Virgin Galactic Announces Loss of SpaceShipTwo on Test Fligh

[Eternal_Freedom]

Breaking

Very little information as yet. No news on the pilots, but police responded to reports of a crash in Cantil.

[Borgholio]

One dead, one injured.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /18253295/

MOJAVE, Calif. (AP) — Virgin Galactic reported that its SpaceShipTwo space tourism rocket has been lost in Southern California. California Highway Patrol reports 1 fatality, 1 major injury.

The company tweeted Friday: "During the test, the vehicle suffered a serious anomaly resulting in the loss of SpaceShipTwo."

The company founded by British billionaire Richard Branson would not say what happened other that it was working with authorities to determine the cause of the "accident."

Kern County Fire Department reported it was heading to a location in the Mojave Desert. California Highway Patrol Officer Darlena Dotson said the agency was responding to a report of a crash in the Cantil area.

Virgin Galactic has been the front-runner in the fledgling space-tourism industry. SpaceShipTwo, typically flown by a crew of two pilots, has been under development in the desert northeast of Los Angeles.

[The Romulan Republic]

Damn it. Not only is it a tragedy for the dead and injured individuals and their friends and family, its a tragedy for the space program. NASA seems to rely more on private companies these days, and if accidents like this create the impression those companies are unsafe (or drive them out of business), could it create the political impetus to end the manned space program altogether?

[Borgholio]

Private or not, there are still going to be accidents. I think it'll take a lot more than the crash of a test vehicle to doom manned spaceflight.

[SpottedKitty]

Private or not, there are still going to be accidents. I think it'll take a lot more than the crash of a test vehicle to doom manned spaceflight.

True; think back to the crash of that Airbus into a forest during a demonstration flight, back in 1988. One of the most embarassing, easily-avoided crashes I can think of, and look at how many airlines use those planes today.

I haven't come across any word yet of what happened, but the pictures on BBC News seem to show the ends of both tails on the ground.

[Broomstick]

Preliminary guess is that the rocket engine malfunctioned and exploded. The "anomaly" occurred shortly after ship separation.

One pilot managed to parachute, although seriously injured. The law enforcement spokesman said the other person was "obviously dead" when encountered on the ground so.... pretty bad, I'd imagine.

Private spaceflight these days still has a better record than government spaceflight in the 1960's. Better than the earliest days of aviation.

This may result in a delay, but I think there is sufficient interest in private space enterprise to keep it moving forward.

[Sea Skimmer]

Some reports say the pilot never made it out of his seat. Which to me probably means he died trying to keep the massively damaged craft stable enough to save the copilot, who would have had to climb out of his seat and manually bail out, followed by inflight breakup. Lets hope that was enough, as it sounds like the copilot is in very bad shape. At those altitudes and speeds, without a pressure suit, its pretty marginal that you can even survive the bailout at all.

As for the future of private manned suborbital tourism. This is a massive blow. This already was a completely redesigned engine on new fuel (which is probably why it blew up, first flight of that) and the project was years behind. A company like Airbus or Boeing has a huge amount of money, a huge amount of political support, and a very long track record of success to rely upon. A crash or a fire, they can work past this and afford the effort, they can show thousands of heavy planes flying billions of miles safely. Scaled Composites have none of this; at least not in a relevant context. While it has flown many aircraft, few of them ever reached production status, most of those small, simple and long ago, and I'm not sure any ever got to triple digit production. Small planes always crash more, and in fairness Spaceshiptwo was only promised to be as safer as a 1920s airliner, Rutan said this explicitly. That isn't all that safe. This doesn't change that, but it makes it more real. If that's a thing? I think it is.

But Rutan is now retired, and the company managed to get its engineers killed on the ground in an earlier rocket motor explosion through shear incompetence, ignoring a basic safety exclusion zone requirement. They do good airframe work, that is after all why the company is named what it is, but this project is far more complex and demanding then anything they did before. it is about systems engineering, not careful airframe design. I know companies that mostly hang drywall that have higher revenue streams. You can make more money building a middle school then Scaled Composites does in one year.

As long as Virgin will back them they probably will keep pushing forward, but rumor is it was pressure from Virgin that forced this test at this time in the first place. Branson had promised paying flights by the end of this year. Pulling the plug would be a huge loss of face, and while I don't think it will happen, the fact that this will push back any possible paying flight by years, and possibly require a completely new engine, well, its very possible this is the end. I hope not though, because otherwise four people have now died for nothing, and for worthy goal. Bringing space within closer reach of man.

[Broomstick]

At those altitudes and speeds, without a pressure suit, its pretty marginal that you can even survive the bailout at all.

