Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Virgin Galactic Accident

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    at 1,600 metres
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVION1 View Post
    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.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    at 1,600 metres
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    .................................

    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).

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    at 1,600 metres
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    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

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick G View Post
    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

  5. #45
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    33

    Default

    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.

  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jarod View Post
    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.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    at 1,600 metres
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    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.

  8. #48
    Member James Bond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    4329'04.4"S 17231'30.7"E
    Posts
    426
    AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

    Quote Originally Posted by orangehuggy View Post
    the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

  9. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    865
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •