SpaceShipTwo Crash

[Kryten]

The switch to plastic also included the addition of two tanks in the wing roots-one methane to lower the likelihood of hard start, one helium to steady out the end of the burn. These could have led to a weakening of the engine structure, which would lead to bad things if combined with higher-than-expected oscillations in thrust. From the in-flight photographs, the wings came off very early and were nearly complete.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Kryten

[vger]

Yeah. One accident is not really a reason to impose more regulation on the industry. Virgin Galactic may be a dead end, but other companies aren't.

Yes, it's not a GOOD reason, but it has become a reason in numerous circumstances. At least in the USA, "Once bitten, twice shy," has been taken to the extreme in recent years. And keep in mind when I say this... I am not a tyrant, nor do I lack compassion. I simply know that deaths WILL happen, no matter how careful we try to be.

Prime example, look at what terrorism has done to security. The kind of paranoia in airports and the like is now way out of hand, and we haven't even seen what the Ebola scare will do to that yet. Shoe bomb? Now everyone has to take off their shoes. Underwear bomb? Now everyone needs a full-body-scan.

After ONE incident of a bus being hit by a train (because the warning gates failed to inform the driver of an approaching train), ALL school buses now have to stop at railroad tracks.

You know that whole "get your Halloween candy checked before eating it" thing? There has never been ONE reported case of poisoning by people who give candy to Trick-or-Treaters. Every such incident involved candy that was poisoned AFTER it had been brought home. And on a similar note. Outdoor play is seen as too dangerous for children. Pedophiles MIGHT be lurking around every tree, so keep those kids in the back yard and never let them venture further, or better yet, just keep them locked inside to play on iPhones all day.

And now I'm really dating myself, but people were crying foul during the first Gulf war in the 90's after somewhere around 1000 U.S. soldiers had been killed. Now, from any soldier's perspective, that was an unbelievably successful campaign. That's a lower casualty rate than any sane General would ever expect. But many were touting those deaths as enough of a reason to call the whole thing off. Compare that to the number of deaths in World War 2, even though it had practically unanimous support in the U.S.

America has been slipping into this mindset where they think that with enough security, safeguards, and rules, they can completely put a stop to accidents and danger. The goal seems to be to create a completely sterile environment where there are absolutely no risks and no surprises. A world where nothing happens that isn't supposed to. Even scraped knees are too much of a risk now, because of liability lawsuits. I think the only way you could stuff more paranoia into this country, would be by mandating that all porches have steel awnings, to deflect any meteors above that might be waiting to kill the unlucky fool who dares walk out his front door.

So, yes, this disaster has tremendous potential to lead to commercial space travel being over-regulated. And not just by politicians, but by rival companies. Sensing an opportunity to prevent any new fledgling competitors from getting their projects off the ground, they aggressively lobby for regulations that make it too expensive for anyone but businesses that are already established in the industry, under the false banner of public safety. This has already happened countless times. I see no reason to think that the same thing won't happen with space travel.

Edited November 1, 2014 by vger

[Frannington]

And its attitudes like this I was scared off.

It means slowing down and restricting any possible future progress.

Its attitudes like this why the USA is having to hitch rides with the Russians.

Sorry but accidents HAPPEN thats the nature of new technology. How many died in the early days of air travel?

Being squeamish just holds back progress.

No one held a gun to the pilots head and told them to fly for VG they worked for VG by choice! They fly a experimental aircraft know this could happen by choice! You dont become a test pilots cause you want a safe career! Yes its sad 1 died but they knew very well this could be the end result. Now seeing a they put there lifes at risk for the potential of technological progress to hold back or give up insults there sacrifices.

You missed the last paragraph of my post, I think.

I will cheerfully accept that space is difficult and that in our efforts to conquer it, lives are going to be lost. For the benefit of us as a species, it's an acceptable risk.

What I don't see is a benefit to what VG is doing. Virgin Galactic is a company that is massively over-budget, has failed to deliver on every promise they have ever made and even if it ever succeeds, will only ever lift a bunch of people with excess cash on a suborbital flight. This might lead to something bigger, might not.

At this stage of our evolution, we need to encourage companies that bring us all benefits. Of course they need to be profitable because that's how we work and some private companies can do that. I just don't think that VG is contributing to anything meaningful, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

[The Jedi Master]

These last few days have been bad for space exploration. My condolences to the pilot's family.

[khyron42]

The various talk about stoppage of the program, combined with what the program itself is, reminds me of a quote from Firestar, a book that has one of its major storylines centered around flight-tests and regulatory hurdles of a private company SSTO tail-lander rocket.

The test pilots are various former military test pilots and astronauts from the US X-15, soviet programs, etc. After a minor accident that luckily didn't kill anyone, one of the test pilots reminds the others while they're discussing whether it will delay testing:

"Yeah, you've noticed that we're officially called test pilots, never referred to as astronauts, right?"

"Da? and?"

"If an astronaut dies, you stop everything for 3 years. If a test pilot dies, you name an air strip after him, fix the problem, and keep going."

[Agricola]

I'm going to have to agree with Kryten here.

UP YOURS, Virgin Galactic. I am very sorry you lost a crew member today. I'm genuinely upset that a very brave man is dead.

But the reason that man is dead is because of your half-arsed attempt to monetise space travel. Like you're anywhere near being able to make it a sport for the wealthy.

You're not. We as a species are not. Space is hard for us - even the suborbital bull you're selling - and every successful launch by a commercial concern is just another lesson in how difficult it is. It's not a game. It's not a toy. And if you want to know how to do things, look at Space-X.

This is incredibly important to us as a species. We need to do this right, and can't be squeamish about people dying. But when those people die, it should be because they were doing something amazing. Not because they were testing a white elephant that lets privileged dickheads get a few minutes of weightlesness.

If we applied this attitude to whole history of human transportation then we would proberbly be still going around on horses and carts. Just read up on aviation history to see why. Are the deaths which happen today on commercial flights avoidable? is it irresponsible of aircraft companies to allow old craft to fly in pursuit of profit over saftey?

Virgin is far from treating this like a game and is of course deadly serious about its goal and achievement in the next step of commercial aviation. It is not as if Virgin was messing around with its fuel and engines on a commercial flight, this was a test flight, the clue is test here, even after extensive tests things still go wrong, we see that all the time from just tyre failure in cars to the recent Antares launch fail.

Test pilots are a special breed, they know that every time they fly it could be their last, they know the risks but want to be part of something special and are important pioneers. Orville Wright was injured when he crashed in one of his planes, the passenger was killed, this is nothing new. What would have happened had the Brothers been grounded and stopped from any more development of this new fangled flying machine?

You may see Virgins space plane venture as meaningless, but is it? No. Without commercial competition and private development then our development and progress will be stifled. The first commercial flights were no different from what Virgin is doing, short flights with room for just a couple of passengers being charged obscene amounts of money, even the first Transatlantic flights were only affordable by the filthy rich.

I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

[Boomerang]

I feel like a lot of people responding to criticism of Virgin are making some big assumptions. Just because a person feels that Virgin ought to have their efforts curtailed/severely reevaluated for any number of reasons, doesn't mean that they're applying that logic to all commercial spaceflight.

Virgin is like someone sloppily building a drag car in their garage when we're trying to build better cars to drive us from city to city. SP2 was never going to achieve orbit. Ideally, it was going to slip out of the atmosphere for a few moments so that rich people could say they've been to space.

That's fine. If that's what they want to do, great.

But let's not pretend like they're seriously furthering research into space plane technology. They backed themselves into so much of a corner with SP2 that they couldn't abandon what was clearly a problematic design and pursue something more efficient. So they kept throwing money and time at the same design, shoehorning what they had to into wherever it would fit. It wasn't necessarily doomed to fail, but even if it worked and it was reasonably safe, it was dead end technology that had extremely limited application. They've already proved that this particular design is a way to *not* get to space.

There was no new heat shielding technology coming out of SP2. All of the propulsive systems were already at the upper end of their potential size, so it was never going to be scaled up (again) to get payloads, human or otherwise, to orbit.

It was a gimmick project. And their dedication to the gimmick has kept them from trying to come up with a design that might actually have broader application.

As far as advancing our abilities in space travel, SP2 was never going to contribute much. There are plenty of other private companies and potential technologies that hold plenty of promise for actually advancing human space travel.

So don't assume that people taking the .... out of Virgin want to see commercial spaceflight in general curtailed.

[Holo]

This is incredibly important to us as a species. We need to do this right, and can't be squeamish about people dying. But when those people die, it should be because they were doing something amazing. Not because they were testing a white elephant that lets privileged dickheads get a few minutes of weightlesness.

Do you think that Virgin would do this if they weren't almost certain they would achieve their goals?

[Frannington]

Do you think that Virgin would do this if they weren't almost certain they would achieve their goals?

No, since their actual goal is to make money from the wealthy.

Yesterday's crash is tragic for the men who were aboard and who physically suffered (and in one case so far, died). I absolutely stand by everyone who mourns that death even though it happened with tedious inevitability. I think that Richard Branson genuinely believes in what he's doing. He's an adrenalin nutcase who thinks that he can fund a programme that far outlives him by leveraging the goodwill and spirit of adventure of the wealthy people around him. But he's wrong.

The strange thing about serious wealth is that it makes people suddenly become very protective of their existence. They're worth more than you, so surely they have more to lose, right?

His ship crashed, someone died, and most of the people who've paid a deposit will be going, "Hmm. Maybe not".

If VG goes bankrupt - and I think it will unless it keeps being run as a loss-leader - It's not a great loss to be honest.

[Duxwing]

This passage is disturbing:

"SpaceShipTwo's fuel mixture from a rubber-based compound to a plastic-based mix  in hopes that the new formulation would boost the hybrid rocket engine's performance.

Mickey said engines using the new type of fuel had been thoroughly tested on the ground. The final pre-flight qualification engine firing took place earlier this month. Friday's test marked the first time the new fuel was used in flight, but Mickey said 'we expected no anomalies with the motor today.'"

In other words, one test pilot was paralyzed forever and another died because Virgin Galactic did not, like even the amateur group Copenhagen Suborbitals, first test their new propellant in unmanned flight. In contrast to the view that losing crew is inevitable and the public regulation-happy, I think that regulations should be passed and that the pilots' families should sue for enormous damages lest another such disaster as this one should occur.

-Duxwing

Edited November 1, 2014 by Duxwing

[thorfinn]

The thing can't fly unmanned, so that was out of the question.

What I don't understand is how they managed to exit the craft, since it doesn't have ejection seats either, and get gravely hurt later. Unless the aircraft just broke up around them and the baro switches opened the chutes automatically...

[NovaSilisko]

They did indeed test fire it on the ground, but I don't think they ever test-fired the engine while it was integrated with the vehicle, only independent engine units. Surely they should have fitted it into the craft, secured it to the ground, and given it a test fire first, to make sure it didn't cause problems.

[thorfinn]

but I don't think they ever test-fired the engine while it was integrated with the vehicle, only independent engine units.

...well, OK, if they didn't then they REALLY are careless crazies. Are they really?

I was hoping they were not THIS bad, even though the previous N₂O accident left me with a lot of questions (it's a known monopropellant, explosive decomposition is always a possibility...)

[NovaSilisko]

...well, OK, if they didn't then they REALLY are careless crazies. Are they really?

I was hoping they were not THIS bad, even though the previous N₂O accident left me with a lot of questions (it's a known monopropellant, explosive decomposition is always a possibility...)

I don't know for certain. I'd like to be proven wrong.

[Boomerang]

The thing can't fly unmanned, so that was out of the question.

What I don't understand is how they managed to exit the craft, since it doesn't have ejection seats either, and get gravely hurt later. Unless the aircraft just broke up around them and the baro switches opened the chutes automatically...

Everything I've seen points to this being the case. The few photos we have seem to show the plane coming apart almost immediately after ignition. There just wouldn't have been time for them to open the floor hatch and bail out.

[Red Iron Crown]

It might just be a corporate culture thing. Scaled Composites is primarily an aircraft company, their SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo are their only spacecraft afaik. Testing aircraft prototypes is rarely done unmanned, perhaps their testing protocols are more test pilot than rocket scientist.

It'll be interesting to see how their protocols change in the wake of the incident.

[Duxwing]

The thing can't fly unmanned, so that was out of the question.

That's even worse: Virgin Galactic designed a craft whose flight tests are inherently fail-deadly.

What I don't understand is how they managed to exit the craft, since it doesn't have ejection seats either, and get gravely hurt later. Unless the aircraft just broke up around them and the baro switches opened the chutes automatically...

Your intuition is right: the surviving pilot did get gravely hurt.

---

Reading this thread, I worry some write-off the crash as a necessary evil of the pursuit of space when the crew were pursuing no such thing. They were test pilots hired by Virgin Galactic to ensure its customers felt safe enough to pay huge sums for views and thrills. One man is paralyzed forever and another dead--his widow having "lost the love of [her] life"--so that rich people could have fun. Had this loss been for science, I might have wept bitterly, but I am just bitter: this company is like a theme park with a deadly ride.

-Duxwing

Edited November 2, 2014 by Duxwing

[Frybert]

That's even worse: Virgin Galactic designed a craft whose flight tests are inherently fail-deadly.

And so did NASA with the Space Shuttle. So do most aircraft manufacturer's for the most part. They are called TEST pilots for a reason. The thing is designed to be flown with people on board, at some point you're going to have to put people at risk. I counted 36 test flights before this one, on the same craft, without a fatality.

[Airlock]

That's even worse: Virgin Galactic designed a craft whose flight tests are inherently fail-deadly.

