Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 312 posts

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#151

Post by diminoten »

organsnyder wrote: post #146
diminoten wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point you need to put people in those ships, and at some point you need to put test people in ships you eventually want to put people into. Where is the line?

Of course it's easy to say this in hindsight, but I might draw that line somewhere around where you're trying out a new fuel for the first time.

Yeah, well you're always trying something for the first time.

But I get what you mean. It's a tough thing to figure out, and hindsight is always going to be "well we shouldn't have done that".

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#152

Post by zepolud »

apr wrote: post #110
zepolud wrote: post #31

Test pilots? In the 21st century? I find it absolutely reckless and inexcusable to require live humans riding on a prototype rocket when you have all the processing power needed to automate/remote manage the vehicle literally in your pocket. EDIT: To those downvoting, you should really check that all current spaceplanes have the capability to fly and land autonomously--Boeing X-37, Dream Chaser, even Buran was fully…

I think armchair quarterbacking is reckless and inexcusable. These people has been working on airplanes and space crafts for some time now and I would trust their judgment. Especially given that they put their own lives on the line.

"These people" that designed the spaceplane didn't put their lives on the line, they put the lives of the pilots on the line. And I would trust the judgment of the engineers at Boeing, Sierra Nevada, SpaceX, Lockheed-Martin and the entire Soviet space program over theirs.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#153

Post by venomsnake »

aero142 wrote: post #124
venomsnake wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Costs are fixed. It is up to the culture to choose whether to pay in blood or treasure.

Even though it catchy, it's still bullshit. Spending much more money and still failing miserably is a likely outcome of lots of projects.

The less you spending on safety and training, or have lax safety standards, more people will die. End of story.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#154

Post by termain »

seanflyon wrote: post #85
marze wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some say this is an "inevitable" result of pushing boundaries. No. This is the result of a poorly managed program. What they are doing is much easier than the Apollo program, which was well managed and had no in-flight failures that resulted in loss of life, while accomplishing an infinitely harder task. This is a tragedy, obviously. But the program is about six years behind schedule, been going for 10 years. The mos…

> Seeing only the first paragraph, I already know that some rubber in the hybrid engine detached blocking the nozzle and causing the whole engine to explode. Does this same concern apply to plastic-based fuel? It does seem like a terrible idea to have people in the rocket the first time you try a new fuel mixture. "During the nine months since the previous rocket-powered test in January, Virgin Galactic switched Spac…

They tested the polyamide/nitrous engine back in May, I believe.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#155

Post by JoeAltmaier »

ceejayoz wrote: post #150
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... few days"

I went with years there to be safe as I'm uncertain about what the detection levels are like for planet-killer sized asteroids. I know we discover house-sized ones passing between us and the Moon after they whiz by.

No detection. Who's looking? Many are found by amateurs, as you say, after they whiz by.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#156

Post by mhurron »

ceejayoz wrote: post #140
revscat wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true, it is also not as direct of a threat. CO2 is affecting us now , whereas asteroids, etc., are (thankfully) only possibilities. Serious ones, to be certain, but not immediately threatening. CO2 is a direct and immediate threat.

Humans as a species will survive CO2, though, whereas asteroids conceivably can go from "not immediately threatening" to "Earth will be destroyed in a few years" without warning.

> not immediately threatening" to "Earth will be destroyed in a few years" without warning.

Unless the lead time is 50-100 years, years might as well be tomorrow, it's going to kill us all either way. Even that might be stretching it.

> Humans as a species will survive CO2

Maybe, personally I believe humans will cause their own extinction. I'm just not sure yet if we're going to take all life with us or not. Dealing with CO2 is a toss up between making the planet uninhabitable or completely inhospitable to life.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#158

Post by [deleted] »

seanflyon wrote: post #85
marze wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some say this is an "inevitable" result of pushing boundaries. No. This is the result of a poorly managed program. What they are doing is much easier than the Apollo program, which was well managed and had no in-flight failures that resulted in loss of life, while accomplishing an infinitely harder task. This is a tragedy, obviously. But the program is about six years behind schedule, been going for 10 years. The mos…

> Seeing only the first paragraph, I already know that some rubber in the hybrid engine detached blocking the nozzle and causing the whole engine to explode. Does this same concern apply to plastic-based fuel? It does seem like a terrible idea to have people in the rocket the first time you try a new fuel mixture. "During the nine months since the previous rocket-powered test in January, Virgin Galactic switched Spac…

[deleted]

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#159

Post by termain »

marze wrote: post #69
mixmax wrote: post #23

What this weeks events show us is that space travel is hard. Really hard. Most systems operate in extreme conditions, sometimes bordering on the improbable. Thousands, sometimes millions of horsepower in an engine smaller than a car, cryogenic liquids at -200 degrees celsius cooling a nozzle that is 3000 degrees celsius 5 millimeters away, heatshields designed to absorb obscene amounts of heat, the list just goes on…

Some say this is an "inevitable" result of pushing boundaries. No. This is the result of a poorly managed program. What they are doing is much easier than the Apollo program, which was well managed and had no in-flight failures that resulted in loss of life, while accomplishing an infinitely harder task. This is a tragedy, obviously. But the program is about six years behind schedule, been going for 10 years. The mos…

"The most stupid thing they've done is stay with an experimental rubber/nitrous hybrid engine this whole time, instead of switching to liquid/liquid engine, a well proven technology."

1. They didn't stay with rubber/nitrous.

2. Like the sort used on Antares?

"Seeing only the first paragraph, I already know that some rubber in the hybrid engine detached blocking the nozzle and causing the whole engine to explode."

But what you know is wrong, they weren't using rubber.

I think a good case can be made that they didn't do enough ground testing, but your post mixing disdain and falsity doesn't advance that case.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#160

Post by Crito »

[deleted] wrote: post #147

[deleted]

No. Absolutely not.

The Antares flight used refurb-Russian engines, and Antares could not be used for manned flight anyways. Even if Antares was flying great, the US would still depend on Russia for rides to the ISS. If the Russians wanted to sabotage something to make sure that the US remained reliant on them, it would be one of the launchers that will be used for manned flights in the near future; Atlas V or Delta IV (CST-100) or Falcon 9 (Dragon 2).

Virgin Galactic threatens approximately fuck-all of what the Russians do. Their spacecraft cannot bring people into orbit. In no conceivable way did Space Ship Two make the US any less reliant on the Russians.

Post reply on HN