Space Ship Two - General Thread

[Lar]

Around 2.25 % to be precise.

So yeah, about the same as luxury cars, significantly less than the CPI at 3.1%.

Well it IS a luxury ride

I missed whether the people who have deposits in already get the 200K price because they signed up already, or not though.

[QuantumG]

I missed whether the people who have deposits in already get the 200K price because they signed up already, or not though.

So I hear.. but there's only a few hundred of those anyway.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

I missed whether the people who have deposits in already get the 200K price because they signed up already, or not though.

So I hear.. but there's only a few hundred of those anyway.

Yes. Jeff Foust has had confirmation from VG: http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/05/03/virgin-confirms-plans-to-raise-ticket-prices/

Exact amount of the increase isn't fixed yet; neither is the point at which prices will come down again!

[Garrett]

The SS2 ticket increase has some similarities to Tesla* increasing their Model S price once they got production up and running. It appears to be a common practice in high tech start-up industries.

* I know, it's unforgiveable that I'm talking about a Musk project in a non-SpaceX thread. My bad 

[dcporter]

The SS2 ticket increase has some similarities to Tesla* increasing their Model S price once they got production up and running. It appears to be a common practice in high tech start-up industries.

* I know, it's unforgiveable that I'm talking about a Musk project in a non-SpaceX thread. My bad 

Imagine if you're producing something that's been delayed a couple of times, and is beginning to accumulate an aura of vaporware. Your rate of new deposits is down lately because it's so long since you last showed any meaningful (or flashy-enough) progress. You would probably be best-served by a strategy where you avoided raising prices , even in line with inflation, until shortly after you had something to show. So less common practice in a particular industry and more the intelligent PR move (and not a disastrous financial move), independently, in each case.

[Chris Bergin]

From Shuttle to SS2 - Sturckow joins Virgin Galactic:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/from-shuttle-ss2-sturckow-joins-virgin-galactic/

[Garrett]

From Shuttle to SS2 - Sturckow joins Virgin Galactic:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/from-shuttle-ss2-sturckow-joins-virgin-galactic/

Great article!
Looks like you had a fun time writing that, digging back into Shuttle pilot flight histories and all.

[Chris Bergin]

From Shuttle to SS2 - Sturckow joins Virgin Galactic:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/from-shuttle-ss2-sturckow-joins-virgin-galactic/

Great article!
Looks like you had a fun time writing that, digging back into Shuttle pilot flight histories and all.

Thanks! Yeah, always love the opportunity to go back to Shuttle content!

[Kabloona]

There's some discussion of engine issues over on parabolicarc (see comments): http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/04/30/snc-yeah-we-lit-that-candle-and-it-worked-baby/

I'm not sure what to make of the claims some people are putting forth, like saying that the "afterglow" from when the engine was shut off (or, more accurately, I think, when the oxidizer valve was shut off) is a very bad sign and could lead to an explosive situation. Is there anyone here on this forum with some background in hybrids that would care to weigh in? Are these issues serious, or do the people on PA really not know what they're talking about?

Putting this issue to bed once and for all, Whitesides says engine performance was even smoother than some ground tests. Quote from 5/7 article on SFN:

""It seems like we hit it out of the park," Whitesides said in an interview last week. The 16-second burn of SpaceShipTwo's hybrid rocket motor, built by Sierra Nevada Corp., appeared smoother than some of its ground tests, Whitesides said."

[billh]

Putting this issue to bed once and for all, Whitesides says engine performance was even smoother than some ground tests. Quote from 5/7 article on SFN:

""It seems like we hit it out of the park," Whitesides said in an interview last week. The 16-second burn of SpaceShipTwo's hybrid rocket motor, built by Sierra Nevada Corp., appeared smoother than some of its ground tests, Whitesides said."

Not to be too cynical, but "smoother than some of its ground tests" is hardly a strong statement, especially given that they appeared to spend years getting this engine to work well. Just sayin...

[BrightLight]

Putting this issue to bed once and for all, Whitesides says engine performance was even smoother than some ground tests. Quote from 5/7 article on SFN:

""It seems like we hit it out of the park," Whitesides said in an interview last week. The 16-second burn of SpaceShipTwo's hybrid rocket motor, built by Sierra Nevada Corp., appeared smoother than some of its ground tests, Whitesides said."

Not to be too cynical, but "smoother than some of its ground tests" is hardly a strong statement, especially given that they appeared to spend years getting this engine to work well. Just sayin...

This engine has to be flawless for years to come, IMHO better to spend extra time (years) doing it right then make a big mistake and impede commercial space flight for decades.

[Moe Grills]

Putting this issue to bed once and for all, Whitesides says engine performance was even smoother than some ground tests. Quote from 5/7 article on SFN:

""It seems like we hit it out of the park," Whitesides said in an interview last week. The 16-second burn of SpaceShipTwo's hybrid rocket motor, built by Sierra Nevada Corp., appeared smoother than some of its ground tests, Whitesides said."

Not to be too cynical, but "smoother than some of its ground tests" is hardly a strong statement, especially given that they appeared to spend years getting this engine to work well. Just sayin...

This engine has to be flawless for years to come, IMHO better to spend extra time (years) doing it right then make a big mistake and impede commercial space flight for decades.

Three questions for you:
1) Are you a professional engineer of the same caliber as those working for SC?

2) Are you hinting that someone, maybe six passengers may get themselves KILLED? If so, SPIT IT OUT! Don't hold us in suspense!

3) Do you have a $250,000 dog in the fight?

[iamlucky13]

Three questions for you:
1) Are you a professional engineer of the same caliber as those working for SC?

2) Are you hinting that someone, maybe six passengers may get themselves KILLED? If so, SPIT IT OUT! Don't hold us in suspense!

3) Do you have a $250,000 dog in the fight?

Three devil's advocate points (plus why I dismiss the devil's advocate in this case):

1.) Professional engineers have many times in the past missed things that have gotten people killed. Still, as the main critic from the parabolicarc discussion herself pointed out, the pressure data from the engine carry the real story, and if the people who reviewed that data are not concerned, then I find little cause to be concerned.

2.) It can't be ruled out. This is an industry with many challenges. However, the "more people will probably die" comment was unsupported, and due to that fact combined with the gravity of the accusation, highly irritating.

3.) No dog needed to engage in good old internet armchair engineering, but again, those involved with SS2 have been spending quite a few extra years working on doing it right, just like Brightlight suggested they should, and they have a very painful reminder in their past why they need to do it right.

[Kabloona]

Putting this issue to bed once and for all, Whitesides says engine performance was even smoother than some ground tests. Quote from 5/7 article on SFN:

""It seems like we hit it out of the park," Whitesides said in an interview last week. The 16-second burn of SpaceShipTwo's hybrid rocket motor, built by Sierra Nevada Corp., appeared smoother than some of its ground tests, Whitesides said."

Not to be too cynical, but "smoother than some of its ground tests" is hardly a strong statement, especially given that they appeared to spend years getting this engine to work well. Just sayin...

This engine has to be flawless for years to come, IMHO better to spend extra time (years) doing it right then make a big mistake and impede commercial space flight for decades.

Three people were killed in in 2007 in a test accident involving the motor (although it was not a hotfire test), which set the entire program back. So any suggestion that (a) the people involved aren't aware of the risks involved or (b) haven't taken the time to get it right is rather ludicrous.

You think Sierra Nevada, and Richard Branson, aren't aware that a motor explosion would be catastrophic? And that Branson would risk his money and reputation and life (since he and family will be on first flight) on something that wasn't "done right?" Because he was in too big a hurry to get his first ride?

We all know accidents do happen, but it's absurd to imagine that the people responsible, up through Branson, haven't sweated this issue for years and taken every design precaution that smart propulsion engineers can think of.

[Space Pete]

From Shuttle to SS2 - Sturckow joins Virgin Galactic:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/from-shuttle-ss2-sturckow-joins-virgin-galactic/

And this just got Tweeted by Sturckow's STS-128 crewmate Christer Fuglesang!

Christer ‏@CFuglesang
My STS128 Commander CJ will soon be flying to space again, piloting Viegin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo! http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/from-shuttle-ss2-sturckow-joins-virgin-galactic/
https://twitter.com/CFuglesang

[BrightLight]

Putting this issue to bed once and for all, Whitesides says engine performance was even smoother than some ground tests. Quote from 5/7 article on SFN:

""It seems like we hit it out of the park," Whitesides said in an interview last week. The 16-second burn of SpaceShipTwo's hybrid rocket motor, built by Sierra Nevada Corp., appeared smoother than some of its ground tests, Whitesides said."

