Sweeping
Venus Aerospace Accident Investigation Board
Interview Transcript.
Subj: Incident involving onboard explosion, subsequent fire, loss of control and near loss of Spacecraft KM-LUN MD-160 on December 7th of 2024.
Interviewer: Vincent Butler
Subject: PIC Lun Alekseeva.
BUTLER: Alright, Ms. Alekseeva, in your own words, please recount the event leading up to the incident.
ALEKSEEVA: We were proceeding along our controller-assigned approach heading, preparing to make landing at Crystal Tokyo. Ship's status was normal. 6 of our main engines were idled. At our altitude, 2 were enough to maintain cruise. We were approximately 162.5km from Crystal Tokyo outer marker when we received an indicator for a shuttle engine activating in it's launch tube.
BUTLER: And this was of concern, why, precisely?
ALEKSEEVA: Our 6 shuttlecraft rely on a liquid-fuelled rocket motor for the first 30 seconds of flight.
BUTLER: The combination of fuels used?
ALEKSEEVA: High-test Hydrogen Peroxide and purified Kerosene.
BUTLER: What was your initial action?
ALEKSEEVA: I put the craft into an immediate hard turn to port.
BUTLER: And your reason for this?
ALEKSEEVA: There is a safety mechanism built into the automatic guidance system. It sends a shutdown signal to the engine fuel valves if it detects a sudden change in heading prior to launch.
BUTLER: This safety mechanism failed?
ALEKSEEVA: Yes. We completed our turn but the engines remained live, but without a source of active ignition. My next action would have been to open the tube outer doors to allow the missile to fly free and drain any built up fuel or oxidisers. The shuttle's engines ignited before I could open the door.
BUTLER: Causing the onboard explosion.
ALEKSEEVA: Yes.
BUTLER: The immediate effects of this Explosion.
ALEKSEEVA: The explosion fractured fuel and oxidiser lines in the aft compartment, triggering an onboard flash fire. Hull breach allowed Venus atmosphere into the compartment, but the fire was sustained by leaking oxidiser from our onboard stores. Emergency isolators closed automatically but failed to fully seal, allowing fumes to fill the craft. Flight crew donned auxiliary oxygen masks in case ventilation failed.
The spacecraft then took on a nose-down attitude and began to dive. We attempted to correct, but the explosion had damaged the hydraulic system, leaving the controls in manual reversion.
BUTLER: And your thought process at the time? You had a spacecraft that was on fire and descending out of control, how did you work through this problem?
ALEKSEEVA: I concluded that our immediate concern was controlling our descent before we reached collapse altitude. The fire was damaging, but would not kill us in the short term. I reduced engine power to idle and deployed our speedbrakes to slow our rate of descent. I attempted to correct by applying full back on yoke, but even wit both of us on the flight deck trying the elevator would not move. We were descending out of control with no way of levelling.
BUTLER: What approaches did you consider?
ALEKSEEVA: I considered using the main engines to generate increased lift over the wing and level our descent, but we are already approaching Vne and I was concerned that applying thrust would instead push the nose further down due to their position. Inverting the ship and using the damaged controls in our favour would be too destabilising , and we would have had no way of recovering from an inverted attitude if it failed. The final solution was to apply full nose-up trim and try using the tabs to servo to the elevators.
BUTLER: And this was successful?
ALEKSEEVA: This stopped our descent.
BUTLER: What controls were functional at this point?
ALEKSEEVA: We had minimal rudder and aileron control in manual reversion. Speedbrakes, Flaps, Engine throttles, Engine nozzle position, Elevator trim were all functional as they are electrically operated. We regained some elevator authority as our speed decreased, and were able to put the spacecraft into a climb to a safer altitude.
BUTLER: But you still hadn't stabilised the craft?
ALEKSEEVA: No. We began to attain a dangerously high angle of attack and stall warning alarm sounded. I called for take-off power from main engines, and attempted to reset trim tabs to neutral and push the nose back down to level flight. We were able to prevent a stall, but were unable to fully level the spacecraft. We continued to climb under power.
