Talk:VSS Enterprise crash

False information

Under the "Accident" section, line 6 and 7:

"The pilot was transported to a hospital with serious injuries, while the co-pilot was killed.[6]" The URL reference 6 goes to a Spaceflight Now article that does not identify that the pilot was injured and the copilot had died.

 Done

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewota (talk • contribs) 07:14, 1 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Requested move 01 November 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to VSS Enterprise crash, per the discussion below. Although most editors opposed the proposed title, a large number supported a new title that would include the name of the spacecraft. The two opposes noting the phrasing in the sources are useful, but the title is already a descriptive one. There may be support for the proposed VSS Enterprise accident, but the degree of this support was unclear from the present discussion; if a move to that title is still desired, please initiate another move discussion. Splitting off merge discussion since the result of that proposal should not be tied to the move request. Dekimasuよ! 23:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 Virgin Galactic crash → Destruction of VSS Enterprise – this rocketplane has a name, it is "VSS Enterprise", so that should be reflected in the title. The vehicle is described as a total loss, and the crash is an aftereffect of the mid-air uncontrolled disassembly process 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support' (mostly)

I feel it should be moved to "VSS Enterprise" and maybe keep a redirect from "2014 Virgin Galactic crash". My rationale is that we follow the naming of the Apollo 1 article. To be clearer, I don't feel that the title should contain any word such as or similar to "crash", "destruction", "tragedy", etc..., but rather just the official name of the craft. This is not an incident relevant to Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014, as this was a test flight using a new fuel mixture, and not a flight involved in normal operations. 68.71.70.33 (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose title doesnt follow normal convention, open to other suggestions but not "Destruction of VSS Enterprise". MilborneOne (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose "Destruction of VSS Enterprise" may sound-and appear, visually-to be some sort of Star Trek-related hoax. 72.224.172.14 (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what you're going on about. There's no Star Trek here. Look at book titles for various accidents and incidents, books and papers are titled in this manner. (ie Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Sinking of USS Housatonic, etc. ) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - matches no known article naming convention. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It matches Sinking of USS Housatonic, Sinking of the RMS Titanic, Explosion of the RFA Bedenham, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, etc. There are many articles titled in this manner. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support (mostly) Should be moved to VSS Enterprise disaster as per the pages on Columbia and Challenger.
• Oppose to the proposed title. Including "VSS Enterprise" in the title would be better (more precise), though. Support move to (2014) VSS Enterprise crash. --JorisvS (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose-- Per the sources which use the existing title. Let's not make it harder or confuse the reader by renaming this article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sources use a wide variety of terms to describe this event, but they typically do not include "2014". Many say "SpaceShipTwo" instead of "Virgin Galactic", some use more than one term in the same source, so there are many different terms to use for a title. The main article about this vehicle is called VSS Enterprise, and this is a subsidiary article for VSS Enterprise. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is fine the way it is now. Leave it as it is, which is easier to find. Jusdafax 20:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirects will point people here, so will still be easy to find if moved. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I would prefer the title to be VSS Enterprise crash. This is CONSISTENT with the titles at Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014. Stickee (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That would be acceptable to me -- I am the nominator -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm happy with "VSS Enterprise crash". Use of the word "disaster" implies a high death toll, which is not the case here. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't use the word "disaster". I used the word "destruction". -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I would prefer "disaster" over "accident"; space-flight incidents haven't had a history of high death tolls anyways; the only other two pages dedicated to a space incident (Challenger and Columbia) were both "disasters" and only seven deaths each. And besides; death toll isn't everything; this even will likely have "disasterous" ramifications on space tourism.72.87.99.46 (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I wonder if there will be much of an impact on space tourism overall. People have been warned of the possibility of fatal encounters and given the examples of Challenger and Columbia, so it isn't unexpected, FAA specifically designed a regime for tourist spaceflight, where it is to be inherently risky, and property damage due to debris falling on property on the ground is the primary concern. Scaled's setback won't be a brake on XCOR's attempt to breach the Armstrong Line. SpaceX is still going forward with Elon Musk's dream to live on Mars, which was boosted with the CCDEV contract. Plans for a Soyuz/Almaz tourist jaunt around the Moon are not dependent on the FAA, nor is tourists going to the ISS. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Crash always comes across as a bit tabloid and it appears to have disintegrated rather than crashed into anything, perhaps VSS Enterprise accident as a suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, I'd be happy with that. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• 2014 SpaceShipTwo accident?, they are unlikely to get the next one flying this year, while (hopefully not predicting?) leaving room for any other incidents in other years with the same aircraft design. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm curious as to what people think of it being called VSS Enterprise disaster; as per the above section? Death toll isn't everything after all. Whether one person died or seven people; 100% or 50% mortality; it is still significant. There have als been non-space related pages with a much lower fatality ratio; such as the Costa Concordia disaster. 72.87.99.46 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Because on whatever level it was not a disaster, a tragic accident but not a disaster. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • And where is your reasoning behind that? So you're saying that the Challenger and Columbia pages should be changed to "accidents"? Look at the page PEPCON disaster with a low death toll; even Fukushima. 72.87.99.46 (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

PEPCON disaster lede says "claimed two lives, injured 372 people, and caused an estimated US$100 million of damage". Low death toll, but warrants the use of disaster from the extent of its effects. Fukushima released nuclear material that has potential to affect health, and the resulting evacuation affected many others.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The vessel lost in the incident will also cost multi-millions of dollars; which also has extensive effects should warrant the usage of disaster. This article even refers to the incident as a "disaster" in the fifth paragraph: http://www.dailytech.com/Virgin+Galactic+SpaceShip+Two+Explodes+During+Test+One+Pilot+Dies/article36816c.htm It also states that this incident along with the rocket failure makes for the worst week in history for spaceflight. In addition; if you theory is accurate; then what about the pages Connellan air disaster which resulted in only 5 deaths and 4 injuries? Despite the slightly higher death toll; the only notable part is that it was a suicide attack which is rather uncommon; as is this incident. Shouldn't that page be titled "Connellan air attack" or something like that? Also the Seest fireworks disaster only killed 1 and injured 24; amongst other incidents. 72.87.99.46 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I would have to agree that "2014 SpaceShipTwo accident" would be the most appropriate name for this. And again reiterate that this is a accident of a experimental aircraft, in testing. If one were to look back over history and create a disaster out of each experimental aircraft that crashed during testing, it would be overwhelming, to say the least. talk→ WPPilot  17:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed with accident. There is nothing technically incorrect about it (as you could argue with crash) and this event meets internationally recognised definitions for an accident of an aircraft or spacecraft, namely injury or loss of life to any passenger or crew, and/or significant damage to the craft that affects its ability to fly. Blueb0g (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Does it really matter whether it was experimental or a commercial passenger flight? I mean, the passengers of a commercial flight were going to fly in the same aircraft anyways. right? Plus this is the first space-related tourism accident; even if it was experimental. And really there have only been 6 other incidents like this in history of spaceflight; the Challenger, Columbia, Soyuz 1 and 11, Apollo 1 and X-15 Flight 191. At least use "VSS Enterprise" in the title. "SpaceShipTwo" just sounds too sketchy IMO. Technically, either "accident" or "disaster" would work. Widely recognized definition for disaster is " sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life." This meets the criteria as great damage was inflicted on the craft; even if not many lives' were lost. "Disaster" just sounds better IMO; especially considering that both the Columbia and Challenger were "disasters," it would fit better. 72.87.99.46 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it falls into the same category as Challenger, Columbia or either of the Soyuz missions because it happened during a test flight, not a mission. Apollo 1 was a training accident which occurred on the ground - there have been other fatal training accidents as well, The X-15 is perhaps the closest match - an atmospheric flight of an experimental vehicle - the key difference being that SS2 was a test flight of a vehicle intended to become operational, while the X-15 was purely a test vehicle. The only argument you make in support of using the word "disaster" is essentially sensationalism and that it "just sounds better", the former is inappropriate for encyclopaedic content, the latter is entirely a matter of opinion. --W. D. Graham 10:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Wouldn't it be better to call it "2014 VSS Enterprise accident" rather than "2014 SpaceShipTwo accident" because it is more specific? 72.87.99.46 (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Renaming the article to VSS Enterprise crash makes sense to me. It seems logical to incorporate the name of the vehicle in the name of the article, rather than going by the year and operator name (although the latter makes a lot of sense before the identity of the vehicle is known). 'Crash' is a rather crass word, but I think it's appropriate here for the time being. I think that's what most of the media have been using to describe the event, and the vehicle definitely crashed into the ground in the end (albeit in pieces, by the sound of it). The word 'accident' could describe a more minor event, and it is also an interpretation of the event (a deliberate crash wouldn't count as an accident, although I'm not suggesting that this is the case here). The word 'disaster' implies something more catastrophic than the loss of a single vehicle and person impact (many test aircraft have crashed in the past with the loss of their pilots without it being deemed a disaster), and while that may bear out to be the case in the long run I'm not sure that it's clearly the case at the moment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is the article in the London Daily Mail a reliable source for blaming the company of low safety standards?

If such an accident happens, I expect a lot of people to say, that they always know, that the company did things wrong. And some newspapers live from articles about this. So I had a bad feeling when I read the part in Responses that criticized the company for a lack of security. All based on a single article (the same references posted two times) and a blog from February 2014. When I look at the top page of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ I doubt that this news paper fullfills the standard Wikipedia requires for a reliable source.

I therefore removed this text until someone has more reliable sources for this.Malanoqa (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the link to the article that was the main reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817421/The-explosion-not-surprise-Russian-roulette-scientists-repeatedly-warned-Virgin-Galactic-safety-issues-revealed-THREE-Branson-s-engineers-recently-quit.html Malanoqa (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The daily mail is unsuitable as a source for wikipedia User:John/Is the Daily Mail a reliable source?. I have been thinking the same as you, and agree with the removal. Martin451 21:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the Daily Mail an RS? I want to comment, but the Thumperian Principle applies. DBaK (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail would at best fit in the "better source needed" category. The Telegraph is a much better source (see this removal by Martin451). There has been criticism of Sgobbo's credentials on the Pprune discussion thread, FWIW. Pprune itself fails RS, but it is a good source of RSs. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Concurring -- and then some -- regarding this issue, I deleted the "Response section in its entirety, and would continue to argue for its removal despite the re-addition of quotes. Quotations outside the context of the crash itself or the investigation are non-encyclopedic trumpeting. In point of fact, the meaning of the word "Response" is "answer"...which even the truncated quotations most definitely are not. (Response: directly from Latin responsum "an answer."). Respectfully but without apologies, --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:E5EF:C195:E1B8:50C9 (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The section was originally titled "Reactions", but whatever the title there is consensus for its retention. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

To me, that is a doubtful claim. The section is worthless from an encyclopedic standpoint, and has no bearing on the accident itself. --162.206.169.121 (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, this section has grown to be nearly as large as the actual, factual, encyclopedic portion of the article. I've deleted it three times now, and realize that I'm pressing this point, but there is no consensus on retaining the after-the-fact trumpeting, and so I maintain my position that it is useless, adds nothing to the article, and should be deleted in its entirety. That's pretty much all I have to say about the matter. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:E5EF:C195:E1B8:50C9 (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not just Daily Mail, it's Telegraph, Independent & FT. The widely reported RS claims of negligence behind the crash are not "worthless" or "trumpeting" or "non-encyclopedic". zzz (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And yet it's becoming all too clear that pilot error was behind the crash, not negligence in ship construction, per se. We've seen other "responses" (quotations) regarding the hybrid rocket engine's nitrous oxide usage, for instance, that in fact quickly proved to be "worthless...trumpeting...and non-encyclopedic." I rest my case. --162.206.169.121 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your "case" is completely irrelevant, then. zzz (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Now there is a very odd comment. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:E5EF:C195:E1B8:50C9 (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Responses / Reactions section

Raising this for discussion as 2602:30A:2CEA:9790:E5EF:C195:E1B8:50C9 has now removed it three times. The first revert of the removal was by Signedzzz, and the second by myself. A third revert was by Dr.K.. As we are getting into WP:EW territory, it's time to thrash this issue out.

