How has Virgin Galactic made their latest spaceship safer?

Virgin Galactic unveiled its new Space Ship Unity. Has the company improved safety for the aircraft after a 2014 crash?

AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill
Sir Richard Branson walks in front of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo space tourism rocket after it was unveiled, Friday, Feb. 19, 201. The new aircraft has renewed hype for the possibility of space tourism.

Virgin Galactic will soon be back in the sky and, eventually, space.

On Friday, Richard Branson, the billionaire owner of Virgin Galactic, unveiled the company’s newest spacecraft, named Virgin Space Ship Unity. The spacecraft will allow Virgin Galactic to continue its pursuit of space tourism almost 16 months after its first craft was destroyed in a flight-test accident.

The launch event featured Branson in a white SUV towing the brand new spacecraft, a christening by Branson’s one-year-old grandson, and celebrity appearances. The space tourism company got a boost in publicity from a recorded message from theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, who said he planned on getting on board the craft.

“If I am able to go – and if Richard will still take me, I would be very proud to fly on this spaceship,” Mr. Hawking said in his message.

Despite the hype and the $250,000 price tag for a seat, the last lingering question for potential patrons could be: Is it safe?

“We have a new spaceship that’s going to be ready in a few months,” Virgin Galactic CEO George Whitesides said to TechTimes after the 2014 crash. “So we’re going to make sure we get that one as safe as we can and keep going.”

Virgin Galactic’s original SpaceShipTwo, which shared the same design as the new Space Ship Unity, experienced a catastrophic crash in October of 2014, killing one of the pilots and severely injuring the other. For a short time after the crash, many speculated whether it would be the end of Virgin Galactic’s space tourism aspirations, but the company recommitted after learning the crash was caused by piloting error.

A side-by-side comparison of the Virgin Space Ship Unity and the destroyed vehicle show little difference. The two are nearly identical with the same model and manufacturing of Unity began in 2012, before the accident or any redesigns occurred. However, the Unity does feature small safety additions.

A crucial pin has been added to prevent a pilot from accidentally unlocking the feathering mechanism on the ship’s tail, which caused the first crash, Mr. Whitesides told Reuters.

The aircraft is designed to take passengers to the outer edge of Earth's atmosphere, some 60 miles up, then gradually descend, slowed by the feather system – which creates aerodynamic drag as the craft returns to the ground. 

The latest design reportedly features some improvements to make the landing gear more distinct have also been added.

Are those small changes enough? Yes, for enthusiasts. Maybe, for the Federal Aviation Administration.

The 2014 crash was caused by a piloting error, but the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also placed blame on Scaled Composites, who built the aircraft and employed the pilots, and cited the FAA for lax regulations, according to The Los Angeles Times.

The FAA’s current guidelines for spaceflight regulations have been focused on not hampering innovation with restrictions. The result is regulations around the safety of the environment, national security, and people on the ground, but a large amount of freedom for the company testing in the air.

It’s unclear how, but the FAA could change their regulations following the previous Virgin Galactic crash and the recommendations of the NTSB.

“We can expect more safety regulations on the industry,” Thomas Anthony, director of USC's Aviation Safety and Security Program told the Los Angeles Times. “Safety is always a balancing act, even with commercial aviation.”

However, safety concerns has not prompted hesitation or slowed ticket sales for enthusiasts. The Christian Science Monitor previously reported almost 700 people have signed up for rides at a price of $250,000 each.

“Together, we can make space accessible in a way that has only been dreamt of before now, and by doing so can bring positive change to life on Earth,” Branson said in the press release.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to