Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Virgin Galactic SpaceShip 2 Test Flight Crash 2014-10-31

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
"Chutes deployed according to sources"
(Quest for Stars)

"Cannot confirm if this is related, but Kern County (CA) police scanner report of a downed aircraft and a helicopter being sent out to search for a parachute. Police report of wreckage being seen north of a lake... something is down."

(Scott from NSF)

"Listening to scanner, medivac aircraft mentions 1 survivor, 1 'outstanding'"

(Lee Barber)
 
Last edited:
UPDATE:Virgin Galactic's partner Scaled Composites conducted a powered test flight of #SpaceShipTwo earlier today. During the test, the vehicle suffered a serious anomaly resulting in the loss of SpaceShipTwo. WK2 landed safely. Our first concern is the status of the pilots, which is unknown at this time. We will work closely with relevant authorities to determine the cause of this accident and provide updates ASAP.

https://twitter.com/virgingalactic

ss2.jpg
 
Thanks HVM for keeping us updated.

Such a tragedy. Honestly, it's surprising to me that they would need onboard human pilots in this day and age to test a new rocket engine. For the level of risk involved, you'd think that SpaceShip 2 would have automated test flights. I can't imagine trying to punch out at that level of thrust.
 
Thanks HVM for keeping us updated.

Such a tragedy. Honestly, it's surprising to me that they would need onboard human pilots in this day and age to test a new rocket engine. For the level of risk involved, you'd think that SpaceShip 2 would have automated test flights. I can't imagine trying to punch out at that level of thrust.

agreed, doesn't space-X do engine testing on unmanned rockets?

Seems like a no brainer with the modern cameras, radios, and computers we have now. Heck they did remote telemetry back in the 1960s got to be able to do better now.
 
SpaceX doesn't have manned rockets currently so yeah. This is a suborbital spaceplane, designed for space tourism, I think manned testing is important for a variety of reasons.
Actual in-operation manned flight is important, and manned test flights are also important. But I should think that tests at this level for this purpose (a different fuel mixture in a newer engine) should not be manned. It feels like an unnecessary risk.
 
The journalist on the other end of the phone line in the CNN report, Joel Glenn Brenner, who has followed this story since Space Ship One days, was extremely upset about what she perceives as a gap between the enthusiasm of the Virgin Galactic team and the 'level of technology' they have employed in pursuit of the dream of commercial space tourism. She minced no words, saying that even if this flight had been successful, there is no way this particular type of engine would have succeeded in powering SS2 into space.
 
[Joel Glenn Brenner] minced no words, saying that even if this flight had been successful, there is no way this particular type of engine would have succeeded in powering SS2 into space.

That doesn't negate the importance of the test. Demonstrating even incremental improvements can provide valuable data. However, I question (and I assume Ms. Brenner does too) the necessity to risk human lives for these tests given the level of automation technology that currently exists.
 
The SS2 rocket is a hybrid style, with a liquid oxidizer and a solid fuel. I believe this was the first flight test of a new solid fuel formulation for the SS2 hybrid rocket.

There are some interesting points made in the Wikipedia article on hybrid rockets:
Wikipedia said:
Hybrid rockets exhibit advantages over both liquid rockets and solid rockets especially in terms of simplicity, safety, and cost.[2] Because it is nearly impossible for the fuel and oxidizer to be mixed intimately (being different states of matter), hybrid rockets tend to fail more benignly than liquids or solids. Like liquid rocket motors, but unlike solid rocket motors, hybrid rocket motors can be shut down easily and the thrust can be controlled with a simple throttle.
...
Generally, well designed and carefully constructed hybrids are very safe. The primary hazards associated with hybrids are:
- Pressure vessel failures - Chamber insulation failure may allow hot combustion gases near the chamber walls leading to a "burn-through" in which the vessel ruptures.
- Blow back - For oxidizers that decompose exothermically such as nitrous oxide or hydrogen peroxide, flame or hot gasses from the combustion chamber can propagate back through the injector, igniting the oxidizer and leading to a tank explosion. Blow-back requires gases to flow back through the injector due to insufficient pressure drop which can occur during periods of unstable combustion. Blow back is inherent to specific oxidizers and is not possible with oxidizers such as oxygen or nitrogen tetroxide unless fuel is present in the oxidizer tank.
- Hard starts - An excess of oxidizer in the combustion chamber prior to ignition, particularly for monopropellants such as nitrous oxide, can result in a temporary over-pressure or "spike" at ignition.
SS2 does use nitrous oxide as the liquid oxidizer.