BUTLER: Why were you unable to level the spacecraft?
ALEKSEEVA: We discovered after the incident that the trim tabs had jammed in their maximum position. We could not fully overcome the load this imposed on the elevator using manual force alone.
BUTLER: And how did you work this problem?
ALEKSEEVA: We concluded it was safest to allow the climb to continue under full power to space and deal with the control issue there. We still had a fire onboard, and I assumed that the loss of trim control was a result of cable burn-through. The fire still had potential to destroy primary control cables, which would have rendered the craft uncontrollable.
BUTLER: So you tackled the fire?
ALEKSEEVA: Yes. Cockpit controls for fuel and oxidiser dumps malfunctioned due to fire damage, but we were able to access the manual controls. Starved of fuel and oxidiser, the fire self-extinguished before we reached orbit.
BUTLER: You finally managed to stabilise the spacecraft in orbit.
ALEKSEEVA: Our nose RCS systems and engine controls were undamaged. We stabilised into orbit and began checking for potential flare-ups and hot-spots. A number of electrical systems had been damaged, and we were concerned short circuits might trigger a new fire. It was in the course of checks that we discovered our prisoner had been overcome by fumes. There were no respirators in the cargobay. Unfortunately, to get safe access to the bay, we had to vent it and the body to space as it still contained explosive levels of peroxide fumes.
BUTLER: Yes. Unfortunate. At what point in this incident, did you become aware of Tokyo Control attempting to make contact?
ALEKSEEVA: We heard the first broadcast shortly after we began our initial turn. At the time, we were too busy working problem to respond, for reasons that should be obvious.
BUTLER: At no point did you attempt to make any communications with Tokyo Control to advise them of your emergency?
ALEKSEEVA: We had more immediate concerns. We barely had time to set our transponder code.
BUTLER: Even after the situation was resolved, you did not make contact?
ALEKSEEVA: There was no need. And we had left Tokyo's zone of control.
BUTLER: Thank you very much, Ms. Alekseeva. Recovering the spacecraft from such a dire situation was a skilful piece of flying, but, I can't help but notice some inconsistencies between your statement, and our forensic reconstruction,
ALEKSEEVA: What inconsistencies?
BUTLER: We have radar tracks from Tokyo Control that show your initial turn and the sudden beginning of the descent as you described. TokyoMet recorded the audio signature of the initial explosion as a pressure spike on their instruments. However, accounting for pressure and density differences, they show that the explosion could not have happened until a full sixty-four seconds after the initial descent began.
ALEKSEEVA: We were working the problem.
BUTLER: As you said. But this matches data we recovered from the flight recorder. It shows the same circling manoeuvre, followed immediately by an extreme pitch-down command. The elevators were rapidly moved to their full deflection. Do you have an explanation for this?
ALEKSEEVA: We have still been attempting to trigger the shuttle's safety mechanism.
BUTLER: The recorder then shows a sudden decelerating force. We initially assumed this was as a result of the explosion, but further analysis shows the forces imposed to be inconsistent with those expected from an onboard explosion. There are three momentary spikes, followed immediately by some form of sudden event which causes a recorded loss of airspeed and with momentary a pitch-up event.
ALEKSEEVA: The tube may have vented forwards or interfered with the control mechanics as it damaged them or something different may have happened. It was a powerful explosion and I did not witness the specific details of how the explosion occurred.
BUTLER: Yes. After that signature, the data continues, showing no further control inputs as the spacecraft descends. Then, 64 seconds after the initial event, it cuts out.
ALEKSEEVA: We were dealing with an onboard fire, failing ventilation systems filling the cabin with poisonous fumes and multiple electrical system failures. We were trying to understand what had happened to the ship.
The recorder has failed due to the power cable burning through, that would be my assumption.
BUTLER: Possible. But it happens at the exact time TokyoMet records the signature of the onboard explosion. I also have this report from an aerospace engineer indicating that recorded damage to the upper surfaces to the tail structure is more consistant with a collision with another spacecraft, than with explosive damage, or excessive aerodynamic pressures or loadings.
ALEKSEEVA: Is it possible that debris from the destroyed launch tube and shuttle hit the tail and elevator?
BUTLER: Improbable, but possible. It's noted as such in the report. But taken together with the data from the flight recorder, this does leave us with something of a mystery. And in an accident that claimed a life, we are not allowed to leave mysteries.
ALEKSEEVA: What are you suggesting?
BUTLER: At any time, did you see another spacecraft in your airspace?
ALEKSEEVA: We did not detect, either on radar, or visually, any other spacecraft. And if we had hit another spacecraft, would they not have also gone down?
BUTLER: Unfortunately, the Cockpit Voice Recorder was too badly damaged to give us any useful data to confirm or refute this. Even then the remains of it's onboard self-diagnostic shows that it was either thirty-five minutes out of synchronisation with the craft's own onboard clocks, or that the event which destroyed the data cards inside didn't happen until a full thirty-five minutes after the incident began.
ALEKSEEVA: Are you suggesting we destroyed the recorder ourselves?
BUTLER: I would find the idea of a crew deliberately destroying their onboard recorders after an accident unthinkable. But there are so many unusual questions here. I am left with two competing theories and that the one thing that might clarify events is unfortunately destroyed.
ALEKSEEVA: We cannot hit a ship that wasn't there. It's that simple. We detected no ship. Neither did Tokyo. Nor was their any wreckage. I have told you what happened.
BUTLER: Thank you for your time, Ms Alekseeva.....
--
Venus Aerospace Accident Investigation Board
Extract from Report: Incident involving onboard explosion, subsequent fire, loss of control and near loss of Spacecraft KM-LUN MD-160 on December 7th of 2024.
This board cannot state conclusively that a collision with a cloaked or otherwise hidden craft did not occur, and that the crew of KM Lun are not perpetrating a coverup. A collision with an unknown craft may have caused damage to the tail of KM Lun, with the onboard fire being a consequence of a fuel or oxidiser leak in missile tube 5 triggered by the collision. This theory most conveniently fits the facts recorded on the Flight Data Recorder of KM Lun.
Another craft would likely have been crippled at least severely damaged by such a heavy impact. Debris signals were detected by Crystal Tokyo weather radar, but only falling along the course of KM Lun, indicating that KM Lun was the sole source of debris in this incident. Therefore, in the absence of any wreckage or direct evidence of a second craft involved the board is required to consider alternatives that discount a second aerospacecraft.
The board is therefore of the opinion that while it is improbable that the damage to the tail of KM Lun could be accounted for solely by the inadvertent activation of a shuttle's rocket motor, and subsequent onboard explosion, it is not impossible.
It is a saying in aviation that an improbable accident, is just one that has not occurred.
The most likely sequence of events in this scenario is that, rather than exploding immediately, one or more of the shuttle's rocket booster engines managed to ignite hypergolically, causing an overpressure within the launch tube which ruptured both tube hatches and caused the acceleration forces recorded due to the impingement and reaction of combustion gases on the hull of KM Lun. It is theorised that it was the aft hatch penetrating the heat shield at high speed which caused the initial damage to KM Lun's hydraulic and electrical system, but fire damage prevents conclusive analysis in these sections. This event could easily have been mistaken by the crew for a detonation or explosion and destruction of the entire shuttle assembly.
The engines continue to operate for 64 seconds at an uncontrolled power setting, before hold-down bolts fail, allowing the shuttle to launch uncontrolled from tube 5. With insufficient thrust for a sustained flight, the intact shuttle instead collides with the tail, causing the recorded structural damage before disintegrating. Severed fuel and oxidiser lines cause an external fuel/oxidiser explosion which is recorded by TokyoMet, exacerbating the loss of control and causing further widespread damage to the electrical system, cutting the recorder power.
