Virgin Galactic Test Flights To Restart This Year

astroengine writes: Test flights of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo are on schedule to begin again this year – this time with its own pilots, the chief executive of Richard Branson's space startup said Friday. The first in a series of planned passenger spaceships was destroyed on Oct. 31, 2014, during a fatal test flight being conducted by manufacturer Scaled Composites. The National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the accident, determined that co-pilot Michael Alsbury, who died in the crash, released the ship's moveable tail section early. The vehicle was not traveling fast enough for aerodynamic forces to keep the so-called "feather" pinned in place, as designs called for. As a result, the ship was torn apart, jettisoning pilot Pete Siebold in the process, who managed to parachute to safety.

Comments

So don't throw away your tickets yet

[rossdee]

They might still get tourists into space before the end of the century

Re:So don't throw away your tickets yet

[Anonymous Coward]

For that definition of "space", you could have already done it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

but for some reason, that doesn't interest anyone.

...c'mon lemme see you shake your tail feather...

[TWX]

I hope they'll have found a better solution for the tail by the time they go to passenger flights. Pilots don't like being denied an option to do something but if that something can tear the craft apart even when it's piloted by some of the most experienced pilots in the world, I don't see how it'll be better in commercial hands.

What does this mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

for Richard Brandon's goatee?

Re:...c'mon lemme see you shake your tail feather.

[MichaelSmith]

Try dropping the landing gear in a commercial jet at mach 0.8.

Pretty bad design

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a hell of a single point of failure. Probably ought to be some kind of speed interlock there.

Re: Pretty bad design

[Anonymous Coward]

Interlock fails closed, everyone dies. This is the type of system where simpler is better and procedural controls are best.

Re: Pretty bad design

[khallow]

At a glance, the "procedural controls" aren't best here. The copilot merely released the tail lock a few seconds early (the difference between mach 1 and mach 1.4). I gather if they had waited a few seconds later, then they might as well not bother unlocking the tail until just before entry several minutes later, and hope it works.

Re: ...c'mon lemme see you shake your tail feather

[Anonymous Coward]

Rips the gear doors off, sometimes taking out brake lines. It's possible to cut the tires pretty good with the doors on their way past, but by and large, not a huge deal. Remember that 0.8 Mach up in the flight levels is only 270 Knots indicated air speed. So, it's fast, but the aerodynamic loads aren't as big as 0.8 Mach at sea level.

Ahead of NTSB

[savuporo]

Ok, here are claims made without a final conclusion by NTSB anywhere in sight. How the heck can they assume that NTSB does not come out and burn their entire design to ground ? How do they even assume NTSB investigation will conclude before end of the year ?

What a hubris.

Your design grandfather Rutan retired years ago, your chief designer left the company .. and you are still making these grandiose claims ?

Re:Ahead of NTSB

[Anonymous Coward]

VG is also doing their own internal investigations, and, as a party to the NTSB investigation, is working with the NTSB and will know the NTSB findings before anyone else does.

Re:Ahead of NTSB

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if they sit on their dicks and do nothing, then they will be two years behind. However, if they plan and the schedule slips, that's okay. Give you a hint, we plan to fly every day, and if an incident causes that to change,well, that's tolerable, but we keep being able to fly every day.

Re:Ahead of NTSB

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a tip: Even if the NTSB did "burn their entire design to the ground" it doesn't mean shit. The U.S does not have control of all the airspace in the world you arrogant clown.

How many people he will get killed before he quits

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire approach is dangerous and will never be more than an amusement ride for reckless nouveau riche. Oh well no great loss in most cases....

Re:How many people he will get killed before he qu

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much. I don't know what the appeal is, besides misplaced nostalgia for a space age that never happened.

Of course it was

[Anonymous Coward]

the guy who died in the crashes fault. Not like he's gonna argue any different and he's the one piece of the disaster that wont be getting another shot at this so why not suggest it. Essentially the faulty part in this scenario has removed itself from the equation. Plus it makes it feel like he did it to himself. Win win. (Cynical, but we're talking billions of dollars, people have been thrown under the bus for a lot less).

Re: ...c'mon lemme see you shake your tail feathe

[Anonymous Coward]

Having no wheels and trying to land such a large aeroplane is a big deal to most people.

Humans Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Fly it with an AI. If it makes mistakes in testing, you can fix it and not kill people. The end result should be a very repeatable system. Its sounds a pretty easy job for an AI: no traffic, computer vision or any of that. Just some PID controllers and a state machine ought to outperform what any human could do here. Aren't most rockets computer controlled? Why should a rocket plane be different?

Re:...c'mon lemme see you shake your tail feather.

[Anonymous Coward]

Would work just fine. Max deploy speed for 747 is M0.8

Re: ...c'mon lemme see you shake your tail feathe

[BitZtream]

Thats the point. You would have wheels, maybe no gear bay doors, but the wheels will be just fine.