Calling those things a spaceship is like calling a dolphin, a bird. They spend the majority of their operating envelope in the atmosphere. They are aircraft which "porpoise" above the realm of aerodynamic control for a very brief period. Hats off to Burt Rutan for his innovation, however. It genuinely is a remarkable craft which has pushed the boundaries of aviation - something at which Burt Rutan does seem to excel.
I remember some analogies being drawn between Virgin Galactic and Oceangate following the Titan implosion. And how Stockton Rush wanted to be like Richard Branson
Well both of them put their own ass on the line at least. But Stockton Rush is a bit of residue on the sea floor right now while Branson is probably on a jet ski with a topless French ballerina.
The difference is that Richard Branson put the creation of his vehicle in the hands of someone actually qualified to build one and listened to them. Rush simply assumed he knew better than all the experts, all of the advice and paid the price. Apart from the fact they were both rich, there's really not much about them which is similar other than ambition.
Re-entry of orbital craft has major issues with re-entry heating (which, contrary to popular belief is not due to friction, but pressure from the hypersonic bow-wave). Scaled Composites' SS1/SS2 do not suffer significantly with this issue because they are not going fast enough. They re-enter at the same speed as they left (conservation of momentum, and all that). The reason for the "feathering" is to maintain orientation and prevent aerodynamic overspeed, not re-entry heating.
@@The_ZeroLine - It's fairly easy to make the explanation public-friendly without bullshitting. When the public are fed factually incorrect explanations, is it any wonder that so many of the general public are scientifically illiterate ? I would rather say, "It is difficult to explain in a coherent and easy-to-understand way" than to make up some BS simply to satisfy someone's desire for an easy-to-understand explanation because I consider it a disservice to lie to someone for the sake of providing an answer. No answer is better than a wrong answer. Every kid who has pumped up a bike tyre knows that air gets hot when it is compressed. Anyone who has seen a boat on water knows that a fluid is pushed ahead of a moving vessel.
@@halfrhovsquared I came to make your exact comment. Suborbital re-entry heating is WAY less, and the feather was there to keep the ship oriented the correct way with respect to the airflow. Such an error is atypical of 3Greens. Anyway, I don't think it has to do with devising a "public friendly way," so much as it is simple misunderstandings in the public consciousness. People think "space = re-entry heating," when the important distinction is not "space/not space" but rather "orbital/suborbital"
@@sigmundwong2489 - I agree that such an error is atypical of 3Greens. His standards are high which is why I watch his videos. None of us are immune to mistakes. I disagree with the orbital/suborbital distinction for two reasons (and I am nitpicking, slightly). When a spacecraft undergoes re-entry from orbit, it is suborbital and has (usually) performed a de-orbit burn to reduce its velocity such that the trajectory is elliptical and will intersect the atmosphere - that's why it re-enters. Too many people don't really understand orbital mechanics (not surprising, really) and think that the distinction between orbital and suborbital is height, rather than speed (which, to a point, it is but height alone does not make a craft orbital). I would say that the difference is speed (to simplify it) and if I were to give details, I would explain how at hypersonic speeds, air simply cannot move out of the way quickly enough and "piles up" (compresses) in the hypersonic bow-wave of a craft returning from orbit.
What is the point of having emergency procedures if part of said procedure is to send highly trained but entirely unequipped rescuers out to a very likely injured victim without either the proper resources to effectively render aid nor the transportation required to rush them to a place where such resources are available. To leave the rescuers and victim playing cards for 30 mins while a completely separate vehicle and team show up with what u should have had to begin with when this whole operation was planned out, is ludicrous and would be laughable if someones life weren't in the balance
Thanks for this. At the time this happened, I had no idea that the feather system needed testing on the ascent so was always wondering WTF the copilot was thinking when touching it at all. Now I know this is a checklist item, but performed at the wrong time But either way, the lack of any safety measure to prevent inappropriate operation of the feather system was a big design fail. Of course, that's rather in line with the rest of the thing. There's no automation at all; the thing is hand-flown all the way. Thus, human error is always looming over every phase of flight. Even if I had a quarter million of mad money, I wouldn't spend it riding this thing.
How the hell one makes a self-test that is potentially more dangerous than what it's meant to protect against? And why the hell it's needed at this stage of flight, especially if they also did it right before separation? (and if it's to make sure that pitch-up maneuver didn't jam the locks - then how can you be sure it doesn't get jammed raised on reentry?)
Man, I absolutely love this channel and your videos! I love how you’ve changed things up a little. I love the cases you bring to us. Keep it up, my friend! Cheers!
Oh dear. Rocket physics 101, please: this crap from Branson is not orbital, it is sub-orbital. Meaning that the re-entry speeds bear no comparison with a craft such as the Shuttle which was orbital. Getting into orbit requires huge energy to reach heights, but even more energy to accelerate to Low Earth Orbital speed, approx. 18,000 mph. All this kinetic energy must be removed, usually using air friction, when re-entering.
@@jez9999 Yeah, a lot of people like to down play the value/achievements of sub-orbital flights, forgetting that the requirements of making it even to sub orbital flight are quite difficult (not to mention that if you only care about orbital flights then the soviets were even further ahead of the USA in the space race). Scott Manley has a great point however that Space Ship 2 is the only space vehicle which is manually controlled by the pilots and not by a computer, so there is that.
The ground should have commanded the unlocking of the feather system… The pilots simulated the task in a shirt-sleeve environment, so the ground controllers should have been the ones doing the same task on the day of the flight.
Flight hours on what is a question I’d like to know. The extraordinarily premature feather unlocking seemed like a mistake a pilot without extreme test piloting experience would make.
If it were me, I wouldn't spend my time while in space moving in the cabin enjoying the 0G. If I had the means to go space, there probably also opportunities available to me to experience that phenomenon while in the atmosphere.
There are actually specialized planes that dive then stay at close to 0g then goes negative g. Renting is probably very expensive but also probably safer
@@RileyCargo42 Yep that's what I had in mind. Tom Scott did a ride in one. That particular plane operation might be for academic purposes only. Any others may be the same, hence my hesitation.
@@voodootrois It's ONLY "freefall"... Not terribly special as experiences go... The longer and farther you can experience "freefall" without dying is only somewhat special today at all... whether you go cliff-diving, ride in a giant plane with a psycho' at the stick, or throw yourself out of a perfectly good airplane, regardless of the pilot's mental status... it's all freefall until you're dangling from a parachute... same sensation (as far as your inner ear is concerned anyway) to the human experiencing it... The cheapest, but admittedly shortest, such experiences can be found on roller-coasters all over the world... high dives are also pretty cheap at most public pools and some waterparks... a few dubious waterslides come close, at least... and probably a small mountain of other theme-park rides. AND for the "Vomit Comet"... While it was originally a 100% NASA training plane originally, and has since MOSTLY been a "serious academic" operation, there are more operators getting more pilots qualified to operate it (and others) more and more like an expensive tourist ride... Of course... You COULD also find a willing crop-duster or similar pilot with a smaller plane and reach 0 or Negative G maneuvers with enough money crossing the right palms, too... I'd recommend most of your searching be WEST of the Mississippi River, because there's more open space in general in States like Montana and Wyoming where "risky" pilots tend to be a little less scrutinized in general. The only remaining caveat is that you SPEND A LITTLE TIME with the pilot in question, first. Try to "get a read on him" so you don't find yourself hiring a legitimately suicidal psycho'... Most planes can handle +/- 1 to 2 G's without too much hell to pay... AND there are ALWAYS pilots willing to get a little "on the fringe" for the cash... or sometimes a dinner and some beers after... IF you look. ;o)
Branson, sorry forgot the Sir but as he's so modest he won't mind,is into gimmicks and getting to space is hard.When you launch rockets from aircraft as in Virgin Orbit or from a mother ship as in Virgin Galactic you have thus added a complication on a simple rocket launched for the ground.
Not really, they are just complex in different ways. New Shepard has the whole separation of the crew capsule still and many points of failure. Space Ship has some novel methods of failure, but it also has a lot of commonalities with aircraft which are very well understood. So I wouldn't say it is necessarily more complex. Also, common mistake, but Branson doesn't have anything to do with the design of SS2 or WK2, both of which are designed by Burt Rutan. Branson just funded and publicised the venture.
Whilst I can understand the oversight for the failure of the feathering lever to have a failsafe or warning system (someone just overlooking it), I don't get why they had a rescue chopper that couldn't carry a patient to hospital? Its not an especially great indicator of how valued human life is in that company. Im in two minds about these space exploration adventures: one hand, it feels like rich, white guys that have everything they could ever need on Earth, who have so much money, they literally put it into space (& want to escape the plebs & the damage everyones done to the Earth in the name of greed); but on the other hand, anything that furthers human exploration (oceans, mountains, space, ourselves, our health, mental health) should be applauded, & Branson seems far less egregious, especially re:Ukraine, than Musk, when Musk has never said a word against Russia, even after 2022 (& still tries to create misinfo on NATO, actively stops Ukrainian defenders from attacking Russian assets). Kind of frightening how much power billionaires have, esp when it comes to our democratic institutions & our freedom (& spreading pro-anarchist, anti-govt talking points on social media).
Or another way of looking at this is that we shouldn’t be spending billions on forever wars (I thought you guys hated wars but things sure have changed since Vietnam and Bush but here we are. And his most egregious sin was democratizing a SM platform that was formally a closed echo chamber for certain types of correct think absolutists. Wow, such crimes against humanity.
Calling those things a spaceship is like calling a dolphin, a bird. They spend the majority of their operating envelope in the atmosphere. They are aircraft which "porpoise" above the realm of aerodynamic control for a very brief period. Hats off to Burt Rutan for his innovation, however. It genuinely is a remarkable craft which has pushed the boundaries of aviation - something at which Burt Rutan does seem to excel.
True, but it does go into space. It meets the minimum requirements.
I remember some analogies being drawn between Virgin Galactic and Oceangate following the Titan implosion. And how Stockton Rush wanted to be like Richard Branson
Well both of them put their own ass on the line at least. But Stockton Rush is a bit of residue on the sea floor right now while Branson is probably on a jet ski with a topless French ballerina.
I was gonna say something similar bro. Egos get in the way of safety sadly.
The difference is that Richard Branson put the creation of his vehicle in the hands of someone actually qualified to build one and listened to them. Rush simply assumed he knew better than all the experts, all of the advice and paid the price. Apart from the fact they were both rich, there's really not much about them which is similar other than ambition.
Re-entry of orbital craft has major issues with re-entry heating (which, contrary to popular belief is not due to friction, but pressure from the hypersonic bow-wave). Scaled Composites' SS1/SS2 do not suffer significantly with this issue because they are not going fast enough. They re-enter at the same speed as they left (conservation of momentum, and all that). The reason for the "feathering" is to maintain orientation and prevent aerodynamic overspeed, not re-entry heating.
The erroneous friction concept probably is due to engineers trying to come up with a public friendly way to describe the re-entry challenges.
@@The_ZeroLine - It's fairly easy to make the explanation public-friendly without bullshitting. When the public are fed factually incorrect explanations, is it any wonder that so many of the general public are scientifically illiterate ? I would rather say, "It is difficult to explain in a coherent and easy-to-understand way" than to make up some BS simply to satisfy someone's desire for an easy-to-understand explanation because I consider it a disservice to lie to someone for the sake of providing an answer. No answer is better than a wrong answer.
Every kid who has pumped up a bike tyre knows that air gets hot when it is compressed. Anyone who has seen a boat on water knows that a fluid is pushed ahead of a moving vessel.
@@halfrhovsquared I came to make your exact comment. Suborbital re-entry heating is WAY less, and the feather was there to keep the ship oriented the correct way with respect to the airflow. Such an error is atypical of 3Greens. Anyway, I don't think it has to do with devising a "public friendly way," so much as it is simple misunderstandings in the public consciousness. People think "space = re-entry heating," when the important distinction is not "space/not space" but rather "orbital/suborbital"
@@sigmundwong2489 - I agree that such an error is atypical of 3Greens. His standards are high which is why I watch his videos. None of us are immune to mistakes.
I disagree with the orbital/suborbital distinction for two reasons (and I am nitpicking, slightly).
When a spacecraft undergoes re-entry from orbit, it is suborbital and has (usually) performed a de-orbit burn to reduce its velocity such that the trajectory is elliptical and will intersect the atmosphere - that's why it re-enters. Too many people don't really understand orbital mechanics (not surprising, really) and think that the distinction between orbital and suborbital is height, rather than speed (which, to a point, it is but height alone does not make a craft orbital).
I would say that the difference is speed (to simplify it) and if I were to give details, I would explain how at hypersonic speeds, air simply cannot move out of the way quickly enough and "piles up" (compresses) in the hypersonic bow-wave of a craft returning from orbit.
What is the point of having emergency procedures if part of said procedure is to send highly trained but entirely unequipped rescuers out to a very likely injured victim without either the proper resources to effectively render aid nor the transportation required to rush them to a place where such resources are available. To leave the rescuers and victim playing cards for 30 mins while a completely separate vehicle and team show up with what u should have had to begin with when this whole operation was planned out, is ludicrous and would be laughable if someones life weren't in the balance
I remember watching the original SS1 flights in 2004. Can’t believe it took almost 20 YEARS to get to this point. Something is wrong somewhere…
Let’s just say Scaled Composites vastly underestimated the complexity to make space tourism possible never mind beating NASA at its own game.
Yes, the Design, that is wrong.
I concur.
Thanks for this. At the time this happened, I had no idea that the feather system needed testing on the ascent so was always wondering WTF the copilot was thinking when touching it at all. Now I know this is a checklist item, but performed at the wrong time But either way, the lack of any safety measure to prevent inappropriate operation of the feather system was a big design fail. Of course, that's rather in line with the rest of the thing. There's no automation at all; the thing is hand-flown all the way. Thus, human error is always looming over every phase of flight. Even if I had a quarter million of mad money, I wouldn't spend it riding this thing.
I think the copilot being unfamiliar to the spacesuit (as said in the video) he wanted to do a motion check.
How the hell one makes a self-test that is potentially more dangerous than what it's meant to protect against? And why the hell it's needed at this stage of flight, especially if they also did it right before separation? (and if it's to make sure that pitch-up maneuver didn't jam the locks - then how can you be sure it doesn't get jammed raised on reentry?)
Space begins at 62 miles above the Earth. The Space Shuttle flew as high as 600 miles...
Man, I absolutely love this channel and your videos! I love how you’ve changed things up a little. I love the cases you bring to us. Keep it up, my friend! Cheers!
Oh dear. Rocket physics 101, please: this crap from Branson is not orbital, it is sub-orbital. Meaning that the re-entry speeds bear no comparison with a craft such as the Shuttle which was orbital. Getting into orbit requires huge energy to reach heights, but even more energy to accelerate to Low Earth Orbital speed, approx. 18,000 mph. All this kinetic energy must be removed, usually using air friction, when re-entering.
To be fair, it sounds like they were just trying to meet the requirements of The X Prize.
@@jez9999 Yeah, a lot of people like to down play the value/achievements of sub-orbital flights, forgetting that the requirements of making it even to sub orbital flight are quite difficult (not to mention that if you only care about orbital flights then the soviets were even further ahead of the USA in the space race). Scott Manley has a great point however that Space Ship 2 is the only space vehicle which is manually controlled by the pilots and not by a computer, so there is that.
@@Musikur… and that’s the reason for the fatal flight.
This was so interesting! I would love more space themed videos plz and thanks :D
Such an interesting case!! Thankyou for this gem!
great episode!
Great video
9:32 Got you loud and clear galactic suborbital zero one… 😅
The ground should have commanded the unlocking of the feather system…
The pilots simulated the task in a shirt-sleeve environment, so the ground controllers should have been the ones doing the same task on the day of the flight.
Flight hours on what is a question I’d like to know. The extraordinarily premature feather unlocking seemed like a mistake a pilot without extreme test piloting experience would make.
Great video
If it were me, I wouldn't spend my time while in space moving in the cabin enjoying the 0G. If I had the means to go space, there probably also opportunities available to me to experience that phenomenon while in the atmosphere.
There are actually specialized planes that dive then stay at close to 0g then goes negative g.
Renting is probably very expensive but also probably safer
@@RileyCargo42 Yep that's what I had in mind. Tom Scott did a ride in one. That particular plane operation might be for academic purposes only. Any others may be the same, hence my hesitation.
@@voodootrois It's ONLY "freefall"... Not terribly special as experiences go... The longer and farther you can experience "freefall" without dying is only somewhat special today at all... whether you go cliff-diving, ride in a giant plane with a psycho' at the stick, or throw yourself out of a perfectly good airplane, regardless of the pilot's mental status... it's all freefall until you're dangling from a parachute... same sensation (as far as your inner ear is concerned anyway) to the human experiencing it...
The cheapest, but admittedly shortest, such experiences can be found on roller-coasters all over the world... high dives are also pretty cheap at most public pools and some waterparks... a few dubious waterslides come close, at least... and probably a small mountain of other theme-park rides.
AND for the "Vomit Comet"... While it was originally a 100% NASA training plane originally, and has since MOSTLY been a "serious academic" operation, there are more operators getting more pilots qualified to operate it (and others) more and more like an expensive tourist ride... Of course... You COULD also find a willing crop-duster or similar pilot with a smaller plane and reach 0 or Negative G maneuvers with enough money crossing the right palms, too... I'd recommend most of your searching be WEST of the Mississippi River, because there's more open space in general in States like Montana and Wyoming where "risky" pilots tend to be a little less scrutinized in general.
The only remaining caveat is that you SPEND A LITTLE TIME with the pilot in question, first. Try to "get a read on him" so you don't find yourself hiring a legitimately suicidal psycho'... Most planes can handle +/- 1 to 2 G's without too much hell to pay... AND there are ALWAYS pilots willing to get a little "on the fringe" for the cash... or sometimes a dinner and some beers after... IF you look. ;o)
I'm not an aerospace engineer, but that feather system seems unreliable to me. There seems to be no redundancy in case it fails on return.
Branson, sorry forgot the Sir but as he's so modest he won't mind,is into gimmicks and getting to space is hard.When you launch rockets from aircraft as in Virgin Orbit or from a mother ship as in Virgin Galactic you have thus added a complication on a simple rocket launched for the ground.
Not really, they are just complex in different ways. New Shepard has the whole separation of the crew capsule still and many points of failure. Space Ship has some novel methods of failure, but it also has a lot of commonalities with aircraft which are very well understood. So I wouldn't say it is necessarily more complex. Also, common mistake, but Branson doesn't have anything to do with the design of SS2 or WK2, both of which are designed by Burt Rutan. Branson just funded and publicised the venture.
Such a sad story. You've become quite the storyteller.
Alexander the ok had a video about this too.
and it's a much better video at that.
Whilst I can understand the oversight for the failure of the feathering lever to have a failsafe or warning system (someone just overlooking it), I don't get why they had a rescue chopper that couldn't carry a patient to hospital? Its not an especially great indicator of how valued human life is in that company.
Im in two minds about these space exploration adventures: one hand, it feels like rich, white guys that have everything they could ever need on Earth, who have so much money, they literally put it into space (& want to escape the plebs & the damage everyones done to the Earth in the name of greed); but on the other hand, anything that furthers human exploration (oceans, mountains, space, ourselves, our health, mental health) should be applauded, & Branson seems far less egregious, especially re:Ukraine, than Musk, when Musk has never said a word against Russia, even after 2022 (& still tries to create misinfo on NATO, actively stops Ukrainian defenders from attacking Russian assets). Kind of frightening how much power billionaires have, esp when it comes to our democratic institutions & our freedom (& spreading pro-anarchist, anti-govt talking points on social media).
Or another way of looking at this is that we shouldn’t be spending billions on forever wars (I thought you guys hated wars but things sure have changed since Vietnam and Bush but here we are. And his most egregious sin was democratizing a SM platform that was formally a closed echo chamber for certain types of correct think absolutists. Wow, such crimes against humanity.
Rich folk already trying to escape a planet in decline...
I'm the 20th like!
Ca ne serait pas plus simple de ressusciter Buran à la place de S1 avec un Antonov à la place du S2?
I hate space stuffs, you have better stick to airlines accident and its analysis🙏
I like space and air. Now we need ocean investigations.