Virgin Galactic
Discussion
scubadude said:
I said "the press are reporting" and they are, on most major news sites they are saying the feather system was unlatched then triggered, two actions a couple of seconds apart but the telemetry didn't record the pilots triggering it, perhaps it was pulled open by air pressure once unlatched?
The press are reporting what the NTSB spokesman told them.It looks like a deliberate human action was what unlocked the feathering system. After that, transonic aerodynamics seems to have caused the unlocked tail surfaces to move - resulting in an aerodynamic breakup of the vehicle.
The problem is that the pressure points on the vehicle probably move about quite a bit in the transonic region of flight i.e just below and just above Mach 1.
I could very easily understand why the flight rules stated explicitly that the feathering lever be left alone until the aircraft had moved beyond the transonic zone.
I could very easily understand why the flight rules stated explicitly that the feathering lever be left alone until the aircraft had moved beyond the transonic zone.
The problem is that an airlifting launch vehicle would need to be absolutely HUGE to be able to launch a heavy spacecraft bound for orbital flight. Even the biggest aeroplane in the world, the Anotonov An 225 is way too small to be able to launch an orbital spacecraft containing even one human - let alone a bunch of passengers.
Orbit is all about speed, not altitude. To obtain that speed a huge amount of fuel has to be burned for around ten minutes. That is a huge amount of fuel and way to heavy for any existing aircraft to lift.
Air launching, at the moment, only works for very small payloads. That is why it has been used so rarely compared to normal ground launches.
Orbit is all about speed, not altitude. To obtain that speed a huge amount of fuel has to be burned for around ten minutes. That is a huge amount of fuel and way to heavy for any existing aircraft to lift.
Air launching, at the moment, only works for very small payloads. That is why it has been used so rarely compared to normal ground launches.
So what?
If wealthy people want to indulge themselves they are perfectly entitled to do so.
I live beside an airfield where there is a constant stream of high end business executive jets flitting in and out - every day carrying exactly the demographic who are in the market for a Virgin Galactic flight.
A Virgin Galactic flight is an "experience" event for those who are willing to pay for it. That is "reason" enough.
If wealthy people want to indulge themselves they are perfectly entitled to do so.
I live beside an airfield where there is a constant stream of high end business executive jets flitting in and out - every day carrying exactly the demographic who are in the market for a Virgin Galactic flight.
A Virgin Galactic flight is an "experience" event for those who are willing to pay for it. That is "reason" enough.
Again - so what?
Do you complain about those who kill or hurt themselves when engaged in extreme sports such base jumping or TT racing - often spending substantial sums of money to do so?
I am perfectly happy for others to take risks doing whatever they want to do provided they are aware of the risks involved and that outside third parties are caught up in any accident.
I am frankly bemused that so many people, on PH of all places, seem to be down on this project. It's their money and their necks on the line.
I suppose you think Andy Green is a bit of an idiot too. What's the point of the Bloodhound project?
Do you complain about those who kill or hurt themselves when engaged in extreme sports such base jumping or TT racing - often spending substantial sums of money to do so?
I am perfectly happy for others to take risks doing whatever they want to do provided they are aware of the risks involved and that outside third parties are caught up in any accident.
I am frankly bemused that so many people, on PH of all places, seem to be down on this project. It's their money and their necks on the line.
I suppose you think Andy Green is a bit of an idiot too. What's the point of the Bloodhound project?
RobDickinson said:
Not really down on the project, but its talked about as if its somehow improving access to space, like they are pushing some boundaries. Its a distraction at best. At worst it will have a serious negative effect.
The x prize should have been structured far better to put in place a more solid set of competitors. It would have taken longer for someone to win but then we may have had their vision of dozens of companies competing for the market and actually pushing into LEO, rather than this quick and dirty shortcut that has nowhere else to go.
It's their ball and they can play with it how they like.The x prize should have been structured far better to put in place a more solid set of competitors. It would have taken longer for someone to win but then we may have had their vision of dozens of companies competing for the market and actually pushing into LEO, rather than this quick and dirty shortcut that has nowhere else to go.
And, as far as I was aware, the X Prize itself ended in 2004 so Virgin Galctic is not in response to a competition - although it has grown out of the winner of that original competition.
Someday maybe a different type of competition might emerge that fosters your perceived "better" path.
But until then, you go with what you've got.
My guess is that without this current project, we wouldn't have anything else.
The number of people killed on actual spaceflights is actually relatively small. I make it 18 in total. That is a lot less than 3% of the total number of people who have traveled into space.
If you start including everybody who has died in space related activities - which would include people died in factories, assembly plants, test flights or ground testing, the number obviously goes up.
However, if you were to include all such ancilliary deaths in other industries (which most statistics don't) then their death rates would shoot up too.
I am not saying space travel is safe. It's not as safe as many things - but why should that matter? As long as people are willing to accept the risks involved, that is their choice.
Are you guys proposing that certain activities should stop because people should not be allowed to make their own minds as to what risks to accept?
I would hate to live in a world like that as it would be exceedingly dull.
Already the "nannies" have severely restricted an awful lot of "dangerous" activities. I would hate to think that we had such killjoys inhabiting this particular forum.
If you start including everybody who has died in space related activities - which would include people died in factories, assembly plants, test flights or ground testing, the number obviously goes up.
However, if you were to include all such ancilliary deaths in other industries (which most statistics don't) then their death rates would shoot up too.
I am not saying space travel is safe. It's not as safe as many things - but why should that matter? As long as people are willing to accept the risks involved, that is their choice.
Are you guys proposing that certain activities should stop because people should not be allowed to make their own minds as to what risks to accept?
I would hate to live in a world like that as it would be exceedingly dull.
Already the "nannies" have severely restricted an awful lot of "dangerous" activities. I would hate to think that we had such killjoys inhabiting this particular forum.
Thanks for revealing who it was Simpo.
I would suggest that Hauck was specifically talking about the Space Shuttle - which the astronaut corps seriously turned against after the Challenger accident when it was revealed that fundamental engineering issues with the system had NEVER been communicated to the astronauts themselves. They were very angry about this and quite vociferous.
I would strongly recommend Mike Mullane's book "Riding Rockets" for a heartfelt explanation of how the astronaut team viewed their Shuttle missions.
Having read nearly every biography of every APOLLO astronaut, you can tell that there was a completely different attitude to the Saturn 1B and Saturn V launchers. The Apollo astronauts were much more confident in those rockets than they ever were with the Shuttle.
I would suggest that Hauck was specifically talking about the Space Shuttle - which the astronaut corps seriously turned against after the Challenger accident when it was revealed that fundamental engineering issues with the system had NEVER been communicated to the astronauts themselves. They were very angry about this and quite vociferous.
I would strongly recommend Mike Mullane's book "Riding Rockets" for a heartfelt explanation of how the astronaut team viewed their Shuttle missions.
Having read nearly every biography of every APOLLO astronaut, you can tell that there was a completely different attitude to the Saturn 1B and Saturn V launchers. The Apollo astronauts were much more confident in those rockets than they ever were with the Shuttle.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff