SpaceShipTwo Pilot Named; Branson Vows To 'Move Forward Together' 112
astroengine writes Virgin Galactic founder Richard Branson has arrived in the Mojave Desert, Calif., in the wake of the tragic explosion and crash of the company's SpaceShipTwo vehicle. The rocket-propelled space plane was completely destroyed Friday morning during a test flight. One of the two test pilots, employed by SpaceShipTwo development company Scaled Composites, was killed and the second pilot was rushed to a local hospital where he is described as having "major injuries." A spokeswoman for Kern's County Coroner's Office told the Los Angeles Times that project engineer and test pilot Michael Alsbury died in the accident. Alsbury was 39-years-old and had been working with Scaled for 14 years. The second pilot, who was able to parachute to safety, has not been named.
Branson Vows To 'Move Forward Together' (Score:2, Insightful)
>> Branson Vows To 'Move Forward Together'
"You know...without the guy that died...but other than THAT. (Awkward.)"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe they'll name a ship after him.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Branson Vows To 'Move Forward Together' (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>> Branson Vows To 'Move Forward Together'
"You know...without the guy that died...but other than THAT. (Awkward.)"
Quickly. Get to your safe room in your gated community, for there are dangers everywhere. Thugs, automobiles, trucks, ebola, avian flu, tainted food, airplanes.
Because life is scary, safety is more important than anything else, and no exceptions. So take your maintenance meds, and try to live as long as possible in safety.
It's pathetic that in the USA today, agoraphobia is becoming a recommended lifestyle.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no, can't sit on the living room couch. An engine might fall off a passing jetliner, crash through your roof, and kill you. Better get in your bomb shelter in the basement. Or, since you will need to remove all joy and sensation from life in order to be "safe", just skip to the end game instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flaws in Liquid Solid Engine (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been reading lately that there has been serious concern about the liquid-solid hybrid engine used in Spaceship 2. In 2007 there was a nitrous oxide explosion [wikipedia.org] that killed three people.
On 26 July 2007, during the early rocket testing phase, an explosion occurred during a propellant flow test at the Mojave Air and Space Port. The test included filling the oxidizer tank with 4,500 kg (10,000 pounds) of nitrous oxide, followed by a 15-second cold flow injector test. Although the tests did not ignite the gas, three employees were killed and three injured, two critically and one seriously, by flying shrapnel.[12]
parabolicarc.com is a pretty good source of information on New Space. Here are some tweets [twitter.com]:
Parabolicarc.com @spacecom Oct 31
I had deep concerns over both the new plastic/nitrous oxide engine and so did other sources familiar with the testing. #SpaceShipTwo
The concerns were three fold. One, that it wasn't being tested sufficiently on the ground before it was flown. #SpaceShipTwo
Second: that modifications required to ship to accommodate the new engine introduced additional complexity and failure modes. #SpaceShipTwo
Third, handful of test flights they were doing with new #SpaceShipTwo engine before putting Richard and Sam Branson aboard were insufficient
Let me stress2 things: one, we don't know what happened yet, so I'm not making a snap judgment about what caused the accident #SpaceShipTwo
Second, these concerns about the new engine were not mine alone. Folks much smarter and knowledgble than me were worried. #SpaceShipTwo
I predict you will be hearing a lot more about these concerns and the problems they were having in the days and weeks ahead #SpaceShipTwo
Scaled's Kevin Mickey called the engine change "a minor nuance". He rushed out of the press conference once it was over.
Mickey claimed "minor nuance" engine change thoroughly tested on ground. Tried to ask for details, but presser ended quickly & Mickey left.
