Hypersonic Flight

The day is Thursday, February 24, 1949; the pens on the automatic plotting boards at South Station are busy tracking the altitude and course of a rocket, which just moments before had been launched from a site three miles away on the test range of the White Sands Proving Ground. The rocket is a V-2, one of many brought to the United States from Germany after World War II. By this time launching V-2s had become almost routine for the crews at White Sands, but on this day neither the launch nor the rocket are “routine.” Mounted on top of this V-2 is a slender, needle-like rocket called the WAC Corporal, which serves as a second stage to the V-2. This test firing of the combination V-2/WAC Corporal is the first meaningful attempt to demonstrate the use of a multi-stage rocket for achieving high velocities and high altitudes and is part of a larger program labeled “Bumper” by the U.S. Army. All previous rocket launchings of any importance, both in the United States and in Europe, had utilized the single stage V-2 by itself. On this clear February day, the pen plotters track the V-2 to an altitude of 100 miles at a velocity of 3500 mph, at which point the WAC Corporal is ignited. The slender upper stage accelerates to a maximum velocity of 5150 mph and reaches an altitude of 244 miles, exceeding by a healthy 130 miles the previous record set by a V-2 alone. After reaching this peak, the WAC Corporal noses over and careers back into the atmosphere at over 5000 mph.  In so doing, it becomes the first object of human origin to achieve hypersonic flight – the first time that any vehicle has flown faster than five times the speed of sound.*

Since that time, numerous vehicles have flown at hypersonic speeds – the nose cones of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and with humans aboard the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space capsules, the space shuttle, and the X-15 hypersonic research vehicle. All of these vehicles share the same feature – after initial boost to altitude, they essentially glide back through the atmosphere with only gravity for a propelling force (they fall back to the earth’s surface). The Mach number ranges from Mach 7 for the X-15 to Mach 36 for the Apollo capsule.

Indeed, the hypersonic flight regime is defined as flight at Mach 5 or higher. This is, however, just a rule of thumb. As a vehicle accelerates from Mach 4.99 to 5.01, the flow does not change from green to red, and there is no clap of thunder, unlike what happens when a vehicle accelerates from Mach 0.99 to 1.01 entering the supersonic flight regime. Here, the physics of the flow does change dramatically when going from subsonic to supersonic flight, and there is a clap of thunder (the sonic boom). Rather, a better definition of hypersonic flight is that high-speed part of the flight spectrum where certain physical phenomena become more important that are not so important at lower speeds. One of those physical phenomena is intense aerodynamic heating of the surface due to skin friction and shock wave heating. Protection against aerodynamic heating is the dominant feature that drives the design of hypersonic vehicles.

HTV-2

Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-2). Credit: DARPA.

A recent example of the effect of aerodynamic heating on a  hypersonic vehicle is the test of the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2), very recently announced by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In August 2011, this unmanned vehicle was powered by rockets to Mach 20, after which it spent about 200 seconds flying within the atmosphere before the intense aerodynamic heating resulted in the skin peeling away from the internal structure. The flight was finally aborted and was sent plunging into the Pacific Ocean.

X-43

X-43. Credit: NASA.

X-51

X-51. Credit: US Air Force.

Today there is a great deal of interest in sustained flight within the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds. The only propulsion system that would be practical for this application is a specialized ramjet engine that would have supersonic flow completely throughout the engine – a supersonic combustion ramjet (Scramjet). This is, however, a massive technical challenge, and after years of research and technical development two test vehicles have recently flown with operating scramjets, the X-43, which achieved about 10 seconds of sustained thrust in flight at Mach 9.6, and the X-51, which operated for about 200 seconds at Mach 5. These are but baby steps in the direction of what might be the first missions for such an air breathing hypersonic vehicle for the military. Moreover, there has been a long standing dream of a hypersonic transport – the dream of flying from London to Tokyo in 90 minutes. A recent article in Aerospace America published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics** examined again the status of this dream and ended with the following: “The question is, after over a half a century of development are we any closer to that childhood dream of the hypersonic passenger aircraft, or is it still 30 years away?” Nobody knows the answer to this question, but in historical perspective the advancement of the airplane since the Wright brothers has been driven by the desire to fly faster and higher. Although today there are many other considerations that drive the technology of the airplane, there will always be that ultimate dream of faster and higher, and that means hypersonic flight.

