[sp332]

They weren't lucky, they were unlucky. This never happens. This is a military firing range. Do you know how many requirements had to be fulfilled for the range to be built? and the regulations they have to follow for safety? "miscalculated the ballistic trajectories" They didn't miscalculate, the cannonball struck the hill, as planned. They didn't plan for it to basically bounce off in a different direction. The trajectory is not the issue. "Leave it to professional use" They are professionals with many years of experience, and they were surrounded by more professionals. "go to the utmost of efforts" If building a firing range in the middle of the desert and firing toward a hill, away from the direction of any towns, isn't enough then what is?

[robotresearcher]

The standard approach is to place the cannon such that no trajectory with the energy of the projectile can hit anything important. That's why huge ranges like the Canadian Forces Base Suffield exist [2,690 km2 (1,040 sq mi)]. The the only dangerous variable is the energy you put in, and not the direction you point the gun, unlucky bounces, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_Suffield

[johanbev]

They are obviously not professional enough. Either the MB team, or the range supervisors, or anyone else in that chain.

If your range is situated so close to populated areas that you can fire a projectile from a makeshift cannon out of the bounds of the range, then get a bigger range. Or a smaller gun. I have no idea how big their range is. However, it was apparently not big enough.

I don't know if the ball hit the hill or the sky or a bird on the way or anything else that might have happened. I weren't there. I also obviously understand that they didn't plan for the ball to go though those houses. However intentions does not change facts. Neither do regulations nor safety procedures, nor requirements.

If you cause an accident then you havent gone to the utmost of efforts in preventing it. The utmost of efforts might also include not doing it at all.

[Natsu]

Nobody is professional enough to screw up 0% of the time. It is not possible to plan for everything, ever.

> The utmost of efforts might also include not doing it at all.

So, I should never drive again lest I have a car accident? I understand that you're saying that the reward for this is zero so they shouldn't take any risks at all. But you're extrapolating the risk from a sample size of one and exaggerating it.

I'm sure you wouldn't blame someone for driving to the movies, even if that caused a car accident. And one could just as easily said that they should've stayed home because the drive was unnecessary and cars are, in fact, dangerous.

[signa11]

>They weren't lucky, they were unlucky. exactly right ! these are too careful, and would normally have officials from local emergency services and experts in hand when they do this. they may be financially responsible for the damage, which might be adequately covered by their insurance, but hopefully no criminal charges...

[doktrin]

What indicates the cannonball struck the hill at all?

The article only mentions it went 'over' the foothills. It presumably could have bounced off, but that doesn't seem to be corroborated.

At the end of the day, whatever precautions were in place were clearly not sufficient. You don't shoot cannonballs into residential neighborhoods and go "oops".

[sp332]

Hm, I see, I might have misread this one: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/06/tv-experiment-goes...

[Luyt]

The correct link is http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/07/tv-experiment-goes...

They changed the date in the URL.