This isn't good if you were planning on riding into space soon...

I'm sure they will reassess and move on. ANYTHING worth accomplishing has it's setbacks. I hope the pilots turn out okay, if not RIP.
 
This is so sad :(

Virgin Galactic is over... I highly doubt they will recover from this.
 
weirdjim said:
Wilbur crashed on his military demo flight and killed the army lieutenant that was with him. I guess this airplane stuff will never recover from this loss.
Click to expand...
Not a good analogy, I think. At the time of Selfridge's crash, heavier-than-air aviation had existed only a handful of years. Too many people wanted flying machines for development to stop.

This is more like a new aircraft design crashing in 1953. And many an aircraft company *did* fail when their sole prototype crashed.

It's been over 50 years since man started going into space. Everybody and his brother has space rockets, and this is a low-performance vehicle intended as a very expensive amusement park ride.

Real irony this week, with two launch vehicles destroyed. One, probably, because of a failure in space technology that was too old, and the other, probably, because of the failure of an advanced, brand new space technology.

Ron Wanttaja
 
MultiMediaWill said:
This is so sad :(

Virgin Galactic is over... I highly doubt they will recover from this.
Click to expand...

I doubt it but I could be wrong!

There are quite a few companies that are starting up this space program dream, (XCOR Areospace, Blue Orgin...etc) So even if Virgin Galactic doesn't fly their own spacecraft. They can help fund others.

I'm for the space program because who knows these pioneers could be the people that are going to save humanity from themselves eventually.
 
I don't know how many of you have watched the documentary on the Spaceship I flights but if you are under the delusion that any of this is "safe" you're kidding yourself. All of these flights have been on the edge with a multitude of things that could go wrong and end it in disaster.

I'd assume that those who have bought "tickets" are aware of the risks involved and that it's dangerous to go into space. It's hard for me to fathom that 700 people have put down a quarter mil each for the ride.
 
Well the dream is sadly gone for Virgin Galactic. The insurance, backers, and government regulators will have a field day pulling them apart.

Gone are the days were you could multiple crashes and still move forward with the technology. Now days it almost impossible to jump through the legal hurtles. :(

People don't understand anymore that death is common place when dealing with bleeding edge technology. It's just a fact of life and technological progression.

I'm not making fun of what happened or has happened, just giving perspective.
 
If they pull the plug or are regulated to a stop it is akin to ****ing on the pilots grave. Full speed ahead, or you are gay.
 
Silvaire said:
I don't know how many of you have watched the documentary on the Spaceship I flights but if you are under the delusion that any of this is "safe" you're kidding yourself. All of these flights have been on the edge with a multitude of things that could go wrong and end it in disaster.

I'd assume that those who have bought "tickets" are aware of the risks involved and that it's dangerous to go into space. It's hard for me to fathom that 700 people have put down a quarter mil each for the ride.
Click to expand...

Yeah I've got both DVDs. Love the flight where Melville gets into an uncommanded roll going up! Just seemed like that thing was marginally stabile. I remember Burt saying that commercial space travel was going to happen very soon. That was 10 years ago.

Hopefully this accident doesn't set Scaled back too far and they work out the bugs and press on.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah I've got both DVDs. Love the flight where Melville gets into an uncommanded roll going up! Just seemed like that thing was marginally stabile. I remember Burt saying that commercial space travel was going to happen very soon. That was 10 years ago.

Hopefully this accident doesn't set Scaled back too far and they work out the bugs and press on.
Click to expand...
Two basic problems. First, the engines are pretty fundamental to any spacecraft. Aircraft might be able to switch to another type fairly easily, but that's not really a option for VG. Their rubber-based-fuel version blew up on the test stand and killed some folks, and now the plastic-based version has done something similar.

From what I understand, they switched to the plastic-based version from the rubber-burning one relatively recently. This implies they were not getting the total thrust they needed...bad news when you're supposedly close to going operational.

The second issue is PR... the only way this'll work, business-wise, is if there's confidence on behalf their customers that their ride won't blow up as well. Seeing pictures of the first vehicle scattered over the desert floor isn't going to help. How many test-stand firings will it take to reassure customers? How many passenger-less flights? How many passengers will bow out of the first revenue launch, and how is that going to affect your PR?

Space travel is *not* safe, even the 25-cent grocery-store ride VG is offering. As long as rockets are necessary, it never *will* be safe.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Needle drugs and dirty hookers ain't safe but are quite popular. Could be good for business. The people with 250k to drop on a space ride probably have a different set of risk wiring then your average schmoe.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I doubt it but I could be wrong!

There are quite a few companies that are starting up this space program dream, (XCOR Areospace, Blue Orgin...etc) So even if Virgin Galactic doesn't fly their own spacecraft. They can help fund others.

I'm for the space program because who knows these pioneers could be the people that are going to save humanity from themselves eventually.
Click to expand...

If these guys are your hope for humanity, it's going to be a long shot, because the cart is well out in front of the horse.
 
ARFlyer said:
Well the dream is sadly gone for Virgin Galactic. The insurance, backers, and government regulators will have a field day pulling them apart.
Click to expand...

This is laughable......we are talking Branson.

#1 Insurance....being Branson will have a huge influence on this....he has insurance connections beyond our wildest imagination and they will do whatever it talkes to keep his business......will he get insured and stay insured??....no doubt.

#2 Backers......backers come to Branson(not that he needs them).....not an issue.

#3 Government Regulators.......these are politicians and putty in the hands of a guy like Branson.

Does it hurt....heck yeah...nobody wants a blemish. Branson didnt invest in Virgin Glactic because he thought it would be flawless....Sure he would love it if it was...pretty certain this was a senario that was real and understood that could happen.

Understand.....they changed fuels....and was more of a test flight for fuel than anything. They can get to space reliability with the old fuel and components...just less people. If you can find a fuel with more punch and get more people per ride then go for it....build for it....in this case the build didnt hold up. They will learn and improve....they are testing the limits without the endless "we are the people budget"!
 
Two rocket failures this week, let's not forget Alan Eustace breaking Felix's record. Kinda scary when the most reliable way into space is with a balloon.:D
 
I'm reading a documentary on Arctic exploration. You either go, or you don't in exploration... There's always going to be huge hurdles to jump.

They thought the pole was a huge circle of warm water without any ice, back then. They convinced themselves and the world's imagination that they'd just pop through a small ring of ice and be in the no ice tropical zone around the pole.

My point is, there's things VG doesn't and couldn't know about their craft and yeah, it's killed a few folks. And probably will kill again.

Nobody thought the ice chunks were hitting the leading edge of the Shuttle's wing hard enough to create catastrophic damage, either. (They did however know the Booster O-rings would fail at cold temperatures... That was just PR-madness-generated murder to hit the launch button that day.)
 
TEFLONSEAN said:
This is laughable......we are talking Branson.

#1 Insurance....being Branson will have a huge influence on this....he has insurance connections beyond our wildest imagination and they will do whatever it talkes to keep his business......will he get insured and stay insured??....no doubt.

#2 Backers......backers come to Branson(not that he needs them).....not an issue.

#3 Government Regulators.......these are politicians and putty in the hands of a guy like Branson.

Does it hurt....heck yeah...nobody wants a blemish. Branson didnt invest in Virgin Glactic because he thought it would be flawless....Sure he would love it if it was...pretty certain this was a senario that was real and understood that could happen.

Understand.....they changed fuels....and was more of a test flight for fuel than anything. They can get to space reliability with the old fuel and components...just less people. If you can find a fuel with more punch and get more people per ride then go for it....build for it....in this case the build didnt hold up. They will learn and improve....they are testing the limits without the endless "we are the people budget"!
Click to expand...


They changed fuel because they blew up an engine on the stand on the old fuel, they were trying to make a safer fuel.

Really though, the denser the fuel the bigger of a pollution problem it is. Burning rubber and plastics has horribly toxic by products.
 
Henning said:
They changed fuel because they blew up an engine on the stand on the old fuel, they were trying to make a safer fuel.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the solid fuel had anything to do with the 2007 explosion, do you have evidence to the contrary?

Nauga,
waiting for word
 
nauga said:
I don't believe the solid fuel had anything to do with the 2007 explosion, do you have evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...
I know it isn't evidence, but I work with a propulsion specialist. I asked him about the earlier explosion, a few months after it had happened. He said the industry had looked into the rubber-based fuel concept ~20 years earlier and rejected it. My impression was that it was due to safety concerns.

The papers and reports were apparently available. Don't know if the engine developers thought they'd found a way around the problem, or whether they didn't do the research. Often, when a cost- and schedule-constrained project is underway, background research like this is the first thing cut....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Henning said:
They changed fuel because they blew up an engine on the stand on the old fuel, they were trying to make a safer fuel.

I believe that the 2007 strapped down test on the stand was during a cold flow test of the nitrous oxide; I don't think the fuel tank was even filled.

Really though, the denser the fuel the bigger of a pollution problem it is. Burning rubber and plastics has horribly toxic by products.

Complete (stochiometric) burn of either hydrocarbon should produce nothing but water and carbon dioxide. INcomplete burn makes up nasties, but the thrust (you should pardon the pun) of the test was to make the most efficient burn possible.
Click to expand...
.....
 
weirdjim said:
I don't think they knew until Feynman and his ice bucket hit them with a hammer at the post-mortem investigation.
Click to expand...
Actually, IIRC, there was a Thiokol engineer screaming his head off about the problem, before the launch. But delaying the launch would cause bad publicity, don't ya know....

Ron Wanttaja
 
weirdjim said:
I don't think they knew until Feynman and his ice bucket hit them with a hammer at the post-mortem investigation.

Jim
Click to expand...



wanttaja said:
Actually, IIRC, there was a Thiokol engineer screaming his head off about the problem, before the launch. But delaying the launch would cause bad publicity, don't ya know....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...


Ron is correct. Management murdered those people. Flat out. Because they had all the schools set up to watch.

When you're outside the design envelope, you're outside the design envelope. It was too cold to fly Shuttle that morning. More specifically, the SRBs.
 
Some thoughts, after looking at the in-flight picture.

1. There is no significant cross-track debris.
2. There is a stream of smaller debris streaming along behind, on track.
3. The vehicle has flipped end-for-end.
4. The portion of the vehicle around the engine looks generally intact.
5. The survivor apparently has G-related injuries, not burns.

This may turn out to NOT be an engine explosion. It's possible an overpressure of some sort compromised the airframe, leading to its disintegration, but it doesn't really look like a major explosion.

Another, probably slight, possibility is an aerodynamic issue leading to the vehicle getting sideways and not being able to withstand the forces. This seems far-fetched, considering the vehicle is designed to perform a high-drag reentry at Mach 5, but it was operating in much thicker air.

ss2.jpg

Ron Wanttaja
 
Henning said:
If these guys are your hope for humanity, it's going to be a long shot, because the cart is well out in front of the horse.
Click to expand...

Pioneers, make mistakes, learn from them and move on. The average person doesn't understand because they fear failure. Failure is part of the process.....Ask Thomas Edison.
 
wanttaja said:
Some thoughts, after looking at the in-flight picture.

1. There is no significant cross-track debris.
Click to expand...
Re-thinking this, the picture was obviously taken shortly after the anomaly, so any cross-track debris might be out of frame.

Really going to depend on the debris field, I guess...the video seems to show the major bits fairly close to each other.

Ron Wanttaja
 
FloridaPilot said:
Pioneers, make mistakes, learn from them and move on. The average person doesn't understand because they fear failure. Failure is part of the process.....Ask Thomas Edison.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying these people have no place, far from it, we need an efficient way to deliver large amounts of polymers into space to supply 3D printers manufacturing large space faring environments to take the species off the planet. But this is just a small part of the development we have to do, and it's the easiest part. The first thing we have to do is the hardest, we need to develop a cultural cohesion and efficient use of resource rather than the wasteful, destructive, competitive ethos that Nature has supplied us with. Problem is Nature only intends for a billion of us because it can only provide for a billion of us. We are depleting natural resources at an exponentially growing rate, one way or another it will reach a tipping point, we will be prepared or not.
 
weirdjim said:
I don't think they knew until Feynman and his ice bucket hit them with a hammer at the post-mortem investigation.

Jim
Click to expand...

Actually, there were engineers who had concerns about them before the Challenger accident. An astronaut who was on the internal investigation was kicked off of the investigation when he started looking into the O rings. General Kutyna had Feynman over to dinner and was telling him about the O rings in an auto carburetor to push Feynman in that direction so as to not get anybody else in trouble who worked for NASA.
 
wanttaja said:
And many an aircraft company *did* fail when their sole prototype crashed.
Click to expand...
Actually probably statistically many more survived than perished.
Cirrus survived quite well as well as SyberJet, just these two examples that are so obvious and recent.

And it doesn't matter if Virgin G. survives, someone else will pick up the pieces and launch it under a different name so the hardware will live on (as SyberJet did). The only way it fails if technical fixes plus long range economic calculation shows the project to be too risky.
 
Last edited:
Bob T said:
Actually, there were engineers who had concerns about them before the Challenger accident. An astronaut who was on the internal investigation was kicked off of the investigation when he started looking into the O rings. General Kutyna had Feynman over to dinner and was telling him about the O rings in an auto carburetor to push Feynman in that direction so as to not get anybody else in trouble who worked for NASA.
Click to expand...

Well, let's think about it. The failure was induced by the cold o-rings, agreed. But we've been using o-rings in the cold for a LONG, LONG time. How many hundreds of o-rings are there on any airliner that cruises above the freezing level. And how many hundreds of thousands of airliners, military aircraft have there been since the dawn of flight. SOMEWHERE along the line a cold o-ring ought to have given some real trouble but why this one at this time?

Sure, engineers tore the side engines off of prior launch vehicles and noted a slight bit or even a major bit of deterioration in the rubber after a launch. So if that was true even in WARM weather, why in the hell wasn't a different material (crush washer, mesh o-ring, ...) specified during the John Glenn era? There must have been a good design reason that THESE particular o-rings were subject to a stress beyond their design limits. Why? And the cold just made it worse.

Jim
 
Henning said:
The first thing we have to do is the hardest, we need to develop a cultural cohesion and efficient use of resource rather than the wasteful, destructive, competitive ethos that Nature has supplied us with. Problem is Nature only intends for a billion of us because it can only provide for a billion of us. We are depleting natural resources at an exponentially growing rate, one way or another it will reach a tipping point, we will be prepared or not.
Click to expand...

Ok Henning, we get it. You really can stop bringing this into every thread.
 
wanttaja said:
I know it isn't evidence, but I work with a propulsion specialist. I asked him about the earlier explosion, a few months after it had happened. He said the industry had looked into the rubber-based fuel concept ~20 years earlier and rejected it. My impression was that it was due to safety concerns.
Click to expand...
Be that as it may, I still don't think the rubber-based solid fuel had anything to do with the 2007 explosion during an oxidizer test as was posited earlier. I also don't believe the 2007 event was the reason for the change in fuels, as they were using the rubber-based solid fuel for all SS2 powered flights prior to yesterday's, if Scaled's flight summaries are to be believed.

Nauga,
and his cause and effect
 
wanttaja said:
This may turn out to NOT be an engine explosion. It's possible an overpressure of some sort compromised the airframe, leading to its disintegration, but it doesn't really look like a major explosion.
Click to expand...
Any conclusions based on a single frame of video with no way of correlating it to the event 'front' are at best wild guessing. There are many sources of data that will be sifted through. Time and expert analysis will tell. You know I respect you, Ron, but guessing at this time is pointless.

Nauga,
not a stranger
 
nauga said:
Any conclusions based on a single frame of video with no way of correlating it to the event 'front' are at best wild guessing. There are many sources of data that will be sifted through. Time and expert analysis will tell. You know I respect you, Ron, but guessing at this time is pointless.

Nauga,
not a stranger
Click to expand...

Well, that one picture does demonstrate that an explosion of the engine did not likely cause this failure. Out of curiosity, how old is that airframe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top