back to article Branson on Virgin Galactic fatal crash: 'Space is hard – but worth it'

Richard Branson raced to the scene of a Virgin Galactic test flight tragedy last night, after the company's SpaceShipTwo crashed killing one pilot and left another seriously injured. In a blog post, the British billionaire businessman said he want to be in Mojave, California "with the dedicated and hard-working people who are …

  1. Trollslayer

    Without those willing to take risks we wouldn't have antibiotics, cars, aircraft and so much more. Those involved in the project are aware of risks and minimise the risks as much as they reasonably can. RIP and commiserations.

    Richard Branson has always been there for his people and this is no exception.

    1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

      Dwarves on the Sholders of Giants

      RIP the Giant.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Except he isn't doing "space travel" - he is doing a brief sub-orbital hop for people who either don't understand the difference or just want to say they have done it.

      It isn't advancing human-whatsit anymore than millionaires having a flight in a jet fighter.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Maybe so, but they are still doing advanced science and engineering. There may well be applications for their novel "re-entry" system in future space planes. Or maybe it will simply be a dead end that others will not have to waste time following now they've seen it done.

        There's only so much that can be simulated. Eventually someone has to go out and build the thing and make it work.

        1. Bleu

          It is not a re-entry system, it is a return system that is not useful at orbital velocities.

          Even after siowing a craft that is in orbit down enough, it is pointless. Possible use cases: fun -fair ride for the very wealthy; platform for launching small satellites into short-lived LEO, whatever else NASA gave them money for. My guess, atmosphere and lower ionosphere studies.

          Not connected to the recent explosion, I am sure they've run many simulations, but I wonder if the far greater angular inertia of this one may not prevent the shuttlecock return?

      2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        Oh no it is

        > It isn't advancing human-whatsit anymore than millionaires having a flight in a jet fighter.

        How did you work that out?

        Every step (even the ones in the wrong directions) is a step in the right direction. You will be saying the deaths involved were pointless mortality next.

        Yes of course the deaths are unnecessary, it's why experimental stuff is built with as much safety as it is possible to feature. Nobody wants anyone to die. But you can't live without being subject to that universal get out clause.

        The point is that the more you give a taste of the exotic to, the more there are that want a taste.

        If only very, very few ever got to ride a horse, we would not have jet travel widely available for all today. You start off with a bicycle and progress to a car. That's how it works.

        1. Peter Fairbrother 1

          Re: Oh no it is

          Yes, pointless mortality.

          "experimental stuff is built with as much safety as it is possible" - except that VG weren't doing that, they were desperately trying to pretend their nitrous hybrid technology works, while most rocket engineers have said it isn't suitable for human, never mind passenger, flight.

          In that process they threw the already-limited (this is not their first fatal accident) safety measures they employed out of the window - for a start, there is no way a new fuel grain should be tried out in a piloted flight.

          The safety culture was and is wrong, PR flacks overriding the engineers and safety people - the vice-president in charge of propulsion, the vice-president in charge of safety, and the chief aerodynamics engineer have all recently resigned.

          They used aircraft-technology safety techniques, which do not work with rockets.

          And the people who make the decisions do not understand rocket science.

          1. Bleu

            Re: Oh no it is

            I am sure that some of the people at Scaled understand aerodynamics and rocketry rather well.

            I still think the X-prize would've been much more interesting with their team disqualified on the grounds of US government dependence and the contest running longer. They were the least independent participants, despite the fig leaves. Flights were impressive.

            One of the many lies on Wikipedia, they say it was entirely privately funded, easy to refute.

            Scaled was the employer of one of the test pilots. Is the employer of the survivor.

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Oh no it is

          >How did you work that out?

          The virgin "spacecraft" isn't a step to space like SpaceX or even the shuttle.

          It is a sub-orbital ballistic flight to get somebody to an official definition of "space" so they can say they have done it. It is more like designing and building a helicopter that can reach 30,000ft so you can run tourist trips to the top of Everest. Technically challenging - yes, dangerous - yes, profitable - yes, but a breakthrough in mountaineering - no.

          Frankly the "he died for the future of the human race in space" PR releases are like comparing somebody being killed on a jet ski accident on holiday to the sailors that died on Atlantic convoys in WWII.

          1. JDX Gold badge

            Re: Oh no it is

            And you don't think a vehicle which can do a sub-orbital flight and return to be used hundreds of times is worth anything?

          2. Bleu

            Re: Oh no it is

            I agree with you on the value of the project. Your analogy on that is pretty right.

            You are being extremely cruel with regard to the brave test pilot who died! Your analogies are completely wrong on that. He would have not expected to ride an exploding vehicle. Have a little respect!

            Now though, if Branson himself had been along as the trial passenger, a little schadenfreude may have been in order.

            ... but he wasn't.

            He also seems to have been pretty inattentive, even following serial resignations of important managers.

            1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              Re: Oh no it is

              I wasn't saying anything about the pilot - if anything their PR dept + beardie were being disrespectful by putting out an overblown "The Right Stuff" hero type statements with an eye to the share price.

              The pilot died testing an prototype aircraft that was very clever, very novel and an excellent piece of engineering and everybody is rightfully sad about that but it is the same as if a driver had died testing a formula 1 car.

      3. Bleu

        It is not in a loop.

        Sure, the plan is a fun-fair ride, please study the conic sections, hint, it is one of those.

        Exactly the same as the path of one of those fighters, only differences are the height and the space ... and the price.

        The fighter jet ballistic flights are cheap enough for the non-millionaire with the money to spend, or who simply wants to directly experience the view once. (also a good example where the split infinitive is the best way).

        They do go very high.

        The shuttlecock concept in the Scaled Composites design is very interesting, but it is diffult to see how it could apply to anything but relatively slow suborbital flights.

        By definition, it is a sub-orbital technique.

        1. Bleu

          Re: It is not in a loop.

          Difficult, of course. Should have looked at the preview.

    3. emmanuel goldstein

      yes, but...

      there has been sustained criticism, from within the industry, of their use of nitrous oxide based rockets since the explosion in 2007 which killed 3 people.

      on the plus side, Justin Bieber is booked on the first flight...

  2. All names Taken

    human endevour

    And besides, how many people should stop crossing the road or driving because or road traffic fatalities?

    1. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: human endevour

      People have very warped perceptions of risks. Just look at all of the antics that have taken place, especially in/by the US, over terrorism over the last dozen years due to 911. Terrorism strikes the fear that it does because one cannot see it coming and its apparent randomness in whether one will be a victim of it. Yet in the last 12 years, the US has absorbed over one hundred 911’s in terms of sudden & seemingly random deaths from automobile accidents, which amount to about 30,000 deaths per year. The threat of terrorism is real. But it's very small compared to other threats to our lives that we live with comfortably every day.

      1. Bleu

        Re: human endevour

        I don't feel comfortable about ever-increasing numbers of cars and trucks, or about ever-wider expanses of asphalt, the noise, de-socialising effects, death rates and much more.

        Sure, road networks are needed for moving goods around, and people sometimes, but the world would be that much nicer if rail were the backbone for moving goods in the country and people in cities most of the time.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. emmanuel goldstein

        Re: human endevour

        i get what you are saying, but it's naive to compare deaths caused by a deliberate act, such as 9/11, to deaths caused accidentally.

        it's also disrespectful, I think.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: human endevour

          I defy anyone to say the deaths of people killed on the roads every year are any less tragic, pointless, or preventable than those of 9/11.

          What they are is un-newsworthy, precisely because they happen all the time.

          But I don't think either case relates to the story. Being a test pilot has always been a risky occupation, and the people involved voluntarily take on those risks. A risk wouldn't be a risk if it didn't sometimes turn into reality.

        2. Bleu

          Re: human endeavour

          It is not just naive and impolite, it is a completely odd comparison, reflecting on the troll mentality of the OP.

      4. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        Re: human endeavour

        The USAnians are famous for having stupid dog in the manger rulers. As with the worst excesses in all bad governments, the sensible learn to do without. What is considered criminal these days will eventually be outgrown -the same way the the USSR has been consigned to history.

        Fortunately of all the empires in history the USA is remarkably savvy in the way it deals out regicide. Yes I know they were remarkably slow with the last buffoon but at least he was so bloody stupid he was funny. And there is still time to do him. (One can but hope.)

  3. Mondo the Magnificent
    Pint

    To eternity and beyond...

    I think Richard Branson summed it up well with "Space is hard"

    Long before man was exiting the stratosphere into space, the test pilots flying the "X" craft were pushing the limits trying to exceed the sound barrier, that in itself was a feat in the 50's and many paid with their lives in this quest too. The film "The Right Stuff" briefly covered this pioneering era of pre-space flight

    Today most tvehciles that head into space are launched vertically, engineers and space agencies have that principle down to a tee, however, as we've seen in the past and also saw earlier this week, things can still go horribly wrong.

    The Virgin Spaceship X program is still in its infancy, the methodologies and technologies are constantly being explored and improved.

    Sadly, like any form of flight, this carries a calculated risk as engineers strive to perfect their designs and the technology wrapped up within them.

    Our condolences to those who risk life and limb whilst pushing the envelope in man's quest for outer earth travel and unfortunately pay the ultimate price.

    1. graeme leggett Silver badge

      Re: To eternity and beyond...

      X-15. Mothership launched X-plane managed, from 1959-1968, 198 powered test flights with one fatality.

      Joe Walker crossed the edge of space (100 km up) in July 1963 which - though not as high as the Mercury missions - makes him 7th American in space.

      (Walker was killed when his chase plane collided with the XB-70 Mach 3 bomber - a publicity shot too far as it turned out)

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Holmes

        Re: To eternity and beyond...

        That was one which went into the books: X-15 Flight 3-65-97

        Michael J. Adams got confused and had no way to ascertain the heading:

        The ground controllers sought to get the X-15 straightened out, but there was no recommended spin recovery technique for the X-15, and engineers knew nothing about the aircraft's supersonic spin tendencies.

        The board made two major recommendations: install a telemetered heading indicator in the control room, visible to the flight controller; and medically screen X-15 pilot candidates for labyrinth (vertigo) sensitivity. As a result of the X-15's crash, the FRC added a ground-based "8 ball" attitude indicator (Horton's idea) in the control room to furnish mission controllers with real time pitch, roll, yaw, heading, angle of attack, and sideslip information.

    2. Trigonoceps occipitalis

      Re: To eternity and beyond...

      "We choose to do these things not because they are easy ..."

      JFK

      1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        Re: To eternity and beyond...

        > "We choose to do these things not because they are easy ..."

        ...but because we wanted to get re-elected.

    3. emmanuel goldstein

      Re: To eternity and beyond...

      i just googled "space related deaths" and was informed that, as of 2013, there had been only 13 fatalities. This includes *all* Soviet programs, moon landings, ISS, Space shuttle etc.

      Beardie's activities have to date killed four people (this latest accident and 3 in a 2007 explosion).

      That doesn't seem quite right, on balance.

      1. Adam 1

        @Emmanuel

        I wouldn't trust Google then. I count 14 from just two shuttle disasters (challenger + Columbia)

      2. Bleu

        Re: To eternity and beyond...

        I agree with your thoughts on 'beardie', but the number you give doesn't seem to correspond to reality (actual number has to be a little higher, at least double) and is only for orbital flight or attempts at that, it is simple arithmetic.

        Two shuttle disasters, Apollo 1, several deaths in the Soviet programme, more.

        Also doesn't take deaths in the development processes into account.

      3. FutureShock999

        Re: To eternity and beyond...

        That's because you're googled research did not count ground-based accidents done during the development - like explosions during static engine testing. Whereas the Virgin-based accidents include three people killed during an engine fuel flow test at a subcontractor's venue. So hardly an accurate standard of comparison. If you research all of the R&D accidents at Boeing, Rocketdyne, Rockwell, etc., you will find a lot, lot more than 13...

      4. Bleu

        Re: To eternity and beyond...

        At least double may be wrong, but clearly, over thirteen for pilots and crew on orbital missions from the USA alone.

        Former Soviet programme, several acknowledged deaths, others rumoured, but it is likely that they are dinsiformation.

        They never had a disaster in carrying humans to match Apollo 1 or the two shuttle disasters.

        Certainly not only thirteen as you claim on the basis of a quick Google search and a scan of the headlines on the first page of results.

        Losses in flight training, playing too hard in the allowed flight time, I don't know, only that Gagarin was the most noteworthy. There were several others.

        In testing, who knows?

        It looks as if your beardie has been more than a little irresponsible here.

        There are a couple of interesting articles out there about safety warnings for Virgin Galactic and Scaled not being too careful and having been warned.

        The Reg has become slow, they don't beat mainstream sites for speed on sci. & tech. info too often (at all?) lately, unlike the days where mainstream papers would copy slabs of articles from here.

        Maybe they are too busy censoring quite inoccuous posts that say things some trick-cyclist-type posters don't like to hear, my recent experience.

      5. Mark 85

        Re: To eternity and beyond...

        False data maybe? The 3 in 2007 were during a ground test. So if we include ground deaths, the number does go up.

  4. Anomalous Cowshed

    Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

    This is not about space exploration, this is a rich man putting good men at risk in order to develop a sham space experience for other rich men (and women).

    Is he saying that it's worth killing off a few pilots for this? In that case he should be with them on every flight of that bogus space plane, to lend moral support. Then he would earn the right to speak like that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

      I wondered about "We will cooperate fully with all the authorities involved in the investigation" - is there an option to not fully cooperate with the authorities?

      1. keithpeter Silver badge
        Windows

        Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

        "I wondered about "We will cooperate fully with all the authorities involved in the investigation" - is there an option to not fully cooperate with the authorities?"

        Lawyers will no doubt be checking the relevant statutes and regulations to see how much/little needs to be disclosed &c. Remember, this project is all private companies, no govt contractors, so no federal oversight unless provided for in some kind of licence or permission.

        Apollo 1 fire caused a *serious* rethink at NASA after their own internal investigation, and the inevitable congressional committees. Hopefully same here.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

          Re: Apollo 1 fire;

          There's a school of thought that believes Grissom and his crew (Chaffee, White) were murdered by NASA/CIA etc. Grissom was an outspoken critic of the Apollo programme and doubted that they could ever reach the Moon.

          I wonder if the test pilots of Virgin Galactic were as free with their mouths?

          Not Trolling here, its just that the world is a fucked up place.

          1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
            Paris Hilton

            Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

            There's a school of thought that believes Grissom and his crew (Chaffee, White) were murdered by NASA/CIA etc.

            Smoking Man was seen exiting mission control room.

            1. Eddy Ito

              Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

              "Smoking Man was seen exiting mission control room."

              Hardly surprising in the '60s when nearly every seat in the control room had an ashtray the size of a dinner plate.

              1. Mark 85

                Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

                Given the level of stress and tension, I'm still surprised there wasn't an open bar available immediately after lift-off.

        2. Bleu

          Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

          Sorry, you are entirely wrong about Scaled Composites, apart from this and their X-Prize project, military (government) contracts are their lifeblood, and their X-Prize run would never have happened without them.

          Space Ship I was, technically, an interesting innovation.

          White Knight is almost identical to a design they developed under a government contract.

          Virgin Galactic also has a substantial contract with NASA.

          There is no comparing a planned fun-fair ride with Apollo 1, except that both have now involved the death of test pilots.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

        "I wondered about "We will cooperate fully with all the authorities involved in the investigation" - is there an option to not fully cooperate with the authorities?"

        The most obvious difference in levels of co-operation I can see is the difference between company experts freely offering all the relevant information and less expert investigators having to ask for what they think is relevant.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

      Automobiles were originally pioneered in the 19th Century for the benefit if rich people. Most of early attempts at powered flight in the 19th and early 20th Centuries as well. Science in general, up until the early 20th Century, was a rich man's hobby.

      If you go through life not being able to see past the end of your own nose, you are likely to go through life only by bumping into things.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Big Brother

        Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

        "is there an option to not fully cooperate with the authorities?"

        Probably not and as authorities are meant to check for problems in the routine to make the routine even less risk-free (or not), they will be fecking useless here.

        "Ummm... you were using a novel rocket motor? Uh, err........"

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

        Space flight is an amazing thing.

        It is in no way related to any ground based transport. It's rather far from most "flight" mechanics. It is more like being at the bottom of the sea.

    3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Flame

      Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

      This is not about space exploration, this is a rich man putting good men at risk in order to develop a sham space experience for other rich men (and women).

      Utter bullshit. These people are professionals and hired to do a job. This is no different and arguably morally superior to when the government hires these people to test new weapon systems or whatever idea crawled out of a politicial animal's brainbox. And then possibly denies that they were killed during testing.

      Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

      If it goes into the books, it is always worth it. This is the name of the game in this universe.

    4. localzuk Silver badge

      Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

      Its about making space easier. Things like space planes and getting things into LEO with reusable tech, or "easily launched" tech, to reduce the cost of space.

      Every big leap of this form is the playground of the rich at first - because they can afford to buy into the early stages. In the future though? Could be very good for us as a species.

      1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        IN THIS CASE

        > Every big leap of this form is the playground of the rich at first - because they can afford to buy into the early stages.

        Missing the point, aren't you?

        Why is it only obvious to some that space exploration should be either in the hands of politicians or of very poor people?

        About "We will cooperate fully with all the authorities involved in the investigation" - is there an option to not fully cooperate with the authorities?"

        Yes. NASA's management almost got away with the O ring business. (Think rednecks, politics and Utah.)

    5. Dave 126

      Re: Is it really worth it IN THIS CASE, though?

      >this is a rich man putting good men at risk in order to develop a sham space experience for other rich men (and women). Is he saying that it's worth killing off a few pilots for this?

      A fair question. One assumes that these pilots asked it of themselves, as intelligent adults. The answer they, as individuals, arrived at is evident.

      Though wages for commercial airline pilots in the US can be relatively low, I suspect these men had a more advanced skill set, one that would have allowed them a choice of employment to support them and their families. In this respect they differ from a disadvantaged young person who enlists the army for a foreign war because they perceive their employment options as limited.

      There have been men and women who have signed up for this sort of risky activity, and have had their trust abused by the management of a contracting firm- see: Feynman, O-rings. There is no suggestion at this stage that this is this case in this sad incident -it is not in Virgin Galactic's business interests to cut corners.

      EDIT: The management of the O-ring contractors was leant on by NASA management.

      Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accidenthttp://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch5.htm

  5. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Mushroom

    People die in railroad switching yards all the time.

    This commiseration theatre is as disgusting as the perpetual "thanking the troops" freakshow.

    1. keithpeter Silver badge
      Windows

      Re: People die in railroad switching yards all the time.

      http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventlisting.php?showSearch=true&view=list

      'sometimes' rather than 'all the time' but a railway interchange in the UK is pretty safe compared to (say) a motorway.

    2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: People die in railroad switching yards all the time.

      The UK stopped using 'Hump' yards years ago. These are still in use in the USA and yes brakemen do get killed in them but that is actually irellevant to this discussion.

      Many of the pioneers of Flight died for their passion. Things go wrong. That is part of Test Flying.

      I had the opportunity to spend some time with a test pilot in the mid 1970's. He was a man that was just so calm and collected I had to admire him.

      If you watch the programme on TV about the Harrier (movies4men) one of the pilots was talking about how he shot down severla enemy planes in the Falklands. He is so calm yet there he is flying just above sea level at 600mph+ and when he let off a missile the plane nearly flipped over.

      Calmy he recites how he righted the plane and zeroed in on the next target.

      The right Stuff all right like the guys onvolved with Virgin Galactica.

      Doff hats to all of them.

  6. Nigel P

    I am sure this 'only for the rich' argument was put forward when they were trying to achieve powered flight over a hundred years ago.

    1. PleebSmash
      Pint

      Except there were no cheap computers and Internet access, so edgy blokes had to curse the aeromobiles from the pub.

  7. Hud Dunlap
    FAIL

    Untested engine?

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/31/spaceshiptwo-flew-on-untested-rocket-motor.html

    Sounds like some one was trying to hit a deadline to make management happy.

    The comments above remind me of the Challenger disaster. Space is hard, they were professionals, it is worth the risk...yada yada yada.

    NASA knew the o-rings froze. Launch spec was ambient temperature above 32 degrees, it was 29 when they launched. The Space program was getting hammered for flight delays so they launched anyway and crossed their fingers. The people responsible didn't even lose their jobs.

    1. MD Rackham

      Re: Untested engine?

      What? They were flying with a rocket motor using a new propellant. one which had been thoroughly ground tested. So it wasn't "untested" it was just the first time they'd flown with it.

      Sooner or later you have to fly with it, or should it remain "untested' forever because there is some risk?

      The investigation has barely begun and yet people like you are sure you have it all figured out.

      1. Hud Dunlap
        Thumb Down

        Re: Untested engine? @ MD Rackham

        I guess you didn't read this part of the article.

        "In 2007, the unattached rocket engine using that fuel was being tested on the ground in the Mojave desert when it exploded and killed three of 40 engineers observing the test. Investigators found that safety regulations at the site had been violated and that the men killed had been too close to the rocket motor."

        An earlier incident true but basic safety rules were not followed. I grew up with the space program in Florida and played chess with a number of the engineers at the Space Center. Lots of people died at the space center. You only really heard about the Astronauts.

        Don't let the narrative get buried in all the crap we have seen in the posts above. Concentrate on the investigation. I would suggest you read Richard Feynman's appendix to the report on the Challenger disaster.

        1. Malmesbury

          Re: Untested engine? @ MD Rackham

          Yup.

          10,000 lbs of Nitrous Oxide. In a tank. In the sun. In the Mojave desert.

          Fun fact - at 9F Nitrous liquid gets to it's critical point. Sneeze and.... well, it decomposes. Kind of rapidly.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Untested engine? @ MD Rackham

            "Fun fact - at 9F Nitrous liquid gets to it's critical point. Sneeze and.... well, it decomposes. Kind of rapidly."

            ???

            It's critical point is ~36C - but do you know what the critical point means ?

            From wikipedia :

            "Nitrous oxide can be used as an oxidizer in a rocket motor. This has the advantages over other oxidisers in that it is not only non-toxic, but also, due to its stability at room temperature, easy to store and relatively safe to carry on a flight. As a secondary benefit it can be readily decomposed to form breathing air. Its high density and low storage pressure (when maintained at low temperature) enable it to be highly competitive with stored high-pressure gas systems"

            (If the nitrous oxide is contaminated with flammable liquids then the situation is different)

            Have you a better ref. ?

            1. Malmesbury

              Re: Untested engine? @ MD Rackham

              Typo for 96F

          2. Bleu

            Re: Untested engine? @ MD Rackham

            9°F? Fahrenheit scale? Really? I'd have thought it would be relatively stable at such a low temperature.

            Perhaps you are referring to nitrous oxide confined in a largish (9 farad) capacitor under other non-specific conditions?

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Untested engine? @ MD Rackham

            The flight was delayed by 2 hours because of the pilot's concerns about the N2O temperature.

      2. Malmesbury

        Re: Untested engine?

        It hadn't been thoroughly ground tested. They were still tweeking it for stability. Hence all the methane and Helium injector stuff.

        Tested would be

        a) stable version

        b) many runs of that version - usually dozens in major rocketry.

        c) satisfactory performance in all of them.

        Hell, even back in the X1 days that's how they did it with the XLR-11. Mind you, they did miss the leather-sealing-in-the-lox-system thing.....

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cost vs benefit

    Every advance we've made technologically has had a cost in lives, directly or indirectly.

    The ultimate goal for us as a species, in my view, is to spread life to every corner of the universe. Something that is a possibility only for us in the entire history of life on Earth.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Cost vs benefit

      'The ultimate goal for us as a species, in my view, is to spread life to every corner of the universe. Something that is a possibility only for us in the entire history of life on Earth.'

      These words chill me to the bone......

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    there is a giant difference between testing on the ground

    and testing in-flight.

    If a new engine design combined with a new fuel composition were being tested in-flight for the first time, the prudent and rational approach would have been not to have humans on-board on the first test flight. The first test flight should have been performed without humans. I assume that the R&D design of this space vehicle is equipped with a remote pilot system for testing purposes.

    Of course, this adds to the cost of R&D for the entire venture. Well too bad. If the purpose of this venture is to fly people safely, then yes, it will cost a lot of money.

    On the other hand, sending people up in risky experimental flights which blow up appears cheaper at first. Then, when you have to deal with the consequences of an accident were one pilot dies and the other is in critical condition, you face the risk of having the entire project canceled.

    Yes, people died in car accidents 100 years ago during test ride accidents, but 100 years ago test cars did not have on-board computers, and cars 100 years ago could not be remotely controlled.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Too many windows?

    Would an 'Explosive Decompression' be the problem rather than the engines or fuel? De Havilland Comet springs to mind.

    1. returnmyjedi

      Re: Too many windows?

      There's a Comet on display at Duxford with the redesigned oval windows, and remains one of the prettiest aeroplanes ever built.

  11. Mark 85

    Motor failure or breakup?

    The pics that I've seen seem to suggest that something fell off before the large bloom of smoke. It's just pure speculation but might as well add some more to the pot of comments. It's not always the motor. It could be something simple that failed. Here's hoping they can solve the issue as eventually space travel will get safer.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: Motor failure or breakup?

    Mark, this is reality not The Jetsons! Space travel will not get safer. If we attempt to leave this ball we are going to die, fairly soon, from radiation. I'm sorry to break it to you but we are not bodly going anywhere.....ever. Spaceship Earth is the only home we are ever going to know.

    1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

      Re: Motor failure or breakup?

      Indeed, and humans will suffocate if they ever attempt to travel faster than 40 mph, and as they once said 'air travel isn't going to get any safer. If we attempt to leave this ground, we are going to die etc'

  13. stu 4

    The Right Stuff

    One of my favourite films.

    And reading the book Just now (by Tom Wolfe).

    If you've not seen/read it - it's well worth it.

    1. Malmesbury

      Re: The Right Stuff

      The important thing to remember about the Right Stuff is

      a) It was written with a lot of input from Chuck Yeager. Who strangely appears to be a demi god.

      2) Anything it says about Gus Grissom is rubbish

      1. stu 4

        Re: The Right Stuff

        I agree he gave Gus a hard time. However, it may have been justified - it may not. we will never truly know - but he was wrong to not make it clear that there was no evidence either way.

        Chuck wise - I think the author was right: the book is about the pilots. it's about the 'right stuff', and even among those pilots, Chuck was a demigod.

        So I think he was spot on to portray him that way imho.

        If the chucks/armstrongs/etc had continued to hold the lime light - and the X15/X20/etc projects had got the money through the 60s instead of nasa… who knows where we'd be today. Instead - it's taken us 50 years to get back to making spacecraft rather than ballistic capsules.

  14. Malmesbury

    The reason for the massive delays for this project were issues with the hybrid rocket motors.

    Read http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/10/30/apollo-ansari-hobbling-effects-giant-leaps/

    This was published *before* the accident by a guy who's followed this program for years.

    The short version - the engine ran very, very rough. Also inefficiently - to the point there were doubts about getting to space.

    They'd just changed to a nylon based fuel in the hopes of an improvement. Also added were systems to inject helium and methane to control the burn.

    I believe that as part of the investment deal with Aabar Investments (Abu Dabi's government investment fund) they had to demonstrate a flight to space before the end of 2014. Or return a big chunk of money.

    1. FutureShock999

      +1. The problems are well known, and if you read the aviation professional press well commented on. The simple fact is, they cannot get the oxidizer to mix evenly with the solid fuel, so it burns very, very unevenly. In a liquid fuel rocket this is accomplished by configuring the combustion chamber and inlets in ways that ensure a well-mixed fuel stream prior to ignition. But when pumping a liquid over a solid that is itself changing shape as it burns, it is much, much harder. That is the reason why hybrid engines have not been used for government-built rockets. It is clear that the switch to the new plastic fuel has not helped this, and it is now very much a long shot as to whether they every CAN get this problem solved.

      My guess is that the program will need to switch to liquid fuelled rockets, which they probably cannot do and maintain their funding windows. So my guess is that this will be the end of Virgin Galactic.

  15. Campbell

    wrong

    We are Human & this is what we do.

  16. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    Dear fans ...

    Life is hard/soft/moderate and doncha-didncha know that even coal has blood on it (as in close the coal house door Ma - it has blood on it)?

  17. Tim Brummer

    I think Virgin should switch to using a SpaceX Merlin liquid rocket rocket engine. It is proven and man rated.

    No astronaut has ever been killed by a liquid rocket engine, in spite of them failing in many programs, including X-15, Gemini 6, Apollo 13 (stage II), Shuttle STS-51F, and Soyuz T-10-1.

    Solids on the other hand have now killed eight.

  18. yorkee

    Senseless waste of human resources to me because I am all for testing new systems but why risk humans when you can test remotely. The provisioning of the space station is done remotely with unmanned vehicles.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re. Spaceship Earth

    Maybe not, but with the right shielding (I am working on this!!) and so are many other highly intelligent scientists at NASA and ESA interplanetary and eventually interstellar travel is more than feasible.

    The tragedy in Mojave is similar to what happened in the 1950's with Apollo 1, lessons were learned and we landed on the Moon in '69.

    Many were killed in Russia when rockets failed during launch, it is tragic but to give up on a technology because of an unavoidable mistake is a worse tragedy.

    The shielding and propulsion systems I have invented may one day get us to Mars if only the scientific community would take it seriously.

    Metamaterial radiation shielding is not only a valid concept but may actually be the crucial enabling technology that gets us to Mars, and the "Conundrum Drive" could reach A.Centauri by mid 2063.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Re. Spaceship Earth

      "The tragedy in Mojave is similar to what happened in the 1950's with Apollo 1,"

      That'd be the capsule fire in 1967 during a rehearsal - very similar that.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Re. Spaceship Earth

      "if only the scientific community would take it seriously."

      A cry from vast numbers of nutters everywhere ( as well as a few lone geniuses)

  20. Van

    I wonder if Justin Bieber and that Bitcoin miner are having second thoughts? They're booked on the first trip along with Branson and his kids.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    RE. Re. Re. Spaceship Earth

    Hmm.

    X-rays from Sellotape in a vacuum .. discovered in Cold War Russia and summarily ignored by the West until late 2006.

    LEDs... invented by Vladimir Losev and then "lost" for nearly 50 years

    Who knows what else has been rediscovered multiple times because the inventor never got funding or was simply ignored by the mainstream because it was too far off the status quo.

    Someone once said that there are three stages to a discovery.

    1) it is ignored

    2) it is violently opposed

    3) it is then reluctantly accepted as fact

    1-3 can take 40 years, in come cases 2) only ends when the opposing scientists retire.

    1. Vic

      Re: RE. Re. Re. Spaceship Earth

      Who knows what else has been rediscovered multiple times because the inventor never got funding or was simply ignored by the mainstream because it was too far off the status quo.

      "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

      Carl Sagan was quite a guy...

      Vic.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like