Virgin Galactic Accident

[elaw]

Final report is out: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/A...ts/AAR1502.pdf

[James Bond]

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2015_spaceship2_BMG.aspx

[Highkeas]

Reading that article, I'm no more enlightened than I was 5 minutes ago. The article contains no useful factual information, and reads like it's fiction.

I agree.

However I have worked on stabilization and drag devices for aerospace vehicles that used drag devices other than parachutes - especially during hypersonic flight - for more than 4 decades.

[elaw]

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.

Reading that article, I'm no more enlightened than I was 5 minutes ago. The article contains no useful factual information, and reads like it's fiction.

[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.

[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

[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

[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/headquarters_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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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!