banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 22:10 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 25 May 2020, 20:44 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/22/07
Posts: 12813
Post Likes: +13206
Company: Cogswell Cogs, LLC
Location: KPTK (SE Michigan)
Aircraft: C205
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05 ... it-failed/

_________________
Life is a DiY project.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 07:03 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/29/14
Posts: 8476
Post Likes: +5264
Location: Brunswick, Ga
Aircraft: PA32RT-300T
“We had an anomaly “ Sounds so much better than, “that sumbeech blew up” doesn’t it?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 07:28 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/11/15
Posts: 853
Post Likes: +1471
Location: KCRG (Jacksonville FL)
Username Protected wrote:
“We had an anomaly “ Sounds so much better than, “that sumbeech blew up” doesn’t it?



[youtube]https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM[/youtube]


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 07:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 6052
Post Likes: +12358
Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
It was a learning opportunity. NASA knew that cold temps could be problematic for the O-rings, but they didn't learned it until they failed.

Learning occurs when behavior changes.

_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
MCW
Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 11:32 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/14/18
Posts: 953
Post Likes: +1310
Company: USAF
Location: Barksdale AFB, LA (KDTN)
Aircraft: 1967 Bonanza V35
NASA knew before they failed. NASA engineers knew before the launch that the booster o-rings would fail at temperatures below 32 degrees. The engineers and safety officer fell under "operations" in the organizational structure. The objection to launch was overridden by the ops officer and never got to the launch decision authority. This is why in modern organizational structures the safety officer reports directly to the launch authority or in my case directly to the commander.

_________________
1967 V35
1974 AA5


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 12:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/22/12
Posts: 2428
Post Likes: +957
Aircraft: G36 turbo normalized
Username Protected wrote:
NASA knew before they failed. NASA engineers knew before the launch that the booster o-rings would fail at temperatures below 32 degrees. The engineers and safety officer fell under "operations" in the organizational structure. The objection to launch was overridden by the ops officer and never got to the launch decision authority. This is why in modern organizational structures the safety officer reports directly to the launch authority or in my case directly to the commander.


I'm not sure I understand this. If you are correct, and NASA engineers truly knew the O-rings would fail at temps below 32, why would they launch? Also, this is Virgin Orbit, not NASA.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 12:26 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/25/10
Posts: 13096
Post Likes: +19122
Company: Keybilly Adventures
Location: FD51
Aircraft: P35, GC1B
Username Protected wrote:
NASA knew before they failed. NASA engineers knew before the launch that the booster o-rings would fail at temperatures below 32 degrees. The engineers and safety officer fell under "operations" in the organizational structure. The objection to launch was overridden by the ops officer and never got to the launch decision authority. This is why in modern organizational structures the safety officer reports directly to the launch authority or in my case directly to the commander.


I'm not sure I understand this. If you are correct, and NASA engineers truly knew the O-rings would fail at temps below 32, why would they launch? Also, this is Virgin Orbit, not NASA.


Because NASA engineers aren't the ones who were driving the show, at that point.
_________________
“Fear is the Mind-Killer”


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 13:00 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/14/18
Posts: 953
Post Likes: +1310
Company: USAF
Location: Barksdale AFB, LA (KDTN)
Aircraft: 1967 Bonanza V35
The engineers reported to their boss, the chief of operations, that the launch should be delayed because the o-rings would fail if exposed to sustained temperatures below 32 degrees. The weather was unusually cold for several days following the original scrubbed launch date. Due to pressure to launch in the back-up launch window, the chief of operations decided to launch despite the engineers warnings. This was a major finding in the mishap summary.

From "Truth, Lie, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster":
"He had to testify before a Presidential commission, during which he explained to commission Chairman William Rogers that Morton Thiokol had been so concerned about the O-rings that they recommended that NASA not launch the shuttle in temperatures below 53 degrees. They just didn't have enough data to determine if the O-rings would seal properly at lower temperatures."

The overnight temperatures were in the low 20's all night before the launch.

_________________
1967 V35
1974 AA5


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 13:57 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/25/12
Posts: 3711
Post Likes: +3661
Location: KRHV San Jose, CA
Aircraft: A36, R44, C525
I think you have deviated from the original post about Virgins rocket. It's not NASA.

_________________
Rocky Hill

Altitude is Everything.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 15:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 6052
Post Likes: +12358
Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
Username Protected wrote:
NASA knew before they failed. NASA engineers knew before the launch that the booster o-rings would fail at temperatures below 32 degrees. The engineers and safety officer fell under "operations" in the organizational structure. The objection to launch was overridden by the ops officer and never got to the launch decision authority. This is why in modern organizational structures the safety officer reports directly to the launch authority or in my case directly to the commander.


Aaron,

You are making my point, Nasa had the knowledge, but as an organization, they had not learned it, because the knowledge that they had did not change their behavior. After the failure, an experience, there was no chance they would launch a cold booster.

This is textbook learning.

A question an applicant for a CFI can count on from me is, "Is it possible to know something but not have learned it?" The answer is: "Absolutely!"

The knowledge is there, but the behavior is not. An experience causes behavior change.

The example is, nearly all of us know we should: weigh less, drink less, quit smoking, exercise more, pick your bad behavior...

But for most, it takes an experience like a cardiac event to change the behavior.

It doesn't matter what we know, it matters what we do.

_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
MCW
Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 16:11 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19767
Post Likes: +19433
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
The knowledge is there, but the behavior is not. An experience causes behavior change.

Sadly in NASA's case the greater learning didn't take place even with the Challenger mishap. Sure, they "learned" not to launch with cold boosters, duh, but the overarching systemic flaws in the organization continued unconsidered, resulting in the loss of Columbia.

Now they're partnering with Boeing on the Starliner project. Interesting times.

:btt:

I'm sorry to hear of Virgin Orbit's failed launch. Space is hard. They'll get it.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 16:50 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/14/18
Posts: 953
Post Likes: +1310
Company: USAF
Location: Barksdale AFB, LA (KDTN)
Aircraft: 1967 Bonanza V35
Back to the Virgin Orbit Launch; it was in one important way a success: the liquid fueled rocket was able to shutdown on its own. The other space launch vehicles launched from aircraft (Grumman Pegasus and Scaled Composites Space ship one) use solid fuel, so once you light that sucker up you are either going to space or blowing up. Virgin's methodology is more complex, but safer.

_________________
1967 V35
1974 AA5


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 16:59 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/25/10
Posts: 13096
Post Likes: +19122
Company: Keybilly Adventures
Location: FD51
Aircraft: P35, GC1B
Username Protected wrote:
Back to the Virgin Orbit Launch; it was in one important way a success: the liquid fueled rocket was able to shutdown on its own. The other space launch vehicles launched from aircraft (Grumman Pegasus and Scaled Composites Space ship one) use solid fuel, so once you light that sucker up you are either going to space or blowing up. Virgin's methodology is more complex, but safer.


Not quite true about Unity’s motor. (I didn’t know this either, but your post made me question why VG would not have an off switch on a passenger carrying ship)

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/edit ... collection

_________________
“Fear is the Mind-Killer”


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 20:00 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/24/07
Posts: 1242
Post Likes: +152
Location: Akron, Ohio
Aircraft: C550 - C560
That’s a big one.

Gary


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Virgin Orbit; First Launch is a Failure
PostPosted: 26 May 2020, 22:56 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 705
Post Likes: +476
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
The 747 has a 5th engine mount on the left wing used for ferrying a spare engine. It looks like they are using that mounting point to carry their rocket.

Vince


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.