Ad astra per aspera

[Nellisir]

Exactly. I've already seen a whole lot of speculation on the fuel. While they should look at it, that's by no means the only thing they need to review.

Clearly. Something could have been misaligned or came lose; all sorts of potential problems.
I wasn't sure exactly what your response was in reference to.

Somewhat related; I realized on Halloween just how deeply embedded certain experiences are. One of the teachers at my daughter's school was wearing an astronaut flight suit, and my first thought was for Christa McAuliffe. :/ Comes of growing up where she was a teacher, I guess.

(Edit: I'm sure almost everyone remembers the Challenger disaster; the surprising part for me was seeing the flight suit and IMMEDIATELY thinking of McAuliffe. And now I've realized that was almost thirty years ago.)

 

[Umbran]

So, it seems the new fuel likely wasn't an issue - reports are that the rocket motor and fuel tanks were recovered intact, without signs of burn-through or breach.

Some other information was reported with a particular warning:

...the National Transportation Safety Board’s acting chairman Christopher Hart cautioned against jumping to conclusions.

“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 to do, and there’s a lot that we don’t know. We have extensive data sources to go through.”

Specifically, the feathering system, which tilts the wings of the ship up to slow the vehicle and bring it belly-down during reentry engaged prematurely. There may be some pilot error in this - it seems that the co-pilot unlocked the feathering system early. But, it requires a second command to actually feather the wings, and that command was apparently *not* given. However, the wings feathered anyway. And seconds after that, the vehicle disintegrated.


http://spaceflightnow.com/2014/11/0...et-plane-deployed-braking-system-prematurely/

 

[Scott DeWar]

So it is an "and gate" configuration required the lock un-lock lever to be un-locked and the feather to be deployed. However the feather lever was not deployed, even though the lock lever was in the unlock position and it deployed any way. I could only speculate, but I am guessing a lot of things must fail to allow such an anomaly. This is very tragic. I hope it was not sabotage.

 

[Umbran]

This is very tragic. I hope it was not sabotage.

I don't know why anyone would want to sabotage a project for civilian recreational spaceflight. It has no tactical or strategic value in a military sense. Nobody's claimed responsibility, so it isn't political. And if you were one of the competitors, you'd not take the risk - the NTSB is *thorough*, and would likely discover sabotage, and being caught at it would sink you in the business, lickety-split.

 

[Janx]

One thing to ponder is whether the NTSB has knowledge to root cause a foreign design. This crash is more appropriately in Virgin's expertise.

It's one thing to root cause a 737 crash, everybody at the NTSB has seen the guts of one.

It's another for an NTSB engineer to root cause a confidential prototype from an engineering company. The NTSB should be under NDA's just to look at the crash site.

Basically, the engineers that made the Alien Spaceship knows more about how it works (or didn't work) than some generic guy at the NTSB who was never privy to the designs until the crash.

 

[Umbran]

One thing to ponder is whether the NTSB has knowledge to root cause a foreign design. This crash is more appropriately in Virgin's expertise.

No. Scaled Composites. Virgin Galactic is licensing the tech, not developing it.

It's one thing to root cause a 737 crash, everybody at the NTSB has seen the guts of one.

It's another for an NTSB engineer to root cause a confidential prototype from an engineering company. The NTSB should be under NDA's just to look at the crash site.

As a regulating body, no, they don't need an NDA. They don't need such to investigate the crash of a test airplane, so they don't need one here. They have their own rules of ethics that regulate their investigators. If you're going to fly that thing over public space, you don't get to regulate yourself, and have everyone else take your word for it!

In addition, the engineering of SpaceShipTwo is not really all that different from other aeronautics - the rocket engine is a bit weird, but they've already determined that engine was likely not the issue, having been recovered intact so that we know it didn't just blow up. The rest of it is built to fly in air - you know, with wings and stuff.

In another addition - the real root cause may not be in the engineering itself, and there aren't too many bigger experts in, say, proper training, or engineering process improvement than the NTSB.

Basically, the engineers that made the Alien Spaceship knows more about how it works (or didn't work) than some generic guy at the NTSB who was never privy to the designs until the crash.

Dude, the NTSB is not sending in "generic guys". The NTSB doesn't *have* "generic guys". They are broken down into offices to cover various areas. You don't get the same agent for a highway issue as you do for a nautical issue, or for an aviation issue. And they'll get access to the engineering details, and the experts. The NTSB has resources in engineering better than you may expect.

For example - the lead investigator the NTSB has assigned is Lorenda Ward. She's got degrees in aerospace engineering, and before joining the NTSB, she worked for the Navy on EA-6B Prowlers and F-14 Tomcats. F-14s go *faster* than SpaceShipTwo. So, she's familiar with much of the engineering involved. She knows high performance aircraft.

 

[Scott DeWar]

Good to know they are up to the job then. I see way too much bureaucracy in government as a norm. Its sometimes hard to trust government in my experience. I am trying to be open. This information is good, though.

 

[trancejeremy]

The thing is, SpaceShipTwo is essentially a rocket, not an airplane (much less a 1960s/1970s era airplane, like the Prowler/Tomcat).

Not only that, it's using a fairly unique sort of engine (and probably flawed) that has never really been used before, as well as a new re-entry system.

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

 

[Scott DeWar]

The thing is, SpaceShipTwo is essentially a rocket, not an airplane (much less a 1960s/1970s era airplane, like the Prowler/Tomcat).

Not only that, it's using a fairly unique sort of engine (and probably flawed) that has never really been used before, as well as a new re-entry system.

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

In addition, the engineering of SpaceShipTwo is not really all that different from other aeronautics - the rocket engine is a bit weird, but they've already determined that engine was likely not the issue, having been recovered intact so that we know it didn't just blow up. The rest of it is built to fly in air - you know, with wings and stuff.

As Umbran pointed by what the video has disclosed, the engine and fuel is determined to not be at fault.

 

[Umbran]

The thing is, SpaceShipTwo is essentially a rocket, not an airplane (much less a 1960s/1970s era airplane, like the Prowler/Tomcat).

Not only that, it's using a fairly unique sort of engine (and probably flawed) that has never really been used before, as well as a new re-entry system.

I hate to say this - but it seems like folks are going out of their way to question competence. Is anyone here an aeronautical engineer? If not, who are we to question the competence of someone who is?

Yes, SpaceShipTwo has a rocket engine. Did you miss the part where they have already found that engine and the fuel tanks, intact, with no signs of breach or burn through? The primary feared failure modes of the engine have thereby already been ruled out. The thing may have had some vibration issues, which will have to be looked at. Everyone in the space business will want to know what went wrong - finding rocket scientists to help with analysis won't be hard.

You guys speak as if the engineering is something kept within the heads of a small number of individuals, difficult to extract r understand. That's not how modern engineering works. Modern engineering is well documented - it is made to be passed around between people in Scaled Composites, so those people can work with it and on it. It is tested, and simulated, and instrumented with sensors for testing phases. It is set up specifically for an aeronautical engineer to access and understand it!

And you guys are so focused on the engineering. The engineering itself is the simple part. That is numbers, hard science. Noting where the engineering failed is *not* the same as finding the root cause of the accident. The real ultimate root cause is the answer to the question, "How did you get to the point where this physical failure occurred?" This is not an engineering question, but a *process* question. What was the testing process that let that engineering through to flight? What was the training process - was a training failure responsible for the co-pilot unlocking the feathering system early? Did that contribute to the destruction of the aircraft? Was the company under too great a pressure to test and deliver, such that steps were rushed, or corners cut?

Those aren't questions of engineering, but of organizations - and organizational analysis is an area in which the NTSB is very much an expert authority.