Virgin Galactic SpaceShip Two crashed?
Discussion
The point is that Spaceship 2 is intended to put paying passengers into space, to whit above 100 Kms; it is not intended as a test vehicle as was the X15, nor is it intended as an orbital vehicle. To say X15 did it 60 odd years ago is utterly irrelevant, we put men on the moon 40 years ago and Spaceship 2 is not intended to do that either. Sheesh and some of you have the nerve to impugn my intelligence.
Einion Yrth said:
The point is that Spaceship 2 is intended to put paying passengers into space, to whit above 100 Kms; it is not intended as a test vehicle as was the X15, nor is it intended as an orbital vehicle. To say X15 did it 60 odd years ago is utterly irrelevant, we put men on the moon 40 years ago and Spaceship 2 is not intended to do that either. Sheesh and some of you have the nerve to impugn my intelligence.
Exactly the same concept and totally relevant. Look at the weights, the X15 was 50% heavier. KISS, not poncy eco designs, sounds like the launch vehicle is starting to fall apart.
SS1 achieved its goal 10 years ago with two passengers, why can't they repeat its success? It never even flew higher than Concorde which for you info is a passenger aircraft.
MartG said:
sjn2004 said:
SS1 achieved its goal 10 years ago with two passengers, why can't they repeat its success? It never even flew higher than Concorde which for you info is a passenger aircraft.
Showing your ignorance thereConcorde ceiling 60,000ft ( 18,300m )
SS1 hit 367,000ft ( 112km )
What went wrong between SS1 and SS2?
sjn2004 said:
SS1 achieved its goal 10 years ago with two passengers, why can't they repeat its success?
I think this is the fundamental issue. Space craft, even sub orbital, can't be scaled up the way a aircraft designs routinely are.It's possible that Rutan, being familiar with aircraft design, assumed that once the concept was proven as a 2 seater stretching the design to fit extra seats would be fairly straightforward. Hence the over optimistic estimates.
Dr Jekyll said:
sjn2004 said:
SS1 achieved its goal 10 years ago with two passengers, why can't they repeat its success?
I think this is the fundamental issue. Space craft, even sub orbital, can't be scaled up the way a aircraft designs routinely are.It's possible that Rutan, being familiar with aircraft design, assumed that once the concept was proven as a 2 seater stretching the design to fit extra seats would be fairly straightforward. Hence the over optimistic estimates.
It sounds like SS2 was under powered and they resorted to a more volatile fuel mixture which in turn lead to a catastrophic failure of the rocket motor assembly.
Talksteer said:
jammy_basturd said:
Thankyou4calling said:
jammy_basturd said:
You seem to be very ignorant to the advances that space travel have made that have filtered down into healthcare and everyday life.
Pens that write upside down, SatNav and Sky TV.More here http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits....
NASA strategy in the space race was described as being like trying to get a baby in one month by shagging 9 women.
The impacts for commercial spaceflight of this crash is I think are not particularly great. NASA is seeing significant cost savings on the ISS resupply contract and as it is dual source the recent failure should effect it that much.
Notably spacex is planning to land the first stage of a falcon booster next month. If they can demonstrate this and return the second stage that will have a substantial impact on the cost of access to space.
The virgin spaceship 2 isn't really on any technology road map to lowering the cost of space access.
Would insurance companies have any sort of standard acturial tables for commercial manned spaceflight (as opposed to government run programmes)? It's such a new concept that whatever policies they have in place at the moment must surely be based on guesswork as much as any real facts and figures.
sjn2004 said:
MartG said:
sjn2004 said:
Einion Yrth said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Suborbital fights were done before with the B-52 mother-ship/X-15 combo.
Remind me, how many paying passengers did the X15 carry again?
I think they were bloody lucky to get down alive.
Even though the X-15 and the Virgin spacecraft share some similar design goals, the X-15 differed fundamentally in a number of areas. For example the X-15 had TWO major objectives in its design.
