Some Virgin Galactic Customers Demand Money Back

schwit1 (797399) writes News reports suggest that — following last week's SpaceShipTwo crash — more than thirty of the seven hundred people who placed deposits with Virgin Galactic to fly on SpaceshipTwo have pulled out, demanding their money back. "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. 'We can confirm that less than three per cent of people have requested refunds,' the spokesman said." This is not a surprise, nor should it be. A company can only survive a crisis like this by responding honestly, quickly, and directly. If Virgin Galactic does this, finding the cause of the crash and fixing it, they will likely hold onto most of their customers. If they don't, those remaining customers will leave. This week's cancellations are the first immediate response to the crash. The future of the company, however, will be determined by what happens in the next six months.

Comments

Because

[Ol Olsoc]

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?

Re:Because

[bobbied]

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.

Re:Because

[Pino Grigio]

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.

Concern or convenience?

[MyLongNickName]

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.

Space flight failure rate is around 5%

[Freedom Bug]

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%)

armchair engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

Climbing Everest is around 2%

[trout007]

Everyone has different risk tolerances.

Re:Who pays for TSB investigation

[OzPeter]

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?

Re:Who pays for TSB investigation

[Richard_at_work]

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:If the cause of the crash...

[MouseR]

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...

[jfengel]

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.