#SpaceShipTwo has experienced an in-flight anomaly. rumor parachutes seen, Confirmed Loss of vehicle

a reply to: stumason

Give 'em a break...they're only little.

a reply to: crazyewok

I like JFK's quote too.

I also like 'A winner never quits, and a quitter never wins'.

Both quotes are appropriate here i think.

a reply to: MysterX

And some unmanned, remote testing of the craft until they are sure it's safe, perhaps? It's not like they really need a pilot - a computer or remote telemetry link could provide the control needed.

a reply to: stumason

That's what I'm thinking too. They need to learn the vehicle limits with the new fuel.

a reply to: stumason

Yeah, definitely for the first few tests with a different, 'watered down' fuel mix at least i would have thought.

Pilots will be required later on though, not to fly the thing per - se, but to reassure future paying travellers there's a couple of Human beings up front that are hands on.

I wouldn't fancy being the first test pilot up there when they get going again though.

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

A tragedy. It truly is. And I commend the pilot for doing the dangerous work to help mankind make the next leap. I hope he's got a special seat in Valhalla.

If Branson gives up this venture, what does that say? What would have the numerous airplane pilots in the infancy of flight who crashed and perished didn't dare do it because "flying was so dangerous"? We'd be sailing on ships abroad taking days (weeks) and not hours. We wouldn't have taken to the skies because we gave up.

Anything worthwhile is dangerous, and my hats go off to those who dare.

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

A tragedy. It truly is. And I commend the pilot for doing the dangerous work to help mankind make the next leap. I hope he's got a special seat in Valhalla.

If Branson gives up this venture, what does that say? What would have the numerous airplane pilots in the infancy of flight who crashed and perished didn't dare do it because "flying was so dangerous"? We'd be sailing on ships abroad taking days (weeks) and not hours. We wouldn't have taken to the skies because we gave up.

Anything worthwhile is dangerous, and my hats go off to those who dare.

indeed as others have pointed out , modern aviation is only 111 years old and we still have accidents with airplanes , trains , cars... i guess its an inherent danger sitting in objects travelling at high speed, yet the universe is so big and its a necessity.

i also take my hat off and bow to the men and women that are brave enough to advance our understanding just a little , even if the cost is very high sometimes

Virgin galactic have said they will continue, and the poor man who died , I bet he believed in the idea also .. we should honor his memory by bringing that idea to life.

Q

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: MysterX

And some unmanned, remote testing of the craft until they are sure it's safe, perhaps? It's not like they really need a pilot - a computer or remote telemetry link could provide the control needed.

Who do you think will be piloting the paid flights?

These flights are as much training for the pilots with a very new space vehicle as they are a shakedown of systems.

I have posted the following to the Facebook page of the "Astronauts Memorial Foundation", it is apparently awaiting moderator's approval.

Please consider Michael Alsbury for addition to your space mirror display of names. He lost his life in testing a real manned space vehicle designed for certifiable space flight. It wasn't a government-funded space flight project but many believe it represents the future of wider human access to suborbital and orbital flight, and your generosity and inclusiveness would pay tribute to those hopes, and to this man's last full measure of devotion to them, as well. Here's your chance to drive the national agenda on opening the space frontier, by getting ahead of any controversial fuss over definitions, and honoring this man and the movement he has come to represent. Ad astra per aspera!!

www.npr.org...

The acting NTSB chairman, Christopher Hart, spoke for about 12 minutes regarding the NTSB's findings after their second day of investigations. YouTube video follows:

Here we go this MAY be the cause

If they were using a solid fuel then they would not have been able to slow the craft down and Im guessing it would tear the craft apart.

I actually hope this is the cause as it would not mean a fundamental problem in the craft and would be fixable.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Here we go this MAY be the cause

If they were using a solid fuel then they would not have been able to slow the craft down and Im guessing it would tear the craft apart.

I actually hope this is the cause as it would not mean a fundamental problem in the craft and would be fixable.

