Virgin Space crash

[akarunway 1]

http://www.inquisitr.com/1576548/virgin-galactic-space-ship-two-anomaly-occured-over-mojave-desert-first-responders-ruch-to-the-scene/ Wonder if Branson is still gonna take his wife and kids on the first ride? Prolly game over for the program.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[normiss 622]

Prolly not.

They've been having rocket challenges.
Hopefully not another Russian one.

Seems the ejection test worked though.

[Andy9o8 0]

I don't see it as necessarily game over for the program. New vehicle designs have to be test-piloted, and test piloting is dangerous. If Virgin scares off, others will take their place. Times like this I realize I was born 100 years too soon. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will know space. This is how it gets done.

[strife 0]

RIP

i dont think this will be game over this is the fourth fatality on this program given the 3 engineers that where killed in the 2007 explosion.

[shropshire 0]

Game over? ... why? Where's your pioneering spirit?

Shit happens - always has, always will - but the project is a good one.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[airdvr 197]

While it might not be game over it's certainly fourth and long for an amusement park ride designed to take overpriveleged douchebags to the edge of space. OD's tend to not want to die gloriously in a ball of flame and twisted metal. OD's would rather not be pioneers. They'd rather tool around in their Tesla's searching out superchargers. That's enough pioneering for them.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[wmw999 2,120]

Here is a really excellent editorial in the Houston Chronicle about why this isn't a game-over scenario at all.

It's risky. It may not be wife-and-children safe yet, but neither was crossing the Atlantic in the 1400's and into the 1500's. On the other hand, his wife and children are all adults; they may decide that it's just fine for them to go.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[airdvr 197]

While I agree that all endeavors into space are risky I think the difference here is the motivation. Great risks were taken in the past in the name of science and exploration. This time its different.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[wmw999 2,120]

Not so sure about that. The New World was discovered for profit; space was originally a national pride issue. Are those better than any other profit motive? Does it change the discoveries (land and technology)?

Rich people have money; that's why they are more commonly targeted as customers

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

airdvr

While it might not be game over it's certainly fourth and long for an amusement park ride designed to take overpriveleged douchebags to the edge of space. OD's tend to not want to die gloriously in a ball of flame and twisted metal. OD's would rather not be pioneers. They'd rather tool around in their Tesla's searching out superchargers. That's enough pioneering for them.

Are you aware of just how petty and green-with-envy, "my life is a failure and I hate everyone who has done better than me" your post makes you look? I certainly hope that's just your internet persona, not the real airdvr. If you afford to skydive you must be doing OK, and I recall some time ago you posted photos of you and your kids and you all looked, it seemed, like a great happy family. You've got a lot to celebrate and be happy about it seems to me.

Anyway, those "overpriviledged douchebags" are willing to pay to be first in line, and that means they are covering much of the cost of developing this technology. If space is ever going to be remotely accessible to people like me, and I assume you, it will be because others have paid to move the technology to where it is reliable and relatively affordable. That probably won't happen soon enough for me to be able to take advantage, but I've high hopes for my grandkids.

I think of it much like tandems: how many dropzones could afford anything larger than a Cessna if it were not for the revenue generated from tandems and the associated video business?

And, what's so wrong with a profit motive driving space travel? So what if it's not all "high-minded" like space exploration? If tourists can be shuttled to orbit at reasonable cost (eventually) then scientists and explorers can be as well.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[ryoder 1,381]

Quote

RocketMotorTwo is the first generation hybrid rocket engine that was under development for the Scaled Composites SpaceShipTwo suborbital spaceplane by Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), and was first ignited in flight during a SpaceShipTwo test launch in April 2013. This engine design was subsequently flown in only two additional flight tests.

SNC was a subcontractor to Scaled Composites through May 2014 when the program ended after Virgin Galactic elected to replace RocketMotorTwo with its own internally-developed hybrid motor for SpaceShipTwo.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo

Perhaps not such a good idea to cancel the contract with SNC.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[pchapman 261]

The Daily Mail has a good set of photos:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2816224/Virgin-Galactic-SpaceShipTwo-exploded-45-000ft-One-pilot-dead-critical-Richard-Branson-s-500m-space-tourism-plane-blows-testing-new-fuel-California-desert.html

Musings of an occasional engineer & pilot (me):

From looking at a photo of the fuselage upside down on the ground (and comparing to others of the intact aircraft), it looks like the aircraft pretty much broke apart along the line of the wingtip hinges, the large wing flaps, and the bulkhead between oxidizer tank and rocket assembly. That's all sort of along the same line.

Anyway, one of the long range photos from the ground makes it look like one or both of the tails has just come off and it looks like the aircraft has rotated 180. (The plume of smoke starts at the blunt upstream end of the object, and it looks like one can see a wing, backwards, projecting from the plume)

But there's another similar picture out there, taken slightly before, with the aircraft also looking to be backwards, a bit of flame at the upstream end, and debris like both tails basically separating at the same time.

** I could be completely mistaken about the 'swapping ends' and missing alternative scenarios -- it is hard to tell from fuzzy photos **


And then some ground shots seem to show an at least largely intact black carbon fibre oxidizer tank within the fuselage -- so it wasn't as if all the oxidizer went up at once.

Initial thoughts would have been that the problem was an explosion in the nitrous oxide system. I really don't know the mechanisms involved, but wikipedia suggests a couple.

If the tank didn't explode, then it was in the piping aft of that, or the solid fuel part of the rocket itself, with the oxidizer pumped into the solid fuel area contributing. Hybrid rockets are known for being tempermental for combustion stability. (Although rockets in general tend to take a lot of engineering for that.)

If both tails came off simultaneously, then it wasn't a case of a whole tail coming off either on its own or from an explosion, leading to loss of stability. Instead, given the photos and eyewitness testimony of a 'sudden puff', it sounds like something caused the vehicle to swap ends very quickly, and then both tails failed in structural overload once completely turned around.

Would losing a smaller part of a tail be enough to cause such a fast loss of nose direction? -- Rather than a slower loss of control, dive, and then structural breakup. The cause of a partial tail loss could come either from an explosion or just structural failure.

Would an explosion in the rocket be enough to push the craft off course enough to actually flip it (at what must be a decent dynamic pressure)? Seems surprising too. But an explosion could cause structural failure and some sort of jack knifing, with the still burning rocket pushing at an angle to flip the aircraft.

Who knows.


I guess one pilot wasn't incapacitated totally from any high g rotation or tumble. Perhaps it settled down into a relatively stable fall like a slow flat spin, and one pilot was eventually able to get out the escape hatch. Hope he at least does OK. Wonder who his rigger is too!

[obelixtim 100]

Quote

I guess one pilot wasn't incapacitated totally from any high g rotation or tumble. Perhaps it settled down into a relatively stable fall like a slow flat spin, and one pilot was eventually able to get out the escape hatch. Hope he at least does OK.

He'll have a story to tell. But he should buy a lottery ticket first.

The Reaper missed a trick there.....

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[FB1609 0]

If I paid the $250k for a ticket, I'd seriously consider asking for a refund, if they won't give it, I'd still pass on the trip I think.

Would be nice to go to space for 5 mins, but not worth the risk with a new program....5 mins is not a long time!

[obelixtim 100]

Once they figure out a replacement for the giant firecracker you're strapped on to, things might be a little less risky.

Then again, they might create another problem.

Thats why they have a test programme.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[ryoder 1,381]

FB1609

If I paid the $250k for a ticket, I'd seriously consider asking for a refund, if they won't give it, I'd still pass on the trip I think.

Would be nice to go to space for 5 mins, but not worth the risk with a new program....5 mins is not a long time!

On the upside, although the actual list of prepaid passengers is secret, some names have leaked out, and one is Justin Bieber.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[airdvr 197]

GeorgiaDon

***While it might not be game over it's certainly fourth and long for an amusement park ride designed to take overpriveleged douchebags to the edge of space. OD's tend to not want to die gloriously in a ball of flame and twisted metal. OD's would rather not be pioneers. They'd rather tool around in their Tesla's searching out superchargers. That's enough pioneering for them.

Are you aware of just how petty and green-with-envy, "my life is a failure and I hate everyone who has done better than me" your post makes you look? I certainly hope that's just your internet persona, not the real airdvr. If you afford to skydive you must be doing OK, and I recall some time ago you posted photos of you and your kids and you all looked, it seemed, like a great happy family. You've got a lot to celebrate and be happy about it seems to me.

Anyway, those "overpriviledged douchebags" are willing to pay to be first in line, and that means they are covering much of the cost of developing this technology. If space is ever going to be remotely accessible to people like me, and I assume you, it will be because others have paid to move the technology to where it is reliable and relatively affordable. That probably won't happen soon enough for me to be able to take advantage, but I've high hopes for my grandkids.

I think of it much like tandems: how many dropzones could afford anything larger than a Cessna if it were not for the revenue generated from tandems and the associated video business?

And, what's so wrong with a profit motive driving space travel? So what if it's not all "high-minded" like space exploration? If tourists can be shuttled to orbit at reasonable cost (eventually) then scientists and explorers can be as well.

Don

I guess I'm not understanding your angst at my posts(s). We definitely need the rich to spend their money on new ideas but let's not mis-identify. Just being wealthy does not qualify you for entry into the club. Here's a guide.

http://www.thrillist.com/sex-dating/nation/your-7-species-guide-to-summer-douchespotting

I suppose many of the folks here might look at me and say I fit the profile. I don't envy their status...I laugh at it. I know many of them wouldn't be where they are today but for having chosen their parents wisely. And I will most definitely continue to poke fun at them.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Calvin19 0]

obelixtim

Once they figure out a replacement for the giant firecracker you're strapped on to, things might be a little less risky.

Hmmm... a replacement?
"Space is tough" is the basic subject here. It will be centuries before we can go to space without fire, without being strapped to a 'firecracker'. The amount of energy it takes to get a human into space is staggering. The amount it takes to get a meat bag into ORBIT? shit bro...

Maybe you meant a more reliable replacement firecracker to be strapped to, but it will still be a firecracker. None of us in our lifetime will see people go into space belted into anything but a giant can of hellfire.

It's simple... we gather the PERFECT amount of chemical potential energy in the densest form possible, put it in a metal can and pump it through tubes and turbines and finally an engine bell, all the while this fluid is putting so much force on these moving parts that it makes the heat and load on a PT-6 turbine engine look like a pinwheel on a stroller.

Another few comments talked about hating on the moneybags that are able to afford a ticket on SS2. For space to work out, we need a lot of money. These people have money, and if they want to throw it at space I'm all for it.

But space is tough... Do they understand the risks? do they understand the difference between paying for a helicopter tour of Na Pali vs paying for LITERALLY another R & D flight to perfect a reliable space vehicle?

Maybe those people are nerds too, maybe they are just like us and have an 'understanding' of the epic engineering that goes into it and really, truly, want to touch the face of god. Being able to pay for it and passing the minimal physical and psychological requirements does not give them the right to be an astronaut. Blind acceptance of risk is one thing, understanding the risk, the why, the beauty, is another thing entirely. For anyone to say that the motivation of these more successful people to buy a ticket on SS2 (or any CSV) is inferior to our desire to do the same is unhealthy. We don't know them or the complex individual way they see their reality. Sure, there are some that just have the money and said 'why not?'. And hopefully an eye opener like this SS2 wreck will cause those less devoted, less understanding people to back out. Because they don't deserve it.

A good friend that works for Ball Aerospace building the JWST told me that the recorded failure rate of the rocket that will (in a few years) launch the single most expensive, complex and important piece of machinery ever built by man into space is 1/50. One chance in fifty of the rocket failing. He said that that is the risk that must be taken, because this MUST happen. If a 1/50 chance of death on one rocket ride to space was the number I was given, and I had to make the choice. I would sign up in a second. I'd sign up twice.

"The exploration of space is worth the risk of human life"

Any exploration is, really.

"Ad Astra Per Apera"

[JohnMitchell 14]

Calvin19

"Ad Astra Per Apera"

"Per Aspera ad Astra". Ahh, my prep school motto.

[obelixtim 100]

ryoder

***If I paid the $250k for a ticket, I'd seriously consider asking for a refund, if they won't give it, I'd still pass on the trip I think.

Would be nice to go to space for 5 mins, but not worth the risk with a new program....5 mins is not a long time!

On the upside, although the actual list of prepaid passengers is secret, some names have leaked out, and one is Justin Bieber.

Beiber doesn't need a rocket. He needs to be fired out of a cannon into the Atlantic ocean.

At night.

With his hair on fire......

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[pchapman 261]

The latest seems to be that the tail booms started to rotate up early.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB-SpaceShip-Twos-Tail-Boom-Deployed-Early223043-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/SpaceShipTwo-NTSB-Probe-Structural-Failure-A-Possibility223040-1.html

I had hoped their systems would be good enough to avoid an uncommanded change of a basic aircraft configuration!

But it at least starts to confirm the suspicion that it was hard to find anything related to the engine that 'exploded' enough to flip the aircraft.

[Calvin19 0]

pchapman

The latest seems to be that the tail booms started to rotate up early.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB-SpaceShip-Twos-Tail-Boom-Deployed-Early223043-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/SpaceShipTwo-NTSB-Probe-Structural-Failure-A-Possibility223040-1.html

I had hoped their systems would be good enough to avoid an uncommanded change of a basic aircraft configuration!

But it at least starts to confirm the suspicion that it was hard to find anything related to the engine that 'exploded' enough to flip the aircraft.

From the beginning the team was adamant about the vehicle NOT 'exploding'. That it just went dark, and they saw wreckage and parachutes coming down. It sucks what the media gets wrong EVERY TIME something happens.

Of course, the team also called it an 'anamoly'. 100% accurate way to describe it, but still. gimme a break.

Yeah Scaled... you experienced an anomaly. Your F*^^@ spaceship disintegrated.

[pchapman 261]

Calvin19

Yeah Scaled... you experienced an anomaly. Your F*^&#^@ spaceship disintegrated.

+1

Engineers and technical types can get pretty pissed off with press briefings or releases full of platitudes and vagaries.

Plenty of "explosions" of aerospace vehicles are indeed actually a more complex series of events involving aerodynamic disintegrations etc. If something looks like it exploded, does that mean it exploded? A big difference between the engineering and common use of a term.

At least for the Space Shuttle Challenger, the official announcer did say, "obviously a major malfunction".

[lawrocket 3]

This is Virgin Galactic's Apollo 1 moment. SpaceShipTwo has had some major problems involving the propulsion system. Rutan had a rare moment where he didn't appreciate an issue. The motor that worked on SS1 couldn't just be upsized without major problems.

So the team decided on a different engine. Problem: it was after the airframe had been designed and balanced for the other engine. New engine. New weight. New dimensions. Different performance. Many thought that SS2 was eventually doomed because of the tradeoffs that would be needed.

This is tbe opportunity for Virgin Galactic to now scrap the failed prototype, learn the lessons and build it right.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[akarunway 1]

lawrocket

This is Virgin Galactic's Apollo 1 moment. SpaceShipTwo has had some major problems involving the propulsion system. Rutan had a rare moment where he didn't appreciate an issue. The motor that worked on SS1 couldn't just be upsized without major problems.

So the team decided on a different engine. Problem: it was after the airframe had been designed and balanced for the other engine. New engine. New weight. New dimensions. Different performance. Many thought that SS2 was eventually doomed because of the tradeoffs that would be needed.

This is tbe opportunity for Virgin Galactic to now scrap the failed prototype, learn the lessons and build it right.

I guess you didn't get the part where the co pilot (allegedly) feathered too early

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.