|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
So that is two mishaps with Orbital and Virgin, lets hope the bad luck run
is now at an end. Does anyone know the details of what SS2 was actually trying to do when it crashed? Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
On Sunday or thereabouts, Jeff Findley asked ...
In article , says... So that is two mishaps with Orbital and Virgin, lets hope the bad luck run is now at an end. Does anyone know the details of what SS2 was actually trying to do when it crashed? Test flight. Not sure of the actual goals, but they have been using a new propellant in their hybrid engine. I personally detest large hybrids as much as large solids. They have many of the same drawbacks and failure modes. There is some indication it wasn't the motor, though. The CBS report of a statement by the NTSB is quote But Hart said Sunday that investigators "found the fuel tanks, the oxidizer tanks and the engine, and all were intact, showed no signs of burn through, no signs of being breached." Instead, investigators found video evidence and telemetry indicating SpaceShipTwo's twin tail booms, known as "feathers," apparently deployed prematurely. /quote Earlier in the report, and perhaps earlier in the presentation, quote "What I'm about to say is a statement of fact and not a statement of cause," Hart said. "We are a long way from finding cause, we still have months and months of investigation, there's a lot that we don't know." /quote /dps -- Who, me? And what lacuna? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
After serious thinking Jeff Findley wrote :
In article , says... So that is two mishaps with Orbital and Virgin, lets hope the bad luck run is now at an end. Does anyone know the details of what SS2 was actually trying to do when it crashed? Test flight. Not sure of the actual goals, but they have been using a new propellant in their hybrid engine. I think various reports said it was the first powered flight by SS2 with the new propellant. In September, the feathering mechanism was tested in an unpowered flight. There is an indication that the latter may have deployed prematurely on this flight. I personally detest large hybrids as much as large solids. They have many of the same drawbacks and failure modes. To be sure, but it is early to blame them, especially in the light of new reports that the tanks were found intact. Interesting article about the job of flying these babies: http://www.wired.com/2014/10/hard-to-fly-spaceshiptwo/ /dps -- Who, me? And what lacuna? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
Oh a software glitch then. However the BBC here keep onsaysaying it
exploded. I think this might just be reporter speak for parts broke off destabilising the craft which then broke up. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.159b7deb8ba856b4.127094@snitoo... On Sunday or thereabouts, Jeff Findley asked ... In article , says... So that is two mishaps with Orbital and Virgin, lets hope the bad luck run is now at an end. Does anyone know the details of what SS2 was actually trying to do when it crashed? Test flight. Not sure of the actual goals, but they have been using a new propellant in their hybrid engine. I personally detest large hybrids as much as large solids. They have many of the same drawbacks and failure modes. There is some indication it wasn't the motor, though. The CBS report of a statement by the NTSB is quote But Hart said Sunday that investigators "found the fuel tanks, the oxidizer tanks and the engine, and all were intact, showed no signs of burn through, no signs of being breached." Instead, investigators found video evidence and telemetry indicating SpaceShipTwo's twin tail booms, known as "feathers," apparently deployed prematurely. /quote Earlier in the report, and perhaps earlier in the presentation, quote "What I'm about to say is a statement of fact and not a statement of cause," Hart said. "We are a long way from finding cause, we still have months and months of investigation, there's a lot that we don't know." /quote /dps -- Who, me? And what lacuna? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
Well, sounds pretty primative. No detail there about the crash, but there is
surely some sequencing in c such a complex deploy mechanism, which if not done right might result in stresses on part of the airframe outside of the safety zone, so to speak. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.159f7deb48527968.127094@snitoo... After serious thinking Jeff Findley wrote : In article , says... So that is two mishaps with Orbital and Virgin, lets hope the bad luck run is now at an end. Does anyone know the details of what SS2 was actually trying to do when it crashed? Test flight. Not sure of the actual goals, but they have been using a new propellant in their hybrid engine. I think various reports said it was the first powered flight by SS2 with the new propellant. In September, the feathering mechanism was tested in an unpowered flight. There is an indication that the latter may have deployed prematurely on this flight. I personally detest large hybrids as much as large solids. They have many of the same drawbacks and failure modes. To be sure, but it is early to blame them, especially in the light of new reports that the tanks were found intact. Interesting article about the job of flying these babies: http://www.wired.com/2014/10/hard-to-fly-spaceshiptwo/ /dps -- Who, me? And what lacuna? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
In message
Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Oh a software glitch then. However the BBC here keep onsaysaying it exploded. I think this might just be reporter speak for parts broke off destabilising the craft which then broke up. if it does turn out that the "feathers" were deployed "early", that would not be an explosion. Looking again at the picture of the "explosion", the feathering going off could account for it. The craft would pitch up and over rapidly so the orange glow in the image would be the still firing engine now almost pointing forwards. Anthony |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Not a good week for space then.
On Monday, November 3, 2014 2:57:04 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:
This sort of thing grates on my nerves. An "explosion" is a very specific thing (in layman's terms, "boom!"). Breaking apart by means of aerodynamic forces is not an "explosion". Reporters need to get this sort of thing right. Well, the initial reports were being made from a less-than-ideal vantage point, so there's lots of opportunity to be confused. /dps |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This week's Carnival of Space is up | Henry Cate | Policy | 0 | July 20th 07 01:06 AM |
Space Memorial Week | Eric Chomko | Policy | 1 | January 31st 07 11:21 PM |
What's up this week in space | nightbat | Misc | 1 | March 30th 06 01:13 AM |
Earth and Space Week cooperation conference hails GMES as example ofbenefits from space | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | February 19th 05 11:39 AM |
Earth and Space Week cooperation conference hails GMES as example of benefits from space | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | February 19th 05 11:39 AM |