Ken Brown was taking photos through the entire incident. Tracked one large piece of debris down to the lakebed. #SpaceShipTwo
I heard Ken say, "They're in trouble." And then "They're tumbling. Ken's pictures will be very crucial to understanding it. #SpaceShipTwo
Just talked to Ken Brown. Pictures show Engine fired fine, then there's a white plume. He thinks the nitrous oxide tank blew. #SpaceShipTwo
I am a huge supporter of commercial space, most especially Space X. But I think that accidents like this give the whole sector a bad name. Virgin Galactic/SC have been building this ship for 10 years, and they still don't have a viable engine. That is not a good sign.
Contrast that with Space X, which in about the same amount of time has built the Falcon 9, which has a string of 13 straight successes (touch wood). It seems to me that not all space companies are created equal.
Re: (Score:2)
It started with a premise that has been demonstrated to be a bunch of good wishes, nothing more. The supposed simplicity of the engine doesn't mean that it requires no care. Given the time it took them, I'd say that the concept as executed by them won't ever work and is a failure. Perhaps it would work for someone else, but not for them.
Re: (Score:2)
N2O has some interesting properties, one of which is that it is an amazing oxidizer, and another is that it is the only known gas soluble in creme. Oxidizers, btw (directed at wiki author/editor) are not fuel, they are oxidizers, so unless the tests also involved something that could ignite, the gas would not be expected to ignite under any circumstances (but flower and corn explode, which is weird but understood... they're fuel). Not knowing anything more about the incident, I'd guess it was a pressure ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah yeah, what about all the heroes who nobly died in the coal mines so you could have your electricity, and the people who died from the resultant effluent? You see, almost everything comes with a small price in blood to pay. It shouldn't be news to you that the same is true for rocket science. If you don't like it, build an intensive care unit in a bunker and go live there.
Well, at least the test was conclusive.... (Score:1, Flamebait)
"Boom" is a result that leaves very little room for interpretation.
nit pick (Score:1)
Kern County's
This was bound to happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the question is whether there are any real benefits to going into space with people at this time. I agree on the losses though: Either be able to life with them or scrap the whole idea of space.
Re:This was bound to happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who have died in the cause of manned space flight knew the risks and accepted them. No one forced them to do these dangerous things. They obviously thought the benefits outweighed the risks.
Re:This was bound to happen. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This was bound to happen. (Score:4, Interesting)
I for one accept my risks and live to have fun
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a frequent paraglider pilot, and even this close to earth lethal accidents do happen.
Close to the earth? I thought all lethal paragliding and parachuting accidents happen right ON the earth!
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's better if you're above the Earth. Less friction, see, and people just say "you're running, really - not flying" if you don't take off.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Did they really know the risk?
Why yes they did. That's an immense amount of energy pushing out th eback of a rocket. If the wrong part fails - and there are many of those parts - life will be shortend significantly.
After the Columbia space shuttle tragedy, we learned a lot about the inside culture pushing for result without taking all the required precautions.
I think you might mean the Challenger, not the Columbia. Columbia's demise was based on something that most folks figured would not ever happen, while Challenger's kaboom was a
Re: (Score:2)
I think a more accurate statement would be that foam shedding and damage to the orbiter improperly became a normal and accepted consequence of flight prior to both the Challenger and Columbia accidents, just like the O-ring erosion and failure-to-seal issues were known to be a problem as far back as 1977 but weren't considered a big enough deal by management to halt the program until the new joints could be implemented
Re: (Score:2)
Columbia's demise was based on something that most folks figured would not ever happen I think a more accurate statement would be that foam shedding and damage to the orbiter improperly became a normal and accepted consequence of flight prior to both the Challenger and Columbia accidents, just like the O-ring erosion and failure-to-seal issues were known to be a problem as far back as 1977 but weren't considered a big enough deal by management to halt the program until the new joints could be implemented. In both cases, concerns with the possibility of the failure modes eventually observed were brought to management and dismissed.
And we all drive vehicles loaded with a liquid fuel that is so flammable that it deflagrates, just short of an explosion, at speeds totaling over 160 miles per hour on a daily basis, without even a thought. of danger.
And still, I do not put the Columbia accident anywhere near the organizationl complicity that some do. In the perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight, there would never be a launch, as it is a dangerous process, and if every "whit if" where to stop a lunch, no sip would ever be cleared for launch.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a frigging *astronaut* for crying out loud. Bolden flew on the damned thing four times and commanded two missions. Yet even I knew the RCC panels weren't six inches thick back in 1981 when I studied the shuttle program for a school project. If a 13-year old kid can find this out with a minimum of effort and no Internet, what's his excuse? At
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but Space Ship Two is all about sending tourists to "space", isn't it? That doesn't feel like a worthy cause to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Just because this specific ship was going to be used for tourism doesn't mean the technology developed for it wouldn't have far greater uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What far greater uses are there for a sub-orbital craft ? And don't tell me that this is a stepping stone to an orbital craft. It isn't. If they wanted to design an orbital craft next, they would basically have to start from scratch.
Wow, it's almost like you think sub-orbital craft and orbital craft don't share any technology at all. All orbital craft have to move through the thick lower atmosphere before they reach orbit. Learning how to do that quickly, efficiently, and safely is just one thing that we area learning with these vehicles.
Re: This was bound to happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets take a moment to remember Justin Beiber has purchased a ticket.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehehehehe ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously there are some people here who automatically mark troll or mod down anyone asking questions about the real benefits of such endeavors. I wonder why these people are unable to cope with very important and legitimate questions about all this?
For the same reason I get marked as troll if I post anything negative about Windows, or support AGW. Simple disagreement, and the wish to squelch me.
Re: (Score:2)
Space exploration will allow humanity the chance to meat new worlds and civilizations in order to enslave them, and enlighten then with our own backwards form of morality.
Please point to the civilizations that will be enslaved by these dastardly humans.
. If you disagree with me you are not human, and I have every right to make your my bitch.
Oh no. An Internet Tough Guy making it real.
Here's my take. We know of no such civilizations to dominate or be dominated by. And we don't even know of an extraterrestrial ecosystem to despoil. All this emo is pretty pointless right now.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't be so damn callous. This isn't a movie. A real person died, and whether his death could or could not have been avoided with adequate prudence remains to be seen. As a commercial endeavor, Scaled Composites / Virgin Galactic may have put business goals first and safety later. Accepting that people die in unforeseeable accidents is one thing. Not even looking whether it was really unforeseeable or just a calculated risk is quite another thing. Test pilots know that their job is dangerous, but it should
Re: (Score:2)
Going into space is a dangerous endeavor. And there was bound to be looses. Hell they'll be MORE as time does by. Probably a LOT more. Either we can (collectively) give up now or learn from the loses and continue on.
I hate these kinds of comments, that pilot went in testing a roller coaster ride for millionaires.
Need a video (Score:4, Funny)
I wish he would release a video of him speaking in the Mojave with the wind going through his hair, somber but uplifting music in the background, and kind words to those who have died for space.
Re: (Score:2)
Frame 2 from the ground based photos seems to show that thrust from the engine reduced before the explosion. I wonder if something came loose and obstructed the outlet of the engine, causing an increase in pressure. Sort of a blowback situation.
Re: (Score:2)
ground based pics of ss2 breakup (Score:5, Informative)
Ground photos [imgur.com]
There was apparently a lot of concern behind the scenes with the new fuel, causing uncontrolled vibrations when used in the existing engine. For example follow @MarkZastrow, or see https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/528278550894227457 "I had deep concerns over both the new plastic/nitrous oxide engine and so did other sources familiar with the testing".
Re:ground based pics of ss2 breakup (Score:4, Interesting)
Consistency is a big issues with solid fuels. The shuttle SRBs were paired during construction, and the fuel was poured at the same rate into each engine from the same source. That way if the engine developed more or less thrust because of a variation in the consistency of the solid fuel, it would happen on both sides of the shuttle. Liquid fuels mix themselves, but a mixing problem is locked in to solid fuels until you burn them. I just wonder if a mistake was made during construction which caused a sudden increase in engine pressure, above that caused by the greater efficiency of this new fuel.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Guardian article says this was actually the first flight test of the new plastic based engine. So I suppose it worked for a few seconds in flight, nothing more.
Re: (Score:3)
The engine is a hybrid, not a solid. Hybrids very rarely go boom, but some of them have the ability to pretend to be monopropellant (e.g. if they use hydrogen peroxide or nitrogen oxide for the oxidizer) or liquid fuelled (if the fuel is allowed to melt or vaporize without burning or if other combustibles are somehow allowed inside the engine). In both cases, booms are very much possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's why NASA lost two shuttle crews in about a hundred and twenty flights, almost lost Columbia on the very first flight, and were too scared to fly a return-to-launch-site abort anywhere other than a simulator.
Test flights are dangerous. Test pilots used to die regularly, but we've improved aircraft reliability and test pilot survival technology to the point where they rarely do today. The real question is whether they were properly equipped to have the best chance of survival in the event of an a
Re: (Score:2)
"apparently a lot of concern behind the scenes with the new fuel"
And with no context this tells us *absolutely nothing* about whether the fuel change was a good idea or a bad idea.
How does this compare to other cases where a fuel change has occurred? I would *expect* a lot of concern in every case even if the change were an improvement along every axis.
What kind of concerns were raised? People who worried about miniature demons escaping from the fuel might not have a credible argument. ;-)
Were the concerns
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't find anything in that article about the change in fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tourism (Score:3)
Space tourism is still more attractive than cruise ship tourism
Re: (Score:2)
For the tourists, it is less dangerous than cruises.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That may have been a goal in 1957, but in an era of instant communication, who cares?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well, all three of those people will just have to suck it up and wait like the rest of us. We already had Concorde and that died.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well, all three of those people will just have to suck it up and wait like the rest of us. We already had Concorde and that died.
I flew once on the Concorde. It was awesome. We should do more of that. Suborbital, 1 hour from NY to Tokyo? Bring it. I'd do it once just for the fun of it.
Re: (Score:2)
"We should do more of that."
Well then get that "we" to pay for it. Oh what's that? The market already spoke about that? I see.
" I'd do it once just for the fun of it"
It must be nice to have that amount of disposable income. In the meantime, us idiots are barely scraping by, my bank just automatically enrolled me into balance insurance because I no longer make enough money to cover my debts.
Two years ago I had an extremely high credit rating, tens of thousands of dollars in savings, and much more in my retir
Re: (Score:2)
If you have money left enough to go into health care, I would definitely do that. Find a job working at a local hospital and save up to go to nursing school or PA school. If you go the nursing route you'll always find a job and work extra shifts pretty much as often as you want. PA route will get you better hours and potentially better pay but can limit you depending on which type of PA you want to be.
Work your way up and save more than you spend. Pay off debt going from highest interest payments to low
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was the (plane) crash that killed the Concorde as much as anything. It worked pretty well for a while. We will continue to see technology like it, and some will succeed, some will fail. The first space elevator will
Re: (Score:3)
Currently.
There was once a time that traveling across the ocean in any kind of vessel was a rather dangerous thing... it is now rather common and safe, as is air travel today, something that was far more risky ages ago.
Technology, methods and understanding of the systems involved increase over time... and one day a trip into a sub orbital space will be just as safe as a road trip or flight to the other side of the country (or planet). ... next up, orbital flight and beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
I was trying to make a joke, badly, and you got my point backwards, so now we both look like idiots. Thanks, Obama!
"one day a trip into a sub orbital space will be just as safe"
Thus far there have been 0 space-tourist injuries or fatalities.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it won't, and I say that as someone with a degree in Aerospace Engineering, not a SciFi dreamer.
Oh, so you must know what the future holds, then!
