Talk:VSS Enterprise crash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed change

Not sure about this line: "The purpose of the flight was to test a redesigned rocket."

Perhaps it should read "rocket motor." ? Zedshort (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done - @Zedshort:, in future, be bold! Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

In the News

Right now there isThere was an unfortunate alignment of this page's `In the News' listing with the image of the other rocket explosion. Makes it look like Spaceship 2 blew up very spectacularly. Which on re-checking has now been fixed, explosion replaced with baseballer. :-) 220 of ^Borg 22:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC) corrected 220 of ^Borg 22:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change

Title: I suggest calling it an "accident" and not a "crash." Pending further details, reports are there was a catastrophic event in the air, breaking it up, then it fell. It did not crash into anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapitolHillNeighbors (talk • contribs) 23:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Request move "2014 Virgin Galactic crash" to "VSS Enterprise disaster"

I know that the accident only has one fatality and two people on board total, but considering that all other accidents involving spaceflight that have a page specifically dedicated to the accident; only two that I know of; the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and Space Shuttle Columbia disasters have been termed "disaster" this seems like a valid argument. Also Considering that at least one of the two people is dead; making for a 1:2 fatality ratio; that ratio should qualify it as a disaster. Opinions? -NOTE: Also the first in air space related fatality since the Columbia, and the first space tourism-related death. Rather significant in space flight history; henceforth a "disaster."--Undescribed (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Challenger and Columbia both had no survivors though, correct? IMO that, along with the quantities involved, makes them more 'disastrous'. However, if the media decides that it's a disaster, per WP:COMMONNAME we should probably call it that too. 72.224.172.14 (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

True, however the second person is in serious condition and there is still the chance that that person could die, leaving no survivors. However even if this doesn't happen, it is still technically a 50% mortality incident out of the two people involved. You are also correct with the second statement; quantity isn't everything, this incident will likely be regarded aas a "disaster" because of it's ramifications on space tourism, right? 72.87.99.46 (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

From a pilots perspective, this is a air crash in an experimental aircraft. It is truly sad as well as unfortunate. The FAA and NTSB will examine and at some point, issue a determination as to the cause of this incident. Then, and ONLY then will anything conclusive, be published on why it crashed. This is not a disaster in any shape of the word frankly speaking, tragedy yes, set back, yes but "Disaster" no.talk→ WPPilot  17:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Then respectfully, from your perspective; were the Challenger and Columbia incidents "disasters" and if so, why?72.87.99.46 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Press conferences

Possible links to add:

• 31 October 2014 @ 2:00pm PDT Mojave Air and Space Port press conference featuring the airport, county sheriff, county fire department, Virgin Galactic, Scaled Composites; video courtesy of KERO 23 ABC News from their YouTube channel
• 1 November 2014 Virgin Galactic Richard Branson press conference featuring CEO Virgin Galactic George Whitesides and Chairman Virgin Group Sir Richard Branson; video courtesy of KERO 23 ABC News from their YouTube channel

As well as an eyewitness interview

• 31 October 2014 eyewitness account courtesy of the interviewer Space.com on their YouTube channel

-- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Photos?

Now that the NTSB has put up the B-Roll, it should be under standard USGov licensing terms, so can someone rip some stills from the video ? In particular, I think stills containing the vehicle name and tail number and the eye logo would be illustrative that this is indeed the vehicle described in the article, in visual terms. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, the video by the NTSB is public domain, so it should be possible to take stills from it and use them. That said, I wouldn't want to see any photos with the investigators identifiable in the article before a final report is released. Wreckage photos would be fine. Mjroots2 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge?

How about just merging into VSS Enterprise. The failure was early enough in the vehicle's life that there won't be an awful lot of other content for that page, so a combined article might make sense. --W. D. Graham 10:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Works for R101 and USS Akron (ZRS-4), those two aviation accidents killed over 120 between them. The former wiped out several notable individuals, and a nation's whole airship programme, the latter the US Navy's leading proponent of airships. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it works particularly well there, the destruction of those airships should be separate articles, with only summaries in their ship articles. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the difference is historic perspective added by the intervening years. And there isn't anything more to say about the crash of the R101 - no telemetry, few eye witnesses. No instantaneous speculation. For context, you'd need half the background to the construction in the crash article and most of the crash article and effects in the main R101 article. The two are entwined.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose merger - Thinking longer term here. More than likely that books will be written in the future on the whole programme, which will mean that the VSS Enterprise article can be expanded. Crash would dominate the VSS Enterprise article at the moment. Mjroots2 (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, merging the crash (and subsequent analysis) might counterbalance the long and mostly empty VSS_Enterprise#List_of_test_flights. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose merger the accident has acquired independent notability from the aircraft, and the aircraft was itself notable. We should treat this article like any other aircraft accident article. The impact to space tourism accrues to the accident, not the aircraft. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support merge I'm generally against merges and would always take the line, "What gives the most readable content for the reader?" In this case, I think the merged article would indeed be best. I don't see the VSS Enterprise article (outside this section) as substantially growing in the future. The SpaceShipTwo article should do, on the class of ships as a whole, and that should remain separate. I think the history of Enterprise though is sadly closed. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - The crash is itself notable, and deserves a stand-alone article. Jusdafax 20:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's notable and it deserves it, but do readers get better coverage with one or two? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose merge The crash is notable as an event. The ship is notable in itself. Martin451 21:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral I would be happy with this approach for the time being. It makes sense to treat the whole lifetime of a craft in one article. I don't think that the notability of the crash is independent from the notability of the vehicle - both are very much entwined, as without one you don't have the other, and I think it's important to talk about the notability of the vehicle and what happened to it in the article about the vehicle. I'm not too fussed about whether it would imbalance the coverage in that article at the present - over time, hopefully that will be resolved by expanding the other sections in the article. But on the other hand, I suspect that the crash will see ongoing coverage that will lead to a significant expansion of this topic in the future, so I suspect it would only be a matter of time before a new spin-off article on the crash would be created. So in the long run, perhaps it is best to develop both articles in parallel. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Feathering

Does this article refer to Feathering (reentry), or some other meaning of "feathering"? Clarification, and/or a link, would be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it refers to reentry. [1][2][3] The craft moves its tail so that it behaves like a feathered shuttlecock, and goes belly in to create drag and reduce speed. When feathered I guess that the ship will be trying to move at 90 degrees to the engine thrust. This is not feathering the usual air-plane term for changing the angle of propellers on stopped engines to reduce drag. Yes I think it needs clarification as I had to look it up. Martin451 00:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of material?

Can someone please explain to me why this fact is not notable and why the sources are not accurate?

The incident resulted in the first fatality on a spacecraft in flight since the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003. The survival of pilot Peter Siebold also marks the first time in history that anyone has survived the destruction of a spacecraft during a flight when others on board have died.

It keeps getting removed and I don't think that it causes any harm being in the article; especially when it is reliably sourced and contains notable facts. Even with the second statement there are multiple sources compiling all fatal space related accidents (whether low-latitude test flights or above Earth's atmosphere) and not one other survivor can be found on a fatal flight. The wording of the statements also says that it was a "spacecraft in flight" which encompasses low-altitude flights as well; therefore is not incorrect. "spaceflight" and "spacecraft in flight" do not imply the same meaning. 72.87.97.83 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems notable enough to be mentioned IMHO. The IPs points are all good ones. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. --JorisvS (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes, I agree it's notable as well. Drbogdan (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way to protect just a statement in an article, or does the whole article have to be protected from vandalism? And how many "opinions" do we need on on this forum to be able to add the statement back to the article? Forgive me I am new to these wikipedia talk pages. I agree that this statement seems notable enough to be included in the article.Tthe sources also seem good as well. Also, it it true that information in the lede of a wiki article cannot be included unless it is also summarized in the main body of the article?Undescribed (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reinstated the text per this discussion. @Undescribed:, I've added a hidden note to the paragraph. That should be enough, but there are various options open other than semi-protection. On the whole, IPs are making good edits here, which is to be encouraged. It would be a pity to have to semi-protect the article if it can be avoided. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone hid the text, with a note to "see talk". I come here and there is no argument at all for the removal of text that has consensus to be in the article. Therefore I've reinstated the text again. Further removal without consensus will result in warnings being issued. Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we please have a better heading for this section than "unethical"? It's a content discussion; ethics has nothing to do with it, sounds diva-ish, and diminishes the usefulness of the discussion. Would the OP please consider a reword with less drama? Thank you. DBaK (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Deletion of material is sufficient, methinks. Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that's a great improvement. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper!

