Virgin Galactic Accident

[Highkeas]

This site gives a good description of the planned flight trajectory for Spaceship Two. The "feathers" are used only after the vehicle has reached apogee.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ed-tails-work/

To rotate the "feathers" through 90 degrees then return them there must be an actuator mechanism. My guess is that this mechanism either failed or it received a premature activation signal.

[Brainsys]

In answer to my own question, this was reportedly their only operational testbed. A number of others are being assembled but no word on when they will have another testbed to proceed.

The report I read (sorry cannot recall the source) was that another spaceframe(?) was 65% complete and they would continue building. I guess one of the issues is that the investigators must want to see what a real cockpit looks and feels like. Something you can't always get from drawings or computer simulations. Especially if human factors are at issue here - the premature unlock.

As for unscheduled deployment - do we presume the 'shock' around mach 1.0 may have triggered something? A reason to keep it locked till safely through that zone?

[Gabriel]

So, this is a two-barrier system. There is a "lock/unlock" lever and another "feather" lever and you have to move both of them, in sequence, to go to the feather configuration. According to the NTSB, the first lever was moved but the second not, and per intended design the feather should have stayed in the normal position with that action alone. If that's correct, then pilot error" alone doesn't explain it (even if we narrowly look just for the immediate cause).

I wonder if the "lock/unlock" handle just locks the "feather" handle to prevent that the "feather" lever is unintentionally moved (but moved) by the crew, or it actually mechanically locks the feather in the "normal" position to prevent a known potential failure mode that would cause the ship to go in the feather config even without touching the feather lever.

[elaw]

I wonder if the "lock/unlock" handle just locks the "feather" handle to prevent that the "feather" lever is unintentionally moved (but moved) by the crew, or it actually mechanically locks the feather in the "normal" position

IMHO the answer should be "both"! Given the apparent serious consequences when the system deploys at the wrong time.

On an unrelated note: does anyone know what the criteria/rules are for when the NTSB does or does not investigate an accident such as this?

They obviously investigate airplane accidents, but I don't think they've ever investigated one involving a NASA spacecraft, nor do I think they're investigating the recent Antares rocket failure.

[AVION1]

Is amazing one of the crew member survived a plunge from 50,000 Ft. with a parachute. Parachutes are not designed for such altitudes, and their flight suits were not designed for this kind of cold atmosphere.
I remember Chuck Yeager jumped from an F-105 from 70,000 ft., during an emergency. And a test pilot from the SR-71 jumped from 60,000 ft when the airplane broke in pieces, in 1966.
But still, they need a "space suit" designed for this kind of altitudes. Something the crew of the Virgin Galactic didn't have.
Amazing!

[Brainsys]

On an unrelated note: does anyone know what the criteria/rules are for when the NTSB does or does not investigate an accident such as this?

They obviously investigate airplane accidents, but I don't think they've ever investigated one involving a NASA spacecraft, nor do I think they're investigating the recent Antares rocket failure.

This was not a rocket in the Antares sense but an aircraft with a rocket pack - as are often (ok not exclusively) used on some conventional aircraft to assist with take off etc. The plane was airborne due to lift on the body/wings, control was, presumably, through aileron type surfaces. Indeed the whole flight envelope is just like those 'weightless' experience flights with a little more whoomph. The wreckage also had N- (US) aircraft registrations. Do NASA rockets have those?

More interestingly - was the old shuttle a plane too? Or because it could stay in space be regarded as a spacecraft?

I do find it challenging to regard SS2 as a spacecraft. Indeed is there really not that much difference between the experience it gives and a high flying ride in a MIG-29 skimming either side of a notional division between space and atmosphere?

[guamainiac]

I wonder if the FO took a short cut anticipating the actuation of the feathers by lifting the protective cover ahead of time?

I live not too far from a Naval Air weapons practice range and a few years back we had a pilot riddle an elementary school with cannon fire when the pilot lifted the cover from the "pickle" before he "went over the top" on his gun run. Apparently he hit some turbulence and he brushed the button to fire. No one injured but with luck it was after school and the custodians just finished cleaning that wing; lots of holes in the roof and smashed desks.

