Slashdot Mirror
John Carmack To Cut Space Tourism Prices 50%
An anonymous reader writes "Looks like John Carmack, through Armadillo Aerospace, will be battling Burt Rutan and Richard Branson to make space travel affordable. From the article: 'Space Adventures is going to use an Armadillo Technologies rocket to launch amateur astronauts 62 miles into the sky. Nothing new, except that they will do it at half the price of Virgin Galactic's ticket, and in a real rocket!' Perhaps I'll visit space, after all."
As soon as I sell my Fijian island.
Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
You're paying for a one-way ticket to go up into space. Coming down from space will be free.
Most of the difficulty lies in accelerating up to orbit and decelerating from it. Currently, only Space Adventures is offering that by reserving seats on Soyuz spacecraft. Sub-orbital shots require neither powerful rockets nor massive heat-shielding.
This is still out of the price range of most of the population for a vacation.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
What the subject said...
Hmm. 5 minutes up in the space and 100k. Make it just a tad longer and a wee bit cheaper and I guarantee you that it won't take long for us to see the first porn clip to have been filmed in space.
Anyways, 100k is obviously still too expensive for us regular folk but I wonder what is the price tag at which we'll consider it affordable. 50k is unlikely. 20k? still probably not... 10k? I don't know. For that amount, I might want to visit the space before I die. (Hopefully, not *just* before I die, though)
I see that it's Space Adventures not Armadillo Aerospace that's boosting this particular advertising payload. While I applaud the optimism and enthusiasm displayed here, I must add that I'll believe it when I see it. It also seems to me that they missed a chance to have a flight to space for $99,999.99.
Doesn't Mark Shuttleworth feel like a sucker now?
Crappy picture in the article, here's a video of the concept vehicle.
At Space Access, after the grumblings about being trumped on the LLC, Carmack made the pledge that this year they'll be doing something new. Here's hoping it involves *people*.
How we know is more important than what we know.
If you do this, be careful - you may get paired up with a partner named Bitterman who is a Marine ... and end up fighting the Strogg
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
The ones that haven't done it yet are undercutting the price of the guys that have done it before by 50%? Gee do we get a refund if it crashes? I think you get what you pay for is appropriate here. Maybe they can pull it off but would you want to be on the first ship?
I linked to this is a previous slashdot submission, but for the curious you can see video of some of Armadillo's launches in the past year here:
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/Gallery/Videos
Youtube version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsdpB6UmrAw
There was also a rather cool news update back in January describing in great detail what they've been up to for the prior 8+ months: http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=369
Also, I disagree with the summary/gizmodo's claim that Armadillo has a "real" rocket while SpaceShipTwo isn't a real rocket. Armadillo has a VTVL (vertical take-off, vertical landing) while Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo is an air-launched HTVL (horizontal take-off, vertical landing). Both are "real" rockets.
Finally, NASA recently put out a request for proposals for a testbed for lunar lander demonstrations, which I think will be right up Armadillo's alley. They'll probably be competing with companies like Blue Origin, Masten Space Systems (Lunar Lander Challenge winner, currently working on their "Xogdor the Meltinator" vehicle), and Unreasonable Rocket:
http://spaceprizes.blogspot.com/2010/05/shoulda-had-tfftb-prize.html
ETDD is for smaller technology development and demonstration projects. Expected subjects for ETDD include in situ resource utilization, autonomous precision landing, advanced in-space propulsion, closed-loop life support systems, advanced EVA, radiation shielding, human-robotic interfaces, efficient space power systems, EDL (entry, descent, and landing) technologies, high-performance materials and structures, and participatory exploration.
The new ETDD RFI is for several technology demonstrations. The subjects of these demonstrations include:
* In-Situ Resource Utilization: This is to demonstrate a prototype ISRU system in a vacuum chamber that can simulate lunar temperatures and that can contain lunar simulant. Later, there would be a flight demonstration at the lunar surface on a robotic precursor mission. Of course this plan brings to mind several lunar space prizes: the Regolith Excavation Challenge, the MoonROx Challenge, and the Google Lunar X PRIZE.
* High-Power Electric Propulsion System for human spaceflight
* Human Exploration Telerobotics: This involves ISS-to-ground telerobotics, ground-to-ISS telerobotics, and large-scale participatory exploration
* Fission Power Systems Technology
* Autonomous Precision Landing: This involves demonstrations on Earth of autonomous landing and hazard avoidance technologies. The long-range plan is to use the technology on a robotic lander on the Moon or other large body. The technology "Must be capable of flying on a variety of lunar lander precursor missions". The two major parts of this demonstration are the Terrestrial Free Flyer Test Bed and the Hazard Detection System.
The Terrestrial Free Flyer Test Bed deserves special attention. This test bed needs to be able to carry 100 kg of sensor/electronics payload as well as supporting mass for other subsystems, fly up to 1 km, translate horizontally, land at various angles ending in the last 30-50 meters with vertical landing, and fly for at least 210 seconds with the payload. I didn't see anything in the RFI about propulsion, but I imagine rocket-powered vehicles would have a bit of an edge.
Project Excelsior
The regulations - by the FAA's Office of Space Transportation (AST) - are already in place, and perfectly manageable. They asked John (and everyone else in the industry) for input on developing them, with a mind for both flight participant safety and safety of people on the ground.
Sales tax would seem to apply as well, as well as federal corporate income tax.
Are you under the impression that they'd tax it more than normal business transactions?
"and in a real rocket" as opposed to.... what?
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
Carmack will offer to bring back creatures from hell at half the price from other competitors. I always wanted my very own pet Baron of Hell.
Regards, Steve
it makes you wonder about nasa prices for each missions... and also wonder why this has not happened before
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
http://www.youtube.com/v/QqIijYmGiEo
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Is that with or without insurance?
it makes you wonder about nasa prices for each missions... and also wonder why this has not happened before
NASA don't fly these missions at all unless you count unmanned sounding rockets.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
NASA isn't doing "tourism", it's doing science. A big part of what it does is continuous improvement and modification of the mission capabilities of their systems. These guys won't be able to afford that. They'll have to do one or two rounds of refinement then lock it in place for several dozen "missions" in order to break even, because if they don't break even, they go bankrupt and stop flying. NASA breaks even by getting the science done, wowing the taxpayers, and getting approved for another year of funding.
BTW, NASA invented almost all of the stuff that these guys are now using, but these guys don't have to pay NASA a nickel in royalties. If they did, these tourist flights would be an order of magnitude costlier. NASA's successes paid for Carmack's profit projections.
I'm not rich (I'm a community college professor), but this is a price I could afford if I made it a priority in my life and planned my finances around it. Some people who make the same amount of money I do make it a priority to own a car that costs roughly this much.
Arguments against:
Find free books.
paying half-rate for a no-track-record was-video-game-developer who is excited to be using much more explosive to get me there...
I would pay double for the Virgin Galactic vehicle. Rutan's Scaled Composites have made a few vehicles for a few customers, and have a long record of high-quality vehicles. With SpaceShip One, they actually flew into some definition of "space" on three occasions. So the Virgin Galactic vehicle program has a few successful flights to its record.
I am not sure, but I don't think Armadillo Aerospace has actually launched any manned or unmanned vehicles anywhere near the altitude that SpaceShip One attained. Armadillo has flown a few VTOL/hover flights near the surface. I don't think they've flown vehicles above Mach 1, but I would be glad to see a correction.
In short, the Armadillo program seems a little over-hyped.
The worse consequence of all the private space program over-hyping of late is that President Obama has decided to rely on these private space companies for human space flight, starting "ASAP." We're going to lose some astronauts to hype, I fear. And we will definitely give up our "lead" in space flight.
I am in favor of private space exploration companies, but I am against over-hyping their capabilities. We are presently making a blunder by retiring the Space Shuttle while we hope that these private suppliers get somewhere quickly.
I don't know if that idiot at Gizmodo thought he was being funny or what, but that jazz about "real rocket launched vertically" was a waste of space.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Believe it or not, some people think the gubberment shouldnt regulate businesses, or tax them...
Yeah, we should make sure it is deregulated. It worked out great for us re the financial sector and oil industries!
I am looking forward for priceline negotiator to reduce the prices further :P and once in space I won't ever return back to earth, since I am overloaded with credit card debt! and I believe priceline price I can surely afford from my left over credit :P
Private > > > Public
John Carmack *IS* John Galt!
NASA invented almost all of the stuff that these guys are now using, but these guys don't have to pay NASA a nickel in royalties.
Not only did most of the basic research come from people like Goddard and Von Braun, and both Mercury and Gemini use rockets designed by the US military, but most of the NASA hardware was developed by private companies for NASA (does the name 'Rocketdyne' mean anything to you?).
If NASA had never existed then we'd have skipped over the unaffordable boondoggle era of space travel and right now companies would be competing to be the first to put people in orbit and land them on the moon.
Well vertical launch and landing was done on the moon in the 1960's. Soyuz is a variant of that idea. One could argue that the more conservative Carmack design benefits from experience elsewhere.
The pneumatic variable geometry on Rutan's vehicle is pretty much untested. Sure, it has survived a few flights, but what happens if it fails during a launch. Will the vehicle break up on reentry?
And then if you want to go into orbit the Rutan design is pretty much a dead end. The vertical launch rocket plus capsule scales better and will get you further in the long run.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The thing that would bug me is that, by waiting ten years, you can go twice as high, for twice as long, for half the money. ... But only if enough people ignore my advice to wait.
Catch-22.
M ... It's the other way around buddy. Carmack both personally and through his companies has been paying for NASA's research for a long long time.
If you are paying for it with your taxes, you have (or at least you should have) the right to do whatever you want with anything your employees at NASA discover with your money without paying any royalties.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Just wait 'till someone gets hurt. Inevitably, there's going to be an accident. And then the lawyers and bureaucrats get involved.
I think the notion of "space tourism for everyone" is going to go the way of jetpacks and flying cars, a nice dream that just never comes to real fruition.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Half the price of Virgin Galactic, but almost half the distance too.
it makes you wonder about nasa prices for each missions... and also wonder why this has not happened before
Well, given Carmack's proposal isn't even in the same league as the average shuttle launch, I suspect the cost differential is pretty understandable. After all, last I checked, NASA didn't bother with piddly little missions to send people just barely past the boundary of space (which is 62 mi/100 km) and then immediately bring them right back again. The delta between that and a real orbital mission is massive.
No, this is but a very tiny step toward real, commercial spaceflight. And the step from this to real commercial space flight is much much larger.
The picture in the article shows a rocket with NO WINDOWS. Whats the point?
If you think those industries are unregulated, then I would like to see what you consider to be regulated. I mean, once you have governmental control over the money supply, how much a bank can and cannot loan, etc., it becomes pretty hard to call it unregulated. Poorly regulated, perhaps, but not at all left to its own devices.
SSC
"Whaddya mean oxygen is another 20 mil?"
Table-ized A.I.
Hi John. Fsck your space missions. I've seen how they end and start. If you start offering tours to Mars I imagine I'll be shuffling around dimly light rooms while souls effervesce into hatred. I don't need some fat blob hitting me.
Either that or I'll end up in some world where I end up riding a conveyor belt while I groggily watch my limbs be sawed off and replaced with bio-mechanical parts enabling me to run faster.
I'm just saying, if I want to take a ride and I *EVEN* think I hear someone whisper "Over here" or "Use us" I'm going to 'splode.
Hey, John, call the space company UAC and make everyone carry a PDA and when you read it you lose all peripheral vision.
IDKFA and SPISPOPD.... and such...
-eg
The space shuttle flies ~300 miles higher than this ship. Not really in the same league.
Qxe4
Yep, NASA just put out the contracts for Apollo, Boeing, Grumman, Martin, Rocketdyne and thousands of others invented the technologies.
Spaceshipone was very nearly a catastrophic failure. I'd rather go with Armadillo, which has a much more elegant design.
Luckily, the government provides asylums.
which, to come full circle, they likely would not have done without the assurance that they would not lose money trying to. Thus NASA still is the source for all this neat stuff. And while it was made by an NGO, it was made under contract to a GO, thus is PD.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
No, this is but a very tiny step toward real, commercial spaceflight. And the step from this to real commercial space flight is much much larger.
I think you are not giving them enough credit. While this may be a small step for a space flight, it is a giant leap for non governmental funded commercial space flight. (thanks Neil)
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Neither are those that trust the government.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
It's impressive someone as ignorant as you managed to turn on a computer, let alone post on Slashdot.
It is inconceivable (I think that word means what you think it means) that someone could honestly say the financial industry was "deregulated". Really the same applies to oil.
Don't be silly, of course they're popular, they always are. They just aren't realistic, and when they get their way the results are anything but popular.
It's rather like communism, in a way, although neither group is ever happy to hear that comparison.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
It was less regulated than it was before, which if certain things were still regulated and controlled, it would have never happened.
I believe this was the point made, although not as eloquent as your message.
I think you are not giving them enough credit. While this may be a small step for a space flight, it is a giant leap for non governmental funded commercial space flight. (thanks Neil)
Did I say otherwise? No, I didn't.
The OP asked, why is NASA so much more expensive? I answered, because what NASA does is far *far* harder. Does that belittle what Carmack, et al, are trying to do here? No. It simply gives NASA the credit that is their due.
Hah, actually, looking back at it, yes, I did.
So I take that bit back. It's still a piddly step toward orbit, yes. But you're right, for commercial space flight, it's an impressive feat. It's just important to put this in perspective: getting up to 100 km is impressive, but the step from that to orbit is far bigger than the step from 0 to 100km in the first place.
Are we sure the wrong last name isn't being used here?
It's $100,000 for 5 minutes of entertainment.
It's a five minute flight. However there will be loads of time before and after that are also included in the price. It's not like you show up at the launch site, step aboard the rocket and off you go. There will be training beforehand. Escape procedures, safety protocols, etc. Upon landing there will be champagne and after-parties.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Actually, the risk is probably going to be significantly lower (after some appropriate flight testing of course). This isn't because of any free market magic pixie dust or anything like that, and is not to disparage NASA or the shuttle -- its a matter of complexity and the levels of energy required.
The amount of energy required to send a person into orbit is an order of magnitude higher than whats being considered here. Combined with simpler systems (fewer points of failure) this means that failures are less likely, and those failures are less likely to be catastrophic.
All else being equal, you're far more likely to be blown to kingdom come by an artillery shell than a .22 bullet.
True enough. But Spaceship One was also a prototype/proof of concept. You really shouldn't be surprised to lose, or nearly lose, one of them every now and then. Now when you lose something that's been billed as a reliable "space truck", there's some reason for consternation.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
The FY2011 budget doesn't intend for Armadillo or Virgin or any suborbital company to take the lead in HSF development. For the most part that money is going to be going to the same people it was before: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, SpaceX, Orbital Sciences and all of their various subcontractors. The big difference is in that NASA will be moving towards a system where they pay a fixed price for a service rather than using nebulous cost-plus contracts with variable accountability to build them to ever-changing requirements.
Also, Carmack knows what he's talking about when it comes to these machines -- he's hands on in the design and can spout of critical parameters like Q-star like nobodies business. While they may not be visibly as far as Virgin in manned flights, that doesn't mean they don't have a decent chance to catch up. Suborbital is "easier," so the various players can be a lot more nimble and turn-around can go a lot quicker.
Finally, over-hyping the shuttle is as big a blunder as over-hyping anything else. I can't help but feel that if we keep flying it, we'll be killing another 7 astronauts before too long. The shuttle was set to be retired 5 years ago -- unfortunately Griffin pushed for a retro-style Apollo clone that was too expensive for the budget thats politically sustainable for NASA, and thats why we're in this mess. Moving to a system that removes some of the inherent instability of politics seems like a good bet to me.
The risk would probably be considerably higher than the risk associated with a space shuttle launch and reentry
Actually, it would probably be significantly lower. First, you'll be doing it with a design that uses modern materials technology, not 30-odd-year-old materials technology. Second, you'll be doing it on a vehicle designed solely for launching and returning humans on short flights, not one that had to also be designed for launching cargo and for supporting humans in space for a week. Third, you'll be going up a lot less distance, coming down a lot less distance, and doing both for a lot less time at significantly slower speeds.
So, the spacecraft will be made of better materials than the Shuttle, it will be much simpler and thus have less to go wrong than the Shuttle, and it will be placed under significantly less stress than the Shuttle. All of that means it starts out significantly safer than the Shuttle; they'd have to do some really bad engineering to manage to push the danger up to Shuttle levels.
Neither are those that trust businesses to regulate themselves.
Those two seem to be one and the same at the moment, hence the lack of trust in both.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Its also important to note that most of our daily lives now is provided by products that came wholly or in part by NASAs work.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Why would it? The comparison isn't even apples and oranges. These companies are kids on bicycles riding up and down the driveway, while NASA is driving a semi across the country.
Because there hasn't been sufficient people with sufficient disposable income until recently.
I don't think I want to go on a Martian vacation if John Carmack is planning it.
... to be a fucking genius.
There is a pretty damn good reason to not give NASA royalties... we paid for the damn stuff, and we paid top dollar. For every tax payer dollar that went into discovering something awesome, another thousand was blown on congressperson XX's part for the shuttle-by-politician-and-committee or whatever bloat NASA was working on. Frankly, I like NASA much more these days. They are scaling back on that ISS nonsense, getting out of the man mission nonsense, and doing what NASA should be doing, research the private sector isn't interested in. Rovers on mars, probes to asteroids, looking at far away galaxies is all good quality NASA stuff. Hell, even manned missions made sense back in the day. Now though, it is better off to just spin that off. NASA clearly doesn't have a clue how to make it cheap enough for the rest of us to care that we can do it. Throw some money at the private sector and let them try while NASA does the stuff the private sector wont. As a bonus, making obscure parts for a Jupiter probe is much harder for congressjackass to politicize.
The entire time I was reading this article I was hearing, "QUAD DAMAGE" to Virgin.
NASA don't fly these missions at all unless you count unmanned sounding rockets.
And curiously enough, those unmanned suborbital rockets generally cost $1 million or so per launch. Reusable suborbital rockets like Armadillo's, which charge only a small fraction of the typical price and can launch pretty much as often as a scientist wants, are totally going to change the way suborbital, microgravity, and atmospheric sampling science is done.
Meh. Jews.
Neither one inspires much confidence, especially if you have to convert
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
At 200KUSD per seat a flight on SS2 is worth about 1 million. Armadillo's vehicle may be half the price but its still in the same ballpark. The you have integration costs for instrumentation and customising the trajectory.
I don't see huge cost savings yet.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
It's an insult to those of us that have grown on Science Fiction and on a dream of visiting other star systems.
Really, space is huge. It's so huge, that going 62 miles above the surface is nothing. It's so insignificant, that perhaps we should stop calling related activities space-something.
It can be called space tourism when we can at least visit the Moon.
No doubt there is still *lots* to do before we see purely commercial launches of GTO or even LEO orbit. And absolutely they are riding on the backs of NASA et.al. I still think it's awesome, and I also think my kids will have ~$100K less in their inheritance by the time I kick the bucket...
Or seeing as I love JPMorganChase so much, maybe I'll finance several flights through them just before I kick the bucket and give my kids the cash up front for their inheritance. :)
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
I really disagree with the flamebait mod, and unfortunately I don't have any mod points to correct this. Space to some of us doesn't mean "really high in the sky." While I may not agree that space tourism is only considered when venturing as far as the moon, I feel that an orbit around the earth or a stay on the/a space station would be something a bit more worthy of a space tourism title.
It was less regulated than it was before, which if certain things were still regulated and controlled, it would have never happened. I believe this was the point made, although not as eloquent as your message.
Looks to me like those things were still "regulated and controlled", just not in a way that wouldn't lead to harm. If a pilot of an airplane does something stupid and flies a plane into the ground, one doesn't claim that the problem is that the pilot didn't have enough control over the vehicle. If a government does the equivalent, such as with the recent financial crisis, then why should we advocate more control? It's operator error not "deregulation".
It's an insult to those of us that have grown on Science Fiction and on a dream of visiting other star systems.
To those of us who have grown up on Science and Engineering, your words are a gross insult. It's too bad that actual space travel isn't sexy enough for the Star Trek crowd (or whatever fantasy you prefer to reality), but we shouldn't diminish genuine accomplishments (well, *cough* when those accomplishments happen).
Maybe we can call it space tourism after you've traveled to Uranus to pull your head out of it.
XCOR (based in Mojave as well as Scaled and Masten) is building a suborbital craft as well and set a $95K price point in 2008. They also have human flight experience, whereas Armadillo has none. Regardless, multiple offerings are in the ~$100K range but I'm sure Virgin will have a superior customer experience - that's what they've build their reputation on across the globe. Will be interesting to see who is flying first. SpaceShipTwo's lucky to be flying by the end of 2011 with the current status of their propulsion system.
QuantumG, the marginal cost of each flight is well above $2K. Insurance plays a huge factor, but fuel and expendables is above $2K as well.
That seems a bit misleading.
If I have a big box containing 999 1.4MB floppy disks and a single 700MB CD, the average capacity among them is about 2.1MB. That doesn't mean that most of my removable media can store a 2MB file.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If NASA had never existed then we'd have skipped over the unaffordable boondoggle era of space travel and right now companies would be competing to be the first to put people in orbit and land them on the moon.
Wait wait... so suddenly putting people in orbit and on the moon is a profitable venture? Huh.
Please, explain to me the business model. I'm sure we'd all love to know why "companies would be competing to be the first to put people in orbit and land them on the moon", given that competition presumes some kind of reward for the effort.
I fully agree that if we keep flying the Space Shuttle, there will be future launch accidents with fatalities. Part of what I am suggesting is that these future launch accidents would amount to fewer deaths/payload than the private companies will.
The Space Shuttle is not great technology for 2010, but the major advantage it holds is existential; the Space Shuttle exists and private spaceflight vehicles do not exist.
Nobody's saying he can't. He just should thank all of us for funding the research that gives him a way to make a profitable business model out of an inherently unprofitable industry.
With SpaceShip One, they actually flew into some definition of "space" on three occasions. So the Virgin Galactic vehicle program has a few successful flights to its record.
You don't really think Armadillo is going to be taking paying customers up until they've done the same, do you?
We are presently making a blunder by retiring the Space Shuttle while we hope that these private suppliers get somewhere quickly.
The shuttle is being retired in any case. Without private corporations stepping up to the plate it'll be even longer before we have manned launch capability again if we're relying on Constellation.
The enemies of Democracy are
I need to pay closer attention to what I'm clicking on. Gizmodo is a garbage site with trashy editors who don't do research, steal from people and companies, and go out of their way to wreck careers and lives. I don't want to support them, and I'd hope you wouldn't either.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
The desire to go where no man has gone before is way more important than the desire to work within the known constraints of science. The former has pushed back science's limits, the latter has not. The dream to travel to other star systems is what will make humanity work harder in order to reach the stars. Granted, going 62 miles above the Earth surface is an important step, but a very tiny one.
The desire to go where no man has gone before is way more important than the desire to work within the known constraints of science.
Suppose we work with reality rather than "desire"? Don't tell me what you want, tell me how you're going to get what you want.
No, the thing that lead to the housing market crash was a direct result of deregulation.
No, the thing that lead to the housing market crash was a direct result of deregulation.
I already pointed out that statement is wrong. For example, the easy credit of the 2000's (provided by the Fed and other central banks) wasn't due to deregulation. The decision to allow banks to have 50 to 1 leverage on their reserves for real estate investment wasn't deregulation. The SEC had the power to set that reserve level to some other more conservative value. The regulatory power was there, but they chose to use it in a terrible way.
This matters because it shapes how we attempt to mitigate the next crisis. If it were due to lack of regulation, then more regulation would be a possible solution. But when there's adequate regulation, but inadequate supervision, then adding regulation will fail for the same reason the current regulation did.