This does not exactly match crew accounts. It is conceivable given the developing nature of the incident that the crew of KM Lun are conflating multiple events into a single occurrence. The situation on the flightdeck with multiple failures occuring simultaneously, would likely have been extremely chaotic and disorientating. Entertaining this assumption allows the board to construct a timeline of events that reconciles crew accounts with the damage suffered with the least amount of inconsistency between both.
The unfortunate lack of Cockpit Voice Recorder data in this instance prevents a final conclusion from being drawn so, barring future evidence, both theories will be allowed to stand. This will be reflected in our recommendations. The continued absence of any evidence of a second spacecraft requires the board to favour an onboard explosion caused by a shuttlecraft malfunction. .
It is clear however that in any case, the incident was drastically exacerbated by the presence of High-Test Hydrogen Peroxide and Kerosene in large quantities aboard KM Lun. The board can recall two historical occasions where this combination of fuels led to the loss of a craft and it's crew, the most well known of which being the Russian submarine Kursk disaster 24 years ago. This has informed our final recommendations below.
The single fatality aboard was caused by the failure of the ventilation system to fully contain fumes from the onboard fire and venusian atmosphere, and lack of provision of an emergency respirator in the cargo bay. These are not required in cargo spaces by current regulations and the cargo bay access hatch had been sealed from the outside, as the casualty was being transported as a prisoner. It is understood that this was not normal proceedure. This will be reflected in our recommendations.
We must also note that, once control had been lost, the flight crew of KM Lun managed their difficulties with all skill consistent with the highest standards of airmanship. The incident was correctly assessed by the crew as it unfolded, with actions correctly prioritised resulting in the succesful regaining of spacecraft control, despite extreme levels of damage.
--------------------------
TruthinJustice
Subj: Getting way with Murder?
Posted by: Kullury
Am I the only one who has a different idea of what's going on here? I mean, you're not going to believe this was an accident right? At least, that it didn't start out as an accident. Okay, the big key to this is that passenger, the sole person who was killed. Now, we know exactly why that person was aboard - the Knight Sabers had been hired specifically to grab her off the street and bring her to Lun. And they claim they were planning to bring her to the AMP on Tokyo....
I think we are looking at a coverup. But not the one everyone thinks.
Think about it. If someone biomods you the way Haur was, you're gonna want revenge. That's what this is..... a botched attempt at revenge.
And the key to it all is right there in the report:
"The single fatality aboard was caused by the failure of the ventilation system to fully contain fumes from the onboard fire and venusian atmosphere, and lack of provision of an emergency respirator in the cargo bay"
And from the mouth of Alekseeva:
"Unfortunately, to get safe access to the bay, we had to vent it and the body to space as it still contained explosive levels of peroxide fumes."
You wanna know what I think they were doing?
I think they were trying to execute their prisoner. Now, they know that's murder, right? So what they do is try to make it look like an accident by putting the prisoner in a cargobay, then venting high-test peroxide into the cargobay atmosphere. So, then not only do they have a method of killing the prisoner by gassing them, they also have a perfectly logical and respectable method for disposing of the body and the evidence. Because that stuff's explosive in the wrong concentrations. People would raise eyebrows if they followed te traditional 'Blown out an airlock trying to escape' route, but explosive fuel fumes is so believeable, it's just about the only part of the report nobody's thinking to question. Venus eats any evidence to the contrary, and they get away scott free.
I don't think this is an accident. At least, it didn't begin as an accident.
I think they started like that. They flood the bay with peroxide vapour like I explain above, to gas the prisoner. But then something goes wrong and the vapour actually explodes on them, leading to the near disaster that actually happened, and now they have to fight for their lives. Instead, what they've achieved by accident is making certain that nobody even thinks it began through a deliberate murder attempt because nobody in their right mind would ever fake an accident that severe to cover up a murder. Because the explosion itself wasn't the false accident.... it was the vapour leak that caused the explosion. They intented the leak to happen, but not everything that followed.
Does this make sense to anyone else?
