Some Virgin Galactic Customers Demand Money Back

If the cause of the crash... by TWX · 2014-11-04 02:35 · Score: 1

...is giving the pilot the full control of the craft (ie, the ability to deploy the tail above rated speed) then they're going to have an interesting balance to strike. I don't honestly know how pilots react to being denied the option of doing something outright, especially if unanticipated circumstances could require out-of-the-box thinking to recover from some unplanned incident.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:If the cause of the crash... by 0100010001010011 · 2014-11-04 03:02 · Score: 1

What about stuff that can't be controlled by the human? Some modern aircraft only fly because they have a computer doing most of the hard math for keeping the craft stable. The human's input is more or less a 'guide' to follow but a lot of the actuators are in the end controlled by some closed loop controller.
Re:If the cause of the crash... by FlyHelicopters · 2014-11-04 03:33 · Score: 1

The F-117 would be a good example of this... without all the computers working, it would just fall out of the sky...
Re:If the cause of the crash... by 0100010001010011 · 2014-11-04 03:52 · Score: 2

That's exactly the machine I was thinking about. Before I signed up for the Mars trip I would want a dozen cargo ships safely leaving and arriving before I put humans there.
Re:If the cause of the crash... by FlyHelicopters · 2014-11-04 04:27 · Score: 1

Before I signed up for the Mars trip I would want a dozen cargo ships safely leaving and arriving before I put humans there.
While I understand the feeling, I don't think Christopher Columbus had that sort of assurance when sailing to the new world.
More recently, Robert Falcon Scott and his 4 companions all died in 1912 going to the South Pole.
Life isn't safe, our attempts to make it safe will be the end of us if we're not careful.
Re:If the cause of the crash... by Dunbal · 2014-11-04 04:29 · Score: 1

Not only "pilot error" but also very conveniently "blame the dead guy".

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:If the cause of the crash... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 04:46 · Score: 1

"While I understand the feeling, I don't think Christopher Columbus had that sort of assurance when sailing to the new world."
really? He built the first boat ever used on the Earth's oceans?
Re:If the cause of the crash... by MouseR · 2014-11-04 04:56 · Score: 3, Informative

It's precisely NTSB that pointed out the (deceased) co-pilot pulled the feather lock lever to OFF position.
But they also pointed out this should not have deployed the feathers on its own: another level is required to rotate them in position.
This points to a mechanical failure of sort but will take months to confirm.
Re:If the cause of the crash... by bobbied · 2014-11-04 05:04 · Score: 1

Good point...

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:If the cause of the crash... by bkmoore · 2014-11-04 06:31 · Score: 1

...is giving the pilot the full control of the craft (ie, the ability to deploy the tail above rated speed) then they're going to have an interesting balance to strike...
Maybe somebody here knows more about the system architecture of the "feathers" mechanism. From what I've read, the pilot only pulled the lever to unlock the surfaces, but we do not know what caused them to actually deploy. If they were computer controlled, it could be possible that a computer or sensor failure caused them to deploy early.
Re:If the cause of the crash... by itzly · 2014-11-04 06:46 · Score: 1

Actually, Columbus thought he was taking a shortcut to India (but it was actually a detour). If not for the new world being in his way, he would have most likely starved before he got there. So much for assurance...
Re:If the cause of the crash... by FlyHelicopters · 2014-11-04 06:55 · Score: 1

He had no idea how far the trip would be, there was no resupply missions sent ahead to make sure food and shelter would be there, and he didn't know what native people might be there when he arrived.
Re:If the cause of the crash... by FlyHelicopters · 2014-11-04 07:01 · Score: 1

That is quite true, if the Americas wasn't here and he had to sail across all that ocean, you're right, they would have run out of supplies. The Earth is larger than they thought it was back then.
Re:If the cause of the crash... by jfengel · 2014-11-04 07:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Larger than Columbus thought. The consensus among the experts, going back to Eratosthenes, was pretty much right on the money. Columbus was the only one who thought it was smaller (much smaller, by 2/3), which is why he was rejected by the Portuguese king. I don't know how he managed to convince the Spanish monarchs to fund his expedition, but if he hadn't gotten very lucky, he would indeed have killed his crew.
Re:If the cause of the crash... by fahrbot-bot · 2014-11-04 10:10 · Score: 1

The F-117 would be a good example of this... without all the computers working, it would just fall out of the sky...
Similarly, I believe, for the Grumman X-29 with its forward swept wings.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:If the cause of the crash... by rpstrong · 2014-11-05 05:51 · Score: 1

The deployment was below, not above the intended speed. Aerodynamic forces at mach 1.4 would prevent the feathering action, not so at roughly mach 1. In any case, it is to be expected that a test vehicle would allow the pilot greater latitude in control actions (even if such actions are hazardous) than in a production model.
Re:If the cause of the crash... by david_thornley · 2014-11-05 06:21 · Score: 1

Columbus had an idea how far the trip would be (and was way wrong), and he did believe he knew what the native people would be like when he got there.
Columbus stupidly believed the Earth was eighteen thousand miles around (the approximately correct value had been known since the ancient Greeks), and that he would get to east Asia. He wasn't trying to find any new land, but rather trying to reach known land by a different route.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:If the cause of the crash... by lucien86 · 2014-11-05 07:04 · Score: 1

Oops your tin foil hat slipped.. It was the NTSB that found the pilot error. Because it was a test flight they had voluminous data collection and there is apparently video of the co-pilot pulling the switch. If that's true its pretty much end of story..
Apparently with the latch released aerodynamic forces would have/ could have been enough to extend the 'feathers' into the breaking position.. and with the position -climbing and accelerating- that would have been enough to tear the craft to pieces.

