[AR] Re: SpaceShipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight
- From: Bill Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 22:21:56 -0600
Anthony:
Agree.
But this is not Government and Branson may well have no choice about
continuing: businesses run on investment and if outside investors are unwilling
to throw still more money into killing test pilots so the rich can have a new
experience--let's be clear that this activity has nothing to do with
"pioneering"--then there will be no further unnecessary deaths.
We might also wonder how much longer NG is going to tolerate this risk: buying
off this death is within the corporate resources; a cabin of billionaires could
seriously damage the company.
Which raises the larger question of whether investors will withdraw from the
entire business sector, killing it, for now.
Bill
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 1, 2014, at 20:06, Anthony Cesaroni <acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Sir Richard says he'll stay the course. He needs to set his ego and PR aside
> for a bit and reassess what the best course may be IMO. There are technical
> issues that need to be adequately addressed to make this a human rated
> design. The constant statements of pioneering, risks, failures and sacrifice
> of brave people and advancing technology etc. simply don't cut it anymore. We
> have no shortage of technology to mitigate risk in this day and and age. We
> should apply that and put better engineering, history and experience to good
> use rather than rushing ahead on designs that have not have taken advantage
> of the enormous resources and data we have available. Egos, image marketing,
> being the first, best and/or only company etc. have no place in the effort to
> develop an affordable, practical and safe access to space industry as well as
> the required technology.
> Best
> Anthony
>
>
>> On Nov 1, 2014, at 9:16 PM, David Weinshenker <daze39@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Rand Simberg wrote:
>>> XCOR doesn't have this problem, both because they don't have a solid
>>> propellant component to get cold, and because their operational
>>> environment is the ground. Once they do their runway take off, the
>>> internal pressure and thermal environment of the engine is determined by
>>> its own dynamics, not the external environment. So ground tests are
>>> adequate for it. If Virgin persists in pursuing a hybrid, they may never
>>> be able to properly test it at altitude, except by potentially
>>> sacrificing more vehicles (and crew). So, the implications for a hybrid
>>> engine for a dropped vehicle at altitude...?
>>
>>
>> It seems, as much as anything, that this is a verification issue with
>> any sort of engine that has to start in a vehicle dropped at altitude
>> (rather than something specific to hybrids, except to the extent that
>> hybrids as such have specific sensitivities to the environment at the
>> ignition altitude).
>>
>> If they were doing an XCOR-style flight, with the runway
>> takeoff on rocket thrust, the ground test environment
>> would be representative of the operational case for a
>> hybrid as much as for any other motor type.
>>
>> Also, as far as testing at altitude - one method might be to air-drop
>> an unmanned sounding rocket with the similar engine system. (That would
>> simulate cold soak and exposure to reduced pressure experienced by the
>> hybrid during the carried ascent.)
>>
>> -dave w
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
