabotage the warhead first. For example one might, say, design warheads to destroy portions of the electronics if they get a signal that the pilot ejected. So yes, it is probably possible. Is it possible to do so reasonably perfectly? I doubt it to be honest.
- einhverfr 13y ago(A good parallel might be software designed to continue to operate properly regardless of hardware malfunction.)