--
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
Re:If the cause of the crash... by bobbied · 2014-11-05 07:46 · Score: 1

Not even close to "end of story" as I understand it.
Look I'm not saying this wasn't the "issue" only that until we have the FINAL report, any conclusions being drawn are premature and are to be taken with a huge grain of salt. "Pilot error" seems too convenient to me and although that generally IS a factor. The release of this now benefits Virgin so I'm suspicious of this rush to blame a dead pilot. But I don't think there is any tin-foil hat here. I'm saying that we should hold any and all conclusions over what caused this until the NTSB finishes and the dust has settled. All we know is that the Co-pilot (now dead) operated a control. We don't know if it was SOP or not, if that was how he was trained or not, or if it was some kind of mistake or actually part of the planned flight. WE DO NOT KNOW.
I did the same thing when the Asiana flight 214 went down in SF. It was pretty obvious that the pilot got too low and too slow on final approach and landed short, but you never know for sure until the investigation is done. It could have been something like BA 38 which looked almost the same, but actually didn't turn out to be the pilot's mistake.
We have to wait on the NTSB, and not this jumping to conclusions and blaming the co-pilot.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:If the cause of the crash... by lucien86 · 2014-11-05 10:31 · Score: 1

Ok - I agree. The tin hat comment was because I haven't actually seen much PR' from Virgin over this - but I have seen a concerted campaign against Virgin by Murdoch and Fox.
(Maybe you don't realize this but if the whole US or the UK were obliterated in war Murdoch wouldn't care, he would probably celebrate. From the things he attacks he seems to hate anything to do with science or advanced tech like space technology or climate science. He's been quietly attacking Musk, SpaceX, and Virgin and others for several years. If you think that American politics is hopelessly corrupt (or UK, or Europe or..) - he is basically THE primary mover behind that corruption. He's a bigger threat to democracy or our futures than Bin Laden or the other terrorists or even ISIL..)
As for this accident I'm not jumping to conclusions either - just going by what I've read on more trustworthy news-sites. And it certainly isn't proven that it is pilot error - one possibility I have heard is that the pilots reacted to an instrument error. With the amount of information they have to hand this is a disaster the NTSB should be able to solve with some certainty - and hopefully quickly.

--
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..

Because by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-11-04 02:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Up until now, they had no idea that a rocket could like, you know, explode?

I guess they think that it is marshmallows spitting out the end of those things?

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Re:Because by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

"But I wanted space to be SAFE!!!" cried a bunch of celebritards and rich assholes with more money than goddamned sense.
Re:Because by dotancohen · 2014-11-04 03:04 · Score: 1

It is not really a rocket and it didn't really explode. More sort of fall apart. A lot.
Did it use propellant mass to form a jet of reaction mass? Then it is a rocket.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:Because by bobbied · 2014-11-04 03:19 · Score: 3, Informative

Um, not exactly. Turbojet and Turbofan engines (and piston engines) all are devices that accelerate air toward the back to get forward thrust. The mass of the fuel does get included, but it's not the primary source of mass being pushed towards the rear. A rocket, accelerates the mass of the fuel and nothing else as the post you are replying to implies..
So, if you read carefully, the post you responded is indeed correct, even if (s)he didn't make the distinction of not including air.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Because by Ice+Tiger · 2014-11-04 03:38 · Score: 1

It's not a "rocket engine" it's a real rocket engine that uses a liquid oxidiser and a solid fuel, known as a hybrid. And yes a turbo jet is much more complicated, so what?

--
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
Re:Because by Pino+Grigio · 2014-11-04 03:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's more likely they were looking to get their money back in any case, but now they've got a possible legal angle to invalidate the contracts. I wonder what the smallprint says.
Re:Because by dotancohen · 2014-11-04 03:59 · Score: 1

Turbofans and to a lesser extent turbojets use air as the reaction mass.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:Because by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-11-04 04:04 · Score: 1

Right, except that time it did explode, killing 3 engineers. I guess we can't remember all the way back to 2007.

--
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Re:Because by Dunbal · 2014-11-04 04:30 · Score: 1

You're thinking external combustion engines.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Because by Tablizer · 2014-11-04 05:20 · Score: 1

I guess they think that it is [as simple as] marshmallows spitting out the end of those things?
It is. Unfortunately, the passenger is the marshmallow.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Because by amicusNYCL · 2014-11-04 05:42 · Score: 1

The engine and fuel system were relatively intact, they had not exploded. It wasn't a failure of the fuel or engine system.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Because by chispito · 2014-11-04 08:35 · Score: 1

Up until now, they had no idea that a rocket could like, you know, explode?
It didn't explode.

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Re:Because by jellomizer · 2014-11-04 08:47 · Score: 1

The part that really gets me is the fact that this was testing the experimental design.
With a new design there is a period of getting the kinks out. Yes unfortunately this caused the life a pilot. However that is one risks that an experimental pilot takes for his job.
Now after the investigation, I would expect that there will be something that can be fixed to prevent such a problem again. You build an other better design ship you test it out, hopefully this will not cause any lives, but I expect there will still be more glitches to fix on it.
It is part of the process.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Because by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-11-04 11:00 · Score: 1

Up until now, they had no idea that a rocket could like, you know, explode?
It didn't explode.
Allow me to correct myself.
Up until now, they hadf no idea that anything at all bad could happen, like explode, or fall apart, or fall uncontrolled back to earth,. They apparently thought that it was perfectly safe, and that none of the problems that befall high energy, high altitude, high speed space ( or near space) systems have been prey to since their first employment.
By the way - Whoosh. Exploding is just one of the things that can happen to any rocket, along with a host of other problems that will kill a person. That was my point, not the specific failure mode of this particular device.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Concern or convenience? by MyLongNickName · 2014-11-04 02:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

I wonder if some of these folks were already regretting their decision to tie up money in a space flight. People's finances change, life situations change, priorities change... and this is a convenient way to try to get out of the financial obligation.

