he Virgin Galactic space plane that broke apart over the Mojave Desert on Friday shifted early into a high-drag configuration that was designed to slow it down, federal accident investigators have said.

The accident killed the co-pilot, Michael Alsbury; the pilot, Peter Siebold survived after parachuting out of the plane.

The craft, called SpaceShipTwo, was designed to rocket up, and when it reached the top of its ascent, two tail booms would rotate upward into a "feathered" position. That would create more drag and stability, allowing the plane to descend gently back into the atmosphere, much like a badminton shuttlecock.

At the news conference Sunday night at the Mojave Air and Space Port in California, Christopher A. Hart, the acting chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said the plane was not supposed to move into the feathered configuration unless the pilots took two actions: First, a lever would be switched to unlock the tail booms, then a handle would be moved to feather the booms.

“About nine seconds after the engine ignited, the telemetry data told us the feather parameters changed from locked to unlocked,” Mr. Hart said.

In addition, a video camera in the cockpit showed Mr. Alsbury switching the lever to the unlocked position, Mr. Hart said. That occurred at a velocity of about Mach 1, which is the speed of sound at a given altitude. Under normal operations, that lever would not be moved until later in the flight, when the space plane had reached a speed of Mach 1.4, Mr. Hart said. The plane’s altitude would also be higher, where the air is thinner.

I simply cannot think of an example in other spacecraft of this scope - it would be like opening the shuttle bay doors while the SRBs were firing, or like flipping the shuttle backwards to an engines-first attitude during re-entry.

Weaver wrote:Beginning to sound like a major pilot error.

Warren Dew wrote:Hmm. I'm not sure why that logic wouldn't also apply to the CEO of a private company. Spaceship two is years behind schedule and I don't know how many times over budget but that's a different cause. If VG was about profit, they'd give up now.

But the key thing about private enterprise is that there's competition. Xcor is pretty much a direct competitor to Virgin Galactic. Maybe if Virgin can't do it, Xcor can, or vice versa.

SpaceX is bringing prices down further. You'd like that company.

I do like SpaceX. However, they are focused on cargo, not people. I'd like to see progress on moving people into space as well.

Even with lower prices I have doubts if there's a market for a space hotel. Are there really enough people willing to pay a few millions just to spend a few days in a tiny, flimsy tin can?

The technology should be able to drive the costs down to a small multiple of energy costs. Ultimately that ought to bring the price down to $10k per person or less. Given how many people spring for that kind of money for fancy cruises, yes, I think there's a significant market.

The problem with reaching orbit at present is that too much of the weight we push up is just structural weight for holding the fuel and such. SpaceShipTwo tremendously reduces that structural weight. That's technology that can be applied to orbital missions.

VK-machine wrote:

Weaver wrote:Beginning to sound like a major pilot error.

I'd be careful with that conclusion. What we know now is that there was a technical malfunction of some kind. The plane feathered when it shouldn't have.
The fact that the dead co-pilot unlocked the system earlier than he should have may or may not have been an error. It may be that the normal procedure in practice differed from the written procedure or maybe he had some reason. That remains to be seen.
It seems like quite the coincidence that a highly trained, well prepared test pilot would drop the ball like that just when it would have catastrophic consequences. Of course, such coincidences are often the cause of disasters.

I also agree with mrjonno. You really shouldn't be able to self-destruct a passenger plane by flipping 2 levers. Sure, a pilot can literally break apart a plane in the air but that usually requires a minimum degree of persistence. American 587 is an example. Pilot jams the rudder repeatedly left and right until the tail fin of the A300 snaps off: No survivors. He had been trained to do so.

Can you say London to Tokyo in a couple hours? Could become achievable ...

Macdoc wrote:

Can you say London to Tokyo in a couple hours? Could become achievable ...

That certainly is an unstated goal.

johnbrandt wrote:Still can't believe the way people are so averse to any slight level of risk in anything these days. We see playgrounds with padding everywhere which are now apparently leading to kids who don't know how to handle risk and won't take chances at anything, we see workplace health and safety mutate into something of a ridiculous level.

A spaceship crashes, let's stop the whole program. Someone dies, oh my god, cancel everything, we shouldn't do it at all, forget the whole idea!!!


You have to wonder where we would be if this weak willed philosophy had dominated through human history. Where would aviation or other transport methods be if we gave up the moment it looked a little too risky or someone died?

wtargentina wrote:

johnbrandt wrote:Still can't believe the way people are so averse to any slight level of risk in anything these days. We see playgrounds with padding everywhere which are now apparently leading to kids who don't know how to handle risk and won't take chances at anything, we see workplace health and safety mutate into something of a ridiculous level.

A spaceship crashes, let's stop the whole program. Someone dies, oh my god, cancel everything, we shouldn't do it at all, forget the whole idea!!!


You have to wonder where we would be if this weak willed philosophy had dominated through human history. Where would aviation or other transport methods be if we gave up the moment it looked a little too risky or someone died?

Are you the same johnbrandt who wanted to ban all flights to and from countries with ebola because of the tiny risk that you might be infected?

mrjonno wrote:

Macdoc wrote:

Can you say London to Tokyo in a couple hours? Could become achievable ...

That certainly is an unstated goal.

Perfectly achievable but achievable in a profitable (and safe) way somewhat doubtful if no one bothers even with supersonic civilian aircraft which were around in the 1970's.

If you can get to Tokyo in 12 hours for £500 will people really pay £5000 to get there in 2?. A few corporate execs might but not even normal business will. I know my company expects their staff even senior ones to fly by Easyjet or equivalent

Yes, exactly this. A supersonic plane could cut travel time in half or a third at a much lower cost than a rocket plane while being much more comfortable.
Maybe we'll see another Concorde eventually. There's more rich people, partly because the rise of developing countries, partly because the developed countries are shifting income to the top. Then again fuel costs will only be going up for the foreseeable future so I'm not making any bets.

The hype here is unbelievable. Like this is the 1950ies and space travel wasn't routine.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Toys for boys as far as I am concerned.

mrjonno wrote:Car's are interesting example, while there have been quite a few superficial changes a car in the 1930's still pretty much does the same thing as one in 2014. There is a great difference in safe speed on them.

Main problem with space flight is quite simply rocket propulsion is a very primitive and fundamentally not very safe technology. Something very different is required