Also, I notice that you are a coward, and don't really believe what you're saying, since you left it unattributed.
It will ALWAYS be much more dangerous than passenger flights. And if you thing the death rate will be below 3-5%, you're DREAMING. NASA, with vastly larger budgets and more advanced quality control, killed around 2%.
HAHAHAHA NASA ADVANCED QUALITY CONTROL HAHAHAHAHA
They might know what all the problems are, but if they don't fix them, that knowledge is worthless. Both the problems with the shuttle that killed people were known problems. It's probably best to leave NASA out of this discussion, because they murder people.
Progress comes at a cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is "we"? Did Branson sit his geriatric ass in there? Funny how the risks are always taken by the plebes, the rewards taken by the already rich.
Re: (Score:3)
And how is this different than most other endeavors throughout time which need significant funding? How many men were lost at sea exploring the world in search of trade goods for the ships owners? The list is virtually endless. I'm sure that Oog sent Uma to a probable death in trying to kill a sabertooth tiger in order to have the teeth to trade with the neighboring clan. Nothing has changed, and nothing will.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I wish these people would shut up with their precious advice about taking risks. The biggest talkers about taking risks are usually the ones surrounded by lawyers, accountants and twelve layers of bodyguards.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeeees, but think about it from another point of view. If Dickie Branson had been the one killed in yesterday's launch, that would have been the end of Virgin Galactic. Gone. Done. Finito.
Now, they are going to try again.
Re: (Score:2)
What do I care about the end of a billionaire's vanity project to fleece millionaires?
Re: (Score:2)
Evidently nothing. However all the people actually involved with the "vanity project" will care enough about it to have some interest in mitigating events that would result in its demise.
Re: (Score:2)
Branson risked some of his money.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, and what a big risk it was too. I wonder how thick his insurance policy is for those flights? One, two, maybe three inches thick? Wow yeah, these rich men risk NOTHING. You want to impress me with all this hollow rhetoric about "risk", get HIS ass to sit in the test flights.
You know, like the Wright Brothers?
Otherwise all this "risk" nonsense is just a bunch of PR you suckers repeat over and over to give yourselves the impression you could also become rich if you just took a risk!
You know, those risks
Re: (Score:3)
Who is "we"? Did Branson sit his geriatric ass in there? Funny how the risks are always taken by the plebes, the rewards taken by the already rich.
Yeah, the nerve of that old guy, letting the younger engineers and test pilots engineer and then test his spacecraft.
Why, I'm sure he never took any risks with his own life, that chickenshit...
http://www.virgin.com/news/richard-bransons-ballooning-adventures
Re: (Score:2)
And what did those risks advance, exactly? By your definition I take a risk every time I cross the street or take the bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Let machines take the risks (Score:2)
Leaving aside the question about whether the design was adequately verified with on-ground experiments (including static full system tests but also validation of individual engine components), why have a design that requires a human pilot on board for flight testing?
Worst case of engine knock ever. (Score:1)
You'd think that polyamides would spall in a finer grained manner than rubbers due to their greater strength so what does that leave? Something in the complex chemistry of polyamide decomposition at very high temperatures seems to be able to cause the burn rate to accelerate as if there is a point where it can spontaneously decompose. I guess we may never know because they are not likely to make the recipe for the exact mix public, and that is assuming they got the mix right and know what they were really b
Re: (Score:2)
There weren't any flames visible. It was probably the nitrous oxide tank exploding, like in the 2007 ground test explosion.
Pete Siebold is in the hospital alive and talking to doctors. They'll probably figure out what went wrong real soon.
Half full or half empty? (Score:3)
Although half the crew died, I, for one, am astounded, that the other half survived in a crash, that "completely destroyed" the ship...
Of course he does. (Score:2)
He has too much money depending on success.
A news release that says a CEO/majority owner will carry on despite the setbacks is like a news release that says water is wet.