Virgin Galatic Spaceship Two down in the Mojave.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it was the same "back then".
During the Bell X-1 flight program there were numerous rocket engine failures. In fact, on the very first X-1 powered flight (flown by Chalmers Goodlin), the engine caught on fire. Throughout the X-1 program, the rocket engine (XLR-11) caught fire on many occasions. At least one exploded in flight. On several other flights, the pilot had to jettison the propellant.
During the X-15 program, Scott Crossfield had an XLR-11 exploded on him in flight. The next summer, Scott was in the cockpit for a static ground test of the more powerful XLR-99 rocket -- which also exploded. When the XLR-99 was finally ready for its first powered flight (on a manned X-15), Scott was again the pilot. The guy had no fear.
Those X pilots were of a different breed. Same with these Scaled Composite pilots today. They got the Right Stuff, as Yeager might say.
During the Bell X-1 flight program there were numerous rocket engine failures. In fact, on the very first X-1 powered flight (flown by Chalmers Goodlin), the engine caught on fire. Throughout the X-1 program, the rocket engine (XLR-11) caught fire on many occasions. At least one exploded in flight. On several other flights, the pilot had to jettison the propellant.
During the X-15 program, Scott Crossfield had an XLR-11 exploded on him in flight. The next summer, Scott was in the cockpit for a static ground test of the more powerful XLR-99 rocket -- which also exploded. When the XLR-99 was finally ready for its first powered flight (on a manned X-15), Scott was again the pilot. The guy had no fear.
Those X pilots were of a different breed. Same with these Scaled Composite pilots today. They got the Right Stuff, as Yeager might say.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These flights take place in the Edwards AFB R-2508 restricted area complex. Much of this air space is under Edwards control and is surface to unlimited.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those are excellent photos. The "comet" photo appears to show a largely intact fuselage, with the wings separated and a gas cloud. I see what I believe are the cockpit windows on the nose. It appears to be falling backwards, and the photo appears upside down judging by the debris trail.
Change of Solid Rocket Fuel for this flight to give more specific impulse according to the news (from rubber to grain type). Grain biased propellant + Cracks in said propellant = Engine Explosion.
Sorry to appear a bit dim, but what happened to the mother ship? I cannot see and have not heard, any media reports about this and yet the shots on TV [if of this accident] indicate a successful separation......?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a long way to go if the engine still not works as intended. They still seem to not get the thrust needed.
I still very much admire Scaled. These are true geniuses. If it can be done they will do it. Good luck.
I still very much admire Scaled. These are true geniuses. If it can be done they will do it. Good luck.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Classified
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I understood it is still a Hybrid motor so your point, which refers to dangers of a solid fuel rocket is invalid.
Only really repeating what the first few posts said, but rocket science is still not safe. The loss of two space shuttles is, from what I've read, in line with what you would expect. Even now a fair proportion of satellite launches fail - one very recently. Yes, after every loss you can look back and say that we did this wrong and what happened was inevitable and could have been avoided, but if we all had the benefit of hindsight you could close all casualty departments and a lot else and there would be a lot fewer liability lawyers. The trouble with spaceflight is that simple failures can be catastrophic particularly at launch. Had one of the five engines on the Saturn V failed in the first few seconds that would have been it. The escape tower might have worked but from what I've read I wouldn't have counted on it.
There were two unmanned Saturn V launches before it lifted men into space. The first (Apollo 4 I believe) was successful, the second (Apollo 6) had serious problem with rocket oscillations - the pogo effect - and it was lucky that no one was on board. These were fixed before men were put on the top of the rocket.
Doubtless the "anomalies" that caused the crash will be overcome but even when the technology matures there will likely still be disasters. It will be interesting to see that effect that this has on bookings.
There were two unmanned Saturn V launches before it lifted men into space. The first (Apollo 4 I believe) was successful, the second (Apollo 6) had serious problem with rocket oscillations - the pogo effect - and it was lucky that no one was on board. These were fixed before men were put on the top of the rocket.
Doubtless the "anomalies" that caused the crash will be overcome but even when the technology matures there will likely still be disasters. It will be interesting to see that effect that this has on bookings.
Last edited by Peter47; 1st Nov 2014 at 21:35.
Peter
Good points.
I'll give Sir RB credit for enabling/driving others to push the boundaries - somebody needs to, and I'm sure all those involved at a hands on level are well aware of the risks, but I do wonder any of the celebs/high rollers who booked flights have heard Richard Feynman's statement that:
Good points.
I'll give Sir RB credit for enabling/driving others to push the boundaries - somebody needs to, and I'm sure all those involved at a hands on level are well aware of the risks, but I do wonder any of the celebs/high rollers who booked flights have heard Richard Feynman's statement that:
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
The trouble with spaceflight is that simple failures can be catastrophic particularly at launch. Had one of the five engines on the Saturn V failed in the first few seconds that would have been it. The escape tower might have worked but from what I've read I wouldn't have counted on it.
TURIN
Whilst that film is impressive I think Peter is talking about a "pad fall back".
Atlas-Centaur 5 pad fallback 1965 - Sonicbomb.com
Escaping one of those demands a fast decision (?automated) to intitate the abort and then a propulsion/guidance system that can get the spacecraft and occupants away from the fireball far enough fast enough.
50 years down the road from that Atlas-Centaur video it's still the case that any spaceflight, even a sub-orbital hop, using any current technology is sadly always going to be several orders of magnitude more risky than jumping on a commercial flight or using one's executive jet. I suspect everybody here knows that.......
Apologies for any thread drift.
Whilst that film is impressive I think Peter is talking about a "pad fall back".
Atlas-Centaur 5 pad fallback 1965 - Sonicbomb.com
Escaping one of those demands a fast decision (?automated) to intitate the abort and then a propulsion/guidance system that can get the spacecraft and occupants away from the fireball far enough fast enough.
50 years down the road from that Atlas-Centaur video it's still the case that any spaceflight, even a sub-orbital hop, using any current technology is sadly always going to be several orders of magnitude more risky than jumping on a commercial flight or using one's executive jet. I suspect everybody here knows that.......
Apologies for any thread drift.
Last edited by wiggy; 1st Nov 2014 at 12:07.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Nashville
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Peter47
There were two unmanned Saturn V launches before it lifted men into space. The first (Apollo 4 I believe) was successful, the second (Apollo 6) has serious problem with rocket oscillations - the pogo effect - and it was lucky that no one was on board. These were fixed before men were put on the top of the rocket.
13 Things That Saved Apollo 13, Part 5: Unexplained Shutdown of the Saturn V Center Engine
On the new Virgin Galactic engine, I wonder if it was tested in altitude chamber, or simply at ground level? If it was never tested in an altitude chamber, then this past manned mission was essentially the first realistic test.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Flight testing" implies the technology is not yet proven. Hardly surprising that accidents can happen.
The A380 went through about 2500 hours of flight testing. It wasn't enough to uncover the uncontained engine failure waiting to happen. Spaceship Two is radically new technology, in comparison.
I agree. Nitpicking: Every single loss of life is a disaster, however I'd be hesitant to use that word. I'd venture a guess the driver who apparently lost his life would prefer the word "accident", rather than "disaster".
The A380 went through about 2500 hours of flight testing. It wasn't enough to uncover the uncontained engine failure waiting to happen. Spaceship Two is radically new technology, in comparison.
Doubtless the "anomalies" that caused the crash will be overcome but even when the technology matures there will likely still be disasters
Last edited by deptrai; 1st Nov 2014 at 14:00.