XCOR and the Lynx rocket

[Joel]

Do go on.. how do you imagine crashes during the flight testing phase of the vehicle could end the Lynx program?

I mean crashes that result in the death of the pilot. It would create the image of a company that treats pilots as expendables. Which would hurt investors and/or potential customers? Also, it would create long blackout periods during crash investigations. But it's just my speculation.

[QuantumG]

Do go on.. how do you imagine crashes during the flight testing phase of the vehicle could end the Lynx program?

I mean crashes that result in the death of the pilot. It would create the image of a company that treats pilots as expendables. Which would hurt investors and/or potential customers?

I think the general public has a pretty firm grasp on the concept of a "test pilot".

[john smith 19]

Not sure if this would be better in the SS2 thread but here's one professional's take on the risk

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: [email protected] (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: QUOTES- Aviation related
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:03:05 GMT

On Thu, 11 Jan 1996 15:53:28 -0800, Brian varine <[email protected]> said:

Brian> I remember ROTFL on a post a while back where Mary Shafer said
Brian> something like

Brian> "Absolute safety is for those people without the balls to
Brian> accept reality" or something to that effect.

Brian> How about correcting me on this one?

I wrote, "Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have
the balls to live in the real world."

It appeared on sci.space or sci.space.shuttle in 1989 or 1990 during
one of the cyclical "why did NASA blow up the shuttle" threads or on
rec.military during a "how dare those pilots crash the taxpayers'
airplanes" thread, also a cyclical thread.  I had gotten to a point of
complete exasperation when I wrote this.

Here's the whole thing:

   But, no matter what you do, it will never be perfectly, 100% risk-free
   to fly.  Or to drive, or to walk, or to do anything.

   One of our pilots here died when he waited too long to eject from a
   spinning aircraft.  He was wrong; he should have jumped out earlier.
   He failed in his duty, IMO.

   One of our engineers was walking his dog when a car driven by a kid
   jumped the curb and hit him.  Only his leg was broken.  But he walks
   his dog again, now.  Who know better than him the danger?

   There's no way to make life perfectly safe; you can't get out of it alive.

   You can't even predict every danger.  How can you guard against a hazard
   you can't even conceive of?

   I agree that the days of "kick the tires and light the fires" are gone,
   but insisting on perfect safety is the single most reliable way of
   killing an aerospace project.

   I've been on both sides of the FRR (Flight Readiness Review) process
   for a number of aeronautical projects.  Experienced engineers try to
   think of everything that can go wrong.  But airplanes can still
   surprise the best team.

   I've had to sign a form, certifying that to the best of my knowledge
   everything that we're going to do on a flight is safe.  I've never
   seriously asked myself "What will I say to the AIB (Accident
   Investigation Board)" because once one starts on that, the form will
   never be signed, the flight will never be flown, and the research will
   never be done.

   But I have asked myself "Have I told everybody exactly what we're
   going to do and what the _known_ risks are and are we agreed that
   these risks are acceptable" and when I can answer that "yes" I sign
   the form.  That also answers the question of what I'd say to the AIB.

   I'm not talking about abstract theories here, I'm talking about test
   pilots that I've known for decades.  Believe me, I _know_ exactly what
   the consequences of a mistake on my part could mean.  The reminders
   are all around me: Edwards AFB—killed in the XB-49, Lilly
   Ave—first NASA pilot killed at what's now Dryden, Love Rd—I _saw_
   Mike's burning F-4 auger into the lakebed, with him in it.  But once
   I've done my best, like everybody else on the team, it's time to go
   fly the airplane.

   Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
   live in the real world.

—
Mary Shafer               NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer     Of course I don't speak for NASA
[email protected]                               DoD #362 KotFR 
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html.

For us this is an academic exercise. For her these were people with faces, families and lives that had ended. BTW in another post she mentioned that the pilot loss rate at Dryden was about 1 pilot a year throughout the decade.

Test flying has become safer, it will never (by its nature) be safe.

I'll note that XCOR has to start flying before it can worry about having a crash, and I hope that will start happening soon  I'll wish Jeff, Doug and Oleta good luck with that. 

[Rocket Science]

Not sure if this would be better in the SS2 thread but here's one professional's take on the risk

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: [email protected] (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: QUOTES- Aviation related
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:03:05 GMT

On Thu, 11 Jan 1996 15:53:28 -0800, Brian varine <[email protected]> said:

Brian> I remember ROTFL on a post a while back where Mary Shafer said
Brian> something like

Brian> "Absolute safety is for those people without the balls to
Brian> accept reality" or something to that effect.

Brian> How about correcting me on this one?

I wrote, "Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have
the balls to live in the real world."

It appeared on sci.space or sci.space.shuttle in 1989 or 1990 during
one of the cyclical "why did NASA blow up the shuttle" threads or on
rec.military during a "how dare those pilots crash the taxpayers'
airplanes" thread, also a cyclical thread.  I had gotten to a point of
complete exasperation when I wrote this.

Here's the whole thing:

   But, no matter what you do, it will never be perfectly, 100% risk-free
   to fly.  Or to drive, or to walk, or to do anything.

   One of our pilots here died when he waited too long to eject from a
   spinning aircraft.  He was wrong; he should have jumped out earlier.
   He failed in his duty, IMO.

   One of our engineers was walking his dog when a car driven by a kid
   jumped the curb and hit him.  Only his leg was broken.  But he walks
   his dog again, now.  Who know better than him the danger?

   There's no way to make life perfectly safe; you can't get out of it alive.

   You can't even predict every danger.  How can you guard against a hazard
   you can't even conceive of?

   I agree that the days of "kick the tires and light the fires" are gone,
   but insisting on perfect safety is the single most reliable way of
   killing an aerospace project.

   I've been on both sides of the FRR (Flight Readiness Review) process
   for a number of aeronautical projects.  Experienced engineers try to
   think of everything that can go wrong.  But airplanes can still
   surprise the best team.

   I've had to sign a form, certifying that to the best of my knowledge
   everything that we're going to do on a flight is safe.  I've never
   seriously asked myself "What will I say to the AIB (Accident
   Investigation Board)" because once one starts on that, the form will
   never be signed, the flight will never be flown, and the research will
   never be done.

   But I have asked myself "Have I told everybody exactly what we're
   going to do and what the _known_ risks are and are we agreed that
   these risks are acceptable" and when I can answer that "yes" I sign
   the form.  That also answers the question of what I'd say to the AIB.

   I'm not talking about abstract theories here, I'm talking about test
   pilots that I've known for decades.  Believe me, I _know_ exactly what
   the consequences of a mistake on my part could mean.  The reminders
   are all around me: Edwards AFB—killed in the XB-49, Lilly
   Ave—first NASA pilot killed at what's now Dryden, Love Rd—I _saw_
   Mike's burning F-4 auger into the lakebed, with him in it.  But once
   I've done my best, like everybody else on the team, it's time to go
   fly the airplane.

   Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
   live in the real world.

—
Mary Shafer               NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer     Of course I don't speak for NASA
[email protected]                               DoD #362 KotFR 
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html.

For us this is an academic exercise. For her these were people with faces, families and lives that had ended. BTW in another post she mentioned that the pilot loss rate at Dryden was about 1 pilot a year throughout the decade.

Test flying has become safer, it will never (by its nature) be safe.

I'll note that XCOR has to start flying before it can worry about having a crash, and I hope that will start happening soon  I'll wish Jeff, Doug and Oleta good luck with that. 

I created a thread for general comments here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36038.0

Feel free to copy over your good post John...

[TrevorMonty]

In regards to RL10 replacement that XCOR is developing with ULA, XCOR also have long term plans for it in a considerable larger space plane.

This video is titled "XCOR and the Trillion Dollar Space Industry - Andrew Nelson (SETI Talks)". Andrew mentions it at 57min mark.
As a side note there is talk about suborbital safety at 47min.

[Moe Grills]

  I like reading about long term plans for XCOR, but we all would like to see the first model Lynx roll out of the production hanger. From what I've learned IMHO I see the airframe for Lynx finished before New Year or in the first month of 2015. Avionics and propulsion systems installed may take a few months longer. I think it will rollout out of the hanger before the cameras by July/04...My 2 cents worth.

[rusty]

For Lynx, ability for remote landing would add extra safety. If something happens to the pilot, the plane can still come down safely. So investing in remote piloting during test phase could translate into lower cost and/or extra safety during operational phase.

As a backup to pilots, auto or remote piloting is definitely viable. Remote piloting usually precedes all manned flights in model form. The experience gained from test pilots greatly improves the accuracy of remote piloting, both of which are the only means of developing autopilot (computers can't compute what they've never known). But the best piloting, the preferred and safest route will always be an experienced pilot in the seat.

[TrevorMonty]

  I like reading about long term plans for XCOR, but we all would like to see the first model Lynx roll out of the production hanger. From what I've learned IMHO I see the airframe for Lynx finished before New Year or in the first month of 2015. Avionics and propulsion systems installed may take a few months longer. I think it will rollout out of the hanger before the cameras by July/04...My 2 cents worth.

Erik Seed house was on Space show 24Nov talking about his Bigelow book. He is working a XCOR book for release next year with input from XCOR, said Lynx testing should start in middle of next year.

[BrightLight]

XCOR continues to make solid progrerss on the Lynx spaceplane:
http://www.xcor.com/press/2014/14-12-18_Lynx_development_in_pictures_carry_through_spar.html
I look forward to when a Lynx vehicle makes it to the Von Karmen line.

[Lars-J]

XCOR continues to make solid progrerss on the Lynz spaceplane:
http://www.xcor.com/press/2014/14-12-18_Lynx_development_in_pictures_carry_through_spar.html
I look forward to when a Lynx vehicle makes it to the Von Karmen line.

Nice! Here are the two images from the press release, attached:

[Rocket Science]

Nice looking ship with a sensible KISS... I wish them continued progress and look forward to its first flight!

[Robotbeat]

Now they just need to actually fly! Part of me is impatient, but not really. I have faith that XCOR has the best concept, by a significant margin. They'll do it.

[QuantumG]

The hope being that once they start flying they'll soon after start making money and then we'll really get to see what they can do.

[BrightLight]

From my humble perspective, XCOR appears to be taking slow, gradual steps in the build to get a viable space plane.  I hope they are successful and learn from the others how to build a business plan and a vehicle that can make money and fly cheaply and often.

[Moe Grills]

  Thinking ahead to 2015, when this craft rolls out, and has to undergo taxiing and braking tests, will they tow the craft upto landing speed by a wheeled vehicle? Or use its own rocket motors for such a ground motion test?

[QuantumG]

They'll probably do tow tests first.

[BrightLight]

Some testing done on the Lynx:
"After the spar was installed the entire structure, from front to back was load tested to the equivalent of 6G re-entry, while in the test area the cabin was pressurized to 11 PSI, the first pressure test after being bonded to the fuselage"
Just more Build A Little, Test A Little.

[Robotbeat]

What's the status, here?

We're going to run out of "learning period."

[SpacemanInSPACE]

I think Xcor has greater potential over VG at flying to orbit. Also Jeff Greason seems like such a cool guy.

[Lars-J]

I think Xcor has greater potential over VG at flying to orbit. Also Jeff Greason seems like such a cool guy.

He does. But sadly that doesn't add any delta-V to the performance of the vehicle.