5 ms·
> “ A private program can’t afford to lose anybody,” Branson said. Worth noting that Virgin Galactic is currently the only private space program to have killed
by ashtonkem 5y ago
> “ A private program can’t afford to lose anybody,” Branson said.
Worth noting that Virgin Galactic is currently the only private space program to have killed anyone so far. This quote is from before the fatal 2014 crash, but the FAA makes it pretty clear that a virgin galactic had a cavalier attitude towards crew safety[0] back then too. Combined with this article, that paints a picture of Virgin Galactic as a genuinely unsafe company that is going to kill a lot of people if it’s not stopped. Manual processes, no safeties, high pilot work loads, and rockets do not mix well.
0 - This was caused by a design that explicitly assumed that highly trained test pilots were incapable of making mistakes. The design required manual activation, had no failsafes, and the pilots were not told that activation at too low a speed would cause the vehicle to break apart. A breathtakingly bad design for a spacecraft.
- darkcha0s 5y ago>activation at too low a speed would cause the vehicle to break apart. A breathtakingly bad design for a spacecraft. I do hope you know that outside its designed flight envelope, almost any space craft / rocket / airplane breaks apart pretty fast.
- vultour 5y agoIt is very difficult, and often impossible with all systems operational, to get a modern airliner outside of its flight envelope. I'd imagine a tiny glider with a rocket bolted on is a different story.
- mianos 5y agoThis is not true. In most cases you will get warnings but if you are hands-on you can fly into an unrecoverable situation, specially if you are not very high.
- vultour 5y agoThe systems prevent you from flying outside of the flight envelope, not from smashing the plane into the ground. Of course you can crash if you want, but the plane will still be within the flight envelope.
- darkcha0s 5y agoMost probably because that tiny glider with a rocket bolted to it, is pushing more / has more dangerous limits than a subsonic airliner. It's much faster to go outside the designed flight envelope if you're 3x supersonic at FL800 than cruising subsonic at FL320.
- ashtonkem 5y agoI don’t think anyone disagrees with the general assertion that rocket travel is more dangerous than airplane travel. The question is less “is this rocket as safe as an AirBus” and more “is this rocket as safe as other rockets?” My issue with Virgin Galactic is that their rocket design is fundamentally unsafe. It requires a human crew flawlessly perform a high level of work load with minimal automation and safety interlocks. This isn’t something we’d accept with a commercial airplane, even with the much wider margins of error that those craft provide. For a rocket this is absurdly dangerous. The designer in fact explicitly said he wants the pilots actually in control of the aircraft directly without automation, which is romantic but incredibly dumb during supersonic ascent, as the fatal crash shows.
- Stevvo 5y agoYou would have a harder time on an Airbus, but on any Boeing it is not difficult at all. The Fly-by-wire and auto-throttle on an Airbus are designed to prevent the aircraft from leaving its flight-envelope, but Boeing airliners have far less of such 'MCAS' style of protection.
- ashtonkem 5y agoAnd generally you design failsafes and interlocks to prevent them from being applied outside the designed flight envelope. Especially when the consequence is “the vehicle breaks up in 4s”
- andi999 5y agoWhy would it kill a lot of people? Wouldn't people prob stop flying with them after the first crash?