No evidence on my part... just idle speculation.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year

Re:Concern or convenience? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 03:14 · Score: 1

He just cited his own "idle speculation"... Are you a fucking idiot?
Re:Concern or convenience? by khallow · 2014-11-04 03:16 · Score: 1

Idle speculation is self-citing. Duh.
Re:Concern or convenience? by rodrigoandrade · 2014-11-04 03:18 · Score: 2

I'm fairly sure the contract they signed with Virgin Galactic upon purchase of tickets clearly outlines the procedure against buyer remorse and refunds. It's a significant sum of money, so the company simply can't afford to let custmers get away like that.
Re:Concern or convenience? by rujasu · 2014-11-04 03:29 · Score: 1

That's possible, of course, but is it really hard to believe that an explosion would have prompted people to back out?
Re:Concern or convenience? by tlhIngan · 2014-11-04 04:40 · Score: 1

That's possible, of course, but is it really hard to believe that an explosion would have prompted people to back out?
Well, the legal avenue would be non-delivery.
It turns out that SpaceShipTwo is the only one and now that it's gone, well, they have to rebuild it again and go through all the testing again, which means delays. At the very least, rebuilding SpaceShipTwo would take months (if not a year), which would push out the date by a year. Depending on how things go, that could easily mean you went from "first civilian" to something else if a competitor makes hay and gets out ahead. (Remember, Virgin Galactic is the frontrunner in the space tourism race).
And in most contracts, things like this could very well reopen the contract to termination because the timeline is no longer valid. And while SpaceShipTwo can be rebuilt, currently the vehicle no longer exists.
Re:Concern or convenience? by tipo159 · 2014-11-04 13:51 · Score: 1

It turns out that SpaceShipTwo is the only one and now that it's gone, well, they have to rebuild it again and go through all the testing again, which means delays. At the very least, rebuilding SpaceShipTwo would take months (if not a year), which would push out the date by a year.

Do some homework before posting.
The SpaceShipTwo that crashed was VSS Enterprise. Virgin Galactic has contracted to have five SpaceShipTwo's and a similar number of WhiteKnightTwo lifting aircraft built. The second SpaceShipTwo is VSS Voyager and is, according to reports, 65% finished and is scheduled to be done in 2016. Scaled Composites built VSS Enterprise and Virgin-owned The Spaceship Company (TSC) is building the remaining ships.
Re:Concern or convenience? by khallow · 2014-11-06 03:48 · Score: 1

I didn't realize it was so important that I get all your jokes.

They bought their tickets. by trout007 · 2014-11-04 02:44 · Score: 2

They knew what they were getting into.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.

Re:They bought their tickets. by NotDrWho · 2014-11-04 03:06 · Score: 1

I suspect that a lot of them were just vacuous celebrities whose publicists arranged to get them a ticket at a discount, as a PR stunt. They probably have about as much of an understanding of what these flights actually are as they have an understanding of the socio-economic issues confronting Prussia going into World War One.
"Paris, what do you think of this historic spaceflight?"
"I just got a new purse. It's pink."

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:They bought their tickets. by OzPeter · 2014-11-04 03:07 · Score: 1

They knew what they were getting into.
Given that Virgin Galactic has yet to fly a single commercial flight, then these customers did not know what they were getting into.
What they paid for was a pure marketing promise, which may or may not match the real world experience if/when Virgin Galactic actually starts commercial operation.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:They bought their tickets. by Stele · 2014-11-04 03:10 · Score: 1

I suspect that a lot of them were just vacuous celebrities whose publicists arranged to get them a ticket at a discount, as a PR stunt.
Oh come now! No need to be so harsh. JUSTIN BIEBER is on that list!
Re:They bought their tickets. by NotDrWho · 2014-11-04 03:35 · Score: 1

JUSTIN BIEBER is on that list!
Leaving the planet is the only way to get away from all the haters.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:They bought their tickets. by gmhowell · 2014-11-04 04:00 · Score: 1

I suspect that a lot of them were just vacuous celebrities whose publicists arranged to get them a ticket at a discount, as a PR stunt.
Oh come now! No need to be so harsh. JUSTIN BIEBER is on that list!
Somebody should have let him sit in on the most recent test flight.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:They bought their tickets. by trout007 · 2014-11-04 10:07 · Score: 1

Took long enough.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.

Discount? by lazarus · 2014-11-04 02:50 · Score: 1

Please offer discounted tickets...

Clearly they're going to find and repair any deficiencies, that is why they do these tests in the first place. Off'ing a ship full of paying passengers would be very bad for business. I'd sign up if I could afford to.

--
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.

Re:Discount? by 0100010001010011 · 2014-11-04 03:03 · Score: 1

StubHub should do a promotion where everyone here can list their ticket and everyone else can bid on them.

Space flight failure rate is around 5% by Freedom+Bug · 2014-11-04 02:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

http://marginalrevolution.com/...

I could accept a 5% risk of death if I was doing something worthwhile: contributing to science or the colonization of Mars. But for a joy ride? Even if it's an order of magnitude better, a 5 in 1000 chance in death is still pretty high. That's a couple of orders of magnitude riskier than skydiving (0.0007%) or driving 10,000 miles. (0.0167%)

Re:Space flight failure rate is around 5% by brunes69 · 2014-11-04 04:57 · Score: 1

Skydiving is not a risky thing to do. You should be comparing it to actual risky things people do for a thrill, like extreme motocross or Nascar. Hell the odds of dying just from riding a motorcycle are roughly 1 in 800. http://www.medhelp.org/general...
Re:Space flight failure rate is around 5% by nedlohs · 2014-11-04 05:34 · Score: 1

It gets rid of a handful of psychopaths.
Re:Space flight failure rate is around 5% by njnnja · 2014-11-04 07:13 · Score: 1

That is the worst citation I have ever seen. The odds of dying just from riding on a motorcycle cannot possibly be 1 in 800. I think what those odds mean is the odds of the cause of death being particular sources, conditional on someone being known to have died. There are about 10 million motorcycles in the US, and if each one is ridden, say, only once per week, then if there is a 1 in 800 chance of dying by riding a motorcycle then there would be on average 650,000 motorcycle deaths in the US each year (650,000 = 10,000,000 motorcycle rides/week * 1/800 deaths / motorcycle ride * 52 weeks/year).
Re:Space flight failure rate is around 5% by Syhra · 2014-11-04 08:23 · Score: 1

Your calculation has a few errors. You are estimating on a per ride basis and making a number of assumptions in your calculation, without references to support those assumptions. The stats are an annual thing, according to the citation, which 650 000 / 52 weeks/year = a little less than 13 000 - pretty close - within an order of magnitude - to the 4762 cited.