Probably not, but the premature lifting of the cover reminded me of that.

[Rick G]

Is amazing one of the crew member survived a plunge from 50,000 Ft. with a parachute. Parachutes are not designed for such altitudes, and their flight suits were not designed for this kind of cold atmosphere.
I remember Chuck Yeager jumped from an F-105 from 70,000 ft., during an emergency. And a test pilot from the SR-71 jumped from 60,000 ft when the airplane broke in pieces, in 1966.
But still, they need a "space suit" designed for this kind of altitudes. Something the crew of the Virgin Galactic didn't have.
Amazing!

I don't think an F-105 could ever make it to 70,000 ft. AVION1. F-105's most likely had a service ceiling of between 45,000 to 50,000 ft.

Perhaps you are thinking of an F-104 (Starfighter?) I believe one or two F-104's were converted to fly up to extremely high altitudes with the assist of an added rocket engine installed in the tail?

[Rick G]

OK here we go. I took a moment to check to be sure of my comment. It must have been the F-104, the conversion was called the NF-104A.

The link below also makes mention of Chuck Yeager ejecting from an NF-104A.

I am not aware of any F-105's that were converted to rocket planes for extreme altitude flying? Any one?

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_NF-104A

[Gabriel]

I don't know the NTSB charter exactly.

But the NTSB is the National TRANSPORTATION Safety Board (not the National Aviation Safety Board). They investigate not only aviation accidents, but also highway, railroad, maritime and even pipelines.

I know that military accidents are specifically excluded.
I don't know how NASA accidents qualify in all this.

But in this specific case, remember that it was a commercial endeavor in the development of a vehicle to take passengers on an entertainment flight to the boundaries of the atmosphere for a fee. It looks quite appropriate that the NTSB is investigating.

[Highkeas]

Is amazing one of the crew member survived a plunge from 50,000 Ft. with a parachute. Parachutes are not designed for such altitudes, and their flight suits were not designed for this kind of cold atmosphere.
I remember Chuck Yeager jumped from an F-105 from 70,000 ft., during an emergency. And a test pilot from the SR-71 jumped from 60,000 ft when the airplane broke in pieces, in 1966.
But still, they need a "space suit" designed for this kind of altitudes. Something the crew of the Virgin Galactic didn't have.
Amazing!

It is amazing (or lucky) that the crew member managed to egress the spacecraft but subsequent use of a parachute is no issue.

Parachutes can be designed for 50,000 ft altitudes - a drogue chute is used to descend to 10,000 ft for stabilization and for rapid descent (to prevent hypothermia and hypoxia). Thereafter a main parachute is deployed.

Pressure suits are not used for parachute use up to 50,000 ft.

[Highkeas]

.................................

On an unrelated note: does anyone know what the criteria/rules are for when the NTSB does or does not investigate an accident such as this?

They obviously investigate airplane accidents, but I don't think they've ever investigated one involving a NASA spacecraft, nor do I think they're investigating the recent Antares rocket failure.

The FAA is charged with ensuring safety of commercial space launches:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...s_offices/ast/

I assume the FAA can enlist the services of the NTSB for investigations (I've never heard of the NTSB investigating a launch vehicle failure such as the Antares failure).

[Highkeas]

Quote from NTSB:

The NTSB operations and human performance investigators interviewed the surviving pilot on Friday. According to the pilot, he was unaware that the feather system had been unlocked early by the copilot. His description of the vehicle motion was consistent with other data sources in the investigation. He stated that he was extracted from the vehicle as a result of the break-up sequence and unbuckled from his seat at some point before the parachute deployed automatically.

Source: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141112.html

[Leftseat86]

OK here we go. I took a moment to check to be sure of my comment. It must have been the F-104, the conversion was called the NF-104A.

The link below also makes mention of Chuck Yeager ejecting from an NF-104A.

I am not aware of any F-105's that were converted to rocket planes for extreme altitude flying? Any one?

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_NF-104A

Yes, he used the rocket powered modified NF-104A

[jarod]

I heard something similar, reading this article it looks like this technology is pretty old and unstable. It was created by British army but then dismissed because it could become dangerous.

What a disgrace. Let's see if they fix the problem.