The case for inclusion:- Many aircrash articles have such a section. Taking this year's two aircraft shootdowns, the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article not only has such a section, but a dedicated article too. The Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down article also has a reactions section, as do many (but not all) aircrash articles. There may be scope to ensure that those quoted in such a section are limited to people directly relevant, but such a section should be part of the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The case for rejection:- The argument that many such articles have such a section is similar to the logic that "ten thousand flies on a dead horse can't be wrong." Opinions and commentary are for newspapers and similar vulgarities. If the article sticks to the facts, it reads to be more crisply and professionally done. Several opinions/quotes/"responses" in this section have come and gone; I suggest that tells us something. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:E5EF:C195:E1B8:50C9 (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If there were widely reported claims that an aircraft manufacturer/operator had been guilty of negligence in a pilot's death, that would be relevant, I think, regardless of anyone's views on "vulgarity". Or "crispness". zzz (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but then those would be facts...not opinions. Foaming-at-the-mouth claims (opinions) that it was "the nitrous oxide" have come and gone. Sticking to the facts strikes me as a more appropriate vector. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:E5EF:C195:E1B8:50C9 (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The (preliminary) facts "facts" are mainly speculation throughout. The fact is, these claims have been reported in RS.zzz (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. Facts are not speculation. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:E5EF:C195:E1B8:50C9 (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The claims of negligence seem perfectly reasonable and logical. zzz (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As did earlier thrashing about regarding "the nitrous oxide." Best to stick to facts. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:E5EF:C195:E1B8:50C9 (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the "fact" is, the cause of the crash is unknown. zzz (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Which is not to say that the core of the article does not report facts, which it does. Opinions and similar blather on a crash and its investigation have no place in an encyclopedia. Clearly. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:E5EF:C195:E1B8:50C9 (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Their opinions may not be facts (obviously), but the fact that these (relevant) people have claimed such-and-such is a fact. As such we can report it. --JorisvS (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is fine to include opinions of qualified experts and involved parties, as long as they are clearly indicated as opinions and cited. - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

crash location

Article says the crash was near "Cantil, southwest of Piute Ponds". From looking up both in Wikipedia, Cantil is far away from Piute Ponds to the northwest. I don't know the exact location, but this description can't be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.206.50 (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources say "near Cantil", so we should stick with that. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Mail on Sunday

reportedly has some detail on the pilot's escape http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2826931/Space-pilot-came-way-gave-thumbs-say-m-OK.html. Though pinch of salt may apply. Conversely if also verified/reported in other sources, does this show MoS/DM can be reliable? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

How to italicize Enterprise in the page title "VSS Enterprise crash"?

What format do you use? Undescribed (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've implemented it. --JorisvS (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

thank you Undescribed (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Requesting information about Anteres rockets

I did not notice any mention in the the "Investigation" section, nor anywhere else in the article or the talk page about the Anteres rockets that were supposedly used for the Enterprise. These were "half a century old, ... built in the Soviet Union in the 1960s for use with the N1 ... that itself suffered four failures ... before being abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by cbwdoc (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The Antares were not used on the Enterprise, that was a completely different accident, related only in that they happened close in time. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, the incident with the Anteres rockets was the Cygnus CRS Orb-3, not the VSS Enterprise. This was a project by Orbital Sciences, not Virgin Galactic. cbwdoc (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Quite true, so not related to the accident. - Ahunt (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cbwdoc: - no need to delete your post. It's a fair question. As you've asked it, there's a good chance others will have had the same thought. Leaving it showing will give them the answer. Mjroots (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Units

I challenged an edit by User:JorisvS who changed the order of units to show SI units first, it was reverted by the user with the summary SI (international) units should come first, I have reverted the edit again and as a challenged edit they should be along soon to explain why SI units should be primary on an American subject article and gain a consensus for the change, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is really an event of international interest that just happened to occur in the United States. --JorisvS (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the change. Apart from the CIS, generally avation worldwide works on altitudes in (thousands of) feet. There is no reason to change this as the accident did not occur in airspace where metric units were in use. Mjroots (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

US aircraft are built to imperial standards and flown in imperial units, so the article should reflect this. - Ahunt (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a non-scientific article related to an event in the United States, therefore the units to use should be the United States customary units as per Wikipedia manual of style. Z22 (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Simple image caption correction.

On the assumption the conversation was interactive rather than the NTSB lecturing a silent pilot, I'll change the caption for the forth image from "NTSB staff talk to Virgin Galactic pilot Todd Ericson" to "NTSB staff talk with Virgin Galactic pilot Todd Ericson" to refine the grammar. Apologies if a consensus objection develops... --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)