That is interesting, however, shouldn't the craft be stable in either configuration?

It is a system for slowing the craft down as it re-enters the atmosphere. Deploying while running the engine seems, well, wrong. From my days designing controls, maybe an interlock on the deployment of the system while firing the engine and visa-versa.

Indeed.

But even without travelers, we're still losing them. Just last week this old refurbished Antares was toast on launch. Was to bring supplies to the ISS.

NASA down to one commercial supplier to ISS

No.

Its like putting the hood up on your car going 200mph.

uhmm.. you do realize that the 'feathered' configuration is for hitting the atmosphere at 2600mph, right?

And, of course, hoods have catch-latches specifically to avoid horrendous results from a simple capture error. (capture error - that's ergonomics-speak for grabbing the wrong object)

It is hard to compare the Antares and Spaceship 2.

Antares used an extremely proven engine but with a different design for the fuel and oxidizer systems. The engine is used in the Atlas V. It is also a fully automatic system. Sounding like it was a fuel or oxidizer leak.

Spaceship 2 is a brand new design. And it uses people at the controls. This one sounding like it was pilot error.

The Q was too high, it might be stable but only with the fuselage/lifting body surface in a deep stall. It just plain broke from overstressing it. Also, I believe stability changes with Mach, the SR-71 had to move fuel around to compensate for Mach tuck, but maybe that is just an over/under sonic thing and it stays stable as you get to higher Mach numbers.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1415065040.jpg

It does sound like an error; unless they were testing the stability of the feathering system, unlocked, in a trans-sonic state. (doubtful, perhaps)

the thing is, with those giant drag structures behind the main wing, I don't see how an unlock would be anything like Hard Drive's analogy of popping an unlatched hood at speed. ...it maybe would be like popping a trunk open at speed.

hmmm... perhaps the control surfaces on the 'feather' booms could over-power whatever motors drive those up and back again. I dunno. But I do expect that people at Scaled knew exactly what went wrong, and knew within hours.

Cool pic. (was typing when you posted)

The latest says they were trans-sonic ~Mach 1. Earlier I was reading 1.4.

Both pilots ejected from what I gather, or at least it sounds like their chutes deployed when they were ejected from the aircraft upon breakup. I'm not sure if the copilot died during breakup or on landing.

On SpaceShipOne, Max Q occurred at 105,000 ft (32,000M)

The NTSB said they found the co-pilots chute in the wreckage; and seeing (their video) a very small tarp over part of the wreckage... :-/

I take they have ejection seats with break away hatches? Or did they get out of their seats and have a hatch to jump out?

What about future passengers? Would they be on their own or do they all have an ejection seat/hatch?

Exactly. Why the NTSB is there at all. It's a private company doing what they do. But the NTSB will come up with some new rules. Did anyone notice the big number of "gov't officials" on the scene. I guess since there have not been any really big air crashes latley, they need to find a new thing to do.

I haven't checked through this entire thread to see if this has been posted.

Part of a news segment I heard over the weekend said that it had been determined that the copilot had engaged the feathering mechanism prematurely... and of course, doing that as the rocket engine is in full tilt boogie is going to rip those wings off.

A woman who knew the copilot and who saw the wreckage was being interviewed by phone on CNN Friday afternoon, and said his 'chute did not deploy... said what she saw was very disturbing... said something like "he was in his seat, but not all of him was there."

Check this video I found in a search... especially beginning at around :36 ... photo shows the craft coming apart from a ground camera. A closer, slightly clearer version of that shot appeared on the CBS Evening News.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dy1k5s7Fbl0?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Edit: Listening to the guy's voice, near the end of the video, it sounds like he's a conspiracist. I posted the video for the visuals only. :eek:

Joël Glenn Brenner is the woman who knew the copilot.

She also had a few not very kind words about Virgin Galactic... something like, "They sacrificed my friend for their program."

Here are four YouTube videos that I found by searching spaceship two and her name. One or more of them will be part of or the entire interview I heard Friday on CNN.

As you can see, the last one is titled "Brenner accuses Virgin of complicity in the death of experimental plane's pilot."

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spaceship+two+joel+glenn+bren ner

James- Obviously get the differences but should rephrase, 'we continue to lose all types of spacecraft'. Much appreciation for those involved in all aspects of space exploration.

For another thread, but find it interesting about other country and budgets for space programs. Last Sept. ('14) India is the first country to enter Mars orbit in first attempt. It was completed at a record cost of $74 million.

We Americans cost too much and India proves it in more ways than one.

I really doubt they have ejection seats or even break away hatches. More like the structure disintegrated around them.

For some good old-school edification on forces at Mach ...

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bELu-if5ckU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Note that none of the oscillations rip the airframes apart.

My deepest condolences to all who lost their lives, and to the loved ones they left behind. They knew the risks, and were courageous enough to smile and do it anyway. Not many like that. Contrast that with the sheer cowardice and ignorance displayed by the anonymous keyboard expert below.

Pretty easy to throw stones from the safety of your mom's basement, disparaging those who would risk it all, at their own expense (both financially and ultimately) to advance the common good. You make totally baseless accusations from a position of utter ignorance. Your socialist underpinnings betray you - you simply cannot put aside your evil capitalist pig view of those who would, in your mind, only venture into areas like this to make a quick buck. Having little motivation of your own beyond what is good for number one, you simply cannot understand those who may be motivated by some higher calling. You are doing your pitiful best to cheapen their deaths, and I'm just not going to let you get away with that.

I've spent my entire adult life in aerospace, primarily commercial aviation. For profit commercial aviation. All run by folks who would, in your estimation, sacrifice safety for an extra buck. You simply could not be more wrong. You have no basis on which to make those accusations, no experience in the field on which to draw. I can assure you, flight safety, the safety of the crew and occupants, has been the absolute number one priority on every program in which I have been involved for the past 35 years. Mostly commercial, but quite a bit of government and defense as well - I have never seen any difference in safety standards between them.

A loss like this resonates throughout the entire team, or more accurately, the entire family involved. From the investors on top to the guys bucking the rivets, one and all are devastated at a very personal level, the money involved be damned. That is a distant second to the sense of family on projects like this, the overwhelming sense of loss.

You owe the fine men and women involved in that program an apology.