What is the point of an article before anyone knows what has happened? Why not wait for at least a few months by which time there might be some facts to document? This sort of crap is not why I donated to Wikipedia today! 86.148.103.129 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Nevertheless this is clearly a notable event and we will cover it sooner or later, so there is nothing wrong with covering it now as long as reliable sources are carefully used: there are plenty of facts here. And some clarification please: while you are busy making helpful remarks, could you maybe tell us exactly when it would be OK to write about this? You obviously know - is it seven days, or two months, or what, exactly? Finally, you should note that it's generally considered to be in bad taste to go on about one's charitable donations - to be honest, no-one gives a **** about your donation today ... or do you maybe want to show us the receipt too? Go on, you know you want to. It gives you special Criticism Rights, Expert Insight, and I Bought The Internet Permissions. Go for it. DBaK (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But we do know what happened - there was a crash. What we don't know is why it happened. That will become apparent in the fullness of time.

Sometimes when an event occurs, it is instantly apparent that it will be notable enough to sustain an article, as in this case. Other times, it's not apparent, and the article gets created at a much later date. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone would write a page about this event whether 'it's time' or not. It's possible there are already other independent pages about it on WP already, that's not unusual when something notable happens. Better a page started by an editor experienced in aviation crash pages than a well intentioned 'noob'.--220 of ^Borg 22:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is ridiculous that people find the need to create an article about so many news stories. This does not need its own article. It can go in a page about Virgin Galactic. Repeat: Wikipedia is not a newspaper! I would argue for the deletion of this page. Ksoth (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Go on then - argue for the deletion of this page. Here is WP:AFD. On you go. (You're wrong, but I will look forward to seeing your arguments.) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. More importantly, the most relevant Wikipedia guidance is at Wikipedia:Notability (events), rather than WP:NOTNEWS. Arguing over the interpretation of the latter is the wrong approach. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles like this are very important and a good source of information. So keep. Malanoqa (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Spaceflight?

The article currently refers to the accident flight as a "spaceflight". Does any source state that this flight was intended to reach space? If not, it shouldn't be called a spaceflight. I haven't heard anything about this point either way, so I'm asking rather than being bold... 71.197.166.72 (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something. The article uses language such as the "first spaceflight fatality since the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster" and the "first time...anyone on a spaceflight," but I find nowhere in the article that this flight was intended to exceed an altitude of 100 km--ie, was a spaceflight by the usual definition. On the contrary, the article points out the Enterprise made three prior rocket engine tests that exceeded but 15 km. I don't see anywhere that this mission was intended to be more than an in-atmosphere test of the engines. Was this, in fact, a spaceflight accident? 50.142.185.231 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

An excellent point, sir! 71.197.166.72 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

These comments are right, they have stated it was not a spaceflight, only a low altitude test. I have removed those lines. 50.88.38.204 (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Saying that it was not a space-flight will confuse people; as it was intended to reach heights of 110 km. http://trekmovie.com/2014/10/31/virgin-galactic-vss-enterprise-crashes-during-test-1-pilot-killed/ http://www.travelquesttours.com/tours/outer-space/welcome/ Saying space-related flight rather than spaceflight makes it too complex and confusing to the reader and saying airflight is incorrectly implying that it is a non-spacecraft; so it should be left as is.Undescribed (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Changed the wording of the statements. 72.87.99.46 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

With all respect, the trekmovie.com article does not say anything about the goal of this particular flight: it only states that the goal of the spacecraft overall was suborbital space tourism. That's not the same thing. [That would be like saying "I was going to buy this car to drive it to California but wrecked it on the test drive, therefore I wrecked it on the way to California."] And is trekmovie.com really the best source you could cite? If you cannot supply an original source that explicitly states this particular flight was intended to go into space, then the article shouldn't describe it as a spaceflight.

Whether that "will confuse people" is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, not your local tv station's afternoon magazine show. Its responsibility is to be accurate, and not dumbed down. If there is confusion, clarify. Don't muddy. 50.142.185.231 (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Trivia but the FAA registration actually classes it as a unpowered "Glider"! Does this presume they only light the engine when it above FAA Jurisdiction. MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:MilborneOne: that is worth noting, so I have added the registration data to the article with an FAA ref cited. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that the source referencing the Columbia is dead wrong? I mean, with all due respect, I DO understand your perspective and I removed the Gravity citation and added a better one. Both sources are accurate and reliable enough to be kept. I even provided a source which is a full encyclopedia of every spacecraft failure recorded since 1957; and another source stating all the failures. Not one of them had an on board survivor. However, I cannot say this isn't getting a little bit irritating that the information which I spent time sourcing keeps getting removed; as I have reworded both statements to demonstrate that it was NOT in fact a spaceflight; but rather a spacecraft (yes, it was indeed a spacecraft; there are many sources which say that it was meant to reach altitudes of 110 km during tourist flights) on a non-space test flight. I don't know how much more picky I need to be with the way I word it? Please do not remove the statement unless you have a source stating that it was NEVER intended to go into space. 72.87.97.83 (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"I even provided a source which is a full encyclopedia of every spacecraft failure recorded since 1957; and another source stating all the failures. Not one of them had an on board survivor." That borders on Original Research. Personally, I also hold to the idea that it is not a spaceflight unless it goes into space. I would not describe a test flight of a new bomber as a "bombing mission" unless it was actually intended to drop bombs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference four is not Original Research. It even includes this past incident. And the other two are for further support; even if they are original and the support they give is more superficial. The wording I put says "on a spacecraft in flight" which there is technically nothing wrong with; because I didn't use the word "spaceflight." They do not imply the same meaning; "spacecraft in flight" has a broader meaning as it encompasses low-altitude flights as well. And as to the bomber example you made; I did not use the word "space mission" in the statement because as you said, that would not imply a mere test flight to test integrity and performance, but a flight intended to carry out an specific action. 72.87.97.83 (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Mention of the space shuttle is weird and seems like some wild sportscaster talking. I saw it immediately and was going to change it when I saw a warning about the talk page. ObesityTastesGood (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it does. But what is wrong with having some interesting facts put into an article that are sourced correctly and informative? Undescribed (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Stinks of "Wild Sportscaster". Unencyclopedic.
Right you are, ObesityTastesGood. That "The first {invent something} since {invent something else}" list of off-topic distractions is a bunch unencyclopedic blather. It's still deletable, consensus or not, based on ordinary Wikipedia standards. There's some general enthusiastic newbee-ism going on here leading to inclusion of some dubious stuff. No matter what the "consensus" in this short term, in the long term it will likely be removed when the topic isn't so fresh and cooler more experienced heads are dominating. 108.20.176.169 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Using words like "first" or "first since" is not a new practice on Wikipedia. There are article with much more controversial word statements such as the usage of the words "biggest, since" in the following statement: The Chelyabinsk meteor is thought to be the biggest natural space object to enter Earth's atmosphere since the 1908 Tunguska event, and the only one confirmed to have resulted in a large number of injuries, although a small number of panic-related injuries occurred during the Great Madrid Meteor Event of 10 February 1896. Undescribed (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so. But it depends on the import, and heft, and materiality of the selected comparisons. In this case, it stinks of wild sportscaster. That is, the remarks are like the silly filler material blathered out by a sportscaster to fill empty time. These particular remarks are immaterial, off topic, and silly, i.e. unencyclopedic. 108.20.176.169 (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I can definitely understand where you're coming from, but I happen to respectfully disagree. IMO a filler would be like saying something along the lines of

The Enterprise accident was the first incident at the Mojave Air and Space Port since an explosion that killed three in 2007, the first space related-fatality in the US since an explosion in a rocket fuel processing plant in Huntsville, AL killed two in 2010, and the first fatal space training jet crash since a 1968 crash in Russia that killed [[Yuri Gagarin]}.

All of the facts in the statement are true, but they are not interesting, ramble, and are specified to specific locations rather than "anywhere." So the rambling statements, connection to specific localized areas, and insignificance would definitely make it a rather ridiculous filler for sure. Not trying to monopolize my ideas; just stating my opinion on the matter. Undescribed (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Left seat vs right seat

Under "accident", it is written that

"Investigators are trying to determine how Siebold managed to get out of the rocket plane and parachute to the ground from an altitude of roughly 50,000 feet, an altitude virtually devoid of oxygen. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board noted that, as he was sitting in the right-hand seat, it would have been difficult if not impossible for him to have escaped through a hatch in the lower left-hand side of the cockpit."

This makes it sound like Siebold was in the right hand seat. However Siebold was the commander/PIC, and was seated in the left hand seat. The co-pilot, Alsbury, was seated in the right hand seat, as is normal procedure for aircraft and spacecraft, and the NTSB confirmed, when asked exactly which pilot moved the lock/unlock lever for the feathering mechanism, that it was "the co-pilot, in the right hand seat." That segment should therefore be changed or deleted; however, it is still true that egressing through the hatch would have been incredibly difficult and it's more likely the spacecraft just came apart around him. Blueb0g (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds right to me, but more annoying that the Reuters ref given says this too - the RH seat bit. DBaK (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the sentence as Siebold was sitting on the left side. Malanoqa (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)