References

*Anderson, John D. Jr., Hypersonic and High Temperature Gasdynamics, 2nd edition, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2006.

**Williamson, Mark, “Hypersonic Transport … 30 Years and Holding?”, Aerospace America, Vol. 50, No. 5, May 2012, pp 40-45.

 

John D. Anderson, Jr. is a curator in the Aeronautics Division of the National Air and Space Museum.

The Desegregation of Airports in the American South

The fact that transportation was a segregated business in the American South for many decades of the twentieth century is well known. Many older African Americans who grew up in the South painfully remember the time when black passengers had to sit in the back of busses or use separate train compartments; and when train stations and bus terminals provided separate but mostly unequal facilities such as drinking fountains, restrooms, waiting lounges, and eating facilities for black and white passengers.

Montgomery Airport

A photograph taken in 1961 shows signs indicating the location of the “colored” waiting room at Dannelly Field Airport in Montgomery Alabama. (United States v. City of Montgomery, Case Files, National Archives, Atlanta)

Most people I talk to about my research are surprised to learn that segregation laws also regulated access to air transportation well into the post-war period. While African American travelers enjoyed free and unrestricted access to the aircraft cabin, and the airlines, as federally regulated businesses for the most part, provided non-discriminatory services to all passengers, many airports across the South subscribed to so-called Jim Crow practices. Studies conducted in the mid-1950s by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Congressman Charles Diggs, a Democrat from Michigan, showed that in fact the vast majority of Southern airports provided duplicate waiting rooms, restrooms, and dining facilities in order to separate the races in their use of airport terminal space. To many critical observers such as Diggs it seemed absurd that travelers who were en route to enjoy the most modern means of transportation – the airplane – had to subject themselves to the humiliating experience of having to pass through segregated terminals. Local municipalities, in charge of airport management, in most instances ruthlessly enforced segregation claiming local laws or local customs as the basis for their actions. Eager to preserve the South’s system of institutionalized racism, mayors and airport managers in places such as Jackson, Mississippi, Montgomery, Alabama, and New Orleans, Louisiana, resisted change. They saw no contradiction between the shiny exteriors of their newly constructed modern terminals and the datedness of the rules that structured their use.

Shreveport Airport

A sketch of the floor plan of Greater Shreveport Municipal Airport in Shreveport, Louisiana. The letters F,D, H, and G indicate the location of duplicate restroom facilities. The letter C marks the cafeteria reserved for the use of African Americans. (United States v. City of Shreveport, Case Files, National Archives, Fort Worth).

Opposition to airport segregation began to express itself as early as the 1940s, when National Airport in Washington, D.C. became a target. To many observers it was a particular embarrassment that foreign dignitaries had to pass through segregated spaces at a facility which not only served as the gateway to the nation’s capital but was run by the federal government. The fact that at the time the District of Columbia still practiced segregation did not alleviate the criticism but rather enforced it. Civil rights organizations like the NAACP demanded that something be done and supported Helen Nash’s lawsuit against the airport in 1948. While the courts deliberated the merits of her case, which would ultimately go nowhere, the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics, the head of the federal agency responsible for the regulation of aviation and the administration of the country’s only federally-owned airport, stepped up his act and ordered the integration of the airport by way of amending the Washington National Airport Act in December 1948. Considered a bold regulatory move at the time, it ended discrimination at National Airport and enabled travelers to enjoy terminal services without “segregation as to race, color, or creed.”

Due to the special ownership structure at National Airport, the case could not be used to force airports elsewhere into compliance with the government’s new anti-segregation policy. Instead, the fight against airport segregation had to be fought on a case by case basis. It involved different actors: civil rights organizations, individuals, and federal agencies. And it relied on various strategies: direct action, litigation, and statutory reform. The airport in Atlanta was one of the first airports to be hit by direct action in 1959. Protesters had appeared before city councils and airport authorities. But until then none had staged protests in the locations where black air travelers experienced discrimination. The Atlanta Airport protest was organized by The Congress for Racial Equality (CORE) and is best described as an eat-in. It was carried out by an interracial group of activists who went to the segregated Dobbs House restaurant on August 8, 1959 to have lunch together. Unable to receive service for all members of the group they shared the meals they were able to buy and were asked to leave by the airport management thereafter. Although the protest did not lead to the immediate integration of the airport, James R. Robinson, CORE’s executive secretary, encouraged others to imitate it in an interview with the Cleveland Call and Post on August 8, 1959: “We all agreed,” he said, “that it was the best coffee we had ever had – the extra tang of drinking your coffee interracially across the Georgia color bar is highly recommended!” Over the course of the next two years, more airports were targeted by direct action campaigns: CORE staged a “prayer pilgrimage” at the Greenville Airport in South Carolina; a group of CORE Freedom Riders targeted the airport in Tallahassee, Florida; students from the local colleges staged a protest at the Raleigh-Durham Airport. As a result of the protests, all three airports were desegregated.

washington post

Edgar G. Brown, Director of the National Negro Council, and his son Frederick stage a sit-in in the cafeteria at National Airport on December 29, 1948 to protest against segregation. (Washington Post, 30 December 1948)

Direct action protest was flanked by efforts to challenge segregation in the courts. The NAACP had long championed litigation as an effective road to integration and helped plaintiffs bring suit. This resulted in a number of individual damage suits against airport administrators and airport restaurants filed during the 1950s. But litigation was a slow and tedious process that moved from case to case. With an urgency that increased in the late 1950s and early 1960s civil rights leaders also tried to put pressure on the federal government and its regulatory agencies. They demanded the enforcement of existing anti-discrimination provisions in the Federal Airport Act and otherwise called for statutory reform. The Civil Aeronautics Administration, subsequently organized as the Federal Aviation Administration, was slow to react but eventually joined the fight against Jim Crow practices. Its attention focused on the Federal Aid Airport Program, a grant-in-aid program designed to subsidize airport construction across the country, as a way of preventing the construction of segregated airport facilities. Finally in the early 1960s, the Department of Justice weighed in. In 1961, it initiated law suits against the airports in Montgomery, Alabama and New Orleans, Louisiana. The following year, it filed actions against the airports in Shreveport, Louisiana and Birmingham, Alabama. In the leading case against Montgomery, the Justice Department produced testimony, images, and floor plans to prove that the airport management and the restaurant proprietor had systematically discriminated against black travelers by posting signs and segregating along racial lines the airport’s waiting, eating, drinking, and restroom facilities. The court ruled in favor of the government in January 1962 and ordered the integration of the airport. The case served as the precedent upon which the other cases were decided. Shreveport was the last airport to be forced into compliance. Losing its appeal against court ordered integration, the last signs at an American airport leading travelers to segregated facilities were ordered to come down on July 10, 1963.

If you plan to visit the Museum this summer, you will find more information about the experience of African American air travelers in the America by Air gallery.

Anke Ortlepp is the Verville Fellow at the National Air and Space Museum,  Aeronautics Division.

 

Scratching Beneath the Surface

What’s inside a planet? What instruments do scientists use to figure it out? And what clues does a planet’s surface give us?

On Saturday, April 21, Lisa Walsh and I, scientists from the Museum’s Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, invited visitors to the National Air and Space Museum’s Explore the Universe Family Day to think about these questions, through two hands-on activities relating to our research into tectonics on Mercury. As the MESSENGER (Mercury Surface, Space ENvironment, Geochemistry, and Ranging) spacecraft starts its second Earth year in orbit around Mercury, we interacted with approximately 900 kids and kids-at-heart, asking them to figure out what was inside balloons by using tools analogous to those used in planetary science (scales, magnets, and, slightly less analogously, a good hard shake), and to piece together a puzzle made from images of Mercury’s surface.

Evidently you can’t just do one piece of the puzzle, because often people stuck around until the whole thing was put together, talking with Lisa about MESSENGER results and her own research.

 

explore the universe

Lisa Walsh talks with young visitors about her research during the Explore the Universe Family Day at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC on April 21, 2012.

Lisa studies wrinkle ridges, which form on the surface of a planet when rock layers are crunched in from the sides, like scuffing in the edge of a rug with your shoe. This causes the layers to fault and fold, leaving ‘wrinkles’ in the surface. Wrinkle ridges are found throughout the inner Solar System, and have been mapped in greater detail on Mercury during the last year than was possible before the arrival of MESSENGER. Lisa wants to understand why wrinkle ridges on Mercury are so much larger than those on the Earth’s Moon, and what they look like beneath the surface on both planetary bodies.

The balloons were seemingly irresistible, since holding one out to any passing kid and asking them if they wanted to figure out “What’s Inside?” usually resulted in them spending the time to figure out all six, whether with a cohort of siblings or fellow boy scouts, or with a parent as engaged as they were. The balloons separately contained sand, iron filings, yarn, a magnet, a marble, and beads, with the iron filings being the most popular for further investigation. As the afternoon progressed, I frequently interacted again with previous visitors to the table, when they brought back friends or family to check it out.

 

michelle selvans

Dr. Michelle Selvans helps young investigators as they determine the interior materials of balloons, using scales, magnets, and a good shake.

Every participant left the table with something in hand (sticker, button, poster, or a model of MESSENGER to put together at home). But even more gratifying was seeing everyone leave with an appreciation for who studies the planets in our Solar System (we do!), how they’re studied (for example, through missions like MESSENGER, using instruments like the multi-spectral and multi-resolution camera we depend on for our research), and why they’re studied.

Why do we as a species study our neighbors in space? Why do we look for Earth-like planets around neighboring stars (the ongoing Kepler mission)? Why even study our own planet, its life and climate and geology?

If you ask ten people these same questions, you could very well get ten different answers. We all have our own reasons for being interested in the world around us. Maybe we’re concerned about how to protect people from natural hazards like hurricanes or earthquakes. Maybe we want to know if we are ‘alone’ in the universe, or whether life in any form exists elsewhere. Maybe we are awed by the beauty, intricacy, and divinity of the physical universe and just want to commune with it more intimately. Maybe, like for myself, practical, personal, and spiritual reasons all factor in.

 

Mercury

Mosaic of high-resolution MESSENGER images taken at dawn, showing several newly-identified tectonic features (arrows). Made by Dr. Michelle Selvans.

 

I study large faults on Mercury, which cast long shadows at dawn and dusk, so they’re easy to see when we take pictures at those times of (Mercury) day. They’ve been mapped previously all across the surface (using images from before MESSENGER went into orbit), and appear to be placed in a pattern that suggests global-scale stresses. As we collect pictures at dawn and dusk, I am mapping the greater number of scarps that are being revealed, to see if the pattern holds. I also use the elevation maps that other MESSENGER Science Team members are producing, in order to understand the shapes of the most intriguing faults (measured across the scarp). Those shapes will help me model the fault structure below the surface, in order to understand the shallow structure of Mercury’s crust.

That’s a little bit of what I do here in the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies. What would you want to know about Mercury if you were in my place? Or about any other planet in our Solar System, or beyond? Why are you interested in those questions? And how could we go about figuring out the answers?

We would like to thank everyone who participated in the April 21 Family Day fun, as well as the MESSENGER spacecraft Education Team for developing the puzzle, and the Lunar and Planetary Institute Education Team for the inspiration behind the balloon activity (the Investigating the Insides module, on their Explore! website).

Dr. Michelle Selvans is a planetary geophysicist in the Center for Earth and Planetary Studies at the National Air and Space Museum.

Transit of Venus on June 5th, 2012

If you visit the Public Observatory during its daytime hours in May (1–3pm on Wednesday through Saturday, weather permitting), you can use the 16” telescope to observe an object which looks a lot like the Moon.  Hanging in a blue sky, it shines with yellowish reflected sunlight.  We can currently only see part of its illuminated side, giving it a crescent shape.  You won’t spot any craters, though, and it looks a little fuzzy.  It’s not the Moon, but the Earth’s twin, Venus — the planet which is most similar in orbit and size to the Earth.  All eyes are on Venus now as it prepares for the show of the century: a transit across the face of the Sun.

 

Venus

Venus as seen through telescopes at the Public Observatory on April 25, 2012.

Venus and Mercury,  the only two planets which orbit closer to the Sun than the Earth, can be seen in crescent phase when they start to pass between the Sun and the Earth.  The only source of illumination is the Sun, so when Venus is between the Sun and the Earth, we see mostly the dark night side and only a sliver of the daylit side.

 

phases of venus

Phases of Venus. Image Credit: NASA

When Venus passes between the Earth and the Sun (its new phase), it is invisible because we are looking at its nighttime side.  Venus is no more than a few degrees away from the Sun at this point, so anyone attempting to observe Venus when it is new or a slim crescent should be careful to not point their telescope at the Sun, even for an instant.  Permanent eye damage could result from such an accident.

Does Venus go directly between the Earth and the Sun and cast its shadow on the Earth?  Usually not.  The orbit of Venus is tipped 3.3° with respect to Earth’s, so when Venus passes through its new phase, it usually goes above or below the Sun.  Sometimes, however, the orbits line up.  When Venus crosses directly between the Sun and the Earth, it blocks only 0.1% of the Sun’s light. The drop in overall sunlight is not noticeable, but when viewed through a telescope (safely!), the silhouette of Venus appears as a dark dot in front of the bright Sun.  This event is called a transit.

 

Venus Transit

The 2004 transit of Venus, observed by NASA's TRACE satellite. The faint halo on the lower left edge of Venus is sunlight shining through its atmosphere.

Transits of Venus occur at regular intervals, but they are rare.  They come in pairs eight years apart, and more than a century passes between pairs of transits.  There was a transit in 2004, and the second one in that pair occurs on June 5-6, 2012.  The next transit will not happen until 2117.  For nearly all of us, this is our last chance to see this event.

The transit can only be viewed by safely observing the Sun.  During the 6-hour transit, Venus will be silhouetted against the disk of the Sun.  Looking at the Sun with the naked eye can hurt the eyes, and pointing a telescope without a safe solar filter at the Sun will cause immediate telescope damage or permanent eye damage.

Here at the Public Observatory in Washington, DC, the transit will start shortly after 6 pm on June 5, 2012. The dome of the Observatory will already be in the shadow of the National Air and Space Museum building, so if the weather is clear, we will set up safe solar telescopes just outside the Museum’s entrance facing the National Mall.  We will follow the transit until the Sun gets too low in the sky to observe.  Sunset is at 8:31 PM that day, and we will see less than half of the transit from Washington, DC.  We will also stream a live image to the Web, and tweet updates at @SIObservatory. The event is paired with a free presentation by Museum staff about the history and science of transits of Venus, a free lecture inside the Museum on detecting the transits of planets in front of other stars and, later, nighttime observing in and around the Observatory.

 

solar telescope

Visitors using a safe solar telescope outside the Museum in Washington, DC.

