The cruise missile scenario is highly unlikely as the rocket itself would be destroyed soon after leaving its intended trajectory.
The cruise missile scenario is highly unlikely as the rocket itself would be destroyed soon after leaving its intended trajectory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708
(China, CZ-3B, Intelsat 708 payload, the launcher flew off-course and crashed on a village in 1996: by some estimates 200-500 civilians were killed.)
> Like Russian vehicles, there is no flight termination system that receives ground commands onboard Chinese launch vehicles. Only US and ESA launch sites have such a system. Correction, Falcon 1 did not have such a system for launching on Kwaj.
The launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center/CC is effectively about 50 mile from downtown Orlando, Baikonur is in the middle of nowhere.
An unpredictable, malfunctioning rocket could still million-to-one itself onto a school bus filled with children, halfway across a continent.
The text I quoted implies there is an onboard flight termination system, even if there is no Range Safety Officer who can send external commands.
FWIW, a part from an exploded rocket, like the engine, could still destroy a school bus filled with children. The odds are very hard to estimate, and made more complicated in that there are few failure modes where a rocket failure halfway across a continent, at supersonic speeds, would reach the ground without breaking long before.
There will still be debris, of course, but I guess the reasoning is that it's preferable to have relatively small debris, than one large piece of exploding debris.
Two important roles of flight termination are: 1. Cause the rocket to stop thrusting (and thus prevent it from thrusting out of range safety exclusion zone). 2. Cause the propellant tanks to be destroyed. This prevents the propellants from causing a large explosion on the ground (when the tanks hit the ground) in preference to a conflagration in the air.