Tümü
← Back to Squawk list
NTSB: SpaceShipTwo broke apart when “feathering” activated early
The Guardian has a good summary of how things are proceeding with the two-day-old National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation into the destruction of Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo, which occurred at approximately 10:12am PDT on October 31. Some eyewitnesses reported seeing an explosion when the craft broke up, prompting speculation that the accident had something to do with SpaceShipTwo’s hybrid rocket engine—an engine that was making its first flight with its new fuel. (arstechnica.com) Daha Fazlası...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
It is great to see the NTSB and the other investigating groups find what happened so quick. Why it happened may take quite a bit longer but at least they can focus on the feather system and its procedures. One question I have, if anyone can answer it, is how does the pilot escape system work on SS2. I read in at least one article that the surviving pilot ejected but I don't think that ejection seats work well with that design structure. Could it be that he was ejected during the breakup or somehow just got out on his own and the other pilot was not as fortunate? I'm sure we will find out. Prayers for the families and continued support for Virgin as they chase the dream.
Even "technical" writers can't seem to get things right. The arstechnica article includes this: "... at a press conference Sunday afternoon, acting NTSB chairman Christopher Hart said that crash investigators had already located the cause of the accident..." If the author had read the Guardian report, he would have also seen this: "But Hart stresssed that the premature deployment of the space plane’s feathering system was 'a statement of fact and not a statement of cause'. Investigators could take many more months to reach firm conclusions over the cause of the accident." Nobody knows yet why the co-pilot moved the lever, and sadly he is the one who died. For all we know, he could have been reacting to a deployment that was already occurring. The point is, as Mr. Hart has said, it's too early to say his actiono actually caused the accident.
It's not always the writer's fault. It could be the editor's. I've had articles butchered by editors between when I wrote it and when it hit the newsstands and I know that I sure as hell didn't write some of the things that appeared in print. That sort of thing happens most often when an article is trimmed for length by someone who doesn't fully understand the story, with the result that some statements get their meaning changed significantly in the new version. The best editors I ever worked for always sent me a copy of the revised version so I could check it over. Editors like that are rare. If you ever write for publication and you have an editor like that, cherish them.
That said, it's also true that many people who write about aviation don't know the difference between a pitot tube and a torpedo tube.
That said, it's also true that many people who write about aviation don't know the difference between a pitot tube and a torpedo tube.
You saved the best for last and you're so right. I've read some of the drivel reprinted here in the squawks.
Sadly, jumping to conclusions is now a national exercise. Apple will probably design and market a wearable device to track your count for uninformed discourse, a new form of calorie burning, ask any scientist with a research dollar! This will all be lead by a media geared toward spewing content, unfettered by accuracy and perpetuated by a FA poster working on another merit badge. No disrespect intended to the scouts organization, of which I was one. Carry on.
Everything after your first sentence is an example of what your first sentence complains about. You jumped to a conclusion, then made an assumption about what someone else will do, and then you complained about what the media did despite the fact that they haven't yet reported on the imaginary event you're speculating about.
Uh, sarcasm?
Uh, Thank you.