Check with your local observatory or astronomy club for a public transit viewing event near you (whether it is visible depends on your location in the world), or check the Solar Dynamics Observatory’s map.  There are ways to observe the Sun safely at home if using proper equipment.  You can use eclipse glasses to safely observe the Sun, though the dot of Venus against the unmagnified Sun is at the limit of the eye’s resolution.  Finally, NASA is planning to stream the event live from the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawai’i, which is very likely to have good weather.  The entire transit will be visible from that location.

On June 5, 2012, solar telescopes around the world and in space will point to the Sun, marking another beat in the centuries-long dance of the planets.  Wherever you are in the world, whether your skies are clear or cloudy, it’s not an event to miss!

Geneviève de Messieres is an astronomy educator at the National Air and Space Museum.

 

“The Day the Music Died”: A Passing Glance at Air Safety and Celebrity Air Accidents

In spite of its many annoyances—inferior service, inedible food, lost luggage—there appears to be one positive about air travel: data show that it’s the safest form of transportation. Statistics drawn from the National Safety Council—“Lifetime Odds of Death for Selected Causes, United States, 2007”— indicate that over a lifetime, Americans have a 1 in 88 chance of dying in a motor vehicle accident; a 1 in 770 chance as a motorcycle rider; a 1 in 649 chance as a pedestrian; a 1 in 7,032 chance in air and space transport accidents, a 1 in 148,756 chance as a casualty of an earthquake or other earth movements, and a 1 in 3,580,052 chance as a trolley car rider. These estimates are based on information from the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Day the Music Died

Credit: Mirror News

Nevertheless, air accidents do happen, and the ones that hold the most fascination are the ones that involve celebrities. People the world over are captivated—even obsessed with celebrity for all kinds of reasons, and this is true especially in America. The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History (New York: Oxford UP, 1986), by Leo Braudy, University Professor and Professor of English at University of Southern California, tracks the course of fame in Western society. Braudy begins with Charles Lindbergh and Ernest Hemingway, and then goes back to Alexander the Great and forward to what he terms “The Democratization of Fame.” Since The Frenzy of Renown, there has been abundant scholarship on what is known as celebrity culture; i.e., the multifaceted context that surrounds celebrity; i.e., the culture of consumerism, the media, social mobility, and the desire to have one’s shining, or even inglorious, moment on the stage. Celebrity death is fascinating: it is often untimely or unfortunate or tragic because the person in question dies young, either as a result of suicide, a drug overdose or murder. Celebrity aerial death is perhaps the most compelling kind of celebrity death because it involves some of these elements, and it represents the ultimate symbolic fall from grace.

Celebrity air crashes that involve musicians seem to capture the most public attention. These deaths are also reported on in the media and on social media, often in a sensationalist or lurid way. They are an integral part of what singer and composer Joni Mitchell meant when she wrote about “the star maker machinery behind the popular song”; i.e., the idea that the media both create celebrity and destroy it. The death of Rick[y] Nelson, on December 31, 1985, is a case in point. Nelson, who had been a much-publicized teen idol in the 1950s, had gone beyond his celebrity to write and perform more sophisticated rock music. Perhaps because he was considered washed up as a star, Nelson’s crash was blamed by The Washington Post on the freebasing of cocaine aboard the aircraft. Later, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that these charges were false, and that the accident was caused by a faulty heater. The outraged Nelson family went to great lengths to defend Rick Nelson from any wrongdoing. David Nelson, Rick’s older brother, produced a documentary, Rick Nelson: A Brother Remembers, partly to dispel the distasteful notion that his younger brother was a careless drug addict.

The American fascination with the aerial death of rock musicians came about because of the legendary February 3, 1959, Winter Party Dance Tour crash of a Beech Bonanza in a cornfield near Clear Lake, Iowa. This accident, in which Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and Jiles Perry “J.P.” Richardson, Jr., aka “The Big Bopper” died, is remembered because it was the first widely-publicized air crash to involve well-known rock musicians and because it was immortalized by Don McLean in his 1971 hit song “American Pie”:

“A long long time ago
I can still remember how
That music used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And maybe they’d be happy for a while
But February made me shiver
With every paper I’d deliver
Bad news on the doorstep
I couldn’t take one more step
I can’t remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride
But something touched me deep inside
**The day the music died**

Glenn C. Altschuler, a professor of American Studies at Cornell University, argues in his All Shook Up: How Rock ‘N’ Roll Changed America (Pivotal Moments in American History) (Oxford UP, 2004) that “although the Civil Aeronautics Board blamed pilot error, the crash was not wholly unrelated to the [prevailing] assault on rock ‘n’ roll. If opportunities for these once and future stars had not narrowed in the late ‘50s, they might not have found themselves in the hinterland in winter, traveling from town to town in broken buses and rickety aircraft.” (171)

Altschuler may well be right about the Winter Dance Party tragedy, but even in succeeding eras, with the widespread acceptance of rock music, a number of musicians have died in air accidents involving both commercial and private aircraft:

Patsy Cline

Credit: Nashville Banner

March 6, 1963—
Patsy Cline, a Country &Western music legend, died at age 30, when her Piper PA 24 Comanche crashed in a forest near Camden, Tennessee, killing her, singers Cowboy Copas, Hawkshaw Hawkins, and her manager Randy Hughes.

December 10, 1967—
Otis Redding, a major figure in Soul Music and Rhythm and Blues, died at age 26, in a Beechcraft H18 in Lake Monona, Wisconsin.

September 20, 1973—
Jim Croce, rock music singer-songwriter, died at age 30, when his chartered Beechcraft E18S crashed on takeoff from Natchitoches Regional Airport in Louisiana.

October 20, 1977
The Southern rock group Lynyrd Skynyrd (lead singer Ronnie Van Zant, guitarist Steve Gaines, vocalist Cassie Gaines) died when their Convair CV-300 ran out of fuel and crashed in woods near Gillsburg, Mississippi. Van Zant was 29, Steve Gaines was 28, and Cassie Gaines was 29.

Ricky Nelson

Credit: Winnipeg Free Press

December 31,1985—
Rick[y] Nelson, teen idol rock singer and composer, died at age 45 in a Douglas DC-3, with five members of his Stone Canyon Band and his fiancé Helen Blair, near DeKalb, Texas.

August 27, 1990
Stevie Ray Vaughan, Blues guitarist, died at age 35 in a Bell BHT-206-B helicopter accident near East Troy, Wisconsin.

October 12, 1997—
John Denver, an American singer-songwriter-composer died at age 53, when the Rutan Long EZ experimental aircraft he was flying crashed into the Pacific Ocean near Monterey, California.

August 25, 2001—
Aaliyah, an R&B singer and actress died at age 22 when the Cessna 402B she was traveling in crashed near the Bahamas.

Among other public figures who died in air accidents were—

December 31, 1972—
Roberto Clemente, Major League Baseball Hall of Fame outfielder for the Pittsburgh Pirates, who died at age 38 when the chartered Douglas DC-7 he was traveling in crashed off the coast of Isla Verde, Puerto Rico. Clemente was on a relief mission to Nicaragua.

July 16, 1999—
John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife Carolyn Bessette, and her sister Lauren Bessette died when the Piper Saratoga, which Kennedy was piloting, crashed in the Atlantic Ocean near Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. Kennedy was 38, his wife 33, and Lauren Bessette 34.

There is a welter of online information about air safety and aircraft accidents. The National Transportation Safety Board, an independent federal agency, is charged with determining the probable cause of transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety. The NTSB does investigations into all kinds of transportation accidents and provides reports on their causes. Among the many sites devoted to air accidents, http://www.airsafe.com/ provides “critical information for the air traveler,” such as items prohibited onboard commercial aircraft, air crashes, baggage advice and airline security.

Dominick A. Pisano is a curator in the Aeronautics Division of the National Air and Space Museum.