Virgin Galactic
Discussion
Toaster said:
As talking heads sang, "this is the road to nowhere"
We can't even get a man back to the moon let alone a whole plane full, you may as well just roll out the old mercury capsule and fire people up one at a time for a sub orbital fix.
The energy's involved are huge and highly dangerous people will be killed just look at the space industry's probability statistics I really do not think you would want to go, these are just the launch statistics.
USSR - 2589 successful, 181 failed, 93.5% success rate
USA - 1152 successful, 164 failed, 87.5% success rate
EU - 117 sucessful, 12 failed, 90.7% success rate
China - 56 successful, 11 failed, 83.6% success rate
Japan - 52 successful, 9 failed, 85.2% success rate
India - 7 successful, 6 failed, 53.8% success rate
You sound like the MP who, when asked in the 1890s "When will the House of Commons get their first telephone system?" replied. "Oh, we don't need telephones. We have excellent messenger boys".We can't even get a man back to the moon let alone a whole plane full, you may as well just roll out the old mercury capsule and fire people up one at a time for a sub orbital fix.
The energy's involved are huge and highly dangerous people will be killed just look at the space industry's probability statistics I really do not think you would want to go, these are just the launch statistics.
USSR - 2589 successful, 181 failed, 93.5% success rate
USA - 1152 successful, 164 failed, 87.5% success rate
EU - 117 sucessful, 12 failed, 90.7% success rate
China - 56 successful, 11 failed, 83.6% success rate
Japan - 52 successful, 9 failed, 85.2% success rate
India - 7 successful, 6 failed, 53.8% success rate
Toaster said:
Eric Mc said:
Of course there is a point. Getting that high viewpoint is what people are willing to pay for. And when getting into orbit commercially becomes feasible, there will be even more takers.
Space IS the destination.
A space station where one could relax such as a spa day maybe that would class as tourism or better still where industrialised processes would benefit from near zero gravity, an outpost to colonise another planet maybe but a slingshot ride is a pointless waste of resource. Space IS the destination.
NTSC have spoken about the feathering system being unlocked by one of the crew at around Mach 1 instead of the planned Mach 1.4, then the system activating (that can only mean rotating) without any crew input.
Does anyone know whether the feathering system is intended for use during powered flight? It sounds highly unlikely to me.
Looking at previous flights, feathering has always been deployed either in the upward coast phase, or after apogee. It was also used on a 2011 unpowered test flight to recover from a stalled tail. It would seem that this was not a planned test routine.
Does anyone know why the flight protocols would call for a feathering system unlock during powered flight?
Does anyone know whether the feathering system is intended for use during powered flight? It sounds highly unlikely to me.
Looking at previous flights, feathering has always been deployed either in the upward coast phase, or after apogee. It was also used on a 2011 unpowered test flight to recover from a stalled tail. It would seem that this was not a planned test routine.
Does anyone know why the flight protocols would call for a feathering system unlock during powered flight?
Yes - it is YOUR opinion.
And, so what if it is. If someone has the cash and the desire and indeed the ego - that's their business and good luck to them.
If I was a multi-millionaire with an interest in spaceflight, I would have been on the list too - and I wouldn't be rushing to have my name removed either.
And, so what if it is. If someone has the cash and the desire and indeed the ego - that's their business and good luck to them.
If I was a multi-millionaire with an interest in spaceflight, I would have been on the list too - and I wouldn't be rushing to have my name removed either.
For me, the issue is that Mans exploitation of Space has arrived at somewhat of a hiatus, a technological backwater so to speak.
We have, to a large degree mastered "economic" space, ie near earth orbit, the bit that is directly and immediately useful to ourselves, and the bit that has a direct economic benefit.
We have a relatively mature rocketry architecture that uses conventional chemical energy release to provide enough KE to get objects into orbit. Whilst not totally reliable, these systems have proven themselves to be "good enough" (~10% ROF)
We have cut costs by removing manned crews from the tasks of leveraging Space. All future programs that have a direct scientific of economic requirement will pretty much have to be unmanned from a simple cost standpoint.
What this leaves us with is a technological shortfall. We have no solution to the requirement to get "heavy" objects into orbit. The current systems we have to deliver the vast energy necessary are all fundamentally dangerous (due to the massive energy content, either PE or KE).
I cannot see in the near term (say 100 years) that we can find other practical methods for reaching orbit (anti-gravity, space elevators etc) that negate the controlled release of massive amounts of energy and as such offer higher reliability and lower costs.
It took something like 50 years to develop commercial Jet engines that enabled the boom in private air transport, and this task is relatively easy and significantly less complex than an engine for a Space craft.
So, whilst developments like hybrid rocket motors may start to reduce costs and increase safety, i can't see an "sea change" in the risk profile or absolute economics for the commercialisation of Space, either near orbit or far??
We have, to a large degree mastered "economic" space, ie near earth orbit, the bit that is directly and immediately useful to ourselves, and the bit that has a direct economic benefit.
We have a relatively mature rocketry architecture that uses conventional chemical energy release to provide enough KE to get objects into orbit. Whilst not totally reliable, these systems have proven themselves to be "good enough" (~10% ROF)
We have cut costs by removing manned crews from the tasks of leveraging Space. All future programs that have a direct scientific of economic requirement will pretty much have to be unmanned from a simple cost standpoint.
What this leaves us with is a technological shortfall. We have no solution to the requirement to get "heavy" objects into orbit. The current systems we have to deliver the vast energy necessary are all fundamentally dangerous (due to the massive energy content, either PE or KE).
I cannot see in the near term (say 100 years) that we can find other practical methods for reaching orbit (anti-gravity, space elevators etc) that negate the controlled release of massive amounts of energy and as such offer higher reliability and lower costs.
It took something like 50 years to develop commercial Jet engines that enabled the boom in private air transport, and this task is relatively easy and significantly less complex than an engine for a Space craft.
So, whilst developments like hybrid rocket motors may start to reduce costs and increase safety, i can't see an "sea change" in the risk profile or absolute economics for the commercialisation of Space, either near orbit or far??
I read that this craft would enable you to fly from London to Melbourne in around 3 hours, there's certainly plenty of scope there for the 'what's the point' brigade.
I really don't understand the knockers of this project and similar. The technologies that change the world for the better always come from those with the means to fund the development of it, and usually there are bumps along the way and occasionally people die, test pilots are a rare breed that really understand this concept and are willing to do aid the program fully understanding the risks involved.
I hope they can determine exactly what went wrong and get this project back on track.
I really don't understand the knockers of this project and similar. The technologies that change the world for the better always come from those with the means to fund the development of it, and usually there are bumps along the way and occasionally people die, test pilots are a rare breed that really understand this concept and are willing to do aid the program fully understanding the risks involved.
I hope they can determine exactly what went wrong and get this project back on track.
My last post got rather lost in the flurry of "why / cost justify" posts, so I will have another go.
NTSB have spoken about the feathering system being unlocked by one of the crew at around Mach 1 instead of the planned Mach 1.4, then the system activating (that can only mean rotating) without any crew input.
Does anyone know whether the feathering system is intended for use during powered flight? It sounds highly unlikely to me.
Looking at previous flights, feathering has always been deployed either in the upward coast phase, or after apogee. It was also used on a 2011 unpowered test flight to recover from a stalled tail. It would seem that this was not a planned test routine.
Does anyone know why the flight protocols would call for a feathering system unlock during powered flight?
NTSB have spoken about the feathering system being unlocked by one of the crew at around Mach 1 instead of the planned Mach 1.4, then the system activating (that can only mean rotating) without any crew input.
Does anyone know whether the feathering system is intended for use during powered flight? It sounds highly unlikely to me.
Looking at previous flights, feathering has always been deployed either in the upward coast phase, or after apogee. It was also used on a 2011 unpowered test flight to recover from a stalled tail. It would seem that this was not a planned test routine.
Does anyone know why the flight protocols would call for a feathering system unlock during powered flight?
qube_TA said:
I read that this craft would enable you to fly from London to Melbourne in around 3 hours, there's certainly plenty of scope there for the 'what's the point' brigade.
Except not really. It could be able to take just a handfull of people at high speed, but huge cost, both financially and environmentally to the other side of the world.In say 2020, when i'll be able to have a full 3d video conference at the speed of light, i can't see the need to actually be there quickly? (especially when it will come at an environmental cost that will quickly become socially irresponsible i suspect.....)
The press are now reporting widely that the NTSB are saying this wasn't a fuel tank failure as per the initial reactions of the weekend but a premature activation of the feathering descent mode at just over Mach 1 causing failure of the structure and that this was either pilot error or a control failure.
scubadude said:
The press are now reporting widely that the NTSB are saying this wasn't a fuel tank failure as per the initial reactions of the weekend but a premature activation of the feathering descent mode at just over Mach 1 causing failure of the structure and that this was either pilot error or a control failure.
No they are not. Please see my second attempt at raising this in my post above.At this time they state that the feathering system was unlocked by crew, but not deployed - a fine but important distinction.
jingars said:
scubadude said:
The press are now reporting widely that the NTSB are saying this wasn't a fuel tank failure as per the initial reactions of the weekend but a premature activation of the feathering descent mode at just over Mach 1 causing failure of the structure and that this was either pilot error or a control failure.
No they are not. Please see my second attempt at raising this in my post above.At this time they state that the feathering system was unlocked by crew, but not deployed - a fine but important distinction.
The key question seems to be, why was the feathering system unlocked at this point in the flight?
Toaster said:
qube_TA said:
I read that this craft would enable you to fly from London to Melbourne in around 3 hours, there's certainly plenty of scope there for the 'what's the point' brigade.
Again whats the point we are not talking about a commercial service but a joy ride "Space tourism" for a few, we can't even go supersonic London to New York and we do have the technological capability to do this. technological capability comes from development, learning to walk before learning to fly and all that.
This method of going sub-orbital and back down again half way around the world will use considerably less fuel than a normal passenger jet making a similar journey, particularly if supersonic.
Unsure why you're being so aggressive against it, what harm does it cause you whether VG exists or not?
jingars said:
At this time they state that the feathering system was unlocked by crew, but not deployed - a fine but important distinction.
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?Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff