posted 11-02-2014 10:44 AM               

Branson and Rutan have been selling this vehicle as a simple and safe option to NASA's big budget space effort. This accident has put paid to that PR spin.

To me the vehicle design is MORE dangerous than the Space Shuttle (at least that had some redundancy features!) and will never work as advertised.

This Sunday Telegraph report today lists multiple "issues" at Virgin Galactic that would horrify us all if we knew it was going on at NASA.

posted 11-02-2014 11:07 AM               

Richard Branson and Burt Rutan are both to be respected but are also known for their sometimes boisterous statements that don't always reflect the reality of their respective companies (or in the case of Rutan, former company).

I don't believe for one minute that Peter Siebold or Mike Alsbury would climb aboard SpaceShipTwo if they didn't believe it was a viable design. The same goes for the other test pilots, including former NASA astronaut CJ Sturckow.

Say what you will about Branson or Rutan, but to suggest that the Scaled and Virgin test pilots are somehow being dishonest to the public (and/or themselves) or are incapable of assessing the vehicle is without merit, in my opinion.

The Telegraph piece (a) assumes the engine is the problem, and (b) relies heavily on what Branson biographer Tom Bower has been shopping around to each of the British tabloids since the accident.

Again, I go back to the fact that Siebold and Alsbury felt confident enough to strap into SpaceShipTwo on Friday and take it for a powered flight.

posted 11-02-2014 11:32 AM               

I guess what I am saying is this: I have been an experienced scuba diver for many years including mixed rig diving. And yet there are dives, under some conditions that are simply not worth the risk because the risk is too extreme and can never be satisfactorily neutralized. And I will say I have done some pretty extreme diving.

There would be others that would take those risks for sure. But there are always going to be extreme risk takers with anything and in many cases the risk are not acceptable to the mainstream. I guess what I am saying is given the nature of the job the spacecraft has to perform, should this be something that the NTSA should approve considering those risks?

posted 11-02-2014 11:43 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by alanh_7:
...should this be something that the NTSA should approve considering those risks?

---

The FAA, which has oversight of commercial spaceflights, has ruled that if a person wants to accept the risk associated with commercial spaceflight, then it is within their right to do so. The only responsibilities of the spacecraft operator are to inform their customers of the risks and to insure their activities do not injure uninvolved third parties.

posted 11-02-2014 12:00 PM               

I have always felt uncomfortable with the overwhelming commercial pressure, fueled by over-hyped Virgin Galactic marketing, on a set of brilliant vehicle designers led by Rutan. This pressure to deliver can only have been increased year on year as the wildly optimistic timeline set by Branson was shown to be a case of the Emperors new clothes.

posted 11-02-2014 12:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
But it is not their, or anyone else's responsibility, to prevent those who do understand and accept the risks from flying.

---

posted 11-02-2014 12:39 PM               

Further, the investigation has not halted the activities of either company. If they had a second SpaceShipTwo ready to fly, Virgin Galactic could choose to continue flying it now. Rocket motor tests and the construction of the second vehicle may indeed pick up again before the NTSB has filed its report.

posted 11-02-2014 02:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The Telegraph piece (a) assumes the engine is the problem, and (b) relies heavily on what Branson biographer Tom Bower has been shopping around to each of the British tabloids since the accident.

---

Not strictly true. The article quotes Carolynne Campbell, a rocket expert at the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety, who warned Virgin Galactic in 2007 about the dangers of nitrous oxide fuel and repeated the warning in 2010.

There were warnings also from Geoff Daly, a US based British rocket scientist, who warned the FAA of the likelihood of a disaster if test flights were given the go-ahead.

posted 11-02-2014 04:14 PM               

They should stop, give up. Go away and do something they might be good at like selling mobile phones. They should stay out of the space business.

The way she, Daly and other at the IAASS speak, it comes across much more like "how dare they not listen to our expert guidance," discounting that there may be others who disagree with them. As George Whitesides said:

In the space community you will be able to find people who have favorite technologies of different types. One group will say their type of technology is better than another.

posted 11-02-2014 06:31 PM               

Over the past few days, there has been speculation about the tragic incident the resulted in the death of Scaled Composites’ pilot, Michael Alsbury, injuries to pilot Peter Siebold and the loss of SpaceShipTwo. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families and friends of these brave men.

We understand that everyone is anxious to understand what happened on Friday; certainly no one wants to know more than we do. However, as we have made clear, Virgin Galactic is not in a position to comment on the incident itself or the test flight. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is in charge of the investigation and we are cooperating fully with their work. All inquiries should be directed to them.

At Virgin Galactic, we are dedicated to opening the space frontier, while keeping safety as our 'North Star'. This has guided every decision we have made over the past decade, and any suggestion to the contrary is categorically untrue. We have the privilege to work with some of the best minds in the space industry, who have dedicated their lives to the development of technologies to enable the continued exploration of space. All of us at Virgin Galactic understand the importance of our mission and the significance of creating the first ever commercial spaceline. This is not a mission that anyone takes lightly.

Everything we do is to pursue the vision of accessible and democratized space – and to do it safely. Just like early air or sea travel, it is hard and complicated, but we believe that a thriving commercial space industry will have far reaching benefits for humanity, technology and research for generations to come. This is an important mission and we have been overwhelmed and grateful for the outpouring of support we have received from our future astronauts, friends in the industry and people all over the world who are inspired by the work our industry is doing and who are urging us to continue.

Now is not the time for speculation. Now is the time to focus on all those affected by this tragic accident and to work with the experts at the NTSB, to get to the bottom of what happened on that tragic day, and to learn from it so that we can move forward safely with this important mission.

posted 11-02-2014 10:28 PM               

The investigation has found that the vehicle's booms feathered prematurely, which was then followed two seconds later by the loss of the vehicle. Hart said:

The spacecraft was released normally and shortly after it was released, the rocket engine ignited. About nine seconds after the engine ignited, the telemetry data showed us that the feather parameters changed from lock to unlock. In order for feathering... two actions must occur. One is the lock/unlock lever must be moved from lock to unlock, and [then] the feathering handle must be moved to the feather position.

...approximately two seconds after the feathering parameters indicated that the lock/unlock lever was moved from lock to unlock, the feathers moved to the forward position, the deployed position, even though the feather handle itself hadn't been moved. This occurred at a speed just above approximately Mach 1.0.

...the engine burn was normal up until the extension of the feathers. There are several cameras in the space vehicle, there is a camera in the cockpit that looks forward and shows the actions of the pilots and the instruments. Review of that camera is consistent with the telemetry data and shows the feather lock/unlock lever was moved by the co-pilot from the lock position to the unlock position.

We are a long way from finding cause. We still have months and months of investigation to do. A lot we don't know. We have extensive data sources to go through.

posted 11-03-2014 04:44 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
One only has to look back and remember the Challenger disaster to be aware of the consequences of failing to take account of all opinions.

---

For Challenger it was engineers inside the program that were throwing up red flags and no one was responding. Here we have "experts" on the outside saying we don't have your data so this cannot work. Innovation will always have their neigh sayers, I am sure the Wright Brothers, Robert Goddard, and Christopher Columbus did, just to name a few.

posted 11-03-2014 07:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
I apologise if this comment is naive, but are Virgin Galactic trying to re-invent the wheel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nasamad:
...does this mean from a design point that the thrust can be throttled or turned off?

---

posted 11-03-2014 08:04 AM               

SS2 is dropped
Engine starts
Engine stops
Computer thinks feather as re-entry as started
Engine restarts
Craft destroyed

I'm sure some one on day one on twitter said they saw or heard SS2 engine restart before the craft was destroyed.

But strangely enough from the start looking at the wreckage my view has been some sort of structural failure.

Also the other thing the media are missing is Pete Siebold was one of the original SS1 test pilots. Not 100% certain but wasn't he at the controls of WK1 for the X Prize flights?

posted 11-03-2014 08:42 AM               

• Telemetry and video data show that Alsbury moved the first lever while the engine was firing, for reasons not yet known.

• The handle was not moved, but the feathers still deployed, for reasons not yet known.

posted 11-03-2014 09:22 AM               

So in the case of an abort, the tail booms would be deployed after the craft peaked in its climb and began to ascend back to Earth.

posted 11-03-2014 12:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSpace86:
I think too much reliability is placed on this maneuver/reentry technique and it showed.

---

posted 11-03-2014 02:23 PM               

I found it interesting at first, that the NTSB decided to handle this investigation. This was a test flight of a spacecraft which has never carried a passenger. In the case of most private, experimental accidents, the Board might send a single local investigator or even delegate the investigation to the FAA.

Here, they fired up the big jet, took an entire team of people out there, and claimed jurisdiction over the investigation. I can only assume this was because of the high profile nature of the operation. Or maybe they want to set a precedent early on in private spaceflight that this is their territory. One thing I do know is that there are people at the NTSB who crave the limelight, and they will certainly have it.

The positive side of this for us, the public, is that we will learn what happened much more quickly and in an open forum. Certainly, this is not viewed as a positive for Scaled or VG, who have traditionally worked in relative secrecy. This public investigation will lay bare many of the issues that have been simmering behind the scenes for many years.

Without the NTSB involvement, we would likely not even know what we know already from their daily briefings. Scaled and VG would have kept this all under wraps until they were done and even then we might not get the whole story.

Right now, VG, Scaled Composites, and the FAA were named as "parties to the investigation." Anything they release publicly in regard to the accident has to be cleared by the Investigator in Charge. The Board has had a consistent history in recent years of removing approved parties from investigations for breach of this stipulation.