However, this is not the best tool for the job at any rate.

Check out micromort - which estimates for every 6 miles travelled by motorcycle you have a 1:1 000 000 chance of death. This is a much better unit of comparison. Sadly the reference from there is paywalled.

Yes, motorcycles are bad. Add in disability and you really would be stunned.
Re:Space flight failure rate is around 5% by njnnja · 2014-11-04 09:14 · Score: 1

That's not what the parent said, and that's not what the link says. The parent says:

the odds of dying just from riding a motorcycle are roughly 1 in 800
It doesn't say anything about "riding a motorcycle for a year," it just says "riding a motorcycle." I was just pointing out the absurdity of that statement, in case anybody thought that it was correct.

Furthermore, if you look at the underlying link, it says the odds of dying from heart disease are 1 in 6, and from cancer are 1 in 7. If those are annual mortality rates, just those 2 alone would imply that 30% of the US population dies each year (about 90 million deaths). In fact, there are less than 3 million deaths in the US each year. So clearly the 1 in 800 odds of dying in a motorcycle accident *does not* refer to the odds of a motorcycle rider dying in one year.

I'm not arguing that riding motorcycles is safe; I'm arguing that medhelp.org does a poor job presenting and explaining its statistics.
Re:Space flight failure rate is around 5% by hypergreatthing · 2014-11-04 09:27 · Score: 1

I would risk a 25% chance as long as i get to experience going out into space.
It's only fun if it's not safe.
Re:Space flight failure rate is around 5% by Syhra · 2014-11-04 10:00 · Score: 1

That's not what the parent said, and that's not what the link says. The parent says:

the odds of dying just from riding a motorcycle are roughly 1 in 800
It doesn't say anything about "riding a motorcycle for a year," it just says "riding a motorcycle." I was just pointing out the absurdity of that statement, in case anybody thought that it was correct.
...
I'm not arguing that riding motorcycles is safe; I'm arguing that medhelp.org does a poor job presenting and explaining its statistics.
I'll preface this by saying I don't disagree, medhelp.org does do a poor job if their intent was to display a scientifically rigorous and reproducible statistical analysis. The OP may have been able to find a better citation to support their argument.

But... medhelp.org does say

We've tapped into the National Safety Council's annual rankings of the top causes of death in the U.S. along with the odds that they will occur.

I would offer that would at least they are pulling these numbers from the total mortality rates. So you have a 1 in 800 lifetime chance of dying from a motorcycle accident. Probably somewhat higher if you were between the ages of 16-35, or even higher if you actually rode a motorcycle. However, those are also educated guesses.
I didn't say that the article claimed a 1:800 per year chance here, instead I pulled this stat from the article:

The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) reports that 4,762 motorcycle deaths occurred in 2009
Which by your best guess calculation was actually not far off, if you were calculating it for a full year.
Those numbers probably have nothing to do with the 1:800 calculation and is instead presumably a lifetime risk estimate. So the statement is entirely absurd, but primarily because it is likely accurate.

Re:But I thought that by i+kan+reed · 2014-11-04 02:51 · Score: 1

It's not really that much more empty than your parents' basement.

armchair engineers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

a) I'm impressed that you've reached a conclusion ahead of the NTSB. I'm sure they'll be glad for your help
b) Every interlock is a potential point of failure. If the interlock fails in a way that prevents the tail from deploying, everyone on board will die. Deciding to put the interlock there is not as obvious as a decision as the pundits seem to think.

Re:armchair engineers by _merlin · 2014-11-04 03:01 · Score: 2

Newer Airbuses limit rudder range at speed. The A300 could lose its tail if the pilot did something stupid, as happened with American Airlines 587. People seem to be happy enough to deal with the interlock.
Re:armchair engineers by Richard_at_work · 2014-11-04 03:18 · Score: 2

Similar things was a big problem with a lot of aircraft the same age as the A300 design - Boeing 737s from that period had issues with rudder reversals for instance.
Re:armchair engineers by RichardJenkins · 2014-11-04 03:19 · Score: 2

His post doesn't sound like he's reached any conclusion.
Re:armchair engineers by rioki · 2014-11-04 03:21 · Score: 1

That is exactly what I wanted to say. Most modern fly by wire aircraft take the control inputs as "suggestions" and adapt them into actual control responses. The important thing is that the response properly evaluates the constraints.
Re:armchair engineers by FlyHelicopters · 2014-11-04 03:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Most modern fly by wire aircraft take the control inputs as "suggestions" and adapt them into actual control responses.
Yes, but they still have manual reversion mode, where it becomes direct control inputs, "just in case".
At least the Boeing planes do.
Re:armchair engineers by ls671 · 2014-11-04 03:44 · Score: 1

a) I'm impressed that you've reached a conclusion ahead of the NTSB. I'm sure they'll be glad for your help
Me too. It's aliens that don't want would be space tourists up there to witness the aliens flying around. It's hard enough to keep the lid on trained personnel and it already cost too much on cloaking devices and traffic control. Raising the ship tail in advance is nothing for them.

--
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Re:armchair engineers by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 04:39 · Score: 1

You could still conceivably land a plane with limited rudder range, you have a near-zero probability of landing a SpaceShipTwo without the tail deploying properly.
Re:armchair engineers by Shoten · 2014-11-04 05:19 · Score: 1

Newer Airbuses limit rudder range at speed. The A300 could lose its tail if the pilot did something stupid, as happened with American Airlines 587. People seem to be happy enough to deal with the interlock.
And thank goodness that there's been a meaningful poll asking all of the passengers how happy they are with the interlock, not to mention informing them of it...otherwise you'd not have been able to make this assertion!

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Re:armchair engineers by nedlohs · 2014-11-04 05:29 · Score: 2

Maybe you should invest in a dictionary.
Start with the word "if". Amazingly it has a meaning.
Re: armchair engineers by Iniamyen · 2014-11-04 07:43 · Score: 1

This is generally correct, although Boeing is moving more towards the Airbus model than previously, with automation taking a more prominent role on 787 and future airplane designs.

Laugh by koan · 2014-11-04 02:52 · Score: 1

Only 30?

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Re:Laugh by michelcolman · 2014-11-04 02:59 · Score: 1

Even more surprising is that, apparently, 30 is less than 3% of 700.

Climbing Everest is around 2% by trout007 · 2014-11-04 02:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Everyone has different risk tolerances.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.

Re:Climbing Everest is around 2% by ITRambo · 2014-11-04 04:45 · Score: 1

The difference is sitting on your ass at 5% risk, or busting your ass while freezing at 2% risk, with additional risk of frostbite or non-lethal injury. Tough choice.
Re:Climbing Everest is around 2% by DerekLyons · 2014-11-04 07:28 · Score: 1

Everyone has different risk tolerances.
True, and that's something nobody has debated.
What the OP is doing is what few people really are - placing the risk of the flying on SS2 in context. Given an equal level of risk (say, the Shuttle's demonstrated roughly 2%), I'd fly on the Shuttle to the Station any day - there's real (if unsexy) work being done there. You couldn't pay me enough to fly SS2 on a thrill ride. (OK, you probably could, every person has their price... but it wouldn't be cheap.) It's worth it to others, but not me.

Who pays for TSB investigation by stabiesoft · 2014-11-04 03:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

While I am all for commercial space programs, I am a bit confused why NTSB is involved at this point. This was a test flight for what will never really be commercial travel for the masses. It seems to me, VG is getting alot of free help from me the taxpayer to figure out what went wrong. I will never have a 1/4 of mil for a fun 5 minute ride, so why am I paying to help it along. Or is this another case of the middle class screw? We pay for rich people's hobbies again.

Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by OzPeter · 2014-11-04 03:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

While I am all for commercial space programs, I am a bit confused why NTSB is involved at this point.

From the NTSB website:

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation – railroad, highway, marine and pipeline.

So if you have a beef with that mandate then fortuitously today is a day in the US where you can act on your beliefs.
You did/will vote today?

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by Richard_at_work · 2014-11-04 03:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because the NTSB is involved, there will be less scope for a company initiated cover up, findings being withheld and important information not being passed to everyone in the industry.
Look at the de Havilland Comet pressurisation issues in the early 1950s - no one knew what was going on, it took a full test with a new fuselage immersed in water and then run through hundreds of pressurisation cycles to determine that metal fatigue was to blame. The findings from that investigation was made available to everyone in the aviation industry in the 1950s, not just to the internal de Havilland design team, so Boeing, Douglas, Hawker, Lockheed et al didn't have to go through their own investigations of their own crashes to come to the same conclusions.
It also opened up a whole new area of science in metals.
Open investigations make sense, because they produce open results, which benefits you and I as the people who may one day travel on a craft which might have potentially been susceptible to the same issues.
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by Knightman · 2014-11-04 03:28 · Score: 2

So if for example Boeing crashed an experimental prototype business jet, NTSB wouldn't need to be involved since Boeing is a for profit company and only rich people and companies would eventually buy the plane? Is that what you are saying?
Since FAA issued a license for the plane in question NTSB has to investigate the accident, and if the NTSB finds that the plane is unsafe they can recommend the FAA to rescind the license. Thats why NTSB is involved, it has nothing to do with "rich peoples hobbies".

--
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by bobbied · 2014-11-04 03:42 · Score: 2

Well, I don't disagree with your complaint, but let me try and explain why the NTSB gets involved here.
Virgin is trying to do COMMERCIAL flights, not just experimental flights. They are going to take paying passengers. This means that the FAA must certify the craft as airworthy and approve the operation's safety. Being commercial, the safety standard is *really* high. They will be shooting for something on par with your average commercial air carrier.
So why the NTSB? Because of the "Safety" word in it's name. You see the FAA is not responsible for investigations of accidents only for the regulations and monitoring compliance with these regulations. The NTSB is a separate organization charged with the investigation of lapses of safety and routinely makes recommendations to the FAA (and other agencies) for rules and procedure changes. The NTSB is charged with determining the SAFETY of transportation, but has zero authority to make and enforce regulations about it.
This is actually a very ingenious arrangement. Because the NTSB is independent, you get the unvarnished truth about incidents it investigates. Where if the FAA did the investigation, or Virgin did it, there would be a tendency for bias in the results which would/could impact the real safety of the paying passengers.
So, I do not share your view. Sure the investigative expenses will be carried by the US tax payers, but you'd be surprised how much of the actual taxes collected actually come from the "rich" over the middle class. Of course, it depends on where you draw the line between "rich" and "middle class" but if you draw it at about $250K/year, you will find that the BULK of taxes paid in comes from the "rich" side of that line by a wide margin.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by stabiesoft · 2014-11-04 04:21 · Score: 2

Only someone making 1M++ is going to pop for a 250K fun ride. I certainly agree that 100-750k/yr pays alot of tax, I don't consider that group rich however. They are upper middle class and I agree bear the brunt of taxes. Its the .1or even .01% that branson is attracting, and they should be bearing the cost here. But these people have very good accountants who know how to avoid tax and have very good connections to get the most out of the system. Nope, I stand by my original argument, the US taxpayer is getting the shaft on this one and once again the tax system is shifting wealth to the super rich. As a friend of mine likes to say, soon mexico will be as corrupt as the US.
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by DerekLyons · 2014-11-04 04:24 · Score: 2

While I am all for commercial space programs, I am a bit confused why NTSB is involved at this point. This was a test flight for what will never really be commercial travel for the masses.
FWIW, the NTSB is involved in quite a bit more than just "commercial travel for the masses". You're probably just used to only/almost exclusively seeing them associated with commercial airliner crashes because they make the national (and international) news, while probably most of what the NTSB investigates doesn't. Take a look at their list of major open investigations, from a quick scan on my first cup of coffee it looks like probably only 25% or less made the national news. (And the major investigations list are only the tip of the iceberg.)

That being said, this was a test flight of a vehicle in the process of being certified by the FAA to carry paying passengers - and that places it in the NTSB's purview, same as the 787.
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by bobbied · 2014-11-04 04:42 · Score: 2

This is not about the NTSB being taxpayer funded (it simply has to be), Your argument is about class envy and not really who's paying the NTSB.
If you want to argue that the tax system in the USA is unfair, I'm not going to argue that much with you, the system is broken. Personally I think it is WAY too complex and that leads to perceived unfairness. But the fact remains, the top 1% of tax payers in the country pay 50% of the taxes. If anybody has a gripe, it's them, because the bottom 10% don't pay a dime in income taxes...We can argue about numbers all day long, the real question is how can we make it fair?
Do you care to suggest a way we can *fix* the tax system? Say doing away with deductions or perhaps moving to something like a national sales tax or even a flat tax?

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by stabiesoft · 2014-11-04 05:53 · Score: 1

All I can say is I have some fairly rich friends by my definition (MM's) and it is offensive some of the deductions they get. I would begin by removing ALL deductions and starting from scratch. I'd probably only put back in the classic schedule A deductions(mortgage, charity, health). For individuals, that is it. I would also eliminate trusts, which are probably the most valuable tax vehicle for the super wealthy. And no this is not about the NTSB being taxpayer funded, of course it should be. This is about why is the NTSB doing the R&D for VG. After the thing has flown a few successful simulated full on test flights, IE not development flights, I'd be ok with it. This thing is not even to alpha yet.
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by gurps_npc · 2014-11-04 06:21 · Score: 1

I was going to moderate this thread.
But your numbers are just plain false. 1) The top 1% of EARNERS pay a bit less than 1/3 of the taxes, not 50%. However, that same top 1% income own more than 50% of the assets. In other words, the people that own half the wealth in this country pay less than one third of the taxes.
2) The bottom % that don't pay a dime in income tax? Some of them are wealthy - they just don't have a job. They sit at home, collecting tax free bond income, and carefully manage their capital gains so they owe no money. The rest are flat broke including Senior Citizens and college students that don't pay income tax because they don't own a job.
Your own tax ideas make the situation worse, because they end up overcharging the poor - Senior Citizens and college students, while letting the wealthy get off practically scott free.
The major mistake you are making is framing the question.
You insist on looking at SALARY, rather than wealth. When you judge people on Salary, you ignore the many people that don't get their income from a job. In effect, you give huge tax breaks to wealthy people (because they can arrange their income from non-salary sources), and totally screw over people that for various non-gold plated reasons do not work - the old, the disabled, students, children, stay at home moms/dads, among many other people.
If you truly want to be fair, base your taxes on WEALTH, not income. That is, if you have no money, you pay less taxes, if you have more money, then you pay more taxes. The best part of this is you don't need quite as many of those silly deductions. Things like children, disabled, sick, taking care of a sick parent, etc. are all things that reduce your wealth, so they automatically reduce your tax rate. Throw in an exception letting people buy a personal home, and another for IRA's, and you basically have dealt with most of the reasonable deductions.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by wiredlogic · 2014-11-04 06:46 · Score: 1

The problem is that SS2 is just a playtoy for the rich. Should we also fund investigations into deaths caused by America's Cup boats?

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by wiredlogic · 2014-11-04 06:53 · Score: 1

Your argument is about class envy
It's about the wealthy getting disproportional benefits and services from a government they've co-opted for their own benefit.
SS2 is just a toy for the rich who want to play with hopping around the planet. Virgin is shifting part of its R&D costs to taxpayers who will never be able to use it by making bogus claims about pioneering a new field in commercial aviation. If there were a real market for mass high speed travel we would have a profitable successor to the Concorde.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by Richard_at_work · 2014-11-04 07:07 · Score: 1

SS2 is a craft designed to carry passengers, paying passengers - that puts it under the purview of the NTSB front and centre.
When Americas Cup boats start carrying passengers rather than crew, then they fall under the same purview.
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by bobbied · 2014-11-04 10:19 · Score: 1

I'm sorry.. I misquoted my source... It's the top 10% of tax payers pay half of the taxes.... http://taxfoundation.org/blog/... And the Bottom 1% usually pay negative taxes (they get refunds for money they didn't put in).
On the "framing of the question" idea, I've made some suggestions about how to make the tax system more fair, but I'm open to discussing the real impacts on people. I would argue that taxing WEALTH is not a good idea, nor is taxing capital gains. I'm not sure how you would even determine wealth, because just taking x% of cash on deposit won't work very well and asking folks to tell you how much they are worth is going to be as problematic as asking them to tell you how much they earn. Taxing capital gains really amounts to taxing the same money twice, or in some cases taxing paper gains which are due to inflation. Neither of these situations are good for economic activity.
Personally, I think a national sales tax makes sense and is pretty fair. You are taxed on what you spend, not what you earn or make on capital gains. I think if you put exceptions on necessities like food, medicine and possibly housing the impact on the less fortunate would be limited. The rich would pay more because they consume more and the poor wouldn't pay much at all because the bulk of their income is spent on the necessities.
Nothing will be perfect, but I think we can all agree what we have now is pretty broken and extremely complicated.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by bobbied · 2014-11-04 10:34 · Score: 1

Your argument is about class envy
It's about the wealthy getting disproportional benefits and services from a government they've co-opted for their own benefit.
You didn't address my argument, yet insist on reiterating yours. I don't agree with you. The "rich" pay more in taxes than the "poor" and in many cases the "poor" actually pay negative taxes (They get a check for a "refund" which is bigger than what they paid in deductions).
But I ask you the *real* question here. Do we have private property in this country or not? Is the government's job to act like Robin Hood and take more from the rich to give to the poor or is it to stimulate economic growth and the creation of wealth? Unfortunately, you cannot do both because raising taxes leads to less economic growth and less wealth overall. (In short, the poor get poorer when you raise taxes). But if government's role is that of Robin Hood, taking from the rich to give to the poor, where does it stop? What are the limits of government's power to take? Personally, I don't want to live in a country where my government can just take, even from the super rich. If they can take from somebody else, they can take from you too and unchecked they eventually will.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by tipo159 · 2014-11-04 13:29 · Score: 1

