Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo Lost in Test Flight; One Pilot Reported Dead

In summary: I used to be. Probably. I was freeze-dried sometime back in the 70's and am just... not as resilient as I used to be.
  • #1
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
24,017
3,337
Not good.

Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo exploded during a test flight in California's Mojave desert Friday morning, killing one pilot on board, seriously injuring the other and leading to the loss of the craft, NBC News reported after speaking with Jesse Borne, an officer at the California Highway Patrol.

Ken Brown, who was photographing the test flight, told NBC News that he saw an explosion in the air, and later saw debris scattered across a small area of the desert.

http://www.weather.com/news/science/virgin-galactics-spaceshiptwo-reports-flight-anomaly-20141031
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #3
I don't think this will dampen enthusiasm for space tourism. People have the attention span of gnats these days. I predict the number of rich people wanting to be an astronaut for a day will be much greater than the number of available spots available for quite a while.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #4
lisab said:
People have the attention span of gnats these days.
I should make that my signature!
 
  • Like
Likes RonL
  • #5
It broke my steely little heart to see that on the news. Given the relative scale of resources and budgets between Virgin Galactic and NASA, I think that it's on par with the Challenger incident. Lisa LaFlamme (the hottest woman on TV, by the way) reported on the CTV nightly news that this was the first flight with a new fuel composition. I can't help wondering whether or not that was a driving factor. Maybe it was a tad too volatile and went off in the tank or pumping system...
 
  • #6
lisab said:
I don't think this will dampen enthusiasm for space tourism. People have the attention span of gnats these days. I predict the number of rich people wanting to be an astronaut for a day will be much greater than the number of available spots available for quite a while.
I'm not sure. The accident gives them a death rate of about 5%. I don't think they will get many passengers unless they can show many more successful flights in the future.
 
  • #7
mfb said:
I'm not sure. The accident gives them a death rate of about 5%. I don't think they will get many passengers unless they can show many more successful flights in the future.
If they recruit only among smokers, they should have no issue with people who defy the odds...
 
  • #8
Evo said:
I should make that my signature!

UH!...what were we talking about again ?
 
  • #9
RonL said:
UH!...what were we talking about again ?
:DD
 
  • #10
mfb said:
I'm not sure. The accident gives them a death rate of about 5%. I don't think they will get many passengers unless they can show many more successful flights in the future.

I don't know how you calculate your percentage, but I think this was only the fourth powered flight (although there had been 31 glide drops).
 
  • #11
Danger said:
If they recruit only among smokers, they should have no issue with people who defy the odds...
There is a huge difference between something that might kill you in several years and walking into a spacecraft that could kill you in an hour with a reasonable probability.

@Jonathan Scott: good point as the incident was probably powering-related. I saw a number of ~20 total flights somewhere. Anyway, the estimated risk is significantly higher than for other commercial things.
 
  • #12
I'm quite impressed that one of the pilots survived, given what happened to the vehicle.
 
  • #13
mfb said:
There is a huge difference between something that might kill you in several years and walking into a spacecraft that could kill you in an hour with a reasonable probability.
5% isn't a probability, it's a possibility. The only thing that will save my life is a lung transplant, but I'm not going to apply for one because the surgery has a 30% mortality rate. I have a better life expectancy without it than I do with it. Sir Richard's space buggy is a walk in the park.
 
  • #14
Damn. And mankind was so close to shooting Justin Biber and Ashton Kutcher into space.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook
  • #15
Bandersnatch said:
Damn. And mankind was so close to shooting Justin Biber and Ashton Kutcher into space.
I really liked Ashton in "That 70's Show", but once he started doing that nasty impractical-joke show I wanted him off of my planet.
As for Beebs... from the perspective of another Canuck, I would like to rescind his citizenship and sink him off-shore to encourage the formation of a new reef that could support invertebrates of higher social value than him.
 
  • #16
Bandersnatch said:
Damn. And mankind was so close to shooting Justin Biber and Ashton Kutcher into space.
Just need to make sure Mila stay here:nb)
 
  • #17
RonL said:
Just need to make sure Mila stay here:nb)
Oh my... yes! (Well, she's too old for me now, but back in the day... :w)
 
  • #18
Danger said:
Oh my... yes! (Well, she's too old for me now, but back in the day... :w)
Must be the affects of that cold weather?:)
 
  • #19
RonL said:
Must be the affects of that cold weather?:)
Probably. I was freeze-dried sometime back in the 70's and am just now becoming reoriented. (Maybe that's why I liked that show...)
 
  • #20
Danger said:
Probably. I was freeze-dried sometime back in the 70's and am just now becoming reoriented. (Maybe that's why I liked that show...)
I think we have gone too far astray here:oops:
The attention span of a gnat I think.:(
 
  • Like
Likes lisab
  • #21
RonL said:
The attention span of a gnat I think.:(
Guilty as charged, although in my case that might be an insult to gnats.
 
  • #22
lisab said:
I don't think this will dampen enthusiasm for space tourism.
Especially the ones who have paid up to $250k for their tickets.
 
  • #23
Jonathan Scott said:
I don't know how you calculate your percentage, but I think this was only the fourth powered flight (although there had been 31 glide drops).
VG has also had ground based accidents that resulted in fatalities.
 
  • #24
mheslep said:
VG has also had ground based accidents that resulted in fatalities.
Really. I didn't know that.
 
  • #25
Virgin Galactic crash: Richard Branson casts doubt on future of spaceflight project as pilot killed in crash is named
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-pilot-killed-in-crash-is-named-9833481.html
The man killed in the crash was identified on Saturday as 39-year-old Michael Alsbury, a father of two and test pilot for Virgin Galactic’s project partner, Scaled Composites, who logged more than 1,600 hours as a test pilot for the firm, and was also the co-pilot for SpaceShipTwo’s first powered flight. On Friday, Mr Alsbury was acting as co-pilot to Peter Siebold, the project’s director of flight operations, who was able to eject from the aircraft and parachute to safety. In a statement, Virgin Galactic said Mr Siebold was still in hospital, but alert and talking to his family and doctors.

Branson spaceship explosion: The 'missed' warnings
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-spaceship-explosion-The-missed-warnings.html
Sir Richard Branson’s company and US authorities were repeatedly warned about safety issues surrounding Virgin Galactic’s rocket engine system

NZ Herald reports:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11352130
The Sunday Telegraph has seen emails and documents in the public domain - dating back several years, and as recently as last year - in which engineers warned of the dangers of Virgin Galactic's rocket engine system.
Three senior Virgin Galactic executives - the vice-presidents in charge of propulsion and safety, and the chief aerodynamics engineer - had all quit the company in recent months.
Carolynne Campbell, the lead expert on rocket propulsion at the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety, said: "This explosion is not a surprise. None whatsoever, I am sorry to say. It is exactly what I was expecting. It was Russian roulette which test flight blew up."

The engine/rocket was using a new, and probably more energetic (=higher temperature/pressure) fuel. If they use the same casing as the previous fuel, that could be problematic.
 
  • #26
Wow. With so many senior engineers speaking-out against the engine design/oxidizer, I wonder who was pushing it? It's the Challenger or even worse. This will result in huge lawsuits and may even be worthy of criminal charges.
 
  • #27
Greed? Going against warnings to meet objectives without regards to safety. IMO?
 
  • #28
Evo said:
Greed? Going against warnings to meet objectives without regards to safety. IMO?
Or hubris. Since they already sunk $500 million into it, I'm not sure it would ever have turned a profit, so I'm not sure corporate greed would apply (though personal greed could).
 
  • #29
russ_watters said:
Or hubris. Since they already sunk $500 million into it, I'm not sure it would ever have turned a profit, so I'm not sure corporate greed would apply (though personal greed could).
Definitely hubris. Greed in the form of stories of success? To gain investors/customers?

I would think pushing a new technology despite calls for caution will/should definitely shine a light of doubt on them now.
 
  • Like
Likes Medicol
  • #30
They now say that rocket motor was found in debris and shows no sign of burn-through or other problem, so all the speculation about the changed fuel seems to be misplaced.

The direct cause of the break-up appears to have been that the feathering mechanism (which moves the tail booms up to the re-entry "shuttlecock" position) deployed prematurely and the resulting aerodynamic stress broke up the vehicle. Apparently the deceased co-pilot Mike Alsbury unlocked the mechanism much earlier than scheduled, for unknown reasons, but no-one commanded it to deploy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwos-braking-devices-deployed-early-ntsb/

Edit: It seems that it was known that aerodynamic forces could cause the feathering mechanism to deploy prematurely if it was unlocked before the appropriate altitude, so a simple procedural error by the co-pilot would have been enough to destroy the vehicle. That doesn't seem impressively safe.

However, if the co-pilot was aware of that possibility, he would surely not be particular keen to unlock the mechanism early, which suggests that either he was unaware or he had some other reason to unlock the mechanism (either because of seeing incorrect information or because there was some overriding reason to take the risk).
 
Last edited:
  • #31
dlgoff said:
Especially the ones who have paid up to $250k for their tickets.

Maybe in case of everything ending in a fireball passengers should get the money back?And more seriously: I would be careful with drawing conclusion from number of accidents in testing phase and in phase of actual application.
 
  • #32
I always thought the design looked fragile, but then I reflect back on looking out of a commercial plane and watch the wings separate into 4 or 5 linked together sections that seem impossible to be supporting the craft:nb), helps me appreciate materials and engineers :)
 
  • #33
Why don't the efforts of government space agencies earn accusations of hubris after accidents? Challenger? Columbia? NASA put the aging John Glen aboard the Shuttle for PR. Who paid for his ticket? Me. You.
 
  • #34
The space shuttle had a better success rate (and going to orbit is much harder than going to space). And they still got a lot of criticism.
 
  • #35
Virgin Galactic crash: Descent system 'deployed early'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29876154

I'm a bit puzzled by the comment that the descent system "was deployed prior to Mach 1.4". It would seem the aerodynamic forces would be greater as velocity increases, but I can imagine that the transonic region would experience a fair amount of buffeting.

I think it more likely it is a matter of altitude and air density, and perhaps with a more powerful engine, they got to higher speeds earlier, i.e., at lower altitude, which would produce greater aerodynamic forces, due to greater air density. Remember that the space shuttle has to throttle down briefly to mitigate the aerodynamic forces until it gets to high enough altitude, where the air density is less.

It would seem, they either deployed the descent system prematurely, which is a critical error, or the craft design couldn't handle the higher forces.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top