Virgin Galactic incident
Discussion
An 'in flight anomaly' apparently. Worrying to say the least.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29857182
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29857182
Rower said:
Very sad news indeed .
Listening to the radio this morning where the whole scheme was being discussed It was said that this engine was using different fuel as prior to this the fuel was 'rubber' . Can anyone explain how that works .....
HTPB, better described as synthetic rubber.Listening to the radio this morning where the whole scheme was being discussed It was said that this engine was using different fuel as prior to this the fuel was 'rubber' . Can anyone explain how that works .....
http://aeroconsystems.com/cart/motor-making-suppli...
Mix it with nitrous oxide and it burns rapidly, which is all rocket fuel needs to do. The HTPB is solid but the nitrous oxide is liquid and can be throttled giving the kind of control impossible with a pure solid fuel rocket.
The new fuel is plastic, similar to nylon I think, but still solid and used with nitrous oxide.
Been away from the internet and TV over the past two days so was not able to follow this news story apart from the radio news reports. It looks like they were using a more powerful version of the hybrid solid fueled motor that they had been using up to now and that something went wrong just after ignition which broke the machine up.
Nothing to do with the propulsion system - apparently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29876154
I don't get why deploying it at "Mach 1" would cause a disaster, yet if deployed at "Mach 1.4" it's normal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29876154
I don't get why deploying it at "Mach 1" would cause a disaster, yet if deployed at "Mach 1.4" it's normal.
hornetrider said:
dr_gn said:
I don't get why deploying it at "Mach 1" would cause a disaster, yet if deployed at "Mach 1.4" it's normal.
Lower altitude and thicker air at the Mach 1 stage of the flight?dr_gn said:
Nothing to do with the propulsion system - apparently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29876154
I don't get why deploying it at "Mach 1" would cause a disaster, yet if deployed at "Mach 1.4" it's normal.
Deployed at 1.4 isn't normal. The point is that they can unlock it at 1.4 without the danger of it deploying on it's own, at less than that the airflow can deploy it. It's unlocking it at Mach 1 that's the issue.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29876154
I don't get why deploying it at "Mach 1" would cause a disaster, yet if deployed at "Mach 1.4" it's normal.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff