virgin spaceship 2 crashes

irishgeo

Not a good week for the space race , spaceship two crashes after dropping from white knight . one dead according to sky news.


http://news.sky.com/story/1364455/one-dead-as-virgin-galactic-spaceship-crashes

Itssoeasy

irishgeo wrote: »

Not a good week for the space race , spaceship crashes after dropping from white knight . one dead according to sky news.


http://news.sky.com/story/1364455/one-dead-as-virgin-galactic-spaceship-crashes

I was going to say the exact same thing. It's not good to see spacecraft blowing up or crashing.

shedweller

Just saw that now. Ah feck this is bad. Naysayers will be lining up to tell us we shouldnt be going to space now. Grrr.

The pics online are showing both (?) Tails on the ground. Did the engine blow apart taking the tails with it??

Stuxnet

RIP..
eff the naysayers

Hotblack Desiato

shedweller wrote: »

Naysayers will be lining up to tell us we shouldnt be going to space now.

We shouldn't, not on a useless sub-orbital rich man's plaything. Orbit or nothing.

shedweller

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We shouldn't, not on a useless sub-orbital rich man's plaything. Orbit or nothing.

But it's more than just a plaything. It will stimulate industries to invest more in this kind of thing. A kind of door opener.
But yes, we really do need to get into orbit and beyond, permanently!

ThatDrGuy

This is tragic. As far as I remember three people also died when one of their fuel depots exploded. That makes 4 dead and many injured all for the benefit of a glorified roller-coaster for the rich. As for stimulating industries - this kind of mickey mouse sub-orbital nonsense achieves almost nothing in terms of science or engineering but is capable of crippling investment into space technology, investors see a smoking hole in the desert, imagine that is where their money will go if they invest.

nokia69

I think sub orbital is pointless myself, but there might be a market for it

will be interesting to see what blue origin are working on, I think they plan to launch soon, and it looks like they have a working engine

shedweller

Its pretty sad to see the naysayers. Sure lets stay indoors and play angry birds for the rest of our days. Then nobody will get hurt.
People die all the time and expensive crashes happen all the time. Lessons will be learnt from this and progress will be made. Its how we went from the ford model-t to modern cars you can crash at ridiculous speeds and walk away most of the time.
Progress!
Or we could just sit on our hole and do nothing and take no risks. Stay in the dark ages.

nokia69

shedweller wrote: »

Its pretty sad to see the naysayers. Sure lets stay indoors and play angry birds for the rest of our days. Then nobody will get hurt.
People die all the time and expensive crashes happen all the time. Lessons will be learnt from this and progress will be made. Its how we went from the ford model-t to modern cars you can crash at ridiculous speeds and walk away most of the time.
Progress!
Or we could just sit on our hole and do nothing and take no risks. Stay in the dark ages.

sub orbital flights are not progress, it was done decades ago

there is plenty of good research being done in rockets and aerospace in general, just because I think what virgin are doing is pointless does not mean I'm against progress or new things or ideas

shedweller

Sub orbital flights were indeed done years ago but only by a select few. We now almost have the ability to allow regular people to do it. And if people want to pay to do it then who are we to argue!

The One Doctor

shedweller wrote: »

Sub orbital flights were indeed done years ago but only by a select few. We now almost have the ability to allow regular people to do it. And if people want to pay to do it then who are we to argue!

They're not going to want to be launched using a hybrid rocket anymore, that's for sure.

shedweller

The One Doctor wrote: »

They're not going to want to be launched using a hybrid rocket anymore, that's for sure.

Amen. The ntsb's results will prove very ineresting.

Maximus Alexander

nokia69 wrote: »

sub orbital flights are not progress, it was done decades ago

there is plenty of good research being done in rockets and aerospace in general, just because I think what virgin are doing is pointless does not mean I'm against progress or new things or ideas

There's a big picture though. It's easy to look at suborbital flights like a rich man's plaything and nothing more, but if they generate income for private companies in that area, then in the long term it's a win for all of us.

Richard Branson has already spoken about his desire to one day have a hotel in orbit. Whatever you think about him or his motives, someone has to take the lead on generating profits from space travel, because that's the only way humans are going to end up getting off this planet in any sort of numbers, for any meaningful amounts of time.

Space has to be a money maker for progress to be made, because governments don't think long term enough. They heyday of organisations like NASA is behind us, their funding falls every year, politicians are unwilling to spend public money on grand visions of the future because the people who elect them are more concerned with immediate needs here on Earth.

