News Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo accident during powered test flight

Andy44

owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
7,620
Reaction score
7
Points
113
Location
In the Mid-Atlantic states
That's very unlikely. If that was the case there is no reason to have them. The 'feathers' change the aerodynamically stable attitude to "bottom-forward" and that helps slow the craft before it reaches the dense air at lower altitude. If the craft reaches denser air on a pure ballistic track, the high angle + velocity would most likely mean a similar outcome as the last flight.

I think what he means is it possible to survive a crash landing with the feather still deployed after a failure to retract. I am guessing "no"...

Any vehicle which changes its physical configuration has to face this problem. The V-22 Osprey and its tilting rotors, for example.

In fact, to some degree any moving control surfaces have to deal with this, eg. the body flap on the shuttle orbiter, or the ailerons on a jetliner. There are some parts of an aircraft or spacecraft that just HAVE to work right or everyone is in great peril. The Rutan feather is one of these.
 

C3PO

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
2,605
Reaction score
17
Points
53
I think what he means is it possible to survive a crash landing with the feather still deployed after a failure to retract. I am guessing "no"...

I still think he meant "clean" or "un-feathered" mostly because he mentioned "Ascent mode" and "locked", but that really doesn't matter because the result is probably tragedy in both cases. They just have to work every time.

Sub-orbital flight has its own unique set of problems when it comes to manned flight. One of the problems is that the steep re-entry angle increases the load on the craft. Heating, Max-Q, G-loads, everything becomes much worse.

Wayne Hale (IMHO one of the smartest people on this planet) explains it quite well. In-flight aborts (except ATOs) have to be survivable and that means you have to choose a lower ascent trajectory than the most efficient one, to keep an eventual abort from re-entering too steeply.

Wayne Hale's NASA Blog: Black Zones
 

pattersonlee

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2014
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NTSB Investigative Update on Crash of Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo
November 12

The National Transportation Safety Board issued an investigative update today into the crash of SpaceShip Two on Oct. 31, 2014, in Mojave, Calif.

The on-scene portion of the investigation into the crash of Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo, a test flight conducted by Scaled Composites, has concluded and all NTSB investigators have returned to Washington, DC.
The SpaceShipTwo wreckage has been recovered and is being stored in a secure location for follow-on examination.
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.
Recorded information from telemetry, non-volatile memory, and videos are being processed and validated to assist the investigative groups.
An investigative group to further evaluate the vehicle and ground based videos will convene next week at the NTSB Recorders Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
The systems group continues to review available data for the vehicle's systems (flight controls, displays, environmental control, etc.). The group is also reviewing design data for the feather system components and the systems safety documentation.
The vehicle performance group continues to examine the aerodynamic and inertial forces that acted on the vehicle during the launch.

---------- Post added at 02:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 AM ----------

The difference between catastrophe and survival might have been a matter of mere seconds, said Princeton University's Robert Stengel, who has studied the aerodynamics of SpaceShipTwo's predecessor.

Stengel has not been involved in the development of SpaceShipTwo, but he does use SpaceShipOne's aerodynamics as a teaching tool for his course in flight dynamics. The experimental SpaceShipOne craft successfully flew into space three times during 2004.

The wing-feathering mechanism is not designed to be deployed during the plane's rocket-powered ascent. Unfortunately, that's what happened on Friday: The National Transportation Safety Board said video and telemetry showed that co-pilot Mike Alsbury unlocked the mechanism earlier than scheduled, when the craft was traveling at just above the speed of sound. Seconds later, the mechanism was deployed, even though neither one of the pilots pulled the lever to deploy it.

"The feathering occurred at the worst possible flight condition: Mach 1 and maximum dynamic pressure," Stengel told NBC News in an email. "The craft was never structurally designed to withstand such a condition. Had the feathering occurred 10 or 20 seconds later, there probably would not have been a problem."

That may seem counterintuitive, because the rocket engine would have continued firing to accelerate SpaceShipTwo to Mach 1.4. But in a follow-up phone interview, Stengel pointed out that even a few more seconds would have allowed SpaceShipTwo to go higher, where the atmosphere is thinner.

"The air density is going down at a humongous rate," he said.

Because of the thinner atmospheric density, folding the wings that high up at Mach 1.4 would have produced less aerodynamic stress than folding them at a lower altitude at Mach 1, Stengel said.
 

ADSWNJ

Scientist
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
3
Points
38
It's strange to think that in a Max Q situation, the feathers would be able to rise. I presume this implies that they were driven up so hard against that dynamic pressure, even to the point of vessel destruction. I.e. if the feathers unlocked and were somehow free-floating, then the airflow should keep them in the lowest drag position (flat).
 

rhoude57

New member
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It's strange to think that in a Max Q situation, the feathers would be able to rise. I presume this implies that they were driven up so hard against that dynamic pressure, even to the point of vessel destruction. I.e. if the feathers unlocked and were somehow free-floating, then the airflow should keep them in the lowest drag position (flat).
Going supersonic is not a simple and uniform process. Different parts of the aircraft breach the soundwall at different times, which places huge asymetrical forces on the body and control surfaces. It's easy to understand how the feather actuators could have been overpowered.
 

Andy44

owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
7,620
Reaction score
7
Points
113
Location
In the Mid-Atlantic states
It's strange to think that in a Max Q situation, the feathers would be able to rise. I presume this implies that they were driven up so hard against that dynamic pressure, even to the point of vessel destruction. I.e. if the feathers unlocked and were somehow free-floating, then the airflow should keep them in the lowest drag position (flat).

It's possible the tail did stay level, and the fuselage pitched up...from the standpoint of a position sensor it would make no difference.
 

C3PO

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
2,605
Reaction score
17
Points
53
Going supersonic is not a simple and uniform process. Different parts of the aircraft breach the soundwall at different times, which places huge asymetrical forces on the body and control surfaces. It's easy to understand how the feather actuators could have been overpowered.

:hesaid:
Furthermore during transonic flight you get 'stationary waves' (like a bow wave) that catch up with each other, causing huge forces on the structure. That's the reason the feathers have a separate lock to back-up the actuators.
Those 'standing waves' was the main reason it's called the sound barrier. At ~transonic speed the waves pushed so hard on the control surfaces that they appeared locked, and only the invention of the flying tail allowed them to 'bypass' those forces.
 

Cosmic Penguin

Geek Penguin in GTO
News Reporter
Donator
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
3,672
Reaction score
2
Points
63
Location
Hong Kong
Well.....as it turns out like many other aviation disasters, a series of small mistakes that VG, Scaled Composites, the FAA and the co-pilot all made ultimately caused this accident.


 

Abdullah

armchair engineer
Addon Developer
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
102
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
Male'
You know, this just reminds me of STS-107 Columbia.
Spaceflight should continue! After all, the first passenger (or was he? Can someone confirm?) on an airplane was killed in a crash. The more accidents we have, the safer space travel is going to happen. That and Yuri Gagarin didn't die in his historic spaceflight. And he had practically NOTHING in the way of automatic guidance that modern spacecraft had. I mean, the Apollo missions were conducted with a computer that was less powerful than a modern calculator!!


Also I know I'm posting this late.
 
Top