If the "feathering" system deployed (or was deployed) too soon, it could have changed the aerodynamics of SS2 enough to cause a very rapid aerodynamic break-up of the craft. Using solid fuel may not be the root cause of this; in any case, SS2 uses a hybrid rocket engine, with solid (plastic) fuel and liquid oxidizer (NO2). They SHOULD have been able to control (or at least stop) the burn by controlling the flow of N02; whether the system worked as designed remains to be seen.

Per the article linked to in crazyewok's post:

He said SpaceShipTwo's fuel tanks and engine were found intact, without any sign of being breached.

While it is still VERY early to be reading tea leaves, the fact that the tanks and engine were recovered intact and without break makes it seem as though a catastrophic engine failure is less likely to be the root cause than many (including myself) were thinking a day ago.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Here we go this MAY be the cause

If they were using a solid fuel then they would not have been able to slow the craft down and Im guessing it would tear the craft apart.

I actually hope this is the cause as it would not mean a fundamental problem in the craft and would be fixable.

Interesting.... so maybe not an explosion at all, the descent system activated without command from the pilots just minutes after your going for a big ascent, sounds like this could definitely mess things up for the craft.

good post worth re-quoting and well worth a look at the link

Q

originally posted by: Auricom

If Branson gives up this venture, what does that say?

That is a good question. Unlike aviation and space efforts that depend on govt funding (such as the mid 20th cen “space race”, the ISS, or funding for military/security hardware and research), this effort is totally private sector, unless one looks at Richard Branson’s Arab Emirates partner as govt funding to grow space tourism in Abu Dhabi. In the far, far future, there could be govt funding for civilian space transport, such as when govts provided financial support (and some still do to different extents) for early airlines. For now civilian space transport, especially of the space tourist variety Virgin Galactic is currently offering, is relegated to private funding.

If money should stop for a project, the project stops. If backers should deem the project too risky for the investment, or the results unobtainable within a certain time frame, that could be a problem. Is there money to keep the project afloat while the accident is investigated? The results of the investigation will decide how next to proceed. This is a major set back, with a long wait and see period.

The fact that this commercial space project revolves around human life, the risk is different than a commercial satellite or rocket exploding. Rockets and satellites can be replaced. Proceed, but proceed with due caution.

NTSB is leaning towards pilot error.
www.chicagotribune.com...

I have been doubtful of the fuel is too powerful theory. That would make the engineers idiots.

Feathering deployed by accident? Maybe there is a lurking bad part design some where or just a bad part in that ship.

Seems difficult to believe in deploy through pilot error but I am not a space ship pilot.

a reply to: roadgravel

They have it on video. Copilot unlocked feathering system at mach 1. System not supposed to be unlocked until mach 1.4. Dynamic forces tore craft apart. There was no explosion, engines remained intact after crash. Check NTSB Twitter feed. They've been pretty forthcoming with the information, which is admittedly strange for a government entity. This being a test flight though, everything was well documented. Sounds like a failsafe needs to be installed to prevent a pilot from being able to unlock mechanism too early.

a reply to: Vdogg

Simply unlocking them shouldn't have deployed them though. So something was wrong with either the design or individual components.

a reply to: Vdogg

He said one of the pilots had enabled the device, but the second stage of its deployment had happened "without being commanded".

Copilot unlocked feathering system at mach 1. System not supposed to be unlocked until mach 1.4

So the pilots didn't deploy it...

You are saying being enabled caused it to deploy on it's own? And it is more likely to deploy at Mach 1 vs mach 1.4?

That would be a major design flaw in the system, right? Is there anything that shows that it was enabled differently in the flight then previous ones?

a reply to: roadgravel

From what I've read it's a pretty simple system. One handle unlocks them, one deploys them.

The fuel MAY have played a role after all. A more energetic fuel would result in more vibration on some sections of airframe. That vibration MAY have helped lead to early deployment. There's no way that they didn't model, or even test on a flight what happened at different speeds with them being unlocked.