A report from Joel Achenbach, who’s doing a space project for the WaPo.
As I note on Twitter, Sirangelo’s comments aren’t spinning a failure. The vehicle met its test objectives, other than the ability to get it back, sans a lot of bondo. But as with SpaceX’s loss of their first stage in the ocean, they got the data they needed to move forward. And at least they’re flying and testing, something that NASA has been too risk averse to do of late.
I believe that is why you have a “test” program, to find all of the flaws that you didn’t consider. You tend to learn more from failures then you do from success. I congratulate SNC on their program and hope to see the Dream Chaser back in the air soon.
I was very pleased with the video. Dream Chaser looked great and flew rock steady.
I left a comment at NSF.com last night where I compared this flight to the first drop tests of the X-15 and the X-37.
That’s why they have tests, after all.
Best comment so far:
“Sandra Bullock would have gotten that gear down. ”
Also, Bondo should work as an ablative. They should use the crash as a serendipitous design opportunity.
I went to look for myself. That actually is the best comment at the WaPo.
From what I saw in the video, the vehicle performed the critical glide, approach and flare portions of the flight extremely well. Those were the prime objectives of the test. It sucked that one of the landing gear didn’t fully deploy. The key question is whether they got enough data on that one flight to go on or do they need to repair the vehicle to conduct more flights. I’ve seen no photos showing the extent of the damage so have no idea how much work would be required to fly it again. More flights would provide a lot more data and allow for more elaborate flight profiles. The issue is whether the additional data are worth the cost of repair.
I’d love to see it fly some more, though, just because I like airplanes more than most people (a statement that can be read two ways and both are accurate).
It is also a lesson of why in the old days you would build 2 or 3 test vehicles not just one. The extra cost of an additional vehicle is usually marginal while it really helps keep the program moving forward when you have an accident like this one. And it also allows you to take more risks in the flight test program since you have another vehicle available is needed.
I expect some of the risk aversion you see in spacecraft testing these days is because you only have one very precious vehicle to use and so you treat it like gold least it get a dent or two. The problem is that the “dents” are the real learning experiences that move the program, and technology, forward.
On a related issue, it looks like commercial flights of SpaceShipOne from New Mexico has slipped again from Feb. 2014 to August 2014 as per this article on Spaceport American. Makes you wonder if 10 years after the X-Prize there will be any suborbital tourist flights 🙂
http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_24417608/virgin-galactic-flight-delay-comes-at-cost-taxpayers
Virgin Galactic flight delay comes at cost to taxpayers
[[[It’s because Virgin Galactic suborbital tourism flights from the facility won’t start by February 2014, as spaceport officials had previously planned upon, they said. Now, the first launch isn’t expected to happen until August 2014. ]]]
This. You should always have 2 or 3 test vehicles so the loss of one vehicle does not impact the testing schedule in a significant way. The problem is SNC probably did not have the money for that. Unfortunately the history of spaceflight is littered with events like that leading to project cancellations.
I saw an article last week that stated Sierra Nevada had only planned to fly that particular vehicle from 1 to 6 times. There’s only so much data you can get with drop testing a lifting body from a helicopter. A year or so ago, I seem to recall reading that they were going to use either WhiteKnightOne or WhiteKnightTwo for the drop tests. Perhaps that deal fell through. High altitude, high speed drops would’ve allowed them to expand the flight envelop and get much more data but perhaps the planes weren’t available or they cost too much.
If they planned to fly it that few times, there was no need to build more than one vehicle. I suspect they obtained most of the data they needed from that one flight. Depending on the extent of the damage and how much more data they need, they’ll make a decision on whether it’s worth repairing the vehicle to fly it again.
I am mobile at the moment and can’t watch the video. Could you tell how banged up the test article was after the gear packed it in?
The video is censored. You cannot see what happens after the impact.
That’s the problem with a vivid imagination. Seeing that left gear not coming down I can see the rest easily. The solution would have been to pull the right gear back up (or Sandra Bullock of course.)
A little more info from Aviation Week:
The landing gear, which consists of two main wheeled undercarriage legs and a single nose skid, was commanded to deploy as planned by the radar altimeter a few hundred feet off the ground, according to Sirangelo. However, the left main gear did not deploy correctly and, although the automated systems attempted to maintain a course down the runway, the Dream Chaser skidded off the runway and sustained damage. “It was not a great ending,” Sirangelo acknowledges, “but the main gear was borrowed from an F-5 and is not the planned gear.” Although the cause remains under investigation, he adds that “at this point it looks like one of the gear doors didn’t open properly. Although the vehicle was damaged, it is reparable and will likely fly again.”
However, it remains undecided whether a second free-flight glide test will be conducted, as was originally planned.
After the ALT series, Sierra plans to refurbish the Dream Chaser for a series of piloted flight tests that will involve towing the vehicle to higher release altitudes, possibly behind a C-17. The atmospheric test work is intended to clear the vehicle’s flight envelope prior to exo-atmospheric tests with an orbital flight test vehicle currently under construction for Sierra Nevada by Lockheed Martin. For operations to the International Space Station, the Dream Chaser is capable of carrying seven astronauts to orbit and has been designed to launch from Cape Canaveral atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V 402.
While Sierra Nevada and NASA collected “a huge amount of data” about the flight test, Sirangelo adds the runway mishap also provided information about the Dream Chaser itself. “We learned how tough the vehicle was. After it came to a standstill I entered it and found the interior was pristine,” he says.