I hope Virgin Galactic is a huge success, I hope Richard gets his hotel one day and makes a bucket load of cash out of it, and I hope that opens the floodgates for others to follow suit.

nokia69

if its a hotel in space that interests you, take a look and Bigelow aerospace and their plans

Maximus Alexander

It's not a hotel in space that interests me. It's more people in space, doing more stuff.

nokia69

well then keep on eye on spaceX

their next launch will be interesting

JupiterKid

This tragic accident is a setback but I'm sure that the programme for sub-orbital flights will continue once lessons have been learned from this accident. Spaceflight does have its inherent risks and sadly fatal accidents form an element of these risks.

ThatDrGuy

nokia69 wrote: »

well then keep on eye on spaceX

their next launch will be interesting

I hope it's mundane to the point of tedious and everything goes perfectly to plan. The current state of space exploration is deplorable. Billionaires recreating technology from the 40's for sub-orbital millionaire tourism. Astronauts blasting off on "disposable" soyuz rockets using 60's tech to a white elephant space station whose operational end is only a few years away. NASA crippled by a SLS which envisions a single crewed launch every 2 years and has drained the budget almost to the point that they can have a rocket or a payload but not both. Space science needs cheaper launch costs and much less waste to have any chance of moving forward. Best of luck to SpaceX.

nokia69

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

I hope it's mundane to the point of tedious and everything goes perfectly to plan. The current state of space exploration is deplorable. Billionaires recreating technology from the 40's for sub-orbital millionaire tourism. Astronauts blasting off on "disposable" soyuz rockets using 60's tech to a white elephant space station whose operational end is only a few years away. NASA crippled by a SLS which envisions a single crewed launch every 2 years and has drained the budget almost to the point that they can have a rocket or a payload but not both. Space science needs cheaper launch costs and much less waste to have any chance of moving forward. Best of luck to SpaceX.

the launch will be mundane, well thats the plan

but its what happens after stage separation thats interesting, there is a good chance that they will land the first stage intact and be able to fly it again

its looks to me that cheap reusable rockets are very close and spaceX have started work on their BFR which makes the SLS look small, so things are getting better IMO

shedweller

Preliminary data points to structural failure being the cause of the break up in flight. But apparently some engine anomalies may have lead to this.
Early days.


http://www.ibtimes.com/space-ship-two-crash-update-structural-failure-may-have-been-responsible-crash-wsj-1717539

Harold Finchs Machine

shedweller wrote: »

Preliminary data points to structural failure being the cause of the break up in flight. But apparently some engine anomalies may have lead to this.
Early days.

Engine and fuel tanks recovered intact, no problems.

Foldable wing deployed to early, crash happened straight after.

New fuel is a plastic propellant - wonder what the need for this anyway.

news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/spaceshiptwos-rocket-engine-did-not-cause-fatal-crash-141103.htm

shedweller

Wow! This is a new turn and puts the trademark wing feathering system in a tricky position.
I always had concerns, mechanically, about this system but it always worked. But now that it has been seen to potentially cause major structural failure if it deploys early (presumably they mean while under power??) it could be a real back to the drawing board job.
I hope it all works out for them.

Harold Finchs Machine

Rich folk jumping (sub orbital) ship.

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/virgin-galactic-crash-dozens-of-investors-consider-pulling-out-of-space-programme-9836934.html

shedweller

That was expected i suppose.

fayvirtue

It seems like they forgot some protocols ! That one mistake with the flaps and they were doomed - they won't make that mistake again.

Hotblack Desiato

shedweller wrote: »

Wow! This is a new turn and puts the trademark wing feathering system in a tricky position.
I always had concerns, mechanically, about this system but it always worked.

Have to say I always thought that was a really bad idea.

shedweller

They're working on another airframe apparently. Whether it is the same design or something new is unknown to me at this point. If i were them i would question the whole feathering idea.
It does keep the craft from re-entering too fast and in turn, eliminate the need for expensive and heavy shielding. But it is a disaster waiting to happen. Imagine it got stuck in the feathered position for landing...
I dont recall any testing done on that front.

The One Doctor

shedweller wrote: »

They're working on another airframe apparently. Whether it is the same design or something new is unknown to me at this point. If i were them i would question the whole feathering idea.
It does keep the craft from re-entering too fast and in turn, eliminate the need for expensive and heavy shielding. But it is a disaster waiting to happen. Imagine it got stuck in the feathered position for landing...
I dont recall any testing done on that front.

The feathered wing design was meant for a quick hop above the Karmann line. It's self-limiting technology, an expensive rollercoaster, that's all.

Harold Finchs Machine

A read on Branson

ft.com/cms/s/2/4d4fb05e-64cd-11e4-bb43-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ICW9kILc

Ghost Train

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/virgin-galactic-tragedy-revealed-spaceshiptwo-disaster

This seems to point towards mistake by co-pilot, pulling lever to unfold wings at mach 1 instead of at mach 1.2 or 1.4. Gives a fair bit of detail. Pilot some how got out and parachuted to ground with just shoulder injury, co-pilot was still in his seat when it reached ground