The problem is that SS2 is just a playtoy for the rich. Should we also fund investigations into deaths caused by America's Cup boats?
So, the SF Police and the Coast Guard weren't involved in the investigation of the America's Cup sailor who was killed while practicing in 2013?
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by tipo159 · 2014-11-04 13:39 · Score: 1

How much money did NTSB spend on the investigation of the Payne Stewart's Learjet accident or Steve Fossett's accident?
As other have noted, Virgin Galactic/Scaled Composites/The Spaceship Company are seeking FAA certification for SpaceShipTwo, so, of course, the NTSB would be involved in the investigation of the crash.
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by david_thornley · 2014-11-05 06:28 · Score: 1

Interesting that you refer to taxes...and then claim that not everybody pays a certain tax. There are other taxes than income taxes, and some of them are seriously regressive.
The fact is that most people who make a lot more money than I do pay proportionately less taxes than I do.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by bobbied · 2014-11-05 07:18 · Score: 1

You want to go to Total Tax paid as a basis of comparison of who pays what? You do realize that this is a double edged knife and it cuts both ways.
Yes, I was limiting my discussion to "Income taxes" but as you point out there is a LOT more to this story. Your average guy off the street doesn't think about corporate taxes, inventory taxes, property taxes and sales taxes. Most people don't even know the difference between Federal Income Tax, Medicare and Social Security or even why they are on the pay stub. All they know is that every time they notice a "tax" someplace (on their check stub, or on a receipt for something they buy) it costs them money and they can thus buy less.
Now you want to open the aperture up to ALL taxes and discuss who pays what? You either don't understand how much the average Joe pays in taxes, or you are trying to cherry pick your numbers as suits your argument, even though you end up comparing apples, oranges, grapes and all sorts of varying fruit. Personally, I prefer to keep it simple and just talk income taxes, but I'm game for going whole hog and talking about ALL taxation because it really helps my argument for less taxation.... On everybody....

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by david_thornley · 2014-11-05 12:05 · Score: 1

Okay, you talk income taxes, I'll talk sales taxes. That way you can claim that taxes are progressive, and I can claim that they're regressive, and we'll both be right.
Yes, I do want to talk about total taxes. However, if you want to include corporate taxes, you do have to convince me that they apply to individuals in a way that supports your position.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Who pays for TSB investigation by bobbied · 2014-11-05 13:02 · Score: 1

You mean the guy running the small business he owns, who pays corporate taxes doesn't mean anything to you? Or that all the stocks you hold in your 401k wouldn't do better without corporate taxes? There are taxes assessed on nearly every transaction and investment known to man, except perhaps for the money you stuff in the mattress but don't spend.
Yea, I know what's coming next... Well you didn't pay that tax, the corporation did. Yea, but I own stock in that company, and/or I purchase their products so the taxes get baked into the cost cake, so even if they are not a line item on the bill of sale, they are costing me. Then there is the poor small business owner (the backbone of the economy by most measures) who has to pay taxes every which way you can imagine, INCLUDING income and sales taxes who could use the money to pay for more labor, buy more materials or even pay himself more. So yea, corporate taxes matter to the individual a lot more than your average working for a pay check Joe likely imagines, and more than you are likely to admit.
You do understand that I really do not care about the "progressive" or "regressive" nature of taxes persay, they are both bad. Taxes in general are evil and should be avoided. Taxes are sometimes a necessary evil, but any tax on a transaction, discourages that transaction, providing disincentive for economic activity. We tax way to many things in way to many ways and we suffer lower economic activity as a result. We tax in so many ways that your average Joe doesn't realize just how much he's paying... That has to end.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

The purest of speculation... by therealalcaron · 2014-11-04 03:10 · Score: 2

"A company can only survive a crisis like this by..." With literally zero precedent I'm not entirely sure why the author even bothered speculating. The sheer desire to GO TO SPACE is compelling enough to make this far from akin to, say, ocean voyages, or airships, or...anything really. IF I had the money to have bought a ticket I can promise you these events would not stop me from going. As Branson said, this is the cost of space travel, we have known this for a long, long, time. And I would bet most of the people who bought tickets did so knowing that going into SPACE is not a guaranteed safe trip.

Re:The purest of speculation... by DerekLyons · 2014-11-04 04:34 · Score: 1

As Branson said, this is the cost of space travel, we have known this for a long, long, time.
Sure, a significantly higher chance of an accident and death is a normally expected cost of space travel. But a ride on SpaceShipTwo is no more on par with what we'd normally consider space travel than tourist cruise to Antarctica is on par with the voyage of the the Endurance. It's a Disneyland ride, not exploration.

Re:damn by bobbied · 2014-11-04 03:22 · Score: 2

I vote guillotine, but I'm a traditionalist.

Leave it to the French to make sure somebody looses their head....

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

Better check that math again by sacdelta · 2014-11-04 03:35 · Score: 2

30/700 = 4% even if you round it to the more than 700 as 800 you get 3.75% which is more than 3%, not less.

Better check those tolerances again.

--

Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.

Re:Better check that math again by Bogtha · 2014-11-04 03:58 · Score: 2

You're comparing two numbers from different sources. The "more than 30" source is "news reports suggest". The "less than 3%" source is Virgin Galactic. It's not that Virgin Galactic can't add up, it's that they have more accurate numbers than suggestions from news reports.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Better check that math again by sacdelta · 2014-11-04 04:05 · Score: 1

Fair enough. I would not be surprised to see a news source inflate numbers. Though it is also just as likely that VG is trying to downplay the numbers.

--
Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.
Re:Better check that math again by sacdelta · 2014-11-04 04:29 · Score: 1

A fair response. VG is probably reporting based on formal requests while the article is probably based on polling.

--
Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.

Idiots by sjbe · 2014-11-04 03:45 · Score: 1, Flamebait

In response to the claim that more than 30 customers are considering their position in the aftermath of the crash, a spokesperson for Virgin Galactic admitted a number of people have asked for their money back.

