backtop

Print 23 comment(s) - last by austenite.. on Jul 30 at 10:32 AM

SpaceShipOne performed the oxider test several times without incident. Scale Composites reports SpaceShipTwo performed the cold-flow oxidizer test once flawlessly before today's fatal accident.  (Source: Scaled Composites)
SpaceShipTwo rocket motor explodes killing three, injuring three more

Scaled Composites reports that an explosion at its Mojave-based spaceport has killed three people and critically injured three more. The explosion occurred during a test of components for a nitrous powered rocket engine for SpaceShipTwo, the successor to Burt Rutan’s famous SpaceShipOne.


The company's website states, "Eric Blackwell, 38, Glen May, 45, and Todd Ivens, 33, were killed by an explosion that occurred during a routine cold-flow test of the oxidizer system we’re developing for SpaceShipTwo."
 

SpaceShipOne was the first private manned space craft to reach space. SpaceShipTwo was built under a partnership between Rutan and Billionaire Richard Branson to construct a fleet of commercial space vehicles for Virgin Galactic. Neither Branson nor Rutan stated how this explosion might affect the partnership or the plans for the space fleet.

 

A Kern County Medical Center Official said two of the injured people died at the scene and another died at the hospital post surgery. The injuries suffered by three of the victims were caused by numerous shrapnel wounds.

 

Rutan says that this same test had been conducted numerous times with SpaceShipOne and that the test had been conducted once before on SpaceShipTwo.


Branson invested more than $200 million for a fleet of Rutan’s spacecraft with the intention of selling rides for $200,000 each to tourists brave enough to fly 62 miles above the Earth’s surface. The first commercial flight for the fleet was expected to happen in 2009.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
My condolences
By James Holden on 7/27/2007 5:51:54 PM , Rating: 6
My condolences to the friends and family of the victims. I hope the project is able to recover from this tragedy.




RE: My condolences
By Lazarus Dark on 7/27/2007 10:42:36 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, a tragedy indeed. But I hope no one tries to shut them down. Innovation must move forward. Certainly an investigation must be launched and proper precautions for the future taken. This will delay the project but I am rooting for it to continue. I want my kids to see mars.


RE: My condolences
By alifbaa on 7/27/2007 11:41:27 PM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately, the path to innovation always seems to be laid with tragedy. Here is what I believe they died creating and what others will live on to complete...

I think that what they are creating today will go far beyond simple suborbital tourism flights with 6 minutes of weightlessness and will very quickly become high speed trans-global travel and then who knows what will come next. In the early 1900's, do you think even the Wright brothers would have imagined what we routinely do with aircraft today? Do you think they would have ever guessed how many people on Earth have experienced flight?

These people are the Wright brothers of our time. I firmly believe that what they are doing today is laying the ground work for what will be a fundamental revision in the way we see the world. They will have even more effect than the Wright brothers.


space shuttle pilots drink up...
By CrystalBay on 7/27/2007 5:53:12 PM , Rating: 5
This is the reason space shuttle pilots drink before launch !!




By Yahooligan on 7/27/2007 6:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
This is the reason space shuttle pilots drink before launch !!

Sick. Funny. But sick.


By wingless on 7/28/2007 12:50:54 AM , Rating: 2
I thought the same thing earlier. They have a few millions of pounds of rocket fuel under their butts so they have a shot or two before a launch for the nerves. They'll sober up really fast upon blastoff.

This is a very tragic event and it shows that going to space is and always will be dangerous. Their lives wont be in vain as improvements will come from all of this. Pray for their families and honor their sacrifice.


By Screwballl on 7/28/2007 12:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
I agree... nothing like a good shot of courage before sitting on top of a launching explosive bull.

I say let them have a shot or two. Of course when testing these things.. wait to have the drinks until after the experiment.

The families of those lost are in my prayers.


Safety??
By austenite on 7/30/2007 10:32:33 AM , Rating: 3
The article doesn't state the details...but how did this happen? you would think that during a test everyone would be in a safe area to be protected in case of engine failure. Isn't that standard practice in any sort of test cell? Sounds like a totally avoidable tragedy. Slack safety practices.




Ticket
By Alphafox78 on 7/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Ticket
By DragonMaster0 on 7/27/07, Rating: 0
Sigh.
By Suomynona on 7/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sigh.
By ThisSpaceForRent on 7/28/2007 11:30:10 AM , Rating: 5
As opposed to the publicly funded nerds? Not sure what you're trying to say with your statement here. Where your funding comes from in no way affects your intelligence, or the dumb luck of the universe.


RE: Sigh.
By kiwimark on 7/28/2007 10:46:55 PM , Rating: 5
What an insensitive post, these people are true visionaries.

Unbelievable... and it's not like NASA are doing the perfect job of it. They're having to outsource to the private space industry because of their major internal problems.


RE: Sigh.
By Ryanman on 7/29/2007 11:07:59 PM , Rating: 1
man, are you kidding. Have you actually SEEN the US government lately? Tell me, who does better with mail - the US government or FEDex? Is our government education system up to par? Do our politicians regualarly excercise great money handling? And as a previous poster pointed out, NASA is an excercise in irresponsible spending and pipedreams the Government uses to make you think that we're making scientific progress.

Sorry charlie - american buisness is the future and their extremely quick progress on two spaceships proves that.


Sad, but more rich guys
By on 7/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sad, but more rich guys
By alifbaa on 7/27/2007 11:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure you understand what these people were doing...

These weren't West Virginian coal miners with no opportunity to do anything else and at the mercy of some uncaring robber-baron. These were highly educated, innovative, free thinking experimental engineers. In fact, they were literally rocket scientists!

Instead of a robber-baron, they were paid (and paid well, I assume) through venture capital given by one of the world's most innovative entrepreneurs and most respected business men -- Richard Branson. Richard Branson is known for his egalitarian views and down-to-earth style; it's what makes him so famous. The business he invested in has yet to return a dime in profits. The company itself was likely owned by the people who died. The safety systems and protocols that failed were also likely designed by the people who were killed as well.

So far, I'm failing to see any resemblance between your views and fact, reason, or reality.


RE: Sad, but more rich guys
By on 7/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sad, but more rich guys
By GaryJohnson on 7/28/2007 12:47:53 AM , Rating: 2
Sometimes, even when you follow the rules of safe engagement, things can go wrong; especially when you're working with hazardous materials and experimental machinery (read: nitrous powered rocket engine).


RE: Sad, but more rich guys
By Ringold on 7/28/2007 12:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
Being engineers working on equipment designed to blast things in to space it seems a safe assumption they understood what they were doing wasn't entirely safe. They weren't toddlers sticking a fork in to a power outlet.

The sad thing is I suspected some nut would manage to come and make a post attacking the right of a business to operate freely and the liberty of it's employees to make their own individual decisions to work for the firm or not.

As far as your particular vector of attack -- safety -- we can't get in the car and go anywhere, despite being as cautious as we can be, in total safety. In fact, across town here in Sanford a couple weeks ago a couple families were buzzing around there home early in the morning and a plane fell out of the sky, devastating both. Given that these guys work on experimental technology, not Coke-Cola Vending machines, I think we should give them a break.


RE: Sad, but more rich guys
By jtesoro on 7/28/2007 1:06:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Obviously, the project did not have adequate safety plans in effect. This is a known.


And you know this just because someone died?

quote:
First of all firemen and policemen and yes even troops have rules of SAFE engagement.


And that is why no firemen, policemen and troops die in the line of duty. Oh wait...


RE: Sad, but more rich guys
By Durrr on 7/28/2007 10:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
I work in a fairly dangerous field, and we have tons of safety measures in place, but, guess what, we're only human. Humans make mistakes, and those mistakes can be costly. If we stopped development on everything that took a human life, we would not have progressed beyond an agrarian society.


RE: Sad, but more rich guys
By jtesoro on 7/27/2007 11:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
While this is certainly a tragedy, I think we should avoid general statements that we shouldn't put employees in harms way, "no ifs ands or buts". In the public sector, firefighters, cops and soldiers are in harms way a lot of times. In the private sector, certain construction workers and (closer to this situation) test pilots are in high-risk situations all the time.

Getting in harms way in all these cases involves risk, often significant risk. It's a matter of managing it and ensuring that it is acceptable. Whether the risk was appropriately managed in this case should be looked at, but we shouldn't get carried away by the results of this test.


RE: Sad, but more rich guys
By Fritzr on 7/28/2007 6:02:23 AM , Rating: 2
Determining what will fail and how is the purpose of these tests. Obviously they have identified a failure mode they weren't expecting.

NASA does expect this failure mode whenever they light a motor. There is a very good reason the padside control bunker is a bunker and is called the blockhouse.

There will be times that personnel are outside the bunker. They follow safety procedures that are designed to prevent unecessary exposure to known danger. Sometimes those dangers are known because the accident has happened before.

From the sound of this, the test being conducted was considered routine & the risk of explosive failure to be very low. Now that it has happened, future tests will be done in a manner that recognizes the danger of catastrophic failure.

The NASA control bunker design dates back to the earliest V2 tests. While engine designs were being developed, they blew up quite a few. Even modern motors blow on ignition occasionally.

To the list of hazardous occupations add lumberjack, electrical lineman, telephone lineman, diver, fisherman...many more occupations that are considered to be mundane, carry very high risk of injury or death even when all safety rules are followed.

Very close to this are pyrotechnic experts, engineers testing turbine designs & woodworkers. If you're hit by a piece of broken router bit you're just as dead as these engineers.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki