If you are speaking of the second SpaceShipTwo, sometimes stated to carry the name VSS Voyager, then yes, it is under construction.
We get updates in the local press in Albuquerque from time to time, as any hopes the New Mexico taxpayers will ever get back a noticeable amount of the money we put into the Spaceport is largely based on the hopes that Virgin Galactic will eventually operate a lot of passenger flights there.
There are some other uses for the port, and Virgin Galactic has some other uses for their craft in mind, but the passenger operation for VG is the only thing in sight with any prospects of generating revenue at the rate needed to get some return.
Most of the updates we get take the form that they are working on it, and that commercial flights will come, as we used to say in the software business "real soon now".
I'm not holding my breath.
As to being quiet, you are right about that. I found the press release page for The SpaceShip Company, and the most recent release I saw dated a week after the accident.
First static fire of the upgraded Falcon 9's first stage with densified propellant, completed on 9/21/2015.
FWIW : I believe the tank strut ( the failed one ) plus other components have now moved to in-house manufacture. That suggests a wider net on the failure analysis as predicted by Archae86. Let's hope it's a good call. Rumor has it the strut was rated for 5 kN but failed at 1 kN ..... ouch .....
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
First static fire of the upgraded Falcon 9's first stage with densified propellant, completed on 9/21/2015.
FWIW : I believe the tank strut ( the failed one ) plus other components have now moved to in-house manufacture. That suggests a wider net on the failure analysis as predicted by Archae86. Let's hope it's a good call. Rumor has it the strut was rated for 5 kN but failed at 1 kN ..... ouch .....
Cheers, Mike.
I am reminded of the A380 engine problem scenario. Rolls Royce a renowned player in the manufacture of aircraft engines experienced a catastrophic failure in its A380 supplied engines. The cause: an oil line/pipe had been allowed through the system where the wall thickness of the pipe was inconsistent with design spec. causing a cascading effect of: rupture, fire, excessive heat, and disintegration of an engine component under high centrifugal stress. It is these smaller "parts" that seem to cause the biggest problem in complicated scenarios. Do you have the time to visually inspect every part to assure compliance or do you randomly select a part for inspection? In commercial aviation we "expect" that all components being used meet spec. and that it is safe to fly. But in rocketry while the same expectation exists, the men and women who fly these machines do so with "both eyes open" knowing that these machines are truly experimental and that there is a higher than normal probability that things can go wrong. I cite Challenger and Columbia as proof of point. These two craft failed after many successful launches and recoveries before them. As much as we guard against such failures the risk will always be there. And the idea of selling tickets (VG) to ride them shows a callous disregard for human life.
First static fire of the upgraded Falcon 9's first stage with densified propellant, completed on 9/21/2015.
FWIW : I believe the tank strut ( the failed one ) plus other components have now moved to in-house manufacture. That suggests a wider net on the failure analysis as predicted by Archae86. Let's hope it's a good call. Rumor has it the strut was rated for 5 kN but failed at 1 kN ..... ouch .....
Cheers, Mike.
I am reminded of the A380 engine problem scenario. Rolls Royce a renowned player in the manufacture of aircraft engines experienced a catastrophic failure in its A380 supplied engines. The cause: an oil line/pipe had been allowed through the system where the wall thickness of the pipe was inconsistent with design spec. causing a cascading effect of: rupture, fire, excessive heat, and disintegration of an engine component under high centrifugal stress. It is these smaller "parts" that seem to cause the biggest problem in complicated scenarios. Do you have the time to visually inspect every part to assure compliance or do you randomly select a part for inspection?
In the above case, you seem to imply that the entire supply of that part were below spec, in which case a random inspection should have caught it.
Quote:
In commercial aviation we "expect" that all components being used meet spec. and that it is safe to fly. But in rocketry while the same expectation exists, the men and women who fly these machines do so with "both eyes open" knowing that these machines are truly experimental and that there is a higher than normal probability that things can go wrong. I cite Challenger and Columbia as proof of point. These two craft failed after many successful launches and recoveries before them. As much as we guard against such failures the risk will always be there. And the idea of selling tickets (VG) to ride them shows a callous disregard for human life.
I am once again reminded of Apollo 13, where it was not a non-spec part but an improperly speced subsystem (the thermostat and the relay it controlled) that caused the failure.
David
Miserable old git
Patiently waiting for the asteroid with my name on it.
In the above case, you seem to imply that the entire supply of that part were below spec, in which case a random inspection should have caught it.
You can read a very clear summary of the ATSB conclusions on this matter here. There is also a link on that page to a pdf of the full report, which is well worth reading if such matters interest you.
It says that some of the stub pipes were manufactured with thinner walls than the design spec, leading to premature fatigue and failure, leading to fire, leading to uncontained turbine disc failure.
This was an extremely serious incident which could quite easily have ended much worse than it did.
I am once again reminded of Apollo 13, where it was not a non-spec part but an improperly speced subsystem (the thermostat and the relay it controlled) that caused the failure.
Actually thought that one was spec changed after the part was built and installed.
I suggest taking a look. The top screen is just a beautiful scene imagining one viewed in orbit, and a short repeat cycle, but there is other material if you scroll down.
robl wrote:
I don't believe that SpaceX or Blue Origin have any interest in providing Disney type E-ticket rides.
You might change your impression a little if you review this web page. Particularly the sight-seeing emphasis on windows hints a bit toward an interest in paying passengers some day.
I suggest taking a look. The top screen is just a beautiful scene imagining one viewed in orbit, and a short repeat cycle, but there is other material if you scroll down.
robl wrote:
I don't believe that SpaceX or Blue Origin have any interest in providing Disney type E-ticket rides.
You might change your impression a little if you review this web page. Particularly the sight-seeing emphasis on windows hints a bit toward an interest in paying passengers some day.
I see nothing in this ad to hint at flying non professionals. In fact the word "astronauts" keeps coming up. What I find disturbing about this video and the stills is that it is like attending an auto show where various manufacturers show off "concept cars". These cars are promotional gimmicks to excite the public and will never be built any time soon. As I viewed the video and pics I am reminded of the extreme Gs encountered during lift off and re-entry and I not sure those plastic lawn chairs attached with polished stainless steel rods are up to the challenge. They don't seem to provide the support needed for for a human body during extreme G loading. Also the forces exerted during emergency escape will be even more violent then the "standard liftoff" and again the human body needs full support which I don't see provided by this interior. Of course I could be totally out of my mind - not knowing what I am talking about. I do know that while training with the Navy many years ago in ejection seat training you were instructed to keep the rear of your thighs on the "seat" so they moved immediately with the seat. In other words no space between the seat and the thighs. Failure to do so could result in fractures or broken thighs.
RE: Are they building a
)
If you are speaking of the second SpaceShipTwo, sometimes stated to carry the name VSS Voyager, then yes, it is under construction.
We get updates in the local press in Albuquerque from time to time, as any hopes the New Mexico taxpayers will ever get back a noticeable amount of the money we put into the Spaceport is largely based on the hopes that Virgin Galactic will eventually operate a lot of passenger flights there.
There are some other uses for the port, and Virgin Galactic has some other uses for their craft in mind, but the passenger operation for VG is the only thing in sight with any prospects of generating revenue at the rate needed to get some return.
Most of the updates we get take the form that they are working on it, and that commercial flights will come, as we used to say in the software business "real soon now".
I'm not holding my breath.
As to being quiet, you are right about that. I found the press release page for The SpaceShip Company, and the most recent release I saw dated a week after the accident.
RE: RE: Virgin Galactic
)
Shame it doesn't escape gravity. We could use that.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Here are links to a couple of
)
Here are links to a couple of recent articles touching on SS2 prospects. I hardly dare call them updates.
Explorer's Club comments on SS2 recent
Sky News recent Branson story
That second one says that Branson recently said the second SS2 would be "unveiled" in 2016. Now that is a nice flexible word.
edited to make links clickable and to add this:
looking backward rather than forward may be instructive.
Here is Scaled's page logging the development flights of the first SS2
SS2 logs at Scaled Composites site
Video on Upgraded Falcon 9
)
Video on Upgraded Falcon 9 First-Stage Static Fire. Comment is
FWIW : I believe the tank strut ( the failed one ) plus other components have now moved to in-house manufacture. That suggests a wider net on the failure analysis as predicted by Archae86. Let's hope it's a good call. Rumor has it the strut was rated for 5 kN but failed at 1 kN ..... ouch .....
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: Video on Upgraded
)
I am reminded of the A380 engine problem scenario. Rolls Royce a renowned player in the manufacture of aircraft engines experienced a catastrophic failure in its A380 supplied engines. The cause: an oil line/pipe had been allowed through the system where the wall thickness of the pipe was inconsistent with design spec. causing a cascading effect of: rupture, fire, excessive heat, and disintegration of an engine component under high centrifugal stress. It is these smaller "parts" that seem to cause the biggest problem in complicated scenarios. Do you have the time to visually inspect every part to assure compliance or do you randomly select a part for inspection? In commercial aviation we "expect" that all components being used meet spec. and that it is safe to fly. But in rocketry while the same expectation exists, the men and women who fly these machines do so with "both eyes open" knowing that these machines are truly experimental and that there is a higher than normal probability that things can go wrong. I cite Challenger and Columbia as proof of point. These two craft failed after many successful launches and recoveries before them. As much as we guard against such failures the risk will always be there. And the idea of selling tickets (VG) to ride them shows a callous disregard for human life.
RE: RE: Video on Upgraded
)
In the above case, you seem to imply that the entire supply of that part were below spec, in which case a random inspection should have caught it.
I am once again reminded of Apollo 13, where it was not a non-spec part but an improperly speced subsystem (the thermostat and the relay it controlled) that caused the failure.
David
Miserable old git
Patiently waiting for the asteroid with my name on it.
RE: In the above case, you
)
You can read a very clear summary of the ATSB conclusions on this matter here. There is also a link on that page to a pdf of the full report, which is well worth reading if such matters interest you.
It says that some of the stub pipes were manufactured with thinner walls than the design spec, leading to premature fatigue and failure, leading to fire, leading to uncontained turbine disc failure.
This was an extremely serious incident which could quite easily have ended much worse than it did.
RE: I am once again
)
Actually thought that one was spec changed after the part was built and installed.
Google+ just advised me to
)
Google+ just advised me to look at some crewed Dragon material.
If you have not yet visited the SpaceX website page at:
SpaceX web page on crewed dragon
I suggest taking a look. The top screen is just a beautiful scene imagining one viewed in orbit, and a short repeat cycle, but there is other material if you scroll down.
You might change your impression a little if you review this web page. Particularly the sight-seeing emphasis on windows hints a bit toward an interest in paying passengers some day.
RE: Google+ just advised me
)
I see nothing in this ad to hint at flying non professionals. In fact the word "astronauts" keeps coming up. What I find disturbing about this video and the stills is that it is like attending an auto show where various manufacturers show off "concept cars". These cars are promotional gimmicks to excite the public and will never be built any time soon. As I viewed the video and pics I am reminded of the extreme Gs encountered during lift off and re-entry and I not sure those plastic lawn chairs attached with polished stainless steel rods are up to the challenge. They don't seem to provide the support needed for for a human body during extreme G loading. Also the forces exerted during emergency escape will be even more violent then the "standard liftoff" and again the human body needs full support which I don't see provided by this interior. Of course I could be totally out of my mind - not knowing what I am talking about. I do know that while training with the Navy many years ago in ejection seat training you were instructed to keep the rear of your thighs on the "seat" so they moved immediately with the seat. In other words no space between the seat and the thighs. Failure to do so could result in fractures or broken thighs.