They bailed at what, 45,000 feet? At least it wasn't the 70,000 project as the apex of this test, without a pressure suit that's simply not survivable.

A company like Airbus or Boeing has a huge amount of money, a huge amount of political support, and a very long track record of success to rely upon. A crash or a fire, they can work past this and afford the effort, they can show thousands of heavy planes flying billions of miles safely.

Remember that William Boeing did not start his company with a long track record, thousands of airplanes, and had plenty of crashes early on yet the company endures.

Scaled Composites have none of this; at least not in a relevant context. While it has flown many aircraft, few of them ever reached production status, most of those small, simple and long ago, and I'm not sure any ever got to triple digit production.

Rutan was never seriously interested in production, he was interested in design. Mostly what he sold were plans and kits which, by the way, have some of the better safety records in the homebuilt community. He entered into alliance with various other companies for the production models but even then it was mostly design. He did produce some record-setting one-offs, but that's about it.

Small planes always crash more, and in fairness Spaceshiptwo was only promised to be as safer as a 1920s airliner, Rutan said this explicitly. That isn't all that safe. This doesn't change that, but it makes it more real. If that's a thing? I think it is.

Nonetheless, there are still people willing to risk dying for a chance to get into space. Are there enough with sufficient funds to keep bankrolling this? I don't know.

But Rutan is now retired, and the company managed to get its engineers killed on the ground in an earlier rocket motor explosion through shear incompetence, ignoring a basic safety exclusion zone requirement.

That wasn't so much incompetence as overconfidence. Rutan had been designing and building aircraft since the 1960's and those were his first fatalities. Which highlights both how skilled Rutan and his partners were, and just how fucking dangerous rocketry can still be.

As long as Virgin will back them they probably will keep pushing forward, but rumor is it was pressure from Virgin that forced this test at this time in the first place. Branson had promised paying flights by the end of this year.

Branson may just have to put those flights off, and any sane customer would be understanding of that. Of course, that's assuming most of those customers are, in fact, sane...

I hope not though, because otherwise four people have now died for nothing, and for worthy goal. Bringing space within closer reach of man.

Let's put this in perspective: More people die every year in homebuilt airplanes. A lot more people died in the 1950's and 1960's in the initial space race.

Of course, nowadays we're spoiled with aviation being so damn safe - we've forgotten the blood that was spilled to get there. I don't think this will stop progress, but it may be that it slows down for a bit and that's not always bad. After the Apollo One pad fire that killed three astronauts the subsequent redesign resulted in a much better machine. Let's hope that's what happens here.

[TimothyC]

That is the forward bulkhead of the oxidizer (NO2)tank. The remaining section of fuselage looks to be the entire tank.



Engine problems followed by a flip, and then aerodynamics took over and tore the craft apart is my guess.

[Sea Skimmer]

Remember that William Boeing did not start his company with a long track record, thousands of airplanes, and had plenty of crashes early on yet the company endures.

That was also 1916 when human lives were being expended by the millions in real time and coal mine fires killed hundreds in even the most advanced countries, and frankly, life was simply worth less to industrial society. In both moral and simple raw uncaring fiscal terms. If you want to think in terms of century old rules for development then everything changes, but I don't think even the least developed parts of modern China institutionally devalue life as much as it was back then in the west. It's hard to even think in the terms people did once you know you can do better.

Something is also to be said for the fact that simply, we accept more risk with new technology, in an era. But manned space flight isn't new, and the technology behind Spaceshiptwo isn't new in any respect I can see. A new application, sorta, X-15 and all that, but they didn't really have to invent new materials or rethink aerodynamics to do this.

The basic fact is they thought it'd be easy to just draw everything bigger, and draw three times as much wiring for triple redundancy. The reality is the engine didn't upscale, which is a very common problem with liquid fuel rockets, and the redundancy took much longer to design inside a fixed mold line then predicted. That then delayed flight testing the rocket, and then rocket problems delayed everything. Now... past that, RUMINT says Virgin demanded a flight test this year with the new motor and new fuel, and Scaled Composites may have flown it against its better judgement. But we don't know if that's true or not.

That wasn't so much incompetence as overconfidence.

You are incompetent if you are overconfident. You lacked the understanding to assess risk properly aka don't know what you are doing. You didn't understand or want to understand that we only come up with safety rules because people already died for no good reason. If that is because you thought you didn't have to know, didn't have to obey, because you though you were that good, that is incompetence at best. But one could apply more negative terms to this too, incompetent is if anything being generous. It implies a lapse from ignorance rather then reckless disregard for known risk.

This wasn't some calculated risk they could not hedge against. It was a simple matter of staying the hell behind a blast wall to provide certain protection. No valid reason existed not to do this. The flight test is different certainly. At some point you do just have to go out and fly it, and fitting ejection seats to the aircraft is a bit unreasonable and probably not practicable. Nor would it be certain to work in the event of something as serious as a main engine explosion anyway.

Rutan had been designing and building aircraft since the 1960's and those were his first fatalities. Which highlights both how skilled Rutan and his partners were, and just how fucking dangerous rocketry can still be.

Bullshit. First of all his 1960s and I believe 1970s work was on behalf of the USAF, he was not calling the shots on safety or you know, much else except his part of the actual design work, alongside large numbers of other people and an extensive and ever increasing air force safety culture, one brought on precisely by heavy losses of planes and pilots in the 1950s binge of supersonic test flights leading to huge numbers of deaths and incredibly expensive accidents on a regular basis. This extended from the design process through the flight testing, training and operational practices. These were imposed even though though it actually meant loosing some very real military utility in the process, such as strict limitations on aircraft separation during air to air combat training.

Secondly the very fact that rocketry is always dangerous is the reason why you always obey basic safety precautions! Would you argue a skilled sniper can be excused for pointing his loaded gun at himself, because his skills make him less likely to shoot himself? This was just incompetence at work. A small company thought it could play fast and loose, and people died. Typical ego problem, not an isolated one, but a real one. It really is that simple. I have no idea why you would make excuses for them on this of all things. Even mere car engine dynos are supposed to be behind armor glass (minimal, and only then as a window to a concrete room) proof against any possible engine failure. Sure people run them without any protection all the time in smaller garages, but that does not make this competent behavior.

Branson may just have to put those flights off, and any sane customer would be understanding of that. Of course, that's assuming most of those customers are, in fact, sane...

But how many years of a delay should someone who already paid wait? That's a problem Everyone on his waiting list put down non trivial money up front. Most are probably willing to wait longer, and I'm sure they'd offer refunds to anyone who did not, but as I recall Branson isn't the only backer either, and many of the tax credits given to the spaceport they intend to operate out of do have time limitations if they don't commence operations. Probably the best news for them is that non of the competition is even close to a flight test, let alone operations.

[Broomstick]

A new application, sorta, X-15 and all that, but they didn't really have to invent new materials or rethink aerodynamics to do this.

My limited understanding is that they did employ a different fuel source than typical for space launches, but I might be wrong on that. There are some innovative aerodynamics with SS1 that are carried over into SS2 with that weird lift thing they have going on for the "re-entry" phase.

You're right in that they probably thought they could just scale up, but then, they're still running flight tests.

That wasn't so much incompetence as overconfidence.

You are incompetent if you are overconfident. You lacked the understanding to assess risk properly aka don't know what you are doing. You didn't understand or want to understand that we only come up with safety rules because people already died for no good reason.

My experience in aviation is that there is a constant battle against overconfidence. You have to be cocky to leave the ground, the trick is not to be TOO cocky and it's a balancing act. Space has the same problem, but writ larger.

This wasn't some calculated risk they could not hedge against. It was a simple matter of staying the hell behind a blast wall to provide certain protection. No valid reason existed not to do this.

Was that a problem of company culture or the individuals who got stupid one day? I've never been entirely clear on that.

An airport I was based at once had a lineboy walk into the blades of a turboprop in a fatal moment of inattention - was the a problem with the whole airport or one person who got stupid? Same situation. It seems inconceivable that someone could get so comfortable with a hazardous environment as to forget to step behind a blast shield but people really do stuff like that. I have known several very experienced people who have walked into props despite knowing better, two of whom were lucky to survive although one of them had to have his nose sewn back on (in his case the prop wasn't moving) and the other lost his leg high up on the thigh. I knew a guy into RC jets who had a stupid moment and walked through the exhaust of one of his models. Fortunately, bystanders knew how to use a fire extinguisher and really, the skin grafts don't look too bad, especially with long sleeves and pants.

That's hobby aviation in all those cases. The risks are exponentially greater the higher up the ladder you go. Space and rocketry are at the top of that mountain and frankly I'm surprised we don't have more explosions and death even these days. But then, I have a different perspective than most. We just don't have the expertise of modern commercial airplane type aviation when it comes to space, no one does, no one has the hundreds of thousands of hours that went into making it the safest form of transportation ever known - and we still get crashes, injuries, and death.

There is an inherent risk to any type of flight that is not ever going to go away

If you can't accept that don't leave the ground. People have brain farts, even the most competent, which is why commercial aviation has so many damn safeguards and double-checks and checklists and procedures and failsafes. Working around any sort of engine or machinery has inherent risk. Working around things that are burning has inherent risk. Rocketry has all of the above.

Fucking hell, yesterday in Witchita, Kansas someone had an engine failure on take-off and crashed into a facility that teaches pilots how to, among other things, deal with an engine failure on take-off. And killed three people in a flight simulator learning how to deal with in-flight emergencies. How's that for irony? It's been a bad week for flying, what can I say?

The flight test is different certainly. At some point you do just have to go out and fly it, and fitting ejection seats to the aircraft is a bit unreasonable and probably not practicable. Nor would it be certain to work in the event of something as serious as a main engine explosion anyway.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised even one of the guys was able to bail out and reach the ground alive. I hope he can recover from this.

Rutan had been designing and building aircraft since the 1960's and those were his first fatalities. Which highlights both how skilled Rutan and his partners were, and just how fucking dangerous rocketry can still be.

Bullshit. First of all his 1960s and I believe 1970s work was on behalf of the USAF, he was not calling the shots on safety or you know, much else except his part of the actual design work, alongside large numbers of other people and an extensive and ever increasing air force safety culture, one brought on precisely by heavy losses of planes and pilots in the 1950s binge of supersonic test flights leading to huge numbers of deaths and incredibly expensive accidents on a regular basis.

Go back and read what I actually wrote. I was talking about his KIT DESIGNS, which were entirely outside the USAF work. He designed the VariViggen in 1968. His 5 aircraft (4 airplanes 1 spaceship) in the National Air and Space Museum were all outside of his military work and not constrained by military regulations. I have no doubt that Rutan made use of what he learned working for the USAF but the notion that his designs were relatively safe because of military oversight is bullshit.

Secondly the very fact that rocketry is always dangerous is the reason why you always obey basic safety precautions! Would you argue a skilled sniper can be excused for pointing his loaded gun at himself, because his skills make him less likely to shoot himself?

No, but I'm pretty sure snipers have occasionally shot themselves whether it should happen or not.

I have no idea why you would make excuses for them on this of all things.

Not an excuse but an explanation. Complacency does happen, and it occurs among the most careful and competent as well as the careless and inexperience. You can't legislate away human factors.

Branson may just have to put those flights off, and any sane customer would be understanding of that. Of course, that's assuming most of those customers are, in fact, sane...

But how many years of a delay should someone who already paid wait? That's a problem

Well, sure - but anyone who didn't realize this is an experimental project and still in development is an idiot. I don't know how long the tolerance is for those who can afford to plonk down a quarter million USD for space tourism. I do know there are some wealthy people will to spend millions to be a space tourist or beat the world sky-dive height record. Some of them might have fronted money more to support private space industry and dreams of space travel more than than wanting a quick ride themselves.

[SpottedKitty]

There's a new picture up on BBC News. I'm not so convinced as I was of "explosion" as the cause — SS2 appears to be breaking up, going backwards with the engine still thrusting. Could this be a loss of control, followed by structural failure from aerodynamic stresses? Or vice-versa?

I'm reminded of the loss of Challenger; the shuttle didn't explode, it broke up because the rapidly burning fuel tank shoved it sideways at supersonic speed.

I'm listening to music just now: Leslie Fish's Hope Eyrie seems appropriate.

[Broomstick]

I believe that picture is one of a series of stills captured by a photographer on the ground.

It's hard to say - certainly, aerodynamic stress could have torn it apart, but the question would be whether that was before or after the engine malfunctioned. I have no doubt there will be an investigation that I hope provides more information.

[Sky Captain]

Why do those test flights have to be performed with live pilots on board? I mean it is 21st century, Soviet Buran shuttle flew unmanned in 1988 using 30 years old computer and autopilot technology. I'm sure today we can do better. Accidents like this is likely when testing high performance experimental aircraft so better make sure there is no one on board during early development phase when systems are still buggy. Start having people on board when the thing has made dozens of automated or remote controlled flights without major problems.

[Starglider]

Scaled Composites has been wholly owned by Northrop Grumman for years, so I doubt they're at risk of simply running out of money. However I could see NG effectively dissolving the company and folding the useful staff / projects back into the parent company, if the NG board deems Scaled to be a liability. I don't know the industry politics but I'd guess NG were buying a foothold ahead of a possible (near future) boom in private space travel, and will keep that hedge unless/until such a boom is completely discredited.

The basic fact is they thought it'd be easy to just draw everything bigger, and draw three times as much wiring for triple redundancy. The reality is the engine didn't upscale, which is a very common problem with liquid fuel rockets

As I recall (from 'Always Another Dawn') the XLR-99 on the X-15 had a protracted and troublesome development period as well, so North American installed a pair of X-1 engines in the first X-15 instead as an interim measure. I wonder if that would have been technically possible on SS2 (paired SS1 engines). In fact an XLR-99 blew up in ground test and destroyed most of the third X-15, but even in 1960 safety procedures were good enough that there were no injuries and the aircraft was rebuilt.

[Broomstick]

Why do those test flights have to be performed with live pilots on board?

If we're going to have the machine carry human beings then at some point you need to have people on board. Better they be test pilots than paying customers.

Really, though if you're talking about an automated system that never carries human beings, if things go seriously wrong and you lose the payload or have to his the destruct switch in the end it's just stuff. It's replaceable. With people, though, if something goes wrong you want to try to pull the fat out of the fire and that means a human pilot somewhere in the loop because people are still better at dealing with the unanticipated than computers are. Which means you have to test the systems the humans use at some point even if they aren't using the controls often in normal operation.

Is that approach still going to be valid in 50 years? Damifino. But right now you've got to test fly it with a real person or two on board. I mean, shit, we haven't got fully automated (meaning no human pilots) passenger aircraft yet, why would we have fully automated passenger spacecraft?

[Broomstick]

Keep in mind, too, that when the Challenger blew up it was only something like the 25th or 26th time a shuttle flew, including test flights. If Virgin Galactic got 55 flights in before their reusable space ship blew up they did twice as good as NASA did. Of course, it would have been better to get 550 or 5500 or bajillion flights in before something blew up but that's not realistic.

The NTSB is investigating, they'll do their usual analysis, and we'll learn more after it's done. Hopefully, we'll learn how to prevent that problem from occurring again.

[SpottedKitty]

Keep in mind, too, that when the Challenger blew up it was only something like the 25th or 26th time a shuttle flew, including test flights.

That last phrase is more significant than it seems at first glance. All previous manned rockets had been tested stage by stage, unmanned, before the whole thing was tested, still unmanned. The Shuttle couldn't be tested like that, it could not be broken down into individual launchable systems. Its first manned flight was its first full test flight.

SpaceShip One and Two operate in a similar way; their first test flights were tethered aboard the carrier plane. The next flights were unpowered drops, then powered drops, then full powered flights to increase its abilities to full range and height. Only the beginning of the first phase could be done unmanned.

[phongn]

The NTSB is investigating, they'll do their usual analysis, and we'll learn more after it's done. Hopefully, we'll learn how to prevent that problem from occurring again.

Their engine design is largely unproven by any nation. Rutan tried to avoid the (more understood) problems of liquid rocket design by going with hybrids, which brought him almost totally into the unknown. SS2 is also more or less built entirely around the hybrid engine's characteristics; I'm not even sure if it could take a major redesign for another type.

[Broomstick]

"Learning how to do it better" does not necessarily mean "find another engine".

[Sky Captain]

Why do those test flights have to be performed with live pilots on board?

If we're going to have the machine carry human beings then at some point you need to have people on board. Better they be test pilots than paying customers.

Still in the early phase it may be smart move to do unmanned tests. From PR point of view it would be less damaging to Virgin Galactic if SS2 blew up unmanned. They could always talk it down like accident occurred because some unforeseen instability in new engine and they were flying unmanned because they expected that something like that may happen in the early testing stage.
For example here in Latvia this accident has generated much more news coverage than visually far more spectacular Antares explosion. I bet if SS2 had blown up unmanned it would be mentioned as some minor news attracting much less attention.

[HMS Sophia]

That last phrase is more significant than it seems at first glance. All previous manned rockets had been tested stage by stage, unmanned, before the whole thing was tested, still unmanned.

The C-5, later the Saturn V, was tested in an all-up fashion simply because it would have cost so much to do numerous flight tests of each stage. They built each stage, tested them all on the ground, shipped them to NASA and flew them once assembled.

[Beowulf]

The SIVB stage of the Saturn V was tested in prior rockets. Namely, the Saturn I

[HMS Sophia]

The SIVB stage of the Saturn V was tested in prior rockets. Namely, the Saturn I

The SIV on the Saturn I had 6 RL10 engines with 90,000lbs of thrust, while the SIVB on the Saturn V had a single J2 engine producing 225,000lbs of thrust. It was essentially a different rocket with a similar lineage.

[Beowulf]

The SIVB stage of the Saturn V was tested in prior rockets. Namely, the Saturn I

The SIV on the Saturn I had 6 RL10 engines with 90,000lbs of thrust, while the SIVB on the Saturn V had a single J2 engine producing 225,000lbs of thrust. It was essentially a different rocket with a similar lineage.

The Saturn IB used the SIVB stage, instead of the SIV stage.