Virgin Galactic crash

[Y961 XBU]

Sadly today one of the Virgin Galactic Space Crafts (Number 2) crashed killing one of the Pilots and the other in Hospital. Its a shame such a Disaster has happened when they where so close to launching it into Passenger use.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29861259

Virgin Galactic crash: Branson vows to continue space project

Sir Richard Branson has vowed to continue his space tourism venture despite the fatal crash of a Virgin Galactic rocket ship in the US.

One pilot died and the other was badly injured when SpaceShipTwo exploded in California's Mojave Desert on Friday.

Investigators are on their way to the crash site, north of Los Angeles.

Sir Richard, founder of Virgin Group and long-time advocate of commercial space travel, said he was "shocked and saddened" but would "persevere".

In a statement, the company said SpaceShipTwo experienced "a serious anomaly" after the craft separated from its launcher, an aircraft called WhiteKnightTwo...

 

[Busaholic]

Sadly today one of the Virgin Galactic Space Crafts (Number 2) crashed killing one of the Pilots and the other in Hospital. Its a shame such a Disaster has happened when they where so close to launching it into Passenger use.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29861259

So close to launching it into passenger use? Like Branson would like to be, you must be living on another planet. Branson has been saying for fifteen years to anyone who'd listen (and there are always enough toadies around to not only do that but then to go and spread the propaganda) that take-off was imminent. According to one of these 'experts' this morning he has persuaded around 700 people to stump up £156,000 each IN ADVANCE to secure themselves this once in a lifetime's chance to go into space, that's nearly £110 million! I'd imagine if they all started demanding refunds he'd have to sell a Caribbean island or two, but perhaps not... A fool and his money are soon parted. So many of this man's ventures have been partial or total failures: do read Tom Bower's biography if you have not already done so. When he appears on BBC's 'Question Time' he is always embarassingly inarticulate but then his world just revolves around himself. What has he done for the rail industry that hasn't or wouldn't already have been done, other than enriching himself from it of course?

 

[Darandio]

Woah, so much hate.........

 

[455driver]

Woah, so much hate.........

Can you tell us which bit is factually inaccurate please, because it all looks fine to me!

It is still very sad about the crash, loss of life and injuries though!

 

[Darandio]

Can you tell us which bit is factually inaccurate please, because it all looks fine to me!

I'm not aware I said anything about the post being factually incorrect?

 

[455driver]

I'm not aware I said anything about the post being factually incorrect?

So it isnt wrong then, well if it isnt wrong then it must be right!

 

[WatcherZero]

Can you tell us which bit is factually inaccurate please, because it all looks fine to me!

It is still very sad about the crash, loss of life and injuries though!

For a start the company is only 10 years old not 15 and his first prediction of flights was in July 2008 when he predicted first test flight in 18 months time. The first test flight occurred in October 2010 and the first powered flight was April 2013 (two year delay in original engine receiving FAA certification). To date there has been 55 test flights with one ending in failure. They did abandon the engine design they were originally going to use as did several other spacecraft programs as it was unreliable, this was the first powered test flight using a new engine design though its performed in several ground tests.

 

[Y961 XBU]

I hope they can correct the error and make this Project work coz if i ever came into Money i would like to take a trip on this

 

[theageofthetra]

One aspect of this project doesn't add up. The sort of person who could afford a ticket is likely to own or head a large corporation. Post 9-11 it is common practice for the most senior/key people in the company to travel on seperate flights so that risk is minimised. Given the huge risk of space flight is a corporations legal team going to permit someone vital to the firm to take such a risk?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'd suspect that the people who can afford this cash are likely to have enough clout within their company that if they want to go into space they'll tell the legal team that that's what they're going to do and as long as it's not with company money or in company time "You can't stop me!"




Incidentally, since I have been reading this thread, the adverts at the top of the forum have rather heavily leaned towards trying to sell me flights with Virgin Atlantic....

 

[WatcherZero]

Unfortunately now looks to be pilot error, telemetry shows feathering deployed too early and cockpit video shows the co-pilot pulling the safety release lever and then the activation lever nine seconds into flight.

 

[Y961 XBU]

Unfortunately now looks to be pilot error, telemetry shows feathering deployed too early and cockpit video shows the co-pilot pulling the safety release lever and then the activation lever nine seconds into flight.

Yes early Indications does look that way, They think the Co- Pilot unlocked the Feathering System to early however since the Co-Pilot never made it he is not here to talk about what happened, If it does turn out to be Pilot Error then it would mean that Virgin Galactic itself is working and it was just a Human Mistake that caused the Aircraft to Crash, At the end of the Day everyone does make mistakes so if it does come down to Pilot Error then this is an Experience the company can learn from and look into a way of preventing it from happening again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems a good case for the Airbus approach of not allowing the pilot to do something stupid, if true.

 

[WatcherZero]

Now saying the second activation may not have been commanded though they aren't sure. Though if the safety was released the air pressure of travelling at Mach 1.4 and accelerating through thick atmosphere may have been enough to alter the tail geometry without the powered assist. The tail safety is only supposed to be released in thin atmosphere and below Mach 1 speeds.

 

[WestCountry]

It seems a good case for the Airbus approach of not allowing the pilot to do something stupid, if true.

What counts as 'stupid', and the default behaviour instead, is rather less well-defined and tested for variable-geometry rocket-propelled spaceplanes than for airliners. Letting the computer override the pilot's actions on something this experimental would risk it doing something undesirable under unforeseen conditions, or preventing the pilot reacting to the same.

 

[starrymarkb]

It seems a good case for the Airbus approach of not allowing the pilot to do something stupid, if true.

Airbus isn't as foolproof as you might think And then the rules are only implemented progressively during the flight testt programme.

It would be sensible to have something like that on production models though Airbus has shown that it can mitigate some situations ie the A320 at Toulouse where if the FBW had let the pilot pull up from doing a stupidly low flyby at minimum speed he'd have stalled it and come down harder rather then hit the trees relatively level - IIRC all the Able bodied passengers got out but 4 disabled people lost their lives in the post crash fire.