posted 11-03-2014 02:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
...or even delegate the investigation to the FAA.

---

posted 11-03-2014 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
And because it is going to carry passengers, that is why the NSTB is involved.

---

posted 11-03-2014 03:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul78zephyr:
What does the average taxpayer get from this?

---

posted 11-03-2014 05:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The FAA's regulations for commercial spaceflight operators assigns jurisdiction to the NTSB for mishap investigations.

---

There are hundreds of aviation accidents and incidents throughout the U.S. every year. Add to that accidents abroad which often involve U.S. agencies' participation, and there is no way the NTSB can handle them all. This is why they are allowed to delegate investigations to local FAA "Aviation Safety Inspectors." These folks typically attend the same courses as regular Board employees.

posted 11-03-2014 07:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
However, would it not be a mistake to fail to address the concerns of those with some expertise in the field of rocket propulsion?

---

posted 11-03-2014 10:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
Have there been any updates on the condition of Peter Siebold?

---

posted 11-03-2014 10:32 PM               

Previously, Virgin Galactic had identified Peter Siebold as pilot and Michael Alsbury as co-pilot, but did not specify in which seats they were sitting. Hart said it was his mistake to identify the co-pilot as the person moving the lever; rather he only knows that it was the person in the right seat who did so.

(Traditionally, in other aircraft and spacecraft, the co-pilot is seated on the right side of the cockpit.)

Update: The NTSB has issued a correction (via Twitter):

To clarify information provided in the Q&A portion of tonight's media briefing on the SpaceShipTwo investigation, the copilot, who was in [the] right seat, moved the lock/unlock handle into unlock position; he did not survive [the] accident.

posted 11-04-2014 01:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jtheoret:
Indeed, reasonable concerns should be addressed, but if every contingency had to be resolved and every "expert" had to satisfied we never would have ever gotten out of the trees, let alone to the moon.

---

posted 11-04-2014 10:22 AM               

We don't know to what extent those parts originally went there, or to what extent the prevailing southwest winds blew them there after they came to the ground.

posted 11-04-2014 02:23 PM               

Employees at Scaled Composites, the firm that designed the space plane, on Friday were able to watch video camera feeds from inside the cockpit and outside the spaceship during its flight.

"There are dozens of reasons why mistakes like this one could be made," said another Scaled test pilot.

That pilot went on to explain that there was a rule that anyone flying the spaceship could not re-configure the vehicle without the verbal acknowledgment of both pilot and co-pilot. It is unclear whether that protocol was followed. Normally, the co-pilot would announce when Mach 1.4 had been reached — the proper speed to unlock the feather. The pilot would acknowledge and command the co-pilot to unlock the feather. Once the feather was unlocked, the co-pilot would announce the maneuver had been completed.

A number of sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the company has forbidden interviews with the media, described seeing Alsbury unlock the feather and then appear to realize there was an error, moving quickly as if he was trying to shut off the motor, but it was too late.

These sources said that within the company, there is a growing recognition that Alsbury, the co-pilot, unlocked the feather early, although it is not clear why.

posted 11-04-2014 08:50 PM               

Where does it stop? This country became great because these fingers were not pointed. Somewhere we need to stop or we will start backing up.

They are brave pilots doing a tough job. Exploration doesn't come without risk.

posted 11-04-2014 08:58 PM               

That second step did not happen, so in addition to whatever Alsbury did, there was a mechanical failure as well.

posted 11-05-2014 08:26 AM               

"The feathering occurred at the worst possible flight condition: Mach 1 and maximum dynamic pressure," Stengel told NBC News in an email. "The craft was never structurally designed to withstand such a condition. Had the feathering occurred 10 or 20 seconds later, there probably would not have been a problem."

That may seem counterintuitive, because the rocket engine would have continued firing to accelerate SpaceShipTwo to Mach 1.4. But in a follow-up phone interview, Stengel pointed out that even a few more seconds would have allowed SpaceShipTwo to go higher, where the atmosphere is thinner.

"The air density is going down at a humongous rate," he said.

Because of the thinner atmospheric density, folding the wings that high up at Mach 1.4 would have produced less aerodynamic stress than folding them at a lower altitude at Mach 1, Stengel said.

posted 11-05-2014 08:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
But this is not exploration.

---

posted 11-05-2014 11:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...no type of spaceflight-capable vehicle will be risk free, or even carry limited risk. The requirement is to understand the risks, not remove the risk.

---

posted 11-05-2014 11:47 AM               

For now, this activity is going to attract risk takers, or those whose desire to fly into space outweighs the risks (I, for example, fall into the latter category; I am willing to give my life in pursuit of the experience).

When commercial aviation began in the early 1900s, planes were no where near as safe as they are today (and even now there is a significant portion of the public who have a fear of flying). Spaceflight is no different.

posted 11-05-2014 12:57 PM               

These limitations are sometimes known in advance, while others are learned about during the test and certification phase of development. Certainly, keeping the feather stowed until meeting a specific altitude and speed was a limitation on SS2. Not abiding by the limit puts the vehicle in danger, but we do not yet know the "why?" here. A long way to go yet.

By not operating the vehicle in accordance with it's limitations, one does not make it inherently unsafe. What may come of this is additional safeguards to prevent a premature feather system actuation (assuming that this action was not intentional for some presently unknown reason).

On the exploration subject, I would offer that a flight is most certainly exploration from the viewpoint of the participant. It is as much exploring for that person as climbing that mountain rather than just reading about it.

In an intro to "From the Earth to the Moon," Tom Hanks said (paraphrasing here) "in order for mankind to bear witness to an event, one of mankind must witness that event firsthand. Not first, mind you, just firsthand." I thought of that when considering this discussion, and while the writers were comparing robotic exploration to manned, I think the takeaway here is similar.

posted 11-05-2014 01:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
This wasn't shifting into second gear... this was more like throwing the parking brake while accelerating through 100 mph.

---

posted 11-05-2014 03:49 PM               

I have to agree with Robert. "You're not visiting Disney World." Whether it was a engine failure, structural failure or a procedural failure. "It's time to move on" as mercsim said.

posted 11-05-2014 07:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
Have there been any updates on the condition of Peter Siebold?

---

posted 11-05-2014 08:46 PM               

ex·plo·ra·tion
"the action of traveling in or through an unfamiliar area in order to learn about it"

"thorough analysis of a subject or theme."

posted 11-06-2014 02:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Just heard through a friend that Siebold is now home from the hospital.

---

posted 11-09-2014 07:09 AM               

He doesn't remember anything from the actual crash. He came to during the descent. He must have woken up about halfway down. When he was on the way down the chase plane was circling him and he was waving and giving the thumbs-up to indicate he was all right while he was dangling from the parachute.

He's recovering at home. He broke the head of the humerus bone that sits in the right shoulder. He's got a rib and lung contusion and there is an issue with his eyes because of the cold. It was around minus 60 degrees up there.