-----------------------------
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Venus Aerospace Accident Investigation Board
Interview Transcript.
Subj: Incident involving onboard explosion, subsequent fire, loss of control and near loss of Spacecraft KM-LUN MD-160 on December 7th of 2024.
Interviewer: Vincent Butler
Subject: PIC Lun Alekseeva.
BUTLER: Alright, Ms. Alekseeva, in your own words, please recount the event leading up to the incident.
ALEKSEEVA: We were proceeding along our controller-assigned approach heading, preparing to make landing at Crystal Tokyo. Ship's status was normal. 6 of our main engines were idled. At our altitude, 2 were enough to maintain cruise. We were approximately 162.5km from Crystal Tokyo outer marker when we received an indicator for a shuttle engine activating in it's launch tube.
BUTLER: And this was of concern, why, precisely?
ALEKSEEVA: Our 6 shuttlecraft rely on a liquid-fuelled rocket motor for the first 30 seconds of flight.
BUTLER: The combination of fuels used?
ALEKSEEVA: High-test Hydrogen Peroxide and purified Kerosene.
BUTLER: What was your initial action?
ALEKSEEVA: I put the craft into an immediate hard turn to port.
BUTLER: And your reason for this?
ALEKSEEVA: There is a safety mechanism built into the automatic guidance system. It sends a shutdown signal to the engine fuel valves if it detects a sudden change in heading prior to launch.
BUTLER: This safety mechanism failed?
ALEKSEEVA: Yes. We completed our turn but the engines remained live, but without a source of active ignition. My next action would have been to open the tube outer doors to allow the missile to fly free and drain any built up fuel or oxidisers. The shuttle's engines ignited before I could open the door.
BUTLER: Causing the onboard explosion.
ALEKSEEVA: Yes.
BUTLER: The immediate effects of this Explosion.
ALEKSEEVA: The explosion fractured fuel and oxidiser lines in the aft compartment, triggering an onboard flash fire. Hull breach allowed Venus atmosphere into the compartment, but the fire was sustained by leaking oxidiser from our onboard stores. Emergency isolators closed automatically but failed to fully seal, allowing fumes to fill the craft. Flight crew donned auxiliary oxygen masks in case ventilation failed.
The spacecraft then took on a nose-down attitude and began to dive. We attempted to correct, but the explosion had damaged the hydraulic system, leaving the controls in manual reversion.
BUTLER: And your thought process at the time? You had a spacecraft that was on fire and descending out of control, how did you work through this problem?
ALEKSEEVA: I concluded that our immediate concern was controlling our descent before we reached collapse altitude. The fire was damaging, but would not kill us in the short term. I reduced engine power to idle and deployed our speedbrakes to slow our rate of descent. I attempted to correct by applying full back on yoke, but even wit both of us on the flight deck trying the elevator would not move. We were descending out of control with no way of levelling.
BUTLER: What approaches did you consider?
ALEKSEEVA: I considered using the main engines to generate increased lift over the wing and level our descent, but we are already approaching Vne and I was concerned that applying thrust would instead push the nose further down due to their position. Inverting the ship and using the damaged controls in our favour would be too destabilising , and we would have had no way of recovering from an inverted attitude if it failed. The final solution was to apply full nose-up trim and try using the tabs to servo to the elevators.
BUTLER: And this was successful?
ALEKSEEVA: This stopped our descent.
BUTLER: What controls were functional at this point?
ALEKSEEVA: We had minimal rudder and aileron control in manual reversion. Speedbrakes, Flaps, Engine throttles, Engine nozzle position, Elevator trim were all functional as they are electrically operated. We regained some elevator authority as our speed decreased, and were able to put the spacecraft into a climb to a safer altitude.
BUTLER: But you still hadn't stabilised the craft?
ALEKSEEVA: No. We began to attain a dangerously high angle of attack and stall warning alarm sounded. I called for take-off power from main engines, and attempted to reset trim tabs to neutral and push the nose back down to level flight. We were able to prevent a stall, but were unable to fully level the spacecraft. We continued to climb under power.
