Virgin Galactic SpaceShip Two crashed?

[RYH64E]

Eric Mc said:

But, if every project was abandoned because of an accident we wouldn't make much progress in anything.

Some projects have important scientific objectives that are may be worth the risk, I don't see this as one of them. It's essentially a vanity/money making venture by Richard Branson aimed at those willing to pay a significant amount of money for a short term thrill, fine if it's very low risk but that's never going to be the case. People may not be pulling out yet, but I wouldn't expect there to be a huge demand for seats on Guinea Pig One (or whatever he calls the first flight).

[Einion Yrth]

RYH64E said:

Eric Mc said:

But, if every project was abandoned because of an accident we wouldn't make much progress in anything.

Some projects have important scientific objectives that are may be worth the risk, I don't see this as one of them. It's essentially a vanity/money making venture by Richard Branson aimed at those willing to pay a significant amount of money for a short term thrill, fine if it's very low risk but that's never going to be the case. People may not be pulling out yet, but I wouldn't expect there to be a huge demand for seats on Guinea Pig One (or whatever he calls the first flight).

Since AFAIK it's an entirely privately funded venture, the risk call is surely entirely down to the investor/passenger. Currently the risk/reward/cost balance swings against it in my view but then I couldn't afford it anyway.

[Scuffers]

RYH64E said:

Some projects have important scientific objectives that are may be worth the risk, I don't see this as one of them. It's essentially a vanity/money making venture by Richard Branson aimed at those willing to pay a significant amount of money for a short term thrill, fine if it's very low risk but that's never going to be the case. People may not be pulling out yet, but I wouldn't expect there to be a huge demand for seats on Guinea Pig One (or whatever he calls the first flight).

so, what project would you consider worthy?

remember, this is all private money, and I am pretty sure people have the choice as to what they do with their own money?

On your scale, I assume you think Space X are wasting their time?

yes, some of this project will be about vanity, the people that can afford the ticket price will be doing it for that (just like the guy that paid his way to ISS), but so what?

if by their money we learn stuff and get closer to a new XYZ, who cares?

I bet the Hotol project would love the kind of funding that Virgin have managed to put together...

There are lessons to be learned here, if governments TAX money is not going to be used, you need to find ways to pay for this stuff, ie, should the Hotol project be selling places on it's plane? yes, this will be a distraction and probably slow the project up, but would not having a few million extra not speed up progress?

[RYH64E]

Scuffers said:

so, what project would you consider worthy?

My post followed on from a brief exchange with Eric on the previous page, where I said:

RYH64E said:

I wouldn't fancy running a business that depended upon people paying £150k to fly in that thing, I wouldn't go up in it if they paid me £150k to do so.

I have no problem with people spending their money on a project to build such a vehicle, and similarly have no problem with other people spending their money flying in it, their money their choice. Personally, I wouldn't go up in the thing if you paid me to do so because the risk is too high for something that offers nothing other than a (very expensive) short term thrill. If the balance of risk/reward was different then maybe it would more appealing, but as it is I'd rather tie a rocket to my arse and jump out of my bedroom window.

[Eric Mc]

Your choice - which is the important point.

I'm not going to criticise anybody who is willing to spend their own money on what may be a risky proposition.

I don't criticise those who base jump, ride in the TT or climb Mount Everest. It's their money and their choice.

[RYH64E]

Eric Mc said:

Your choice - which is the important point.

I'm not going to criticise anybody who is willing to spend their own money on what may be a risky proposition.

I don't criticise those who base jump, ride in the TT or climb Mount Everest. It's their money and their choice.

I wouldn't do any of those things either, but that wasn't my original point, which was to question whether there are enough wealthy thrill seekers willing to risk life and limb for it to be a viable business. As I said originally, if you paid me £150k I still wouldn't go up in one of those things.

[MartG]

No doubt the price would come down over time. Also there could be flights chartered for research

[Scuffers]

MartG said:

No doubt the price would come down over time. Also there could be flights chartered for research

exactly,

the other point is that the more they do this, the better they will get, how long before he has a sub-orbital ship that can do US to Australia for example?

currently takes what? 16 hours by plane, what could it be done in?

[MartG]

"NTSB's press conference on SpaceShipTwo accident just finished.
"The vehicle had a nominal release followed by a nominal Ignition.
Approximately 9 seconds after ignition, the "feather" parameters changed from lock to unlock.
Approximately 2 seconds later, just above Mach 1.0, feathers moved toward the extended position even though the “feather” handle was not moved, after which the telemetry data terminated.
Normal procedures are to unlock feathers after Mach 1.4 so aerodynamic forces do not extend feathers prematurely
Review of cockpit forward looking camera shows that the feather was unlocked by the copilot
Engine burn was nominal up until feather extension""

[mcdjl]

MartG said:

"NTSB's press conference on SpaceShipTwo accident just finished.
"The vehicle had a nominal release followed by a nominal Ignition.
Approximately 9 seconds after ignition, the "feather" parameters changed from lock to unlock.
Approximately 2 seconds later, just above Mach 1.0, feathers moved toward the extended position even though the “feather” handle was not moved, after which the telemetry data terminated.
Normal procedures are to unlock feathers after Mach 1.4 so aerodynamic forces do not extend feathers prematurely
Review of cockpit forward looking camera shows that the feather was unlocked by the copilot
Engine burn was nominal up until feather extension""

So am I understanding it right if i say that the big tailplane came up while the rocket was on? Presumably then causing the whole craft to pitch up and 'loop' almost on its own length causing it to break up?

