SoylentNews

Expert: Virgin 'Ignored' Space Safety Warnings

posted by LaminatorX on Monday November 03 2014, @01:51AM   
from the rocket-science dept.

AnonTechie writes:

A rocket science safety expert on Sunday said Virgin Galactic "ignored" safety warnings in the years leading up to the deadly crash of its spacecraft in California, as investigators hunted for clues to accident's cause.

Carolynne Campbell, a rocket propulsion expert with the Netherlands-based International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety, said she could not speculate on the cause of Friday's crash without "all the data." However, she said multiple warnings had been issued to Virgin since 2007, when three engineers died testing a rocket on the ground.

http://news.yahoo.com/probe-virgin-spaceship-crash-may-085338983.html

• sounds like libel to me (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 03 2014, @03:58PM

  by khallow (3766) on Monday November 03 2014, @03:58PM (#112633) Journal

  This person isn't even in a position to know whether VG was implementing valid safety measures for its hybrid motors per her advice. Instead, I think we should look at several rather obvious contrary indications. First, we have the reformulation of the hybrid motor fuel. This was apparently employed precisely because the old fuel grain generated too much vibration while burning, which is a safety hazard in addition to providing a less enjoyable ride. Second, consider the large number of test flights. They could already be flying and killing paying customers.
  
  Third, there is no reason to listen to her. It's not her business nor is she involved in the program in any way. I doubt she knows that much about Scaled Composites's rocket motor, and contrary to her assertions, I don't see evidence that a nitrous oxide hybrid motor is any more dangerous than any other rocket engine or motor. Every type of chemical rocket has safety issues. The fact that they were able to recover the wreckage mostly unburned is a near unique safety feature of hybrid motors. Liquid or solid fuel rockets would not had such a gentle outcome under the given failure mode.
  
  Even if she did know enough, she is not unique in her knowledge of hybrid motor rocketry. There is no reason or obligation to respond to her.
  
  Fourth, she has said other irresponsible things [dailymail.co.uk].

  Mrs Campbell-Knight said: 'They should stop, give up. Go away and do something they might be good at like selling mobile phones - they should stay out of the space business.'
  
  She claimed she had contacted those involved in the project in around 2009 or 2010 to raise her concerns about the use of nitrous oxide, which she said can 'go bang in a very unpredictable way'.

  or the following (which comes directly from her company's website [knightsarrow.com]):

  Since the publication of this article, the team has continued to amass information regarding this accident. If the truth about the 2007 accident had come out, if a Coroner’s Inquest into the deaths had been held, if everyone had told the truth, the fatal loss of Spaceship Two on 31 October 2014 would probably not have happened. The documentation and hard evidence we have amassed can be made available, on request, to any responsible party who wants to properly understand the issues.

  My view is that this is just advertising, using a tragedy to increase visibility for one's business. It's worth noting that it was evident early on that the 2014 crash was not due to explosive decomposition of the nitrous oxide oxidizer (for example, the report that there was a survivor and the fact that most of the vehicle stayed together till it hit the ground were strong indications right from the start). So her report is completely irrelevant and has been so for some time.