Your intuition is right: the surviving pilot did get gravely hurt.

---

Reading this thread, I worry some write-off the crash as a necessary evil of the pursuit of space when the crew were pursuing no such thing. They were test pilots hired by Virgin Galactic to ensure its customers felt safe enough to pay huge sums for views and thrills. One man is paralyzed forever and another dead--his widow having "lost the love of [her] life"--so that rich people could have fun. Had this loss been for science, I might have wept bitterly, but I am just bitter: this company is like a theme park with a deadly ride.

-Duxwing

How aware of these risks are Scaled Composites test pilots? One would assume they know what they're getting into before flying. Sounds harsh, but needs to be addressed.

[Kryten]

I don't know for certain. I'd like to be proven wrong.

There were no integrated tests. Also, they planned to have passengers onboard after just five flight tests of this engine, and they barely avoided another explosion after a fire started in fuel scraps they'd stored around the main NOX storage tank.

I counted 36 test flights before this one, on the same craft, without a fatality.

This is the fourth test under power, with a completely new engine and major structural changes.

[GoSlash27]

Reading this thread, I worry some write-off the crash as a necessary evil of the pursuit of space when the crew were pursuing no such thing. They were test pilots hired by Virgin Galactic to ensure its customers felt safe enough to pay huge sums for views and thrills. One man is paralyzed forever and another dead--his widow having "lost the love of [her] life"--so that rich people could have fun. Had this loss been for science, I might have wept bitterly, but I am just bitter: this company is like a theme park with a deadly ride.

-Duxwing

This is an odd objection IMO. What if he'd been doing this all along in order to donate rides to "make a wish foundation" once the venture was up & running?

Your attitude seems to be that "putting rich folks in space for thrills" is somehow immoral; like rich folks don't deserve to go to space merely because they can afford the trip.

This is how all the transportation technology we have today started out. Automobiles were playthings for the rich in the beginning. Rail travel, transoceanic passenger liners, commercial air travel... same thing. Electricity, telephones, home PCs, the internet, cell phones, and flat screens were all once status symbols for the rich. Eventually the advancements in technology (which the rich folks paid for) and competition (for the rich folks' money) got us to the point where everyone has access to this technology.

So yeah, I write off this crash as a necessary evil in the pursuit of space. Just because they weren't pursuing it in a way you approve of doesn't mean they weren't pursuing it.

Best,

-Slashy

[Kryten]

His attitude is that VG can't lead to anything more than that; and without complete changes to their approach, he's right. Neither the hybrids nor the feathering mechanism scale up or have any utility for orbital spaceflight.

[crazyewok]

That's even worse: Virgin Galactic designed a craft whose flight tests are inherently fail-deadly.

Reading this thread, I worry some write-off the crash as a necessary evil of the pursuit of space when the crew were pursuing no such thing. They were test pilots hired by Virgin Galactic to ensure its customers felt safe enough to pay huge sums for views and thrills. One man is paralyzed forever and another dead--his widow having "lost the love of [her] life"--so that rich people could have fun. Had this loss been for science, I might have wept bitterly, but I am just bitter: this company is like a theme park with a deadly ride.

-Duxwing

There were test pilots. They knew the dangers. No one forced them to work for VG did they?

[thorfinn]

Also, without being disrespectful, I think they were in it for the thrill just as much as the future customers. You don't get to fly a rocket plane anywhere else in 2014 after all.

There were no integrated tests. Also, they planned to have passengers onboard after just five flight tests of this engine, and they barely avoided another explosion after a fire started in fuel scraps they'd stored around the main NOX storage tank.

...I start thinking that somewhere along the way they forgot how literally they are playing with fire.

[Duxwing]

@Airlock Virgin Galactic owed them nonetheless due diligence the company evidently lacks.

@Slash I apologize for my nasty, upset vagueness.

I was describing the crew's role--not their personal motivations--and simply want thrill rides to space to be safe. Hence my mentioning Virgin Galactic's monetary goal, wherefore we should consider the crash not a bump on the road to a noble goal but an injurious and deadly corporate fiasco.

---

Later posts here reveal that Virgin Galactic has a history of almost-Kerbal recklessness: the company has kept fuel and oxidizer together, designed a rocket that must be flown manned, and suffered a horrible crash after messing with an SRB.

And yet Virgin Galactic's head said in a press conference that safety is his company's "number one priority". If a fuel fire, inherently-perilous design, and lethal fireball are the best he can manage, then he is dangerously incompetent; whereas if they are not, then he is cavalier and lying. Whichever, he should not be running a space program.

-Duxwing

Edited November 2, 2014 by Duxwing