Still if anyone wants to lend me £150k I'd be on that first flight.

[MartG]

If the SS2 co-pilot had been killed in a car crash on his way to work and joined the many thousands a year killed in a form of transportation which has been around for over a century and is regarded as 'safe', would there be this sort of outcry ?

[hornetrider]

mcdjl said:

MartG said:

"NTSB's press conference on SpaceShipTwo accident just finished.
"The vehicle had a nominal release followed by a nominal Ignition.
Approximately 9 seconds after ignition, the "feather" parameters changed from lock to unlock.
Approximately 2 seconds later, just above Mach 1.0, feathers moved toward the extended position even though the “feather” handle was not moved, after which the telemetry data terminated.
Normal procedures are to unlock feathers after Mach 1.4 so aerodynamic forces do not extend feathers prematurely
Review of cockpit forward looking camera shows that the feather was unlocked by the copilot
Engine burn was nominal up until feather extension""

So am I understanding it right if i say that the big tailplane came up while the rocket was on? Presumably then causing the whole craft to pitch up and 'loop' almost on its own length causing it to break up?

As a layman, that's what it sounds like to me.

[RYH64E]

Guam said:

This is no different to the early days of Aviation imho, or the early merchant wayfarers hundreds of years ago, rich people and businesses funded these risky ventures based on the idea of a long term significant payback.

Exploration and major R and D funded by the state is relatively new in the scheme of things, I see no reason why Branson should back off on this. History always involves a price in blood to be paid sadly.

That's a price in blood on top of the £150k ticket price? No thanks.

It's a little different to the early days of aviation imo, back then the alternative was a very long, slow and dangerous journey by ship so there was some incentive to cut journey times by days or weeks, there's nothing like the same reduction in journey times available here and air travel is very safe.

Also, as I understand it the technology was reasonably developed before fare paying passengers became part of the experiment, in this case people are expected to pay £150k each to become part of the great adventure. I doubt that there will be enough passengers to make it viable, but it's not my money and not my risk so good luck to them.

[MartG]

RYH64E said:

That's a price in blood on top of the £150k ticket price? No thanks.

So you've never been on an airliner, or on a ship, or on a train, or in a car ? All forms of mechanised transport had fatalities during their development - just because they happened long ago doesn't make them any less tragic than last week's crash.

Just where do you draw the line ?

[Eric Mc]

RYH64E said:

That's a price in blood on top of the £150k ticket price? No thanks.

It's a little different to the early days of aviation imo, back then the alternative was a very long, slow and dangerous journey by ship so there was some incentive to cut journey times by days or weeks, there's nothing like the same reduction in journey times available here and air travel is very safe.
.

What about early balloonists? They weren't going anywhere useful either - except up. Maybe this type of space venture is more akin to what the early 19th century balloon pioneers were doing which was -

Getting a thrill.
Using their own money.
Doing the odd bit of science.
Getting killed - occasionally.

[RYH64E]

MartG said:

So you've never been on an airliner, or on a ship, or on a train, or in a car ? All forms of mechanised transport had fatalities during their development - just because they happened long ago doesn't make them any less tragic than last week's crash.

Just where do you draw the line ?

How many rich people do you think are going to pay £150k to be part of the development process? Especially when they consider that the consequence of failure either mean their ashes are going to spread over a large part of California or a long, cold and lonely fall to death.

[Eric Mc]

Plenty - it still seems.

[RYH64E]

Eric Mc said:

What about early balloonists? They weren't going anywhere useful either - except up. Maybe this type of space venture is more akin to what the early 19th century balloon pioneers were doing which was -

Getting a thrill.
Using their own money.
Doing the odd bit of science.
Getting killed - occasionally.

Small numbers of people maybe, but not enough to fund a multimillion pound venture imo. I know people who vowed to stop flying after 911, watching a Virgin Galactic Spaceship explode when it's full of passengers will kill the project stone dead, that's if it survives this incident.

[Eric Mc]

What makes you think that might happen?

It is already looking like there was no explosion - just an aerodynamic break up (as already suggested on here).

The destruction of the early Comets did nothing to stop the advent of the jet airliner. And those early crashes were mainly killing the 1950s equivalent of the demographic who have expressed an interest in flying with Virgin Galactic.

[RYH64E]

Eric Mc said:

What makes you think that might happen?

There's always the risk of explosion with rockets. As you know, NASA managed to lose two shuttles and an Antares rocket exploded shortly after launch just the other week, it's a dangerous business.

As I understand it, prior to this incident the major safety fears concerned the propellant used in the rocket and it's relatively unsophisticated design, aerodynamic failure is just another worry to add to all the other worries imo.