Was building virtually a carbon copy of the first ship a wise move?
Or does the new ship incorporate some of the same flaws that Scaled built into it?
Are they going to flight test the shit out of it?
QuoteMr. Negativity is back on this thread. Could you for once, just for once, add something constructive to VG threads, in stead of just taking random stabs? Thanks.I also appreciate the informed critiques that parabolicarc has been making. There's been plenty of PR-type cheerleading coming from VG and insufficient realism, IMHO. Yes, we all want to see them succeed, but ignoring their many problems is rather like trying not to discuss the elephant in the living room.
Mr. Negativity is back on this thread. Could you for once, just for once, add something constructive to VG threads, in stead of just taking random stabs? Thanks.
Would it be too soon to start asking Virgin Galactic about the number of flight tests the second vehicle will fly that essentially duplicate what the first vehicle had already flown? Could they be planning flight test 1 as unpowered, and then immediately moving to a powered flight test 2?
Moses: not giving a schedule for test program; this is requirements-based, so not planning a specific number of flights at each step.
Shane: in captive carry flights will have 95% of propulsion system installed. Propulsion was “long pole” for 1st SS2 by years.
Quote from: woods170 on 02/21/2016 06:40 pmQuote from: parabolicarc on 02/21/2016 06:11 pmThe devil is in the details. Was building virtually a carbon copy of the first ship a wise move? Or does the new ship incorporate some of the same flaws that Scaled built into it?Are they going to flight test the shit out of it? Or are they pursuing a shorted powered flight test program along the lines of reckless program they had planned before the first ship went down?Everyone said all the right things on Friday. But, they said the same things about safety before the crash. It was more rhetorical than real. Mr. Negativity is back on this thread. Could you for once, just for once, add something constructive to VG threads, in stead of just taking random stabs? Thanks.Woods why put fuel on the fire with a neg comment about someone whom you dislike...just screen out his comments and move on.
Quote from: parabolicarc on 02/21/2016 06:11 pmThe devil is in the details. Was building virtually a carbon copy of the first ship a wise move? Or does the new ship incorporate some of the same flaws that Scaled built into it?Are they going to flight test the shit out of it? Or are they pursuing a shorted powered flight test program along the lines of reckless program they had planned before the first ship went down?Everyone said all the right things on Friday. But, they said the same things about safety before the crash. It was more rhetorical than real. Mr. Negativity is back on this thread. Could you for once, just for once, add something constructive to VG threads, in stead of just taking random stabs? Thanks.
The devil is in the details. Was building virtually a carbon copy of the first ship a wise move? Or does the new ship incorporate some of the same flaws that Scaled built into it?Are they going to flight test the shit out of it? Or are they pursuing a shorted powered flight test program along the lines of reckless program they had planned before the first ship went down?Everyone said all the right things on Friday. But, they said the same things about safety before the crash. It was more rhetorical than real.
Quote from: sdsds on 02/22/2016 04:37 amWould it be too soon to start asking Virgin Galactic about the number of flight tests the second vehicle will fly that essentially duplicate what the first vehicle had already flown? Could they be planning flight test 1 as unpowered, and then immediately moving to a powered flight test 2?https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/700775349240467456QuoteMoses: not giving a schedule for test program; this is requirements-based, so not planning a specific number of flights at each step.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/700777028614664192QuoteShane: in captive carry flights will have 95% of propulsion system installed. Propulsion was “long pole” for 1st SS2 by years.That sounds to me like they're going to be going through the entire testing regime again, captive, glide, and powered. Although I'd be surprised if the captive and glide tests weren't de-emphasized somewhat, given how thoroughly the last vehicle explored those areas.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise#List_of_test_flights
Quote from: Prober on 02/21/2016 11:02 pmQuote from: woods170 on 02/21/2016 06:40 pmQuote from: parabolicarc on 02/21/2016 06:11 pmThe devil is in the details. Was building virtually a carbon copy of the first ship a wise move? Or does the new ship incorporate some of the same flaws that Scaled built into it?Are they going to flight test the shit out of it? Or are they pursuing a shorted powered flight test program along the lines of reckless program they had planned before the first ship went down?Everyone said all the right things on Friday. But, they said the same things about safety before the crash. It was more rhetorical than real. Mr. Negativity is back on this thread. Could you for once, just for once, add something constructive to VG threads, in stead of just taking random stabs? Thanks.Woods why put fuel on the fire with a neg comment about someone whom you dislike...just screen out his comments and move on.No, I won't. I'll explain why. Below is my personal opinion on this:The reporting done here on NSF is of the highest standard and always neutral in tone and objective. Lot's of kudos to Chris, the other Chris and all those other great authors and editors on this site. In the past decade they have managed to establish and maintain a very high standard of reporting on anything spaceflight.But whereas reporting on NSF is of the highest standards possible for journalism, the reporting on parabolicarc.com is most decidedly not. Over the years their reporting on anything VG has ever so gradually become biased and subjective towards the negative. Now, that would not be a problem if that remained confined to parabolicarc.com. Unfortunately, their primary author has found it necessary to start spreading his FUD over here, at NSF. I really don't care for that. IMO it drags down the quality of NSF. IMO he is free to voice whatever biased opinion he has at his own site, but he should not be doing that over here as well. And IMO the folks at parabolicarc would be well advised to take an example from NSF, Spacenews, SFN, etc. where the journalism is done the way it is supposed to: be neutral and objective.But I digress.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/700777028614664192QuoteShane: in captive carry flights will have 95% of propulsion system installed. Propulsion was “long pole” for 1st SS2 by years.That sounds to me like they're going to be going through the entire testing regime again, captive, glide, and powered. Although I'd be surprised if the captive and glide tests weren't de-emphasized somewhat, given how thoroughly the last vehicle explored those areas.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise#List_of_test_flights
IMO - if there is a slant/bias, it is a slant/bias that has a basis in actual past history of what has happened in the last decade, and what has not happened. I certainly appreciate parabolicarc (the site and postings here) for the journalism that he provides - something that few (if any) other sources seem willing to provide.
Quote from: ethan829 on 02/22/2016 10:34 amQuote from: sdsds on 02/22/2016 04:37 amWould it be too soon to start asking Virgin Galactic about the number of flight tests the second vehicle will fly that essentially duplicate what the first vehicle had already flown? Could they be planning flight test 1 as unpowered, and then immediately moving to a powered flight test 2?https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/700775349240467456QuoteMoses: not giving a schedule for test program; this is requirements-based, so not planning a specific number of flights at each step.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/700777028614664192QuoteShane: in captive carry flights will have 95% of propulsion system installed. Propulsion was “long pole” for 1st SS2 by years.That sounds to me like they're going to be going through the entire testing regime again, captive, glide, and powered. Although I'd be surprised if the captive and glide tests weren't de-emphasized somewhat, given how thoroughly the last vehicle explored those areas.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise#List_of_test_flightsI would expect (or is that hope) that VG consider this a completely new vehicle type and start testing again. Any changes made to the airframe or internals to support the findings of the NTSB enquiry or their own previous testing, could affect the flight characteristics and so a full regression test regime should be implemented.With Mike Moses on board, this is what I would expect.
The license review process consists of an in-depth review of the vehicle’s system design, safety analysis and flight trajectory analysis, culminating in FAA-AST approval.
At the time of the accident, they had planned one additional flight test around three to four weeks after the Halloween one. There would probably have been another one to maximum altitude in December. Then they were going to turn it over to Virgin Galactic in December. Commercial flights would have begun shortly thereafter from New Mexico with Branson & Son aboard the first flight.So, think about that. Three short flights to low altitudes with one engine. Perhaps three others with a different engine with different characteristics. One flight to max altitude. And that's the entire powered flight test program.What my sources were telling me is that Virgin Galactic was under financial pressure due to low funds and schedule pressure from Aabar to wrap up the flight test program and begin commercial flights. Despite Moses being there with all his expertise, the remaining flight test program was being driven by schedule and financial pressure, not by requirements.This is what makes me cautious. Are Moses and the engineers now in charge, letting them do a thorough flight test program. Or will it still be driven at partly by cost and schedule (flight tests are expensive and time consuming) and by competitive pressure (Blue Origin)?The original plan had been to do 30 powered flights. If they take a newish vehicle with a bunch of changes, zip through the captive carry and glide flights, then do only a handful of powered test, then how safe would you feel flying on this thing?
Video has been taken down. Can anyone who saw it please summarize?