mutley 4,498 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Bad news... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29857182 Link to post Share on other sites
hurricanemk1c 195 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Not a good week for space exploration Link to post Share on other sites
stu7708 244 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Sad news indeed. Also just saw that the Antares rocket was deliberately destroyed by the operator. Something went wrong in the launch so they decided to destroy it to avoid an accident in a populated area.. Link to post Share on other sites
hurricanemk1c 195 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 But that was only after it failed Mikael, reading the press releases here - http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/MissionUpdates/Orb-3/ Link to post Share on other sites
markhudson6 13 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Very sad. Lots of up to the minute information here. http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20141031-spaceship-two-destroyed.html Regards, M. Link to post Share on other sites
hifly 925 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Our thoughts for all involved. However, as much as I admire Richard Branson I can't help feeling that he sometimes pushes the envelope too far. I'm thinking of his ship sinking in the attempt to get the Blue Ribbon for the fastest Atlantic crossing. Also his aborted around the world balloon flight. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking him for trying and failing but this space venture is stretching things to the limit and as much as I would love to go into space I won't be buying a Virgin ticket. Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Richard Bransons attempt on the Blue Riband was scuppered by an even sadder event, the wilful destruction of an Air India B747 off the Irish coast. Whilst that was still being recovered, Bransons boat hit a part of the wreckage which sank it. Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,316 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Sad news indeed. Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 I just hope they can find the cause before public confidence in the project dissapears and the whole thing becomes a white elephant. A sad day indeed. Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/31/virgin-galactics-spaceshiptwo-suffers-in-flight-anomaly_n_6083936.html?1414781760 Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Our thoughts for all involved. However, as much as I admire Richard Branson I can't help feeling that he sometimes pushes the envelope too far. I'm thinking of his ship sinking in the attempt to get the Blue Ribbon for the fastest Atlantic crossing. Also his aborted around the world balloon flight. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking him for trying and failing but this space venture is stretching things to the limit and as much as I would love to go into space I won't be buying a Virgin ticket. This isn't one of Bransons dare devil stunts though. The technology is courtesy of the legendary Burt Rutan. But yes, we have to push the envelope to achieve anything new, anything of worth. And that means risk. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 I just hope they can find the cause before public confidence in the project dissapears and the whole thing becomes a white elephant. A sad day indeed. It won't become a white elephant, too much invested. And any revolutionary technology involves risk, they recognise that. In addition, there are other companies hot on their heels, also developing similar vehicles. Link to post Share on other sites
hifly 925 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Our thoughts for all involved. However, as much as I admire Richard Branson I can't help feeling that he sometimes pushes the envelope too far. I'm thinking of his ship sinking in the attempt to get the Blue Ribbon for the fastest Atlantic crossing. Also his aborted around the world balloon flight. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking him for trying and failing but this space venture is stretching things to the limit and as much as I would love to go into space I won't be buying a Virgin ticket. This isn't one of Bransons dare devil stunts though. The technology is courtesy of the legendary Burt Rutan. But yes, we have to push the envelope to achieve anything new, anything of worth. And that means risk. I agree Martin, technological advance comes with risk but as this is a commercial venture to get fare paying passengers into the very unforgiving environment of space especially in the same week that a supply rocket to the ISS blows up on take off I can imagine those that have pre booked tickets will be having second thoughts. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 This was the first powered flight with a new fuel for the rocket engine, though there was extensive ground testing of it prior to this flight. No confirmation the fuel was the issue but an engine explosion seems to be indicated at this point. John Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 The link below is to a long but very interesting article that bears directly on the SpaceShip2 disaster. Interestingly, this article was published at 9:30 PM on October 30th, just hours before the ill-fated SpaceShip2 test. The author, who has put together what seems to be a pretty well crafted analysis of the history of the program, alleges among other things that the hybrid rocket engine is fundamentally flawed and the the now-retired Burt Rutan made some short-sighted and downright wrong decisions in pursuit of the Ansari X prize that doomed the current project and cost some people their lives - three engineers killed in a static engine test stand explosion in 2007. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether the author is entirely correct or not but what he writes appears to me to be well thought out, reasonable and plausible. It claims to explain why SpaceShipOne never flew again after winning the $10 million Ansari X prize within a month of the prize deadline ten years ago and why SpaceShipTwo has still not carried a paying passenger after a long and costly development based on what was learned from SpaceShipOne. Recall that Richard Branson wrongly predicted that SpaceShipTwo would begin flying in 2007 and would carry 5,000 passengers within the first five years. That seems to lend credence to what the article claims - that this project is not looking very promising - a claim tellingly made before the October 31st in-flight explosion. http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/10/30/apollo-ansari-hobbling-effects-giant-leaps/ Link to post Share on other sites