So they are cowards who were dumb enough to think this wasn't genuinely dangerous?

Re:Idiots by chispito · 2014-11-04 08:41 · Score: 1

So they are cowards who were dumb enough to think this wasn't genuinely dangerous?
You have a very strange definition of 'coward.' I'm guessing they're more concerned with the delays this will pile onto the already delayed commercial flights.

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!

Re:But but but but by AqD · 2014-11-04 04:03 · Score: 1

It's not tourism unless you mean tour to hell, that'd be almost certain.

I'm however also certain that I don't want to crawl on this tiny poor earth forever. We deserve this entire universe and beyond.

Compare to the world's own "rich endeavours" by Rick+in+China · 2014-11-04 04:38 · Score: 1

Mt. Everest.. Mt Blanc.. a large part of the 'club' is being someone who can afford - and otherwise thinks themselves above the likelihood, of cheating the statistics. There is a certain lackluster cheating death and being above the rest arrogance that goes with these types of adventures, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. There is also a lot of jealousy and resentment amongst the crowd who sits in their chairs at home criticising those who choose to try something different - without that kind of investment and spirit, humanity on whole would not be better off.

Re:Stop yr editorializing by bobbied · 2014-11-04 04:49 · Score: 1

I'll agree with "quickly" for sure.

What PR departments do is to spin things into the best light they can for the company that pays them. In order to control the spin, you must be quick. Being honest and direct can sometimes fall to secondary status (i.e. get ignored altogether) depending on the moral and ethical stance of the company and people involved. When lots of dollars are involved, sometimes folks think that the short term gain from a quick lie is worth the long term damage it may cause so you will get quick, direct lies from the PR department.

So I agree with you...Everything being said right now by companies involved should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

Safest time to fly? by ai4px · 2014-11-04 05:05 · Score: 1

I want to fly on the very next flight after an accident like this. You know they'll be on their toes!

And they change by pavon · 2014-11-04 05:34 · Score: 1

And those risk tolerances change over time. It's been 10 years since SpaceShipOne won the X-Prize, and Virgin Galactic started taking reservations not too long after that. Someone could have gotten married and had multiple kids since then. What was an acceptable risk to them as a bachelor, may not be an acceptable risk as a parent. I wouldn't be surprised if this has been a latent concern for some time, but one could be ignored for the meanwhile since it was still a ways off. Heck if the schedule kept slipping like it has been, the risk equation could have changed again, so why not kick the decision down the road. This crash forced the issue into clear view.

Rich people's problems by mspohr · 2014-11-04 05:43 · Score: 1

It's hard to know what to do when you have more money than you can possibly spend. What a dilemma!
Let's see... 10 minutes of fear, joy, excitement?
Or... give some money to "poor people"? ... not much excitement in that.
I just don't have a frame of reference for the dilemma these people face.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?

a post by Dennis Wingo by k6mfw · 2014-11-04 05:49 · Score: 1

"The new national sport of space geeks, unbridled speculation based upon the flimsiest of information.

We saw how that worked out for the engine hysteria didn't we . . ."

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Re:Because NOT by satch89450 · 2014-11-04 06:04 · Score: 1

The NTSB says they recovered the engine and NOX tank. No evidence of explosion in those components. Now, perhaps you are thinking of a different kind of explosion, such as how BOAC flight 781, a de Havilland DH.106 Comet 1 exploded -- a fuselage failure instead of engine failure. According to forensics after the wreakage was lifted from its watery grave, inspectors concluded that the aircraft had broken up in mid-air. If SpaceShipTwo experienced a similar type of failure, it could explain how one pilot survived -- he could have been blown out of the aircraft like that captain flying British Airways Flight 5390, who found himself "out in the breeze" after a windscreen failure, and who survived only because he didn't get pulled completely free and fell.

Or perhaps you were talking about the 2007 ground test of the rubber-fueled engine, where the three engineers were standing inside the danger zone when the test went wrong. That's why you run tests, to find out if things do go wrong, and you take proper safety precautions. To compare that failure with this one just doesn't hold up -- they are two different failure modes.

our "brave pioneers" by Thud457 · 2014-11-04 06:18 · Score: 1

A little dysentery never hurt anyone^W the species.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:Because NOT by NoImNotNineVolt · 2014-11-04 06:21 · Score: 1

Or perhaps you were talking about the 2007 ground test of the rubber-fueled engine

Perhaps? Did you not notice my explicit mention of the year 2007, which itself was a hyperlink pointing to news coverage of the very incident you describe?

To compare that failure with this one just doesn't hold up -- they are two different failure modes.

That's why I'm not comparing the two failures to each other. I'm citing the 2007 incident as a counterexample to the claim that until this recent (2014) incident, "it HADN'T exploded". It had indeed exploded, and it had indeed killed people before. It was a static firing, and it was a different fuel, and it was a different engine. But it was still Scaled Composites' SpaceShipN for Virgin Galactic.

--
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.

3% is actually quite impressive by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-11-04 08:27 · Score: 1

3% cancellations after a crash of a brand new, unproven edge technology? Malaysia Airlines cancellations peaked at 20% after its two recent accidents involving well-tested conventional technology:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Moral: people who panic and fly off the handle in response to technological problems don't become the one percenters who can afford a tourist space flight.

Pretty good record... by pubwvj · 2014-11-04 10:15 · Score: 1

Virgin Galactic's 55 successful flights is damn good.
Well, 54... Still those are good odds.
Better than most people play in the lotto.

Re:Because - Supersonic / Transonic is dangerous by lucien86 · 2014-11-05 07:27 · Score: 1

Spaceship 2 is kind of similar to NASA's X-15 and to their supersonic lifting bodies - they had a long series of crashes and fatal incidents. In any aircraft / spacecraft in atmosphere at supersonic or transonic speeds its very easy to get torn apart by the aerodynamic forces. - For instance if a pilot accidently put down the undercarriage at supersonic speeds that would almost certainly be enough to rip their aircraft apart..

--
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..

Slashdot Mirror

Some Virgin Galactic Customers Demand Money Back

119 of 165 comments (clear)