Virgin Galactic craft explodes, then crashes - space tourism hits snag

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,635
3,095
136
After this, how could anyone trust that thing? The world can't afford to lose a ship full of rich actors and song artists, like Beiber. We'd be screwed.
Too bad they lost a good pilot. Sad to see.
 
Last edited:

LightPattern

Senior member
Feb 18, 2013
413
17
81
Maybe someone should consult a physicist before trying to build a space elevator. If you could build something tall enough to reach into space the bottom of such would become liquefied from the sheer weight.
Maybe someone should read up on a working concept they obviously know nothing about. I provided a nice easy link for ya too.

From link:
space elevator: a stationary tether rotating with the Earth, held up by a weight at its end, and serving as a track on which electric vehicles called "climbers" can travel up and down carrying about 10 tons of payload. The technical details, of course, are much more involved than this.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,341
1,516
136
From the reports it looks like something happened with the Motor. They have had a lot of issues with rocket motor for this spacecraft. They switched fuels because of stability issues in the original mix of what is basically rubber and laughing gas. The engine was built by Sierra Nevada Corporation. SNC had so many issues with that combination of rocket fuel that they pulled the engine from the Dream Chaser and where looking at using something else. That is one of the reasons that NASA didn't select Dream Chaser for commercial crew was the lack of firm selection of an engine. Virgin Galactic switched to some type of plastic fuel. Prayers for the family of the deceased pilot and hopefully the other pilot makes a full recovery.
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,635
3,095
136
Maybe someone should consult a physicist before trying to build a space elevator. If you could build something tall enough to reach into space the bottom of such would become liquefied from the sheer weight.

lol. Conehead.
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,635
3,095
136
From the reports it looks like something happened with the Motor. They have had a lot of issues with rocket motor for this spacecraft. They switched fuels because of stability issues in the original mix of what is basically rubber and laughing gas. The engine was built by Sierra Nevada Corporation. SNC had so many issues with that combination of rocket fuel that they pulled the engine from the Dream Chaser and where looking at using something else. That is one of the reasons that NASA didn't select Dream Chaser for commercial crew was the lack of firm selection of an engine. Virgin Galactic switched to some type of plastic fuel. Prayers for the family of the deceased pilot and hopefully the other pilot makes a full recovery.

Just heard on radio about the engine type. To keep it short, liquid fuel isn't practical because it needs too much onboard fuel. Solid fuel isn't practical because you can't stop it once it starts. They chose a hybrid fuel consisting of a special rubber/plastic and you throttle the thrust by adding oxygen to the burn, increasing or decreasing its rate.
They had trouble creating and sustaining adequate thrust to carry the required load to the required altitude. I would have though that this would have been solved during a proof of concept or early design phase.
They tweaked something to get more thrust and it blew on them according to preliminary reports.
They sold tickets to 700 people before they even knew how to build the engine? Sounds crazy.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,341
1,516
136
pad34_memorialplaque_zps304700c1.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxsJeND_D-k#t=116
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,431
10,328
136
maybe Sierra Nevada should go back to selling outdoor clothing?

Loved their Christmas Celebration Ale.

Edit: Ironic that the day before I was at Cape Canaveral for one of our bi-annual fileld mangers meeting, we did a tour of Complex 30 where sailors learn to convert a strategic D5 missile into a test D5 missile while it still in the launch tube aka In Tube Conversion (ITC). We get an anouncement that a launch is imminent so we go outside and I got to see the latest Atlas V launch. Fun business trip.
 
Last edited:

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,341
1,516
136
Just heard on radio about the engine type. To keep it short, liquid fuel isn't practical because it needs too much onboard fuel. Solid fuel isn't practical because you can't stop it once it starts. They chose a hybrid fuel consisting of a special rubber/plastic and you throttle the thrust by adding oxygen to the burn, increasing or decreasing its rate.
They had trouble creating and sustaining adequate thrust to carry the required load to the required altitude. I would have though that this would have been solved during a proof of concept or early design phase.
They tweaked something to get more thrust and it blew on them according to preliminary reports.
They sold tickets to 700 people before they even knew how to build the engine? Sounds crazy.

In all fariness they thought they could use the same engine fuel that was used on SpaceShip one and it has turned out that wasn't the case. I would have also thought issues like this would have been solved by flight testing on the ground. I wonder if Branson was pushing the flight test schedule because Virgin Galactic was already behind schedule for it's first flights. We will see if this is accident results in cancellation of this project.
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,635
3,095
136
In all fariness they thought they could use the same engine fuel that was used on SpaceShip one and it has turned out that wasn't the case. I would have also thought issues like this would have been solved by flight testing on the ground. I wonder if Branson was pushing the flight test schedule because Virgin Galactic was already behind schedule for it's first flights. We will see if this is accident results in cancellation of this project.

I wonder the same. Is this something that is acceptable to happen during testing? Or is it something that will shake the confidence of customers to where they won't fly?
 

MustISO

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,928
12
81
I don't think it'll deter someone who has the means and really wants to do it. You can die in any type of vehicle, we take risks every day flying and driving.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,341
1,516
136
I wonder the same. Is this something that is acceptable to happen during testing? Or is it something that will shake the confidence of customers to where they won't fly?

I have a feeling this could really shake the confidence of those with tickets. The vehicle was billed as being really safe and I don't think the people buying the tickets thought about the engine exploding. They are really going to have to go back and redesign this thing which is going to cost money and time. The engine is going to be huge sticking point for any future spacecraft.
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,635
3,095
136
I have a feeling this could really shake the confidence of those with tickets. The vehicle was billed as being really safe and I don't think the people buying the tickets thought about the engine exploding. They are really going to have to go back and redesign this thing which is going to cost money and time. The engine is going to be huge sticking point for any future spacecraft.

That's the impression I always had of this craft, even though I never followed it closely. I always assumed that a near perfect safety record, all throughout flight testing would be needed in order to build the necessary trust to put non essential civilians in space for profit.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
Critics are saying even if the new motor worked it would of not been sufficient to get to the altitude they needed to.

I didn't realize Northrop Grumman had purchased Scaled Composites. Sucks imo. Bet Rutan who has retired got lots of $$$.

Branson’s Galactic Obstacles: Tom Bower Puts a Damper on Virgin’s Space Flight Dreams

.......In fact, there is little in Bower’s book that is not already known about Galactic’s dismal record so far. Branson presents an easy target because he has so frequently over-promised on his bid to introduce so-called space tourism.

The first passenger-carrying flight was supposed to happen in 2007. The date then slipped to 2009…2010…2011…2012…2013…and now to later this year.

Don’t hold your breath.

The fact that the project retains any credibility at all is due to two very different things. First, Branson’s boundless optimism and relentless promotional machine that seems to turn skeptics into road kill. Second is the fact that engineers who really understand what Galactic is trying to do say that there are so many technical challenges involved, so many things that have to work that haven’t been done before, that a prudent manager would not have expected (or predicted) quicker results.

Then there is the gap between the language and the reality.

“Galactic” was an absurdly romantic tag to attach to the program. There will be no venturing beyond gravity’s pull.

What is basically being attempted is a ballistic, sub-orbital flight, like a ride atop a short-range missile. Technically the border of what is called space is set at 62 miles above earth. Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo will reach an apogee of 68 miles. Then it will—without power—fall back to earth.

“It’s clear that he launched Virgin Galactic without remotely understanding the complexity of the technical challenges involved and, probably, still doesn’t.”
As that fall begins, the six passengers aboard will enjoy about five minutes of weightlessness before SpaceShipTwo assumes a controlled glide back to the Virgin Galactic Spaceport in New Mexico. To be sure, the views will be gob-smacking, but they won’t include galaxies.

Bower’s most serious claim, supported by little evidence, is that SpaceShipTwo’s rocket motor is not powerful enough to achieve the velocity necessary to reach 68 miles above earth with two pilots and six passengers aboard.

So far, there have been three rocket-powered flight tests. The first, in April last year, reached 55,000 feet and a top speed of 920 mph; the second achieved a speed of 1,100 mph as did the third, this month, which also reached the highest point yet, 71,000 feet.

To reach its target, SpaceShipTwo must be flying at 2,500 mph after just over a minute of rocket burn. (Compare this to the 17,500 mph needed to break free of gravity and go into orbit, and you can see the relative modesty of the aim).
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,678
13,432
146
Some pilots my wife works with mentioned that based on the pictures of the crash it didn't look like Spaceship 2 was moving very fast along the ground. Maybe the engine failed before full speed?

The report will be interesting. Again, space flight is hard.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
A shame. Get ready for the government to come in and shut down the whole program.