BUTLER: Why were you unable to level the spacecraft?
ALEKSEEVA: We discovered after the incident that the trim tabs had jammed in their maximum position. We could not fully overcome the load this imposed on the elevator using manual force alone.
BUTLER: And how did you work this problem?
ALEKSEEVA: We concluded it was safest to allow the climb to continue under full power to space and deal with the control issue there. We still had a fire onboard, and I assumed that the loss of trim control was a result of cable burn-through. The fire still had potential to destroy primary control cables, which would have rendered the craft uncontrollable.
BUTLER: So you tackled the fire?
ALEKSEEVA: Yes. Cockpit controls for fuel and oxidiser dumps malfunctioned due to fire damage, but we were able to access the manual controls. Starved of fuel and oxidiser, the fire self-extinguished before we reached orbit.
BUTLER: You finally managed to stabilise the spacecraft in orbit.
ALEKSEEVA: Our nose RCS systems and engine controls were undamaged. We stabilised into orbit and began checking for potential flare-ups and hot-spots. A number of electrical systems had been damaged, and we were concerned short circuits might trigger a new fire. It was in the course of checks that we discovered our prisoner had been overcome by fumes. There were no respirators in the cargobay. Unfortunately, to get safe access to the bay, we had to vent it and the body to space as it still contained explosive levels of peroxide fumes.
BUTLER: Yes. Unfortunate. At what point in this incident, did you become aware of Tokyo Control attempting to make contact?
ALEKSEEVA: We heard the first broadcast shortly after we began our initial turn. At the time, we were too busy working problem to respond, for reasons that should be obvious.
BUTLER: At no point did you attempt to make any communications with Tokyo Control to advise them of your emergency?
ALEKSEEVA: We had more immediate concerns. We barely had time to set our transponder code.
BUTLER: Even after the situation was resolved, you did not make contact?
ALEKSEEVA: There was no need. And we had left Tokyo's zone of control.
BUTLER: Thank you very much, Ms. Alekseeva. Recovering the spacecraft from such a dire situation was a skilful piece of flying, but, I can't help but notice some inconsistencies between your statement, and our forensic reconstruction,
ALEKSEEVA: What inconsistencies?
BUTLER: We have radar tracks from Tokyo Control that show your initial turn and the sudden beginning of the descent as you described. TokyoMet recorded the audio signature of the initial explosion as a pressure spike on their instruments. However, accounting for pressure and density differences, they show that the explosion could not have happened until a full sixty-four seconds after the initial descent began.
ALEKSEEVA: We were working the problem.
BUTLER: As you said. But this matches data we recovered from the flight recorder. It shows the same circling manoeuvre, followed immediately by an extreme pitch-down command. The elevators were rapidly moved to their full deflection. Do you have an explanation for this?
ALEKSEEVA: We have still been attempting to trigger the shuttle's safety mechanism.
BUTLER: The recorder then shows a sudden decelerating force. We initially assumed this was as a result of the explosion, but further analysis shows the forces imposed to be inconsistent with those expected from an onboard explosion. There are three momentary spikes, followed immediately by some form of sudden event which causes a recorded loss of airspeed and with momentary a pitch-up event.
ALEKSEEVA: The tube may have vented forwards or interfered with the control mechanics as it damaged them or something different may have happened. It was a powerful explosion and I did not witness the specific details of how the explosion occurred.
BUTLER: Yes. After that signature, the data continues, showing no further control inputs as the spacecraft descends. Then, 64 seconds after the initial event, it cuts out.
ALEKSEEVA: We were dealing with an onboard fire, failing ventilation systems filling the cabin with poisonous fumes and multiple electrical system failures. We were trying to understand what had happened to the ship.
The recorder has failed due to the power cable burning through, that would be my assumption.
BUTLER: Possible. But it happens at the exact time TokyoMet records the signature of the onboard explosion. I also have this report from an aerospace engineer indicating that recorded damage to the upper surfaces to the tail structure is more consistant with a collision with another spacecraft, than with explosive damage, or excessive aerodynamic pressures or loadings.
ALEKSEEVA: Is it possible that debris from the destroyed launch tube and shuttle hit the tail and elevator?
BUTLER: Improbable, but possible. It's noted as such in the report. But taken together with the data from the flight recorder, this does leave us with something of a mystery. And in an accident that claimed a life, we are not allowed to leave mysteries.
ALEKSEEVA: What are you suggesting?
BUTLER: At any time, did you see another spacecraft in your airspace?
ALEKSEEVA: We did not detect, either on radar, or visually, any other spacecraft. And if we had hit another spacecraft, would they not have also gone down?
BUTLER: Unfortunately, the Cockpit Voice Recorder was too badly damaged to give us any useful data to confirm or refute this. Even then the remains of it's onboard self-diagnostic shows that it was either thirty-five minutes out of synchronisation with the craft's own onboard clocks, or that the event which destroyed the data cards inside didn't happen until a full thirty-five minutes after the incident began.
ALEKSEEVA: Are you suggesting we destroyed the recorder ourselves?
BUTLER: I would find the idea of a crew deliberately destroying their onboard recorders after an accident unthinkable. But there are so many unusual questions here. I am left with two competing theories and that the one thing that might clarify events is unfortunately destroyed.
ALEKSEEVA: We cannot hit a ship that wasn't there. It's that simple. We detected no ship. Neither did Tokyo. Nor was their any wreckage. I have told you what happened.
BUTLER: Thank you for your time, Ms Alekseeva.....
--
Venus Aerospace Accident Investigation Board
Extract from Report: Incident involving onboard explosion, subsequent fire, loss of control and near loss of Spacecraft KM-LUN MD-160 on December 7th of 2024.
This board cannot state conclusively that a collision with a cloaked or otherwise hidden craft did not occur, and that the crew of KM Lun are not perpetrating a coverup. A collision with an unknown craft may have caused damage to the tail of KM Lun, with the onboard fire being a consequence of a fuel or oxidiser leak in missile tube 5 triggered by the collision. This theory most conveniently fits the facts recorded on the Flight Data Recorder of KM Lun.
Another craft would likely have been crippled at least severely damaged by such a heavy impact. Debris signals were detected by Crystal Tokyo weather radar, but only falling along the course of KM Lun, indicating that KM Lun was the sole source of debris in this incident. Therefore, in the absence of any wreckage or direct evidence of a second craft involved the board is required to consider alternatives that discount a second aerospacecraft.
The board is therefore of the opinion that while it is improbable that the damage to the tail of KM Lun could be accounted for solely by the inadvertent activation of a shuttle's rocket motor, and subsequent onboard explosion, it is not impossible.
It is a saying in aviation that an improbable accident, is just one that has not occurred.
The most likely sequence of events in this scenario is that, rather than exploding immediately, one or more of the shuttle's rocket booster engines managed to ignite hypergolically, causing an overpressure within the launch tube which ruptured both tube hatches and caused the acceleration forces recorded due to the impingement and reaction of combustion gases on the hull of KM Lun. It is theorised that it was the aft hatch penetrating the heat shield at high speed which caused the initial damage to KM Lun's hydraulic and electrical system, but fire damage prevents conclusive analysis in these sections. This event could easily have been mistaken by the crew for a detonation or explosion and destruction of the entire shuttle assembly.
The engines continue to operate for 64 seconds at an uncontrolled power setting, before hold-down bolts fail, allowing the shuttle to launch uncontrolled from tube 5. With insufficient thrust for a sustained flight, the intact shuttle instead collides with the tail, causing the recorded structural damage before disintegrating. Severed fuel and oxidiser lines cause an external fuel/oxidiser explosion which is recorded by TokyoMet, exacerbating the loss of control and causing further widespread damage to the electrical system, cutting the recorder power.
This does not exactly match crew accounts. It is conceivable given the developing nature of the incident that the crew of KM Lun are conflating multiple events into a single occurrence. The situation on the flightdeck with multiple failures occuring simultaneously, would likely have been extremely chaotic and disorientating. Entertaining this assumption allows the board to construct a timeline of events that reconciles crew accounts with the damage suffered with the least amount of inconsistency between both.
The unfortunate lack of Cockpit Voice Recorder data in this instance prevents a final conclusion from being drawn so, barring future evidence, both theories will be allowed to stand. This will be reflected in our recommendations. The continued absence of any evidence of a second spacecraft requires the board to favour an onboard explosion caused by a shuttlecraft malfunction. .
It is clear however that in any case, the incident was drastically exacerbated by the presence of High-Test Hydrogen Peroxide and Kerosene in large quantities aboard KM Lun. The board can recall two historical occasions where this combination of fuels led to the loss of a craft and it's crew, the most well known of which being the Russian submarine Kursk disaster 24 years ago. This has informed our final recommendations below.
The single fatality aboard was caused by the failure of the ventilation system to fully contain fumes from the onboard fire and venusian atmosphere, and lack of provision of an emergency respirator in the cargo bay. These are not required in cargo spaces by current regulations and the cargo bay access hatch had been sealed from the outside, as the casualty was being transported as a prisoner. It is understood that this was not normal proceedure. This will be reflected in our recommendations.
We must also note that, once control had been lost, the flight crew of KM Lun managed their difficulties with all skill consistent with the highest standards of airmanship. The incident was correctly assessed by the crew as it unfolded, with actions correctly prioritised resulting in the succesful regaining of spacecraft control, despite extreme levels of damage.
--------------------------
TruthinJustice
Subj: Getting way with Murder?
Posted by: Kullury
Am I the only one who has a different idea of what's going on here? I mean, you're not going to believe this was an accident right? At least, that it didn't start out as an accident. Okay, the big key to this is that passenger, the sole person who was killed. Now, we know exactly why that person was aboard - the Knight Sabers had been hired specifically to grab her off the street and bring her to Lun. And they claim they were planning to bring her to the AMP on Tokyo....
I think we are looking at a coverup. But not the one everyone thinks.
Think about it. If someone biomods you the way Haur was, you're gonna want revenge. That's what this is..... a botched attempt at revenge.
And the key to it all is right there in the report:
"The single fatality aboard was caused by the failure of the ventilation system to fully contain fumes from the onboard fire and venusian atmosphere, and lack of provision of an emergency respirator in the cargo bay"
And from the mouth of Alekseeva:
"Unfortunately, to get safe access to the bay, we had to vent it and the body to space as it still contained explosive levels of peroxide fumes."
You wanna know what I think they were doing?
I think they were trying to execute their prisoner. Now, they know that's murder, right? So what they do is try to make it look like an accident by putting the prisoner in a cargobay, then venting high-test peroxide into the cargobay atmosphere. So, then not only do they have a method of killing the prisoner by gassing them, they also have a perfectly logical and respectable method for disposing of the body and the evidence. Because that stuff's explosive in the wrong concentrations. People would raise eyebrows if they followed te traditional 'Blown out an airlock trying to escape' route, but explosive fuel fumes is so believeable, it's just about the only part of the report nobody's thinking to question. Venus eats any evidence to the contrary, and they get away scott free.
I don't think this is an accident. At least, it didn't begin as an accident.
I think they started like that. They flood the bay with peroxide vapour like I explain above, to gas the prisoner. But then something goes wrong and the vapour actually explodes on them, leading to the near disaster that actually happened, and now they have to fight for their lives. Instead, what they've achieved by accident is making certain that nobody even thinks it began through a deliberate murder attempt because nobody in their right mind would ever fake an accident that severe to cover up a murder. Because the explosion itself wasn't the false accident.... it was the vapour leak that caused the explosion. They intented the leak to happen, but not everything that followed.
Does this make sense to anyone else?
-----------------------------
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?