Spaceship 2 Mishap

Lindberg said:
I think high net-worth individuals might use insurance differently than you expect. And even high-risk operations are insurable, the premiums are just higher. In some situations, the insurance amounts to a finance arrangement.
Click to expand...

I know their companies have millions of dollars of life insurance on them.
 
Henning said:
Are you saying that those 800 $250,000 passengers will be flying on craft with no FAA certification?
Click to expand...
Yes. They will have FAA inspection and approval for ops, but no certification. There are exemptions in the regulations for vehicles intended for spaceflight.
 
I was wondering why the SS2 crew would unlock the feather in powered flight, since the 'feather' is used during unpowered descent.

The best explanation I've heard is that they want to be sure that the feather will unlock while they could cut the engine and still do a conventional glide recovery.

Sadly the dynamic pressure was much higher at M1 than it would have been at M1.4
 
Ken Ibold said:
What a crock this article is.
Click to expand...


Care to elaborate? We know you have insider info in that industry but a one liner saying its a crock doesn't hold as much weight as a real explanation as to why you hold that opinion.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Yes. They will have FAA inspection and approval for ops, but no certification. There are exemptions in the regulations for vehicles intended for spaceflight.
Click to expand...


It's so good to know they won't need to buy a $200 Ford Alternator for "safety". LOL
 
denverpilot said:
Care to elaborate? We know you have insider info in that industry but a one liner saying its a crock doesn't hold as much weight as a real explanation as to why you hold that opinion.
Click to expand...

Jeff Wright explained it well after I'd given a similar reply to an engine thread - those with insider info typically won't give you more than that if they want to keep their jobs and/or not get sued, but that should be good enough.

So if Ken says it, good 'nuff for me.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So if Ken says it, good 'nuff for me.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The article that Ken called "crock" is basically MSM stealing info from Doug Messier. And Doug has proved again and again that he analyzed the situation at VG correctly. He was beating the nylon fuel drum longer than anyone on the blog circuit, let along the media. It is obvious to anyone who's not in the tank for Sir Richard that they would've saved a ton of money and time if they went with a liquid engine, from XCOR for example. Most importantly, they would've not been held by the balls by Arabs.

None of this is changed by the crash, BTW. They are still stuck even if they fix unlocking-related problems.

So, nope, Ken's crock is not enough.
 
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ted. Pete, I really can't say more, other than the facts of the cases discussed in the article do not necessarily lead to the conclusions stated in the article. You are, of course, free to disagree.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Yes. They will have FAA inspection and approval for ops, but no certification. There are exemptions in the regulations for vehicles intended for spaceflight.
Click to expand...

We went through this several pages back. I already laid out the facts about launch licensing and the FAA's intent to forego any type of certification.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1600263&postcount=167

Apparently my posts are invisible, because the same assertions are still being made and you responded to them as I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top