Firstly, it was designed to explore the hypersonic regions (Mach 5 and above) at relatively low altitudes (i.e. around 100,000 feet). This was to discover the effects of aerodynamic heating and also the behaviour of conventional controls at those types of speeds within the atmosphere.
Secondly, it also was designed to climb to altitudes of over 300,000 feet, so that the control of a craft outside the atmosphere where normal wings, fins, tailplanes etc no longer worked.
It could also be used as a "carrier" for experiments and for trying new technologies, such as a proposed ramjet for future hypersonic aircraft.
To cope with these requirements, the X-15 had a a number of characteristics which are not in Spacecraft Two. It was immensely tough with the airframe being made of a special heat resistant metal called Iconel X. This was particularly because of the high speed flights in denser air.
For the outside the atmosphere flights the X-15 used small reaction control rockets in the nose and tail. It was also fitted with an early fly by wire control system.
The Virgin craft has just one objective, which is to climb to over 300,000 feet carrying passengers. It is not required to fly at Mach 5 plus in denser air. Therefore, its structure does not have to be anything like as heat resistant as the X-15 was.
Also, the unique "shuttlecock" allows it to drop back into the denser atmopshere at relatively low speeds, so aerodynamic heating is kept to a minimum. This is what allowed the structure to be built from relatively light materials. Also, of course, the X-15 was designed almost 60 years ago and materials technology has moved on quite a bit since those days.
Pushing craft to the edge of space has always been a dangerous game, and probably always will be. The X-15 suffered four major accidents which more or less destroyed the craft each time.
One was blown apart in a test of the main engine.
Another broke in half after a heavy landing.
Another had a major crash on landing.
One (as shown above) was almost destroyed by excessive heating at high speed.
And one was completely destroyed on re-entry, killing the pilot, Mike Adams.
In most of the above cases, the X-15 was rebuilt (sometimes to a higher spec). The only X-15 destroyed beyond repair was the one involved in Adams' fatal flight.
Firstly, it was designed to explore the hypersonic regions (Mach 5 and above) at relatively low altitudes (i.e. around 100,000 feet). This was to discover the effects of aerodynamic heating and also the behaviour of conventional controls at those types of speeds within the atmosphere.
Secondly, it also was designed to climb to altitudes of over 300,000 feet, so that the control of a craft outside the atmosphere where normal wings, fins, tailplanes etc no longer worked.
It could also be used as a "carrier" for experiments and for trying new technologies, such as a proposed ramjet for future hypersonic aircraft.
To cope with these requirements, the X-15 had a a number of characteristics which are not in Spacecraft Two. It was immensely tough with the airframe being made of a special heat resistant metal called Iconel X. This was particularly because of the high speed flights in denser air.
For the outside the atmosphere flights the X-15 used small reaction control rockets in the nose and tail. It was also fitted with an early fly by wire control system.
The Virgin craft has just one objective, which is to climb to over 300,000 feet carrying passengers. It is not required to fly at Mach 5 plus in denser air. Therefore, its structure does not have to be anything like as heat resistant as the X-15 was.
Also, the unique "shuttlecock" allows it to drop back into the denser atmopshere at relatively low speeds, so aerodynamic heating is kept to a minimum. This is what allowed the structure to be built from relatively light materials. Also, of course, the X-15 was designed almost 60 years ago and materials technology has moved on quite a bit since those days.
Pushing craft to the edge of space has always been a dangerous game, and probably always will be. The X-15 suffered four major accidents which more or less destroyed the craft each time.
One was blown apart in a test of the main engine.
Another broke in half after a heavy landing.
Another had a major crash on landing.
One (as shown above) was almost destroyed by excessive heating at high speed.
And one was completely destroyed on re-entry, killing the pilot, Mike Adams.
In most of the above cases, the X-15 was rebuilt (sometimes to a higher spec). The only X-15 destroyed beyond repair was the one involved in Adams' fatal flight.
That's you.
So far, no one appear to have cancelled their bookings yet. In fact, it seems someone new has joined the list.
Obviously, we will need to see what the problem was before people are in a better position to judge whether they should stick to their guns or pull out.
But, if every project was abandoned because of an accident we wouldn't make much progress in anything.
So far, no one appear to have cancelled their bookings yet. In fact, it seems someone new has joined the list.
Obviously, we will need to see what the problem was before people are in a better position to judge whether they should stick to their guns or pull out.
But, if every project was abandoned because of an accident we wouldn't make much progress in anything.
Eric Mc said:
That's you.
So far, no one appear to have cancelled their bookings yet. In fact, it seems someone new has joined the list.
Obviously, we will need to see what the problem was before people are in a better position to judge whether they should stick to their guns or pull out.
But, if every project was abandoned because of an accident we wouldn't make much progress in anything.
Given the NTSB briefing overnight, it seems telemetry & video analysis show SS2's 'feathering' function to help descent was engaged early, leading to the crash.So far, no one appear to have cancelled their bookings yet. In fact, it seems someone new has joined the list.
Obviously, we will need to see what the problem was before people are in a better position to judge whether they should stick to their guns or pull out.
But, if every project was abandoned because of an accident we wouldn't make much progress in anything.
Now reporting that they have in-cockpit video which shows the Co-Pilot moving the wing lock lever to the 'unlock' position shortly after rocket ignition at Mach 1.0 when it should not be moved to that position until the craft has passed Mach 1.4. They are not saying this is the root cause but stating it is one of the facts they have discovered so far.
Scarily though, the photo's taken of the breakup to seem to show the craft loosing the wings first and in one photo it appears to have tumbled end over end (the rocket flame is at the front into the direction of travel).
The above information does seem to point at this time towards this error being a pretty large contirbuting factor.
Scarily though, the photo's taken of the breakup to seem to show the craft loosing the wings first and in one photo it appears to have tumbled end over end (the rocket flame is at the front into the direction of travel).
The above information does seem to point at this time towards this error being a pretty large contirbuting factor.
Lincsblokey said:
Given the NTSB briefing overnight, it seems telemetry & video analysis show SS2's 'feathering' function to help descent was engaged early, leading to the crash.
It's very early days in the investigation but this could be a significant finding. However, why on earth would a crew member select the feathering option at this stage in the flight?The pictures do seem to support an aerodynamic breakup rather than a simple explosion.
Civpilot said:
Now reporting that they have in-cockpit video which shows the Co-Pilot moving the wing lock lever to the 'unlock' position shortly after rocket ignition at Mach 1.0 when it should not be moved to that position until the craft has passed Mach 1.4. They are not saying this is the root cause but stating it is one of the facts they have discovered so far.
Scarily though, the photo's taken of the breakup to seem to show the craft loosing the wings first and in one photo it appears to have tumbled end over end (the rocket flame is at the front into the direction of travel).
The above information does seem to point at this time towards this error being a pretty large contirbuting factor.
bit more to it apparently (from BBC report)Scarily though, the photo's taken of the breakup to seem to show the craft loosing the wings first and in one photo it appears to have tumbled end over end (the rocket flame is at the front into the direction of travel).
The above information does seem to point at this time towards this error being a pretty large contirbuting factor.
BBC said:
Mr Hart, from the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), told reporters that the feathering device was supposed to be activated at Mach 1.4 (1,065mph; 1,715km/h), but had been deployed at Mach 1 during the test flight.
He said one of the pilots had enabled the device, but the second stage of its deployment had happened "without being commanded".
"Shortly after the feathering occurred, the telemetry data terminated and the video data terminated," he said.
kind of implies the device is automatic, once the pilots enable it, and for whatever reason, it triggered when enabled.He said one of the pilots had enabled the device, but the second stage of its deployment had happened "without being commanded".
"Shortly after the feathering occurred, the telemetry data terminated and the video data terminated," he said.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff