Slashdot Mirror
Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo Crashes
Fallen Kell writes: Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo has crashed. "'During the test. the vehicle suffered a serious anomaly resulting in the loss of the vehicle,' the company said in a statement. "The WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft landed safely. Our first concern is the status of the pilots, which is unknown at this time.'""
ABC says one person is dead, and another injured. This was the craft's fourth powered test flight, and its first since January.
Sadness for the casualties and their families.
We can't forget that space flight is a challenging, dangerous, risky affair for private industry as well as governments. It will be interesting to see how the private side deals with these setbacks.
This sounds callous, but progress is not without required risk. I hope Virgin Galactic continues the good work of private spaceflight that will be essential to continued advances in space exploration.
Not callous at all. But it sure as hell refutes the attacks on NASA that were saying "the private sector will do space flight cheaper and safer". Meh. This stuff is inherently dangerous, and isn't yet routine, so stuff will go wrong.
Condolences and thanks to the family and friends of the crew. Your loss was in the interest of enriching us all.
"Oh no... he found the
Virgin is a wealthy company backed by a very wealthy man.
This is a setback, but crashes happen.
If everyone had given up on airplanes in the early days because of a few deaths, then we'd all be taking the train today.
People die every year climbing Everest, and yet every year, people climb Everest.
That's right. People risk their lives to do adventures like this because it's worth it. Some of them become martyrs for the knowledge needed to achieve the goal. It's still sad and we are still right to ask if we could have done better, and how we can do better now.
Well, the $20 million actually gets you into orbit.
Engineering and operating equipment at this level requires a certain level of being fairly clinical and detached about it, and not devolