Spaceship 2 Mishap

wanttaja said:
Ummmm.... ARE there standards for commercial certification of privately-owned man-carrying spacecraft? If there aren't, then no one can force Galactic to add an interlock. It's my understanding that the FAA has waived all the normal certification rules. Without a regulatory basis, the FAA can't tell Virgin to modify their design.

But maybe the FAA has put something in place. Anybody got a link?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
There will be something in the COA.....:yes:
 
wanttaja said:
Ummmm.... ARE there standards for commercial certification of privately-owned man-carrying spacecraft? If there aren't, then no one can force Galactic to add an interlock. It's my understanding that the FAA has waived all the normal certification rules. Without a regulatory basis, the FAA can't tell Virgin to modify their design.

But maybe the FAA has put something in place. Anybody got a link?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

No certification, just an FAA license for the launch. Their oversight is limited to reviewing the flight testing of the hardware and operational specifications for the entity. If they deem it reasonable and prudent the license will be issued.
 
wanttaja said:
Ummmm.... ARE there standards for commercial certification of privately-owned man-carrying spacecraft? If there aren't, then no one can force Galactic to add an interlock. It's my understanding that the FAA has waived all the normal certification rules. Without a regulatory basis, the FAA can't tell Virgin to modify their design.

But maybe the FAA has put something in place. Anybody got a link?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

The rules are being written right now! That's what is happening. It's new territory. This isn't a 'private use' program, this is a 'passengers for hire' program. They are going to need some certification for the insurance industry, and that is the FAAs job to provide.
 
Henning said:
The rules are being written right now! That's what is happening. It's new territory. This isn't a 'private use' program, this is a 'passengers for hire' program. They are going to need some certification for the insurance industry, and that is the FAAs job to provide.
Click to expand...
It is?.....Oh, my. :yikes::eek::yikes:
 
Henning said:
The rules are being written right now! That's what is happening. It's new territory. This isn't a 'private use' program, this is a 'passengers for hire' program. They are going to need some certification for the insurance industry, and that is the FAAs job to provide.
Click to expand...

The FAA has no plans to provide certification for private space launches.

In the United States, commercial launch, reentry, and the operation of commercial spaceports is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation. “Commercial” in the United States can be defined as operations run by the private sector with vehicles they own.

Instead of certifying launch and reentry vehicles, the FAA licenses the launch operation and focuses on public safety. The FAA’s licensing regime sets performance-based requirements that give industry the flexibility to meet safety objectives without specifying how safety must be achieved.

This enables the industry to grow with less oversight and increases technology innovation. With more flexibility, commercial companies can be safe and meet customer requirements, including those for government-owned payloads, through a launch services contract.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...opportunites_Nield_paper_IAA_SEC_Dec_2013.pdf
Click to expand...

There's no certification of the satellite industry, and that hasn't prevented insurers from calculating risk for launches.

Safety oversight of commercial space transportation by the government can come in two forms: a certification regime or a licensing regime. Certification addresses design characteristics of a vehicle and is common in aviation.

It is typically based on decades of extensive flight experience and data. While aviation certification can be expensive, there is a large and mature market to offset initial investment. However, certification may not be the best approach for a new industry such as commercial human space flight.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...Licensing_Nield_FAA-IAC-Naples-Oct-2-2012.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
wanttaja said:
Again, do we have any confirmation that the test card or checklist included unlocking the wings at that point of the flight? The NTSB announcement implies that the action was performed slightly prematurely (activated at Mach 1, instead of Mach 1.4) but it seems to me (and to others) that the unlock action shouldn't have been anywhere near that phase of flight.

If it was part of the test card, but performed slightly early, it points to a misread mach meter or a momentary lapse on behalf of the co-pilot.

But if it *wasn't* on the test card... you have to wonder what the co-pilot was thinking. Is that lever similar to another? Could he have accidentally activated it in lieu of another control?

What are the command procedures used by Scaled? Are they command-response (Pilot: Activate feather unlock. Co-Pilot: Feather is unlocked) or is each pilot executing his own checklist independently?

Going to be an interesting accident report.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

You are correct, that pilot may have been doing that particular move every time he was at the controls, this time it turned out to be catastrophic, we don't know.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Lloyd's of London?:dunno:....I never knew the FAA was in the insurance bidness?:hairraise:
Click to expand...

The FAA serves the same role as USCG, they police the standards of safety so the insurance actuaries can work from accurate assumptions. Lloyd's was the first Classification Society to serve their pool to assure the quality of vessels and the safety of their cargos. Lloyd's Register has in the mean time become a corrupt scam I can write a book about, at least in the Yacht end of things.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
The FAA serves the same role as USCG, they police the standards of safety so the insurance actuaries can work from accurate assumptions.
Click to expand...
what assumptions were they working from this time....? :dunno:
 
Henning said:
The FAA serves the same role as USCG, they police the standards of safety so the insurance actuaries can work from accurate assumptions.
Click to expand...

Are you planning to ignore my post above? The FAA is not going to certify private space vehicles.

The space launch industry has been commercially insured for decades. I imagine their actuarial models are quite sufficient to determine the risk involved.

BTW Lloyd's was insuring cargoes two hundred years before the USCG came along...
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
what assumptions were they working from this time....? :dunno:
Click to expand...

They aren't, that is why there is this major experimental program. They develop a system that they can prove safe for certification.

Before they can launch with Passengers for Hire, they have to have an Operating Certificate from the FAA, the way they launch there is no way around it. The one thing they will require is to be insured, first thing they want on a 135 application. In order to provide insurance to a Strict Liability industry, the insurance industry relies the government to assure the standards it bases the premiums on.

The FAA will also require an Operations Manual that they can review as safe using the data provided in the test flight phases before they issue an Operating Certificate. The FAA I am sure had a voice in the testing standards that need to be achieved in the test program. This essentially is like starting an airline where you build a new plane to service it. That is the FAA's domain plain and simple, they are the lead agency. I have no doubt they are collaborating with NASA, AF, and Industry entities involved, but at the end of the day, it's the FAA that's going to give the final sign off on the program before the first of the 800 paid rides takes place.
 
Now that one has crashed how many bizillionaires are going to get a VG ride for Christmas from their wives?:lol:
 
Henning said:
They aren't, that is why there is this major experimental program. They develop a system that they can prove safe for certification.

Before they can launch with Passengers for Hire, they have to have an Operating Certificate from the FAA, the way they launch there is no way around it. The one thing they will require is to be insured, first thing they want on a 135 application. In order to provide insurance to a Strict Liability industry, the insurance industry relies the government to assure the standards it bases the premiums on.

The FAA will also require an Operations Manual that they can review as safe using the data provided in the test flight phases before they issue an Operating Certificate. The FAA I am sure had a voice in the testing standards that need to be achieved in the test program. This essentially is like starting an airline where you build a new plane to service it. That is the FAA's domain plain and simple, they are the lead agency. I have no doubt they are collaborating with NASA, AF, and Industry entities involved, but at the end of the day, it's the FAA that's going to give the final sign off on the program before the first of the 800 paid rides takes place.
Click to expand...

:mad2:

:mad2:

:rolleyes2:

Since Scaled was planning a customer launch in 2015 or possibly 2016 those certification standards you go on about must be in motion...how about posting up a link to them. It can take more than a year for a aviation outfit to get a Part 135 Certificate, so the FAA must have this in progress. So show us.
 
Last edited:
Pneumatic actuators? For real or are you making an assumption? You sound like you're pretty sure. If so, wow, that's scarily like the guys doing the sailboat stuff pushing into dangerous areas of weight reduction. A hydraulic system may have weighed more and been more complex to design, but it likely would have prevented this. Using a compressible gas in a system to fight what can be a strong force is not all that wise. That lock needs to be in place until the shockwave has passed.

As for why is the unlock even listed in that phase of flight much less exact timing? :dunno: That's a really interesting question.
 
Henning said:
They aren't, that is why there is this major experimental program. They develop a system that they can prove safe for certification.

Before they can launch with Passengers for Hire, they have to have an Operating Certificate from the FAA, the way they launch there is no way around it. The one thing they will require is to be insured, first thing they want on a 135 application. In order to provide insurance to a Strict Liability industry, the insurance industry relies the government to assure the standards it bases the premiums on.

The FAA will also require an Operations Manual that they can review as safe using the data provided in the test flight phases before they issue an Operating Certificate. The FAA I am sure had a voice in the testing standards that need to be achieved in the test program. This essentially is like starting an airline where you build a new plane to service it. That is the FAA's domain plain and simple, they are the lead agency. I have no doubt they are collaborating with NASA, AF, and Industry entities involved, but at the end of the day, it's the FAA that's going to give the final sign off on the program before the first of the 800 paid rides takes place.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree...

They could easiely structure the entire venture as a R&D development program and sell "fractional ownership slots" and those shareholders can opt in for a (Status of investment ) fact finding mission...... ;)
No FAA involvement at all.... IMHO..
 
Henning said:
Pneumatic actuators? For real or are you making an assumption? You sound like you're pretty sure. If so, wow, that's scarily like the guys doing the sailboat stuff pushing into dangerous areas of weight reduction. A hydraulic system may have weighed more and been more complex to design, but it likely would have prevented this. Using a compressible gas in a system to fight what can be a strong force is not all that wise. That lock needs to be in place until the shockwave has passed.

As for why is the unlock even listed in that phase of flight much less exact timing? :dunno: That's a really interesting question.
Click to expand...

SS1 was pneumatic, and there hasn't been any announcement of a change in systems. With the hybrid motor's relatively poor specific impulse compared to full solids or a liquid engine weight is critical.

As for the unlock, it all has to do with the altitude/dynamic pressure curve. Where is the vehicle at the planned unlock speed of 1.4 Mach?

I don't have data on the pullup maneuver thus I don't know what the SS2 altitude is at that point and I can't estimate the EAS. However, the booms must be unlocked way before the vehicle reaches the 100 km apogee. Somewhere between a calculated altitude and EAS versus apogee the vehicle might require feathering to return to the denser atmosphere due to an unplanned event.

The vehicle is built to withstand the dynamic pressures of such an event if it occurs within the calculated flight envelope. However, 45,000' and 250+ kts. EAS obviously isn't within those boundaries.

At an EAS less than 150 kts. or so the pneumatics would work fine as far as opening force is concerned. However, at such speeds it would cause an unwanted pitch change of unpredictable magnitude. As I said earlier, SS1 feathered at an apogee EAS less than 16 kts.

As for the lock...well, it's a lock. F/A-18s have a lock too, you know. They'll also fall out of the sky if the wing is unlocked when it's not supposed to be.
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
I respectfully disagree...

They could easiely structure the entire venture as a R&D development program and sell "fractional ownership slots" and those shareholders can opt in for a (Status of investment ) fact finding mission...... ;)
No FAA involvement at all.... IMHO..
Click to expand...

Who will insure it? Branson?
 
Henning said:
Who will insure it? Branson?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the fact that that SS2 was insured for a significant amount with AIG in the lead? Insurers have decades of actuarial information regarding loss of life in aviation. The costs are well known. A dead human is only worth so much, regardless of how he meets his end.

No doubt they have already determined a factor for private space travel loss without breaking a sweat. Virgin would be stupid to have offered seats without input from the industry.
 
Last edited:
I have no issue with the lock, but the lock is mandatory in that flight regime, not optional, therefore after this event will require an interlock feature to prevent early release to keep the pneumatic actuator. The lock is not a 'secondary safety', it is the only thing that provides stability to the system.
 
And when the interlock fails locked and the ship can't feather...
 
Henning said:
I have no issue with the lock, but the lock is mandatory in that flight regime, not optional, therefore after this event will require an interlock feature to prevent early release to keep the pneumatic actuator. The lock is not a 'secondary safety', it is the only thing that provides stability to the system.
Click to expand...

It's obvious Scaled determined the unlock point via EAS and altitude/dynamic pressure curves. The loss of the vehicle occurred outside those parameters due to human error, which sometimes happens in flight tests.

The unlock feature must work while the craft is still in the atmosphere for an abort within the calculated flight envelope. Will they fashion a EAS/barometric type interlock? Probably.

Not unlocking can be just as deadly as premature unlocking.
 
3393RP said:
It's obvious Scaled determined the unlock point via EAS and altitude/dynamic pressure curves. The loss of the vehicle occurred outside those parameters due to human error, which sometimes happens in flight tests.

The unlock feature must work while the craft is still in the atmosphere for an abort within the calculated flight envelope. Will they fashion a EAS/barometric type interlock? Probably.

Not unlocking can be just as deadly as premature unlocking.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand what happened and why the 1.4M unlock speed exists and why to unlock early in the the flight regime, it just needs a safety against premature or otherwise out of parameters deployment. They may have to add some weight, the may have to leave a seat position empty if they can't get the power they need. I don't think an N2O/hybrid rocket is the great answer answer to high speed travel or getting payloads to orbit.
 
Henning said:
They may have to add some weight, the may have to leave a seat position empty if they can't get the power they need. I don't think an N2O/hybrid rocket is the great answer answer to high speed travel or getting payloads to orbit.
Click to expand...

There's no way a hybrid can get any appreciable weight to orbit, ever. The scaling necessary is outside the performance parameters possible with the design.

Even with a high specific impulse engine like those in current use as orbital launch vehicles weight is a huge problem. Fuel requirements go up exponentially with increased weight. A liquid engined manned vehicle able to carry six to ten people and some cargo into orbit would have to weigh at least 6 million pounds, the weight of the Saturn V all up.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Why not? Underwriters expect to write checks. That's the business.
Click to expand...

Sure they do......

Just try to buy homeowners insurance on a beachfront house in Fla,, or any other east coast state for that matter...:rolleyes:
 
yeah but.....they ain't trying to reach escape velocity.:goofy:
3393RP said:
There's no way a hybrid can get any appreciable weight to orbit, ever. The scaling necessary is outside the performance parameters possible with the design.

Even with a high specific impulse engine like those in current use as orbital launch vehicles weight is a huge problem. Fuel requirements go up exponentially with increased weight. A liquid engined manned vehicle able to carry six to ten people and some cargo into orbit would have to weigh at least 6 million pounds, the weight of the Saturn V all up.
Click to expand...
 
3393RP said:
There's no way a hybrid can get any appreciable weight to orbit, ever. The scaling necessary is outside the performance parameters possible with the design.

Even with a high specific impulse engine like those in current use as orbital launch vehicles weight is a huge problem. Fuel requirements go up exponentially with increased weight. A liquid engined manned vehicle able to carry six to ten people and some cargo into orbit would have to weigh at least 6 million pounds, the weight of the Saturn V all up.
Click to expand...

Remember... Spaceship2 is NOT starting from a standing start at ground level... They are hurled into the party at 50,000 feet and 600 mph.... The first 50,000 feet from ground level and a dead start eats up ALOT of fuel..:yes:......:rolleyes: IMHO
 
N801BH said:
Remember... Spaceship2 is NOT starting from a standing start at ground level... They are hurled into the party at 50,000 feet and 600 mph.... The first 50,000 feet from ground level and a dead start eats up ALOT of fuel..:yes:......:rolleyes: IMHO
Click to expand...
Even from that it still takes a lot of energy to accelerate that mass into orbit. That's what we need to develop, a way to re supply material to 3D printer stations in orbit building structures.
 
Henning said:
Even from that it still takes a lot of energy to accelerate that mass into orbit. That's what we need to develop, a way to re supply material to 3D printer stations in orbit building structures.
Click to expand...

Yes, and enormous space ovens to sinter the metals and cure the epoxies.
 
3393RP said:
There's no way a hybrid can get any appreciable weight to orbit, ever. The scaling necessary is outside the performance parameters possible with the design.

Even with a high specific impulse engine like those in current use as orbital launch vehicles weight is a huge problem. Fuel requirements go up exponentially with increased weight. A liquid engined manned vehicle able to carry six to ten people and some cargo into orbit would have to weigh at least 6 million pounds, the weight of the Saturn V all up.
Click to expand...

Why would it have to be liquid-fueled? Shuttle stacks routinely launched into orbit with 6 astronauts and a payload-bay full of cargo (that weighed a lot more than 4 more astronauts) with a stack weight of ~4.5 million pounds.

Maybe I'm missing some big assumption in the 8 pages of tangential digressions that I didn't fully read, but for what it's worth it clearly doesn't take a Saturn V / 6 million pound stack to get 10 people to orbit.
 
Jim_R said:
Why would it have to be liquid-fueled? Shuttle stacks routinely launched into orbit with 6 astronauts and a payload-bay full of cargo (that weighed a lot more than 4 more astronauts) with a stack weight of ~4.5 million pounds.

Maybe I'm missing some big assumption in the 8 pages of tangential digressions that I didn't fully read, but for what it's worth it clearly doesn't take a Saturn V / 6 million pound stack to get 10 people to orbit.
Click to expand...
maybe he was thinking of the moon?.....:dunno::goofy:
 
Henning said:
The metal is sintered with lasers, epoxies can catalyze, technology is never our problem, will is.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the process they use, but I can almost guarantee that some type of heat treatment is needed after the metal parts are formed for uniformity of properties, stress relief and strength. Epoxies catalyzed chemically generally don't reach the properties needed for extreme environments in space.
 
PaulS said:
I'm not sure the process they use, but I can almost guarantee that some type of heat treatment is needed after the metal parts are formed for uniformity of properties, stress relief and strength. Epoxies catalyzed chemically generally don't reach the properties needed for extreme environments in space.
Click to expand...

Epoxy can be heated in the printer head during the deposition process, plastic wire as well. Technology is not the problem.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
yeah but.....they ain't trying to reach escape velocity.:goofy:
Click to expand...

N801BH said:
Remember... Spaceship2 is NOT starting from a standing start at ground level... They are hurled into the party at 50,000 feet and 600 mph.... The first 50,000 feet from ground level and a dead start eats up ALOT of fuel..:yes:......:rolleyes: IMHO
Click to expand...

Checkout_my_Six said:
maybe he was thinking of the moon?.....:dunno::goofy:
Click to expand...

Jim_R said:
Why would it have to be liquid-fueled? Shuttle stacks routinely launched into orbit with 6 astronauts and a payload-bay full of cargo (that weighed a lot more than 4 more astronauts) with a stack weight of ~4.5 million pounds.

Maybe I'm missing some big assumption in the 8 pages of tangential digressions that I didn't fully read, but for what it's worth it clearly doesn't take a Saturn V / 6 million pound stack to get 10 people to orbit.
Click to expand...



I was replying to Hennings muse that a hybrid rocket would not be suitable for placing multiple people and necessary support into orbit. He is correct, and I used the weight of the Saturn V as an example of a comparable liquid engined vehicle to place that payload into orbit.

I'm aware the shuttle weighed in at 4.5 million pounds all up. The higher specific impulse of the SRBs makes the vehicle more efficient than the Saturn V.
 
3393RP said:
I was replying to Hennings muse that a hybrid rocket would not be suitable for placing multiple people and necessary support into orbit. He is correct, and I used the weight of the Saturn V as an example of a comparable liquid engined vehicle to place that payload into orbit.

I'm aware the shuttle weighed in at 4.5 million pounds all up. The higher specific impulse of the SRBs makes the vehicle more efficient than the Saturn V.
Click to expand...

What we need is clean burn, high lift, rockets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top