Not to be too cynical, but "smoother than some of its ground tests" is hardly a strong statement, especially given that they appeared to spend years getting this engine to work well. Just sayin...

This engine has to be flawless for years to come, IMHO better to spend extra time (years) doing it right then make a big mistake and impede commercial space flight for decades.

Three people were killed in in 2007 in a test accident involving the motor (although it was not a hotfire test), which set the entire program back. So any suggestion that (a) the people involved aren't aware of the risks involved or (b) haven't taken the time to get it right is rather ludicrous.

You think Sierra Nevada, and Richard Branson, aren't aware that a motor explosion would be catastrophic? And that Branson would risk his money and reputation and life (since he and family will be on first flight) on something that wasn't "done right?" Because he was in too big a hurry to get his first ride?

We all know accidents do happen, but it's absurd to imagine that the people responsible, up through Branson, haven't sweated this issue for years and taken every design precaution that smart propulsion engineers can think of.

Its amazing that all this writing on the term "getting it right", that being said, SS2 is a sales and public relations tool - to make money. The safety of the entire system and the perception of safety is at the heart of my statement, the public must believe the systems are safe for the endeavor to be profitable. The past incidents will have to be dealt with as public relations issues, I am sure that both Branson and SNC will make sure the rocket engines are flawless regardless of time, and the amount of time will be up to the engineers, safety analysts  and insurance brokers. SNC is building an outstanding set of products (for themselves as well) and won't let a substandard system out their doors.
I will not post any more on this topic in this thread as it is a update thread and I don't have inside information.

[Moe Grills]

Three questions for you:
1) Are you a professional engineer of the same caliber as those working for SC?

2) Are you hinting that someone, maybe six passengers may get themselves KILLED? If so, SPIT IT OUT! Don't hold us in suspense!

3) Do you have a $250,000 dog in the fight?

   [snip!]

An imposter! You're not Brightlight!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Interesting report by Clark Lindsey of a couple of RM2 tests last Friday, including a deliberate test to destruction! "The nozzle was blown off for quite a distance.": http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/two-spaceshiptwo-motor-tests-may-17-one-test-intentionally-pushed-motor-to-destruction.html

Note that it was the grain they appear to have been tampering with. Could this be further indirect confirmation that RM2 has some oxidizer mixed in with the solid fuel?

Fire:     29
Date:     17 May 13

Objectives:
Twenty-ninth full scale hot-fire. Test of flight-design RM2. Continued evaluation of all systems and components:
- Extended burn duration in flight configuration
- Pressurization
- Valve/Injector
- Fuel formulation and geometry
- Nozzle
- Structure
- Performance

Results:
SNC successfully fired the flight motor for SpaceShipTwo at its test facility in Poway, testing an extended burn and further advancing the program towards full spaceflight later this year.  This test built upon excellent results achieved in SpaceShipTwo's first supersonic, rocket-powered flight with motor of the same design. All objectives completed


Fire:     28
Date:     17 May 13

Objectives:
Perform hot-fire of off-nominal, non-flight configuration motor at Scaled's test facility.
- Safety systems evaluation
- Test stand evaluation
- Data Acquisition system evaluation
- Rocket Motor Controller performance
- Pressurization System Controller performance
- Rocket system performance
- Valve / Injector / Igniter evaluation
- Fuel formulation evaluation
- CTN structural evaluation

Results:
Firing at Mojave test site by Scaled Composites of a non-flight experimental rocket motor in which flaws had been intentionally introduced to improve knowledge of different design components. Tested experimental grain to destruction. This unique test, which was necessary to perform during the test program, successfully collected data for several key safety systems.

[BrightLight]

To me, test-to-destruction is a very good sign - that they are in a position to evaluate manufacturing and operational variance and begin to understand fault tolerance. Not unlike GE testing a jet engine with ice ingestion etc.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Yes and hopefully the testing confirms the expected 'out of range' parameters and effects that any safety mechanisms are intended to detect and intervene prior to catastrophic failure.

I remember SS1 had a wire wound around the engine, so that any burn through would break the wire resulting in the oxidizer valve being shut.