Developing. Virgin Galactic's Spaceship Two has suffered a major casualty during a test flight. The vehicle is reportedly a total loss.
These things happen in threes. Both SpaceX and the Riskiest have flights scheduled soon. Which will crash?
This will be a set back for the local aerospace industry. So it was just the test pilot on board? It sucks for him but I have to think he knew it was a dangerous job. I still feel bad for his family though.
One pilot ejected, and one was found still in his seat. It's a given in most aerospace circles that their hybrid engine should have been abandoned years ago, because hybrids just don't scale up reliably. Even the smaller engine on Spaceship One had some pretty scary behaviors.
Virgin Galactic is dead. They were already rumoured to be under heavy pressure from outside investors to make deadlines or lose funding, this will both make those investors skittish and cause people lined up to purchase flights to take another look at the idea. All flight is risky, test flight incredibly more so. The pilots of Enterprise would have well known the risks and took the chance, hats off to both of them, and hopefully the surviving crew member pulls through. While some deaths lead to greater knowledge and progress however, I fear this will set back commercial progress in the suborbital arena by years.
Richard Branson's statement about the accident. Over at an aerospace blog I suggested that perhaps shock cooling of the nylon grain surface (during a reported momentary pause in the burn) resulted in thermal stress and possible shattering or peeling of the surface layer, putting far too much fuel surface into the combustion chamber when it was filled with pressurized, unburned nitrous oxide. As background, when compressed nitrous evaporates its temperature drops to -127F. My thought is that a failed start would leave a hot, soft layer of nylon, and then the cold oxidizer could shock cool the surface, shrinking it while making the nylon extremely brittle.
No, we fly, despite all the risks. Wayne Hale had a good post on risks. It's well worth reading, as are all his posts.
It looks like pilot error might have been a factor. Cockpit video shows the copilot deploying the feathering system too early in the flight. It'll be months before we know for certain, but it may not be a technical problem. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0IM0RO20141103?irpc=932
Well, now we'll be learning the intricacies of the feathering system, and whether unlocking always means deployment or whether the copilot was just staying ahead, readying the feather system for use at Mach 1.4 and not expecting it to go ahead and actually deploy at Mach 1.
well since we're all weighing in I may as well (my estes solid rocket experience qualifies me). The feathering mechanism would be for after they end boost and are "coasting." If it deployed early while still under power, I can see how it would tear the craft apart. I don't mind rich people wasting their money on glorified rollercoaster rides, but I think people are laying it on a bit thick when they ask "will this dampen exploration?" It has about as much to do with exploration as Disney's Space Mountain.
Virgin Galactic has issued a new statement on the crash. The engine was found intact, with no signs of damage from an explosion, so pilot error seems more likely. http://m.krwg.org/?utm_referrer=http://news.google.com/#mobile/77832
