+Warwagon MVC Posted November 1, 2014 MVC Share Posted November 1, 2014 On January 28, 1986, I watched 7 brave astronauts die when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch. I will -never- forget that sight, and I don't ever want to see anything like it again. If it makes you feel any better they didn't die in the explosion. NASA said after the explosion that the pressure mask sensors were going off like everyone inside activated their masks as they were falling. Of course hitting the water at a large G is what got them, but the explosion did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share Posted November 1, 2014 And if the crew capsule had an emergency parachute, as had been in an early design concept, they may well have survived. Early shuttle flights carried modified SR-71 Blackbird ejection seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dot Matrix Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Sad thing about all this is that my Twitter feed is full of idiots calling for the end of private space flight. Saying that the "professionals" at NASA should be the ones to do this stuff. Oy vey. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted November 1, 2014 Global Moderator Share Posted November 1, 2014 And if the crew capsule had an emergency parachute, as had been in an early design concept, they may well have survived. They could only put two ejection seats in the shuttle (ejection seats were used in the first four flights). You couldn't fit anymore in...and most certainly not for the crew in the lower deck. Robert Crippen also doubted that they really would work during launch because of that big trail of flame from the SRBs. He only believed they would have been of use if there had been a problem while coming in for the landing (i.e. not being able to reach the landing site...not Columbia's altitude obviously). Anyway, just saying that ejection seats would not have saved the crew of Challenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share Posted November 1, 2014 Maybe not, but the capsule parachute system likely would have. The one examined after Challenger (great timing) would have added 8,400 lbs, about 3.9 tonnes, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingskippy Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 With the history of this type of hybrid engine, wouldn't there be a pressure relief valve to dump excess pressure in the event that there was a buildup in the NO2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share Posted November 1, 2014 Yes, but a rapid failure of the pressure vessel could have blown off the tail booms. That could explain why it looks like the spacecraft was tumbling. Now an official release by the Kern's County coroner's office, The lost pilot was Michael Alsbury, 39. He leaves a wife and 2 children under the age of 5. Asbury worked for Scaled Composites for 14 years, serving as project engineer and test pilot. RIP, Sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 So, according to the biographer of the project, not only has all the engineers who worked on/developed tis rocket quit and said they'll ever work for VG again and they claim the rockets under developed android unreliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share Posted November 1, 2014 Scaled Composites has ID'd Peter Siebold as the surviving pilot. http://www.scaled.com/images/uploads/news/Press_Release_20141101b.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SALSN Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 So, according to the biographer of the project, not only has all the engineers who worked on/developed tis rocket quit and said they'll ever work for VG again and they claim the rockets under developed android unreliable. Do you have a link to read more about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Do you have a link to read more about this? Only if you read Norwegian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 2, 2014 Author Share Posted November 2, 2014 NTSB B-Roll of the SpaceShipTwo Crash Scene in Mojave, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 2, 2014 Author Share Posted November 2, 2014 For the record, SS2 #2 'Voyager' is 75% finished, and another WK2 is under construction. Today's second NTSB presser 1) 6 cams on the vehicle, 6 non-volatile storage on the vehicle, 3 cams on WhiteKnight2 & chase aircraft with video plus radar, range camera at Edwards AFB. 2) Nothing in the current investigation stops the operator from flying. If they find something, then they will put out recommendations. 3) 5 mile debris field. Direction NE --> SW. Found in order from NE; both tail booms, fuselage & oxidizer tank, cockpit, engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvb2000 Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Reports are an engine start, a stop, a restart then a catastrophic failure. Was this planned? i.e. were they testing this new feature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 If it makes you feel any better they didn't die in the explosion. NASA said after the explosion that the pressure mask sensors were going off like everyone inside activated their masks as they were falling. Of course hitting the water at a large G is what got them, but the explosion did not. And if the crew capsule had an emergency parachute, as had been in an early design concept, they may well have survived. Early shuttle flights carried modified SR-71 Blackbird ejection seats. I know that. And if anything, it makes it a little bit worse... In their last few moments, they -knew- they were dead. Better if it had been instant. Yes, but a rapid failure of the pressure vessel could have blown off the tail booms. That could explain why it looks like the spacecraft was tumbling. Now an official release by the Kern's County coroner's office, The lost pilot was Michael Alsbury, 39. He leaves a wife and 2 children under the age of 5. Asbury worked for Scaled Composites for 14 years, serving as project engineer and test pilot. RIP, Sir. RIP, sir, indeed. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 2, 2014 Author Share Posted November 2, 2014 NO, the start-stop-hard start seems to have been anomalous. Stills from the NTSB video posted to NASASpaceFlight.com make the case for the engine shearing in half near the nitrous oxide tank. The larger fragment nosed onto the desert, and what looks like the tank end stayed with the fuselage. Nitrous tank (big black thing) looks intact Major portion of the engine casing Minor portion of engine casing? Zoomed/enhanced - seems to show the solid fuel grain & bore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SALSN Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Only if you read Norwegian. I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 3, 2014 Author Share Posted November 3, 2014 Looks like the kremlinology was off the mark, NTSB says the nitrous, O2, He, N2 and methane tanks are OK, and what was thought to be part of the engine isn't. The engine casing is intact. Fugly, but intact. They found the cockpit video camera memory sticks and they reveal a co-pilot error, combined with an umcommanded control action. The wings feathered re-entry system has 2 controls; lock/unlock and deploy/retract. The unlock is supposed to happen after Mach 1.4, avoiding the transonic part of the flight envelope, then deploy comes after apogee. The video shows co-pilot Michael Alsbury unlocked the feather mechanism before Mach 1 while under power, then soon after the feather somehow deployed itself. Data was lost 2 seconds later. There's still more work to do into how the uncommanded feather happened. The current operating theory is that with the feather mechanism prematurely unlocked, transonic loads ripped loose the feather motor (there's a pic that looks like a motor was ripped off a bulkhead) allowing the wings (and the tail booms) to feather - move upwards. There may be other items found, but this is a biggie. Wings in flight configuration Wings in feathered (re-entry) configuration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted November 3, 2014 Veteran Share Posted November 3, 2014 well that'd definitely make a lot of drag if that happened at full power... I can see why it would break apart in that case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarK0Y Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 So, it took the life to understand obvious thing: THIS SCHEME IS DEEPLY FAULTY!!! delays are good evidence that their project has been pounded by bunch of troubles. Seems vehicle has zero-valued emergency system: for example, if ss2 doesn't take right altitude, it gets low chance to set feathers at due angle to run deceleration. i only could suggest to not fly on such vehicle. + all test flights should be performed in automatic mode, current tech allows to do that way. back then, i did just say some obvious things. if normal enginering has been top strategy, we have achieved much-much better things & w/o silly losses. the're really no way to damp parasitic vibrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 4, 2014 Author Share Posted November 4, 2014 Relax, the feather lock has not been shown as causative. You're hyperventilating. The real question is why the feather deployed without being commanded. That's a control issue, not an intrinsic problem with feathering which is fundamentally a giant airbrake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarK0Y Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Relax, the feather lock has not been shown as causative. You're hyperventilating. The real question is why the feather deployed without being commanded. That's a control issue, not an intrinsic problem with feathering which is fundamentally a giant airbrake. had vehicle the FDR installed??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 4, 2014 Author Share Posted November 4, 2014 No need for a flight data recorder. SS2 had realtime telemetry, 6 onboard camera with nonvolatile storage including 2 in the cockpit (all recovered), radar and video cameras on 3 other aircraft (WhiteKnightTwo and 2 chase planes) and the tracking radars and cameras from Edwards Air Force Base. Not to mention dozens of media and amateurs who were filming HD with DSLR equipped big optics. The NTSB investigators said they have an extraordinary dataset to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarK0Y Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 The NTSB investigators said they have an extraordinary dataset to work with. In short, they have to pinpoint issue for minimal time. btw, feathers get deployed in automatic mode or by manual command??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 4, 2014 Author Share Posted November 4, 2014 2 step process to feather, 1) move LOCK lever from LOCKED to UNLOCKED 2) Move FEATHER lever from OFF to DEPLOY The flight card says the LOCK lever is not to be UNLOCKED below 1.4 mach. Most likely because of transonic turbulence. NTSB incident timeline - Pacific Time 10:07:19 release from WK2 10:17:21 engine start 10:17:29 0.94 mach 10:17:31 1.02 mach (feather lever is moved from locked to unlocked in that 2 seconds) 10:17:34 telemetry and video lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts