I knew the co-pilot... One of the smartest and nicest guys I know... These guys are test pilots, with amazing credentials of experience, and they had successful runs... Unfortunately, room for error is small when you're pushing the limits of such innovation... A simple mistake turned into tragedy... Mike's death is not in vain... They learned a lot to ensure better backup safety practices during test runs, which also played a role here... RIP Mike
It was in vein because this already could of been avoided….the design itself should of already been feathered by computer and who doesn’t train someone to the forces the aircraft would subject them too. NASA knew to train there test pilots in g sims for decades. Galactic wanted to save money. Not to make your death worse but your statement is wrong
I don't think no body is wrong here as space is hard. The sacrifices Mike & others will make builds monuments to their names and much credit upon us if we become an intergalactic species. This could still be 1000's of years in the future and people are not used to thinking that way. Mike was and he will be remembered forever. If we make it.🎉
The copilot accidently flipped the switch to go to "feather mode", when the tails moved up, the AC broke up. Too bad, such a tragedy. Hopefully, they'll install an interlock so this can't happen at a high speed. May they RIP.
Had two RR "classics", late 80's, pre-air bag. Loved em'. Would go anywhere, would pull a house off of it's foundation. Had to let them go. Always something needed repair/replace.
experimental or not, it should have had the failsafe to prevent disconnection during transonic flight, I mean NASA figured this out DECADES ago with the shuttle, so it should have been included
@@havoc3742 Hindsight is 20/20, or perhaps they should've hired you. Do you think NASA simply hands over their hard won and expensive research to any Johnny come lately like SpaceX or Virgin, or do you think it all fits in a manilla folder, or they could just email it to them? Why do you think companies like this do test flights in the first place?
At 0:37 you can see a very distinct angular difference between alignment of fuselage and starboard empennage (port side is out of view due to camera mounting).
Click bait? Wtf is wrong with you? They purposely edit the video to NOT show the moment of the pilots' deaths in RESPECT to the FAMILIES of the pilots, how callous can you be? Sorry you couldn't get the thrill of watching people die.... This isn't a Hollywood film, it's real life, with real people, whose deaths are still traumatic for the families involved. Would you want a video of your death shown to your spouse, kids, parents, on a RUclips channel for people to be 'entertained' with? Go climb back into your hole.
@@ratmousebastard let's hide the truth and the danger of space travel and only show things when they go right. Can't hurt anyones feelings with reality. Certainly can't let people see the truth.
@@Iceaxehikes how in the most completely unaware stretch of the imagination can anyone come to the belief that those involved in any space program, "hide the truth" on "the danger of space travel"???? It's easily one of THE most documented endeavors, specifically about how dangerous it is. Or, if you don't want to take it that far and just refer to the job of being a test pilot, an always very dangerous and possibly fatal profession.... they don't call them test pilots for nothing. What you're saying is ridiculous.
@@ratmousebastard Agree 110%. If they were trying to hide stuff, there would not be a 155-page NTSB report about the accident: www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1502.pdf
0:36 is the point where the re-entry wing fold accident begins, I would think there would have been a cover over the switch so it couldn't be tripped unintentionally like it apparently was here.
Daniel Matthews G'day, Well, y'see, they already announced that they have telemetered Cockpit Video of the Co-Pilot placing his Hand onto the Control, arming it, then activating it at between M. 0.99 & M. 1.05, rather than waiting for the Briefed M. 1.4... The Tailboom Footage clearly shows the Hinge operating while the Rocket was operating, and the Timing is not in doubt. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the Data. Flying is dangerous, one has to acyually get stuff Right, rather than go off half-cocked. ;-p Ciao ! That Co-Pilot screwed the Pooch
Daniel Matthews The rest of the video will not be made public out of respect, but the NTSB has used it in its accident report to come to their conclusions.
Daniel Matthews It may have been designed for Mach 1.4, but not with the added forces of powered flight. And even worse, powered flight which is no longer thrusting along the CoG. A lot of the footage of shuttle's exploding (or breaking up, to be more precise) was in the public domain already due to things like news coverage etc. This wasn't the case here.
Daniel Matthews It may have been designed for Mach 1.4, but not with the added forces of powered flight. And even worse, powered flight which is no longer thrusting along the CoG. A lot of the footage of shuttle's exploding (or breaking up, to be more precise) was in the public domain already due to things like news coverage etc. This wasn't the case here.
I didn't even hear about this last October where the hell was i when this happen. Almost a year later i'm just now finding out about this because they released the findings.
You can not have 2 tails at that velocity. Minute differences in vibration flexure between the two tails would cause an opposing harmonic oscillation resulting in vibration amplification. The excessive vibration could move the heavy lever by itself without piolet error. Also, the tails appear to be overextended which only makes the situation of vibration more likely. If I were them i would dump the exotic fancy design for something more stable.
The designer of the space plane has had a history of designing aircraft with a minimal amount of control surfaces, and insufficient structural strength. I followed this designers career in magazines like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, plus experimental aircraft magazines. He applied his aircraft designs and theory to the space plane. But in my opinion, he was settling for minimal design that was not sufficient to handle the stresses and g forces of a space craft or even a high speed jet aircraft. My brother Phil Eaton is a rocket scientist that was a partner in Armadillo Aerospace. He and I discussed these issues at length as that designer was building the rocket plane. I told him years ago that the design was flawed and could get someone killed.
@@mwbgaming28 that's kind of true judging by the changes to drivers education programs....it's amazing how few people realize that driving is by far the most dangerous thing they will ever do.
@@lolzlolz102 they should have at least showed the first few frames of the break-up, to show how it proceded, structurally for anyone who is interested. One of the very most disrespectful things you can do to a test pilot is needlessly reduce the amount of information that can be gleaned from an accident leading to his death.
@@SuperPhunThyme9 true, I remember drivers Ed, we had to watch videos of actual traffic accidents, as well as dashcam footage from cop cars of people crashing during high speed pursuits My younger brother is doing driver's Ed now, and he told me all they show is some pussified education video that is similar to what you would show a 5 year old child to safely ride a bike
Nobody used the Honda track but Honda. Hyundai's California Proving Ground is SW of Cal City. The wreckage was widely scattered near Redrock Randsburg road west of Koehn Dry Lake, north of Cantil.
Zuloff Is Honda still using the track? You seem to know a lot about it. Last time I went by both over and driving it looks like it's showing signs of abandonment. The plane must have gone down in a pile for sure. For some reason we always call that Garlic Road. That's how we go to Searl Station and Wagon Wheel.
How, more than a decade into the 21st century, are there not safeguards in place to avoid something being activated that shouldn't be? I get that manual control is still necessary, but if we are going to allow pilots to retain control and override systems in case of emergency, is there no warning system that forces a pilot to be "extra sure" that they want to engage that specific system? This kind of redundancy and warning systems existed during Apollo, how is it not 1000000x better now?!
So, what was the pilot who flipped the lever thinking? I remember when this happened and the picture I saw told me then (the very day it happened) "they went into feathered mode way to early" (that's not done until it's coming back down and the engine IS OFF. The pic clearly showed the engine was running.) I was of course shocked when a few days later it was confines that that's exactly what happened.
Perhaps when he heard ".8" for the speed, he thought it was "1.8". He didn't feather it, anyway. He merely unlocked the feather mechanism ... prematurely.
Call it what you want, I understand why the whole video was not released, but that doesn't change the fact that I want to watch the full breakup. I do not take pleasure in watching people die, I do not see why someone would choose not to watch a video of a crash if it got someone killed, but would love to see it if it was a drone
As of today 12/18/17 the crash is still under NTSB investigation we are still working on the case,no other feed will be released until closing classified.
Yes. The ship was designed to fold like this, but not while the engine was running. The pilot accidently tripped the wing fold, and once the nose pitched up aerodynamic stresses tore it apart.
Can we actually see the whole video? I'm not willing to accept that the video just magically cuts off just as a failure begins. And before anyone says "We're not showing it out of respect for the dead.", please don't. He/she/they died doing what they loved and lived for. Not showing how they died is extremely disrespectful to who they were and what they lived for.
what gore, the guy died upon impact with the ground not during freefall or breakup the engineer in me wants to see the craft breaking apart and how the structure actually fails
Just my opinion but even though the boom was meant to operate at Mach 1.0 the altitude it was deployed at was far lower than it was designed for and the atmosphere too thick which caused the break up. The copilot error cannot be discounted as the main cause.
Daniel Matthews That's an unrealistic requirement for any engineering project. So the engineers should have anticipated that a pilot will unintentionally deactivate one safety function and install two? Or three? Or four? In front of my house, probably thousands of cars pass by each day, even though they are controlled by fallible humans. The general practitioner next door has no safeguard whatsoever except his knowledge and skills when he fills out a prescription. If either of them would make a mistake, that doesn't mean that this mistake could or should have been prevented. A knife has a sharp end, and when you cut yourself with it, that's not the producer's fault.
Daniel Matthews It wasn't a theme park ride, it was a test flight. But even when in the future it opens to the paying public, it will still be different to other forms of recreation, just as a rollercoaster ride has higher risks associated with it than sitting on a bench. And +Karol Leszek is very right in that nobody has to convince you. On the other hand, you have the obligation to keep away from any cockpit or other place where you have to act responsibly if you think that you should be able to do everything there and it should be the engineers' job to block you from any wrongdoing. I highly doubt that the pilots in question shared your view and instead trained very hard because they knew they could make a mistake.
Unbelievable that he feathered the moment the engine came on. Exhaustive simulation & training used to be the cornerstone of their testing regime, but obviously none of that was done after Burt left.
Bad design! Those rear wing extensions have too much leverage at their joint with the sidewings. No wonder BOTH broke off simultaneously. Where was the pre-flight computer analysis of these structures' thresholds?
Yeah, I'm sure you know more than the most experienced aeronautical engineers in the world that designed this at Scaled Composites. I bet they just did a quick sketch on the back of a napkin at Denny's to design their structures and just said "yup, that looks about right". Maybe you should apply for a job there, I hear they're hiring.
Chadney A finite element analysis would have been completed for _every_ structural component on the rocket, every part would have been certified prior to launch and part of the certification process is the requirement of evidence of the FEA having been completed for each component. But structural failure in this instance was by virtue of a completely flawed control system which has nothing to do with the structure. If they had an automatic electronic lockout for the feather mode above the rockets engineered maximum velocity (Vmo) then we wouldn't be having this discussion. They actually had talked about the issue with regard to the feather lockout, but because it was just a conversation and not put out for a multidisciplinary check it was subsequently overlooked and not implement. Half a dozen lines of code and a few mechanical relays as a redundancy to the code would have prevented this accident from happening. The question you should be asking is: why wasn't there a detailed interdisciplinary cause and effect study done for the control system?
Probably they were cutting costs. Money is always a factor, even in the aerospace industry. When people have a problem with not getting enough money for their company, they go through serious legal loopholes to cut costs. In this industry, cutting costs in such a way, whether it is in the design of a air or spacecraft, or in their routine maintenance, that major faults are left to fester and ultimately cause an emergency or catastrophic failure in midair.
There was no fail-safe preventing it to go feather at high speed because it needs an intentional act to do so making it an act of suicide and an attempted murder. Apparently, the pilot did not share the same warped feeling the copilot had for him.
the design of this rocket plane is deficient. it has the elevators and rudders too far away from the fuselage which makes the frame unable to support the possible stresses it would encounter. The designer of the aircraft has used minimal design criteria in the design which makes it vulnerable to breakup.
u first test idea on small RC model plane then full scale with remote control (so many remote options available) If u wanna test living put mouse in. Putting pilot is just disaster waiting to happen followed by bankruptcy.
One look at that design and any engineer will tell you those wings will not withstand the kind of forces that model will experience at those speeds. What were they thinking?
I knew the co-pilot... One of the smartest and nicest guys I know... These guys are test pilots, with amazing credentials of experience, and they had successful runs... Unfortunately, room for error is small when you're pushing the limits of such innovation... A simple mistake turned into tragedy... Mike's death is not in vain... They learned a lot to ensure better backup safety practices during test runs, which also played a role here... RIP Mike
es but this particular program is dead
@@terencespross Say again?
ain't no way i'd trade my life to make a rich guy safer in his lil space toys
It was in vein because this already could of been avoided….the design itself should of already been feathered by computer and who doesn’t train someone to the forces the aircraft would subject them too. NASA knew to train there test pilots in g sims for decades. Galactic wanted to save money. Not to make your death worse but your statement is wrong
I don't think no body is wrong here as space is hard. The sacrifices Mike & others will make builds monuments to their names and much credit upon us if we become an intergalactic species.
This could still be 1000's of years in the future and people are not used to thinking that way. Mike was and he will be remembered forever. If we make it.🎉
The copilot accidently flipped the switch to go to "feather mode", when the tails moved up, the AC broke up. Too bad, such a tragedy. Hopefully, they'll install an interlock so this can't happen at a high speed. May they RIP.
Don't waste time on analysis. Cause of breakup is evident: I see a Land Rover badge on the thing.
another Solihull masterpiece.....overpriced and now broken.....thats about par for course
hahahahahahahahahah THIS IS GREAT
RL R hahaha yup land rover must be the most unreliable and expensive pice of junk that human ingenuity can produce lol
Had two RR "classics", late 80's, pre-air bag. Loved em'. Would go anywhere, would pull a house off of it's foundation. Had to let them go. Always something needed repair/replace.
Difficult to understand why there was no fail safe mechanism in place to prevent the folding of the wings by pilot error.
there should have been one at the start, this is shit that NASA solved decades ago.
There was. It was bypassed with tape.
Experimental machines rarely have any failsafes on them. They were trying to prove a concept, not build a final and complete passenger-ready vehicle.
experimental or not, it should have had the failsafe to prevent disconnection during transonic flight, I mean NASA figured this out DECADES ago with the shuttle, so it should have been included
@@havoc3742
Hindsight is 20/20, or perhaps they should've hired you.
Do you think NASA simply hands over their hard won and expensive research to any Johnny come lately like SpaceX or Virgin, or do you think it all fits in a manilla folder, or they could just email it to them? Why do you think companies like this do test flights in the first place?
So this video shows... nothing of importance related to the incident.
Apart from something falling out of the engine/rocket.
I noticed the angle of the fuselage changed to an impossible angle just before the images faded to black in the tail view. Is this what failed?
Gear Whine it looks like it just folds over or something, it would stall so damn hard.
I did some reading and it seems the copilot indvertently unlocked the pivot mechanism used to fold the tail up, but only for reentry.
At 0:37 you can see a very distinct angular difference between alignment of fuselage and starboard empennage (port side is out of view due to camera mounting).
my deepest condolences to the families of pioneers
Pilot survived (10 mile drop to earth, wow!)
Co-pilot sadly didn't.
Parashoot.
E: *parachute, lol
NIKOvbn parachute
@@SG-oi9ie Wow, I can't believe I did that xD Thanks ^^
"Marginally informative."
The film cuts away before it breaks up. Only one shot barely shows the right wing folding.
What click bait.
Click bait? Wtf is wrong with you? They purposely edit the video to NOT show the moment of the pilots' deaths in RESPECT to the FAMILIES of the pilots, how callous can you be? Sorry you couldn't get the thrill of watching people die.... This isn't a Hollywood film, it's real life, with real people, whose deaths are still traumatic for the families involved. Would you want a video of your death shown to your spouse, kids, parents, on a RUclips channel for people to be 'entertained' with? Go climb back into your hole.
@@ratmousebastard why post the damn thing at all and make a point about it then?
Click Bait.
@@ratmousebastard let's hide the truth and the danger of space travel and only show things when they go right. Can't hurt anyones feelings with reality.
Certainly can't let people see the truth.
@@Iceaxehikes how in the most completely unaware stretch of the imagination can anyone come to the belief that those involved in any space program, "hide the truth" on "the danger of space travel"???? It's easily one of THE most documented endeavors, specifically about how dangerous it is. Or, if you don't want to take it that far and just refer to the job of being a test pilot, an always very dangerous and possibly fatal profession.... they don't call them test pilots for nothing. What you're saying is ridiculous.
@@ratmousebastard Agree 110%. If they were trying to hide stuff, there would not be a 155-page NTSB report about the accident: www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1502.pdf
If you look at 0:33 @ a 0.25 frame speed. You can se a wave going trough the plane
Amazing, Good catch!! a wave and then shudder.
That wave and shudder is most likely the ship breaking the sound barrier
This was a manned flight? Or was is a UAV?
Oh wow!! Thank you. Very sad, tragic.
vidproject the co pilot died
First time hearing of this. Test pilots are heroic.
0:36 is the point where the re-entry wing fold accident begins, I would think there would have been a cover over the switch so it couldn't be tripped unintentionally like it apparently was here.
KlunkerRider IIRC in the preliminary report it said that the copilot actively disengaged the safety switch; but the final report will be out shortly.
Daniel Matthews
G'day,
Well, y'see, they already announced that they have telemetered Cockpit Video of the Co-Pilot placing his Hand onto the Control, arming it, then activating it at between M. 0.99 & M. 1.05, rather than waiting for the Briefed M. 1.4...
The Tailboom Footage clearly shows the Hinge operating while the Rocket was operating, and the Timing is not in doubt.
There is no other reasonable interpretation of the Data.
Flying is dangerous, one has to acyually get stuff Right, rather than go off half-cocked.
;-p
Ciao !
That Co-Pilot screwed the Pooch
Daniel Matthews The rest of the video will not be made public out of respect, but the NTSB has used it in its accident report to come to their conclusions.
Daniel Matthews It may have been designed for Mach 1.4, but not with the added forces of powered flight. And even worse, powered flight which is no longer thrusting along the CoG.
A lot of the footage of shuttle's exploding (or breaking up, to be more precise) was in the public domain already due to things like news coverage etc. This wasn't the case here.
Daniel Matthews It may have been designed for Mach 1.4, but not with the added forces of powered flight. And even worse, powered flight which is no longer thrusting along the CoG.
A lot of the footage of shuttle's exploding (or breaking up, to be more precise) was in the public domain already due to things like news coverage etc. This wasn't the case here.
Wait so it's not supposed to do that?
they left off the actual breakup portion.
wait what even happened? there suppose to break up right?
I didn't even hear about this last October where the hell was i when this happen. Almost a year later i'm just now finding out about this because they released the findings.
It was all over the news. I guess you don't watch the news or you only watch MSNBC.
You can not have 2 tails at that velocity. Minute differences in vibration flexure between the two tails would cause an opposing harmonic oscillation resulting in vibration amplification. The excessive vibration could move the heavy lever by itself without piolet error. Also, the tails appear to be overextended which only makes the situation of vibration more likely. If I were them i would dump the exotic fancy design for something more stable.
Is electrical discharge in the exhaust a common occurrence?
Such a beautiful plane. Such a tragedy. This project is not new to casualties. It is a worthy endeavor and, thankfully, it is continuing.
no, it is not a "beautiful"
plane. it is a design disaster, an aircraft Edsel. And the break up of the plane in a test reveals the design flaws.
What design flaws?
The designer of the space plane has had a history of designing aircraft with a minimal amount of control surfaces, and insufficient structural strength. I followed this designers career in magazines like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, plus experimental aircraft magazines. He applied his aircraft designs and theory to the space plane. But in my opinion, he was settling for minimal design that was not sufficient to handle the stresses and g forces of a space craft or even a high speed jet aircraft. My brother Phil Eaton is a rocket scientist that was a partner in Armadillo Aerospace. He and I discussed these issues at length as that designer was building the rocket plane. I told him years ago that the design was flawed and could get someone killed.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know what's wrong. Well...maybe you do.
Lyndon Eaton wring it was piloting error
So where is the video of the breakup?
No break up shown, what design problem arose?
Why won't they show the breakup, I'm over 18 and have Mommy's consent.
Respect to the deceased and his family perhaps? Those that needed to see the full incident already have done and its not here for your entertainment.
@@lolzlolz102 more like because they're snowflakes who want people to think that nothing bad happens in this world
@@mwbgaming28 that's kind of true judging by the changes to drivers education programs....it's amazing how few people realize that driving is by far the most dangerous thing they will ever do.
@@lolzlolz102 they should have at least showed the first few frames of the break-up, to show how it proceded, structurally for anyone who is interested. One of the very most disrespectful things you can do to a test pilot is needlessly reduce the amount of information that can be gleaned from an accident leading to his death.
@@SuperPhunThyme9 true, I remember drivers Ed, we had to watch videos of actual traffic accidents, as well as dashcam footage from cop cars of people crashing during high speed pursuits
My younger brother is doing driver's Ed now, and he told me all they show is some pussified education video that is similar to what you would show a 5 year old child to safely ride a bike
What broke? I don't see anything wrong??
At 0:36 the fins with the stabilisers move upwards, overstressing the airframe.
TruAgape1
I guess I missed the breakup part...
wow, you can see the hyundai testing track perfectly. i visited california city, ca. a few years back!
That is not Hyundai, that is the old Honda track near Cantil on the north side of Cal City.
Yes it's the Honda track but I think multi manufacturers eventually used it. Where did the wreckage end up?
Nobody used the Honda track but Honda. Hyundai's California Proving Ground is SW of Cal City. The wreckage was widely scattered near Redrock Randsburg road west of Koehn Dry Lake, north of Cantil.
Zuloff Is Honda still using the track? You seem to know a lot about it. Last time I went by both over and driving it looks like it's showing signs of abandonment. The plane must have gone down in a pile for sure. For some reason we always call that Garlic Road. That's how we go to Searl Station and Wagon Wheel.
www.autoblog.com/2015/12/11/honda-mojave-hot-weather-proving-ground/
How, more than a decade into the 21st century, are there not safeguards in place to avoid something being activated that shouldn't be? I get that manual control is still necessary, but if we are going to allow pilots to retain control and override systems in case of emergency, is there no warning system that forces a pilot to be "extra sure" that they want to engage that specific system? This kind of redundancy and warning systems existed during Apollo, how is it not 1000000x better now?!
Didn't show the full clip
а чё до конца не показали то?До момента когда второй спасшийся пилот-испытатель покинул аппарат
I saw no tragedy. they stopped filming before anything happened. what's up with that????
Pooch was thoroughly screwed on this one.
I didnt see any breakup??
So, what was the pilot who flipped the lever thinking? I remember when this happened and the picture I saw told me then (the very day it happened) "they went into feathered mode way to early" (that's not done until it's coming back down and the engine IS OFF. The pic clearly showed the engine was running.)
I was of course shocked when a few days later it was confines that that's exactly what happened.
Perhaps when he heard ".8" for the speed, he thought it was "1.8". He didn't feather it, anyway. He merely unlocked the feather mechanism ... prematurely.
0:35 so violent maneuver - crash?
Doesn't really show us anything. Still, live and learn.
If anybody can find the full vid, please link me
zay k ...really? That's kind of morbid.
It hasn't been released to the public for obvious reasons.
Call it what you want, I understand why the whole video was not released, but that doesn't change the fact that I want to watch the full breakup. I do not take pleasure in watching people die,
I do not see why someone would choose not to watch a video of a crash if it got someone killed, but would love to see it if it was a drone
agreed. people are such pussies
People are too emotional.
As of today 12/18/17 the crash is still under NTSB investigation we are still working on the case,no other feed will be released until closing classified.
Was it manned??
Yes. The ship was designed to fold like this, but not while the engine was running. The pilot accidently tripped the wing fold, and once the nose pitched up aerodynamic stresses tore it apart.
Pretty cool video
Lyndon Eaton.nailed it.
What does this button do?
Not even the least bit funny. Shame
This is one of the worst plane breakups I've ever seen on video. Reminds me of the Hendinburg.
Can we actually see the whole video? I'm not willing to accept that the video just magically cuts off just as a failure begins. And before anyone says "We're not showing it out of respect for the dead.", please don't. He/she/they died doing what they loved and lived for. Not showing how they died is extremely disrespectful to who they were and what they lived for.
This footage is showing little on the actual break up ! Pretty much a waste of time to watch !
Quite like your inability to spell.
So why don't they show the money shot here?
Really... put before, prior or pre- in the title ; j
what gore, the guy died upon impact with the ground not during freefall or breakup
the engineer in me wants to see the craft breaking apart and how the structure actually fails
Just my opinion but even though the boom was meant to operate at Mach 1.0 the altitude it was deployed at was far lower than it was designed for and the atmosphere too thick which caused the break up. The copilot error cannot be discounted as the main cause.
Jon Hare That seems logical. Do we know what altitude it was designed to be deployed at?
Daniel Matthews That's an unrealistic requirement for any engineering project. So the engineers should have anticipated that a pilot will unintentionally deactivate one safety function and install two? Or three? Or four?
In front of my house, probably thousands of cars pass by each day, even though they are controlled by fallible humans. The general practitioner next door has no safeguard whatsoever except his knowledge and skills when he fills out a prescription. If either of them would make a mistake, that doesn't mean that this mistake could or should have been prevented. A knife has a sharp end, and when you cut yourself with it, that's not the producer's fault.
Daniel Matthews It wasn't a theme park ride, it was a test flight. But even when in the future it opens to the paying public, it will still be different to other forms of recreation, just as a rollercoaster ride has higher risks associated with it than sitting on a bench.
And +Karol Leszek is very right in that nobody has to convince you. On the other hand, you have the obligation to keep away from any cockpit or other place where you have to act responsibly if you think that you should be able to do everything there and it should be the engineers' job to block you from any wrongdoing. I highly doubt that the pilots in question shared your view and instead trained very hard because they knew they could make a mistake.
Daniel Matthews Good luck with your life!
Invariably, accidents are due to the pilots recklessly negligent judgment, and this is exactly what caused this fatal loss...
Why do things like this happen on such beautiful planes... first the Pond racer now this
WELL SHOW THE THING BREAKING UP....WTF
Didn't see a damn thing!
Unbelievable that he feathered the moment the engine came on. Exhaustive simulation & training used to be the cornerstone of their testing regime, but obviously none of that was done after Burt left.
I’m sure this doesn’t have anything to do with global warming, right?
I want to see it. I want to see it all.
Bad design! Those rear wing extensions have too much leverage at their joint with the sidewings. No wonder BOTH broke off simultaneously. Where was the pre-flight computer analysis of these structures' thresholds?
Yeah, I'm sure you know more than the most experienced aeronautical engineers in the world that designed this at Scaled Composites. I bet they just did a quick sketch on the back of a napkin at Denny's to design their structures and just said "yup, that looks about right". Maybe you should apply for a job there, I hear they're hiring.
Chadney
A finite element analysis would have been completed for _every_ structural component on the rocket, every part would have been certified prior to launch and part of the certification process is the requirement of evidence of the FEA having been completed for each component. But structural failure in this instance was by virtue of a completely flawed control system which has nothing to do with the structure. If they had an automatic electronic lockout for the feather mode above the rockets engineered maximum velocity (Vmo) then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
They actually had talked about the issue with regard to the feather lockout, but because it was just a conversation and not put out for a multidisciplinary check it was subsequently overlooked and not implement. Half a dozen lines of code and a few mechanical relays as a redundancy to the code would have prevented this accident from happening.
The question you should be asking is: why wasn't there a detailed interdisciplinary cause and effect study done for the control system?
Probably they were cutting costs. Money is always a factor, even in the aerospace industry. When people have a problem with not getting enough money for their company, they go through serious legal loopholes to cut costs. In this industry, cutting costs in such a way, whether it is in the design of a air or spacecraft, or in their routine maintenance, that major faults are left to fester and ultimately cause an emergency or catastrophic failure in midair.
Andrew Manson - more probable that you're an ignorant ass ~
Chadney Spencer - you should apply for position with the company - they need people with your obvious omnipotent talents ~
There was no fail-safe preventing it to go feather at high speed because it needs an intentional act to do so making it an act of suicide and an attempted murder. Apparently, the pilot did not share the same warped feeling the copilot had for him.
the design of this rocket plane is deficient. it has the elevators and rudders too far away from the fuselage which makes the frame unable to support the possible stresses it would encounter. The designer of the aircraft has used minimal design criteria in the design which makes it vulnerable to breakup.
prove it
I'll bet that you stayed in a Motel Six one time too.
u first test idea on small RC model plane then full scale with remote control (so many remote options available) If u wanna test living put mouse in. Putting pilot is just disaster waiting to happen followed by bankruptcy.
I remember when Dr Martin boots smelled nice 😇
Ciao Welcome AREA 51
"Scaled composites"
Why cant we ever get actual video?
Why always CGI?
And if theres no oxygen in space.. what's up with the afterburners?
Urban City Ambassador it’s a rocket...
Gnarly. So gnarled and shi.
wut
Any novice can look at this thing and determine that the wings are structurally insufficient. What a shame...
,
One look at that design and any engineer will tell you those wings will not withstand the kind of forces that model will experience at those speeds. What were they thinking?
No idea how the NTSB could gain any info from these uneventful videos. Then bring it here and waste everyone's time.
It's the Russians fault. They snuck in and drained the blinker fluid.
i thought it was that chinese guy, sumkunt
Fail
To bad that one didn't have Branson on board :/
Click Bait...
snooze fest
Click bait
Steve Austin.. barely alive...
Click bate!
Poor design.
Stop wasteing my time!
Complete waste of time!
wut
,
,