[Closed] space ship two

[url=more]Virgin spacecraft crashes in test http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29857182 [/url]

hmm 1 dead, that's bad,very bad.

it will destroy any faith in safety.

Personally I wouldn't consider it, you would need a cattle prod to get me onboard the space shuttle with the whole NASA budget behind it.

commercial space programs no thanks.

Many people have died driving cars today. We will drive cars tomorrow.

How many people travelled in cars today?

But you'll never push these sort of boundaries without risk and loss.

Well, I'd bet that there goes the MANY millions of our New Mexico state tax dollars that the former governor spent on the Spaceport facility specifically for the VG spaceflight operations. The VG flight operations status has already been delayed several times and I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing is scrapped. Don't know what else they could do with the facility as it is in the middle of the desert, close to nothing.
State politicians will have a free-for-all with that.

Shame, i admire his vision

I wouldn't completely write it off just yet. It might just take a little bit longer than expected.

I doubt they'll scrap it if there's still demand for seats. This kind of thing goes with the territory. Ultimately Virgin is all about the brand and balanced risk. I'll be more interested to see what they do when people die in the prisons where they're responsible for healthcare.

it will destroy any faith in safety.

Branson's a canny operator anyway, I'm sure the well oiled PR machine is whirring away as we type. I can't imagine they haven't prepared for just such an eventuality given the nature of the project, and the financial stakes.

Thousands and thousands of test pilots (the unsung heroes of the aviation industry) have died throughout the 20th and 21st century, it still hasn't stopped people using airliners.

planes crash , investigations made, we still fly,

The guys doing the press conference look distraught. I don't think I could stand up and take the intrusive and largely ignorant questions being put forward.

Hate the modern media and the demand for instant information.

Agree with that Flaperon,

skiboy - Member

it will destroy any faith in safety.

It really shouldn't, this is why we test things.

Depends what caused the issue.

Concorde was scuppered. Sadly.

it will destroy any faith in safety

Concorde was scuppered. Sadly.

...but it was old, expensive and dirty.

brant - Member
...
Pushing the limits.

Just heard an extract of an interview with Branson on the radio from a few months ago.

"It [b]is[/b] rocket science"

I'm still joining the free tickets queue behind 5thElefant.

Hate the modern media and the demand for instant information.

I hate Richard Branson and his demand for all our money in return for shoddy services, often with little choice (eg. west coast main line or fibre broadband).

Just saying.

Per Ardua Ad Astra

Hope it continues, if we don't keep pushing the envelope, we'll never get anywhere. If you look back at all the things NASA patented, this sort of research/development almost always pays of elsewhere, so good luck to them.

No shortage of people pony up to climb Everest and that is definitely dangerous. So I don't think it'll eliminate demand on its own

However as I understand it there are huge hurdles to clear in terms of regulations to carry fair paying passengers.

There was some fairly negative stuff on radio 4 this morning. Saying that it was all been driven through despite safety concerns.

I a wait a more complete analysis with interest

Branson is a self obsessed tosser. He has the best PR machine in the World.

Still tricking people in believing he is a self made peoples champion.

He will manage to come out of this looking good despite 1 person dead and another seriously injured.

So, who should get to go on the first paid flight then? Clearly Bieber should be there, but who should get the other five places?

[url=

sanitisers[/url]

well worth reading:

Apollo, Ansari and the Hobbling Effects of Giant Leaps:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/10/30/apollo-ansari-hobbling-effects-giant-leaps/

There is a greater chance of dying while climbing Mount Everest, but still there is no shortage of people who want to attempt it. This will be no different as it appeals to the same sort of mindset.

Its sort of the point of test flights. To explore the limits and see what happens when you overstep them. Its a high risk business and the investment made now, sometimes in lives unfortunately, will make it all the more safe when it does become a passenger carrying system. I'm sure as part of the whole project risk analysis they have considered the risks and consequences of accidents during the experimental and test phase and if the risks and consequences were deemed too high then the project wouldn't have taken off in the first place. The project will continue for sure.

Interesting article nedrapier

Great post nedrapier

He (Branson) will manage to come out of this looking good despite 1 person dead and another seriously injured.

Why wouldn't he? The test pilots know the risks, it's Branson's project, but he's not designed or engineered it.

Sounds like they where using different fuel. Plastic probs according to the article.

Branson is a self obsessed tosser. He has the best PR machine in the World.

Still tricking people in believing he is a self made peoples champion.

He will manage to come out of this looking good despite 1 person dead and another seriously injured.

WTF?

Do you think he personally booby trapped the plane and then held a gun to the test pilot's kids to force them to fly it?

Firstly, space flight is intrinsically dangerous. The energies involved see to that (Massive potential energy, exchanged over only a couple of minutes for massive kinetic energy!) So any serious failure is almost certainly going to result in significant injuries, death and destruction. No matter what technology is being used, that is the case, and with our current understanding of physics, it always will be. Interestingly, it's telling that as far as have been reported, no-one has actually died in Space itself! (the complicated bit with getting to space is the first approx 50km!)

Take the Space shuttle, still probably the single most complicated machine every built by man. It flew 134 times, and failed twice, so that's a 1 in 67 probability of catastrophic failure. If you said "you wanna fly it tomorrow?" I'd bite your hand off for the chance!!

gobuchul - Member
Branson is a self obsessed tosser. He has the best PR machine in the World.

Still tricking people in believing he is a self made peoples champion.

He will manage to come out of this looking good despite 1 person dead and another seriously injured.

Interestingly, it's telling that as far as have been reported, no-one has actually died in Space itself!

Soyuz 11... but the point's a good one.

Branson says he'll be on the first proper flight right?

So early data points to the feathering device. From the video, I think he's implying that they were two issues, first that the device moved without input, secondly that the pilot may have unlocked them too early.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29876154

..but it was old, expensive and dirty.

And yet still more advanced in many ways than anything still flying commercially.

But once the confidence has gone...

It may be great news for Branson that pilot error was the likely cause. That's an easy fix.

I assume the "Locking device" is an extra secure physical restriction to prevent movement of the empennage caused by aerodynamic loading, especially in the Trans-sonic region where the centre of pressure is highly volatile and impinging pressure shocks can result in control surface movement, even when not commanded by the power acuators.

In this case, the primary power actuators would almost certainly have not been sized to prevent feathering during high dynamic pressure loading conditions (they are only activated normally under low dynamic pressure conditions (high altitude)) hence, early unlocking of the system, in the Trans-sonic region could be the primary cause?

Pilot error is often an easy explanation that isn't really root cause though. In theory at least, something like apparently happened shouldn't be able to happen - eg you mistakeproof - so that the handle couldn't be unlocked while at an unsafe speed to deploy.

lemonysam

Soyuz 11... but the point's a good one

I've not seen a confirmed altitude for the S11 depressurisation incident, but there's a good chance it occurred during/after the primary heat shield separation event post re-entry. In which case it occurred (depending on exact altitude) in our atmosphere and not in Space....

Well really it's arguing over details that aren't that important but IIRC didn't the pressure readings show zero pressure for a time at least which suggests they were outside the atmosphere?

When the valve opened at a height of 168 kilometers, the gradual but steady loss of pressure was fatal to the crew within about 30 seconds. By 935 seconds after retrofire, the cabin pressure had dropped to zero and remained there until 1,640 seconds when the pressure began to increase [b]as the ship entered the upper reaches of the atmosphere.[/b]

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4209/ch8-2.htm