Virgin Galactic spaceship crashes

motion · 10-31-2014, 11:35 AM

This is shocking news. It was on my list to do one of these flights. VG has kiosks at all the Virgin Galaxy lounges. I've been following it for years. Really, really terrible news for the private space travel industry.

varmint · 10-31-2014, 11:37 AM

was in mojave for the first couple test flights. tragic, but i hope this does not stop rutan.

Amail · 10-31-2014, 11:53 AM

These are risky endeavors. Tragic as it is, accidents are inevitable. I too hope this doesn't stop Rutan and everyone else trying.

RIP to the deceased, and prayers for the injured.

GH85Carrera · GH85Carrera's Garage

Space travel is difficult.

It is sad that what is likely some small mistake has set them back many years.

Joe Bob · Joe Bob's Garage

Virgin Galactic spaceship crashes during California test flight | Reuters

Joe Bob · Joe Bob's Garage

Joe Bob · Joe Bob's Garage

tabs · 10-31-2014, 01:33 PM

Wonder how many cancellations the guy has gotten?

"Book a trip to the moon and Die" That ought to be an enticing sales promo....

911_Dude · 10-31-2014, 02:08 PM

These private rockets are a whole new frontier. This will certainly not be the last crash. RIP to the brave guys that died.

In fact, if the private Mars mission ever gets off the ground, I give those guys zero chance of surviving the trip, let alone setting up a working Mars base.

island911 · 10-31-2014, 02:17 PM

it's a bad week to be a rocket scientist. :-/

BlueSkyJaunte · 10-31-2014, 02:39 PM

Ad astra per aspera.

Don Plumley · Don Plumley's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by island911

it's a bad week to be a rocket scientist. :-/

Yes, but it is rocket science...

The brave do first so the rest of us can do later.

porwolf · 10-31-2014, 03:09 PM

I think "private" space endeavors are much over-hyped. There is not really any technical reason why private space technology should be much cheaper than NASA projects and be as safe. It just is inherent in "private" (for-profit) enterprises that corners are cut. It is called "efficiency". Safety will inevitably be sacrificed on the altar of profitability. Space flight is not like riding in a car that can just stop and wait by the side of the road for help if anything goes wrong. Failure No.1 this week was because the "private" enterprise used 40 year old, discarded, Russian rocket engines because they were cheap. And the Virgin "space" plane probably crashed because it did not use the same safety protocols that NASA uses.

Private space flights proved to be extremely risky enterprises!

Iciclehead · 10-31-2014, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porwolf

I think "private" space endeavors are much over-hyped. There is not really any technical reason why private space technology should be much cheaper than NASA projects and be as safe. It just is inherent in "private" (for-profit) enterprises that corners are cut. It is called "efficiency". Safety will inevitably be sacrificed on the altar of profitability. Space flight is not like riding in a car that can just stop and wait by the side of the road for help if anything goes wrong. Failure No.1 this week was because the "private" enterprise used 40 year old, discarded, Russian rocket engines because they were cheap. And the Virgin "space" plane probably crashed because it did not use the same safety protocols that NASA uses.

Private space flights proved to be extremely risky enterprises!

On this logic all aircraft would be government built as well? From what I can gather, this thing was in the atmosphere at the time of failure, only real differential from a jet airliner is engine type.....

Dennis

BE911SC · 10-31-2014, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motion

This is shocking news. It was on my list to do one of these flights. VG has kiosks at all the Virgin Galaxy lounges. I've been following it for years. Really, really terrible news for the private space travel industry.

Read up on the history of military test flying at places like Edwards AFB as well as the setbacks of the U.S. space program. Lots of smoking holes out there with brave men's remains in them. These billionaires all want to be Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong and guess what, you can get killed. Yes, it's sad for the families involved and a setback for private space junketeering but smoking holes in the ground are part of the deal.

island911 · 10-31-2014, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motion

... Really, really terrible news for the private space travel industry.

Can you explain the draw to this $200k joy ride?

I mean this is hardly space travel. ...the mother ship (a jet) takes you to 50,000ft, drops, and the rocket pushes you up another 20k ft.

For perspective, the google exec guy went about twice as high in a balloon ... and then jumped out.

island911 · 10-31-2014, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porwolf

I think "private" space endeavors are much over-hyped. There is not really any technical reason why private space technology should be much cheaper than NASA projects and be as safe. It just is inherent in "private" (for-profit) enterprises that corners are cut. It is called "efficiency". Safety will inevitably be sacrificed on the altar of profitability. Space flight is not like riding in a car that can just stop and wait by the side of the road for help if anything goes wrong. Failure No.1 this week was because the "private" enterprise used 40 year old, discarded, Russian rocket engines because they were cheap. And the Virgin "space" plane probably crashed because it did not use the same safety protocols that NASA uses.

Private space flights proved to be extremely risky enterprises!

What NASA did was in a whole different league.(speeds, altitude and payload - HUGE! ) And, NASA had some rather spectacular losses, even with NASA safety protocols.

Flieger · Flieger's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by island911

Can you explain the draw to this $200k joy ride?

I mean this is hardly space travel. ...the mother ship (a jet) takes you to 50,000ft, drops, and the rocket pushes you up another 20k ft.

For perspective, the google exec guy went about twice as high in a balloon ... and then jumped out.

Um,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reuters

"More than 800 people have paid or put down deposits to eventually fly aboard the spaceship, which is hauled to an altitude of about 45,000 feet (13.7 kms) and released by Virgin's White Knight Two carrier jet airplane. According to plans, the spaceship then fires its rocket motor to catapult it to about 62 miles (100 km) above Earth, giving passengers a view of the planet set against the blackness of space and a few minutes of weightlessness."

More like another 200k ft.

62 miles is about 325,000 ft, or about 200,000 ft. more than the skydivers. I believe the 100 km limit is partly based on it being higher than a balloon or airplane can fly- calculated with some sort of maximum feasible coefficient of lift for a wing along with other performance parameters, basically the plane would need to fly so fast that it would be in orbit (or escape velocity) at that point, not flying.

island911 · 10-31-2014, 10:11 PM

Thanks. I had read 71k ft. Maybe that was SS1. (?)

island911 · 10-31-2014, 10:15 PM

Found what I had read

Quote:

The spacecraft's first powered test flight took place on 29 April 2013. Spaceshiptwo reached supersonic speeds in this first powered flight.[49][50] On 5 September 2013, the second powered flight was made by SpaceShipTwo.[51] The first powered test flight of 2014—and third overall—occurred 10 January 2014. The spacecraft reached an altitude of 22,000 metres (71,000 ft) (the highest to date) and a speed of Mach 1.4. The WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft released SpaceShipTwo (VSS Enterprise) at an altitude of 14,000 metres (46,000 ft) .[52]

SpaceShipTwo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, their plans are to go much higher. hmmmm.... I think they'll need a bigger rocket.