needles 1,013 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 Just awful news in a week that has seen two too many space related accidents. Thoughts go out to the pilots families and to the Virgin team. Link to post Share on other sites
hurricanemk1c 195 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 The question is what effect has this had on public confidence? First that rocket exploding in America (private), then this (again private). Some people will now be very nervous about travelling into space on a private spacecraft. Public confidence in the DC-10 took a long time to build up again Link to post Share on other sites
MyPC8MyBrain 273 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 but it eventually did imo the professionals who lost their life’s on this project believed in it with all their hearts; it would be a shame letting their ultimate sacrifice gone to waist with such an important achievement Link to post Share on other sites
hurricanemk1c 195 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 Should have also mentioned both Shuttles. But how long will it take? Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 Pretty decent set of photos here (but includes some embedded ads).... http://news.yahoo.com/photos/virgin-galactic-space-tourism-rocket-explodes-after-take-off-slideshow/ John Link to post Share on other sites
flybytes 34 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 Aerospace developing technology is a dangerous & expensive part of modern life. Fortunately the industry has a very rigorous safety regime which spends a lot of money investigating mistakes & accidents, regardless of if a micro light or space shuttle is the cause of death - resulting in air travel (after a very dangerous initial two decades or so) being the safest mode of transport. On the other hand, space vehicles are still pushing the boundaries & rocket engines are still liable to fail (which appears to have happened here with Virgin Galactic & Antares ISS supply rocket), with catastrophic consequences. As far as comments about Richard Branson, I worked for him for two years, & whilst his company may have been a bit stingy with salaries & tools to do the job (which in my opinion are false economies,) in my experience his long haul airline never cut corners on safety & I was always, & still am comfortable, flying on his aircraft fleet. So I'm sure that Virgin Galactic also is as much about safety as also reducing costs, after all, with the cost of insuring these enterprises, safety & pushing the limits are a very fine balancing act.. Looking back into history, I'm slightly astounded that so many technologies we take for granted today, were so late in being developed. Three examples - heavier than water metal ships, steam engines & electrical batteries - why so long before these technologies came to fruition? Surely, every housewife who washed the pots across hundreds of years knew that ceramics & metal, given the right shape, could be able to float in water. Do wonder how many more 'round the corner' technologies are staring us in the face here in the 21st Century? Ray. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Looking back into history, I'm slightly astounded that so many technologies we take for granted today, were so late in being developed.Three examples - heavier than water metal ships, steam engines & electrical batteries - why so long before these technologies came to fruition? Surely, every housewife who washed the pots across hundreds of years knew that ceramics & metal, given the right shape, could be able to float in water. It was actually the industrial revolution that made possible the use of new materials in shipbuilding. including iron. At first just in the areas that required extra strength, and then as the technology developed, in large plates riveted together. So I don't think it was actually possible prior to that time. The manufacturing capability just wasn't there. As for steam engines, the materials and manufacturing capability has to be available yes, but human creativity has to generate the idea in the first instance. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Terrible tragedy that befall Spaceship2, but if you want to read about the technology that excites me, here it is... http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html SABRE is at heart a rocket engine designed to power aircraft directly into space (single-stage to orbit) to allow reliable, responsive and cost effective space access, and in a different configuration to allow aircraft to cruise at high speeds (five times the speed of sound) within the atmosphere. http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre_howworks.html In the past, attempts to design single stage to orbit propulsion systems have been unsuccessful largely due to the weight of an on-board oxidiser such as liquid oxygen, needed by conventional rocket engines. One possible solution to reduce the quantity of on-board oxidizer required is by using oxygen already present in the atmosphere in the combustion process just like an ordinary jet engine. This weight saving would enable the transition from single-use multi-stage launch vehicles to multi-use single stage launch vehicles. SABRE is the first engine to achieve this goal by operating in two rocket modes: initially in air-breathing mode and subsequently in conventional rocket mode: ◾Air breathing mode - the rocket engine sucks in atmospheric air as a source of oxygen (as in a typical jet engine) to burn with its liquid hydrogen fuel in the rocket combustion chamber ◾Conventional rocket mode - the engine is above the atmosphere and transitions to using conventional on-board liquid oxygen. Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 Latest news is that the feathering device designed by Rutan, deployed in flight, without the pilots command. Too early to say if this was the cause though. SpaceShipTwo's fuel tanks and engines, which were highlighted in media reports over the weekend, showed no signs of being compromised. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29876154 Link to post Share on other sites
stu7708 244 Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 But that was only after it failed Mikael, reading the press releases here - http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/MissionUpdates/Orb-3/ Ahh..that part wasn't clear in the report I read... It sounded like there were some small issue detected in the launch and they decided to trigger the self destruct sequence to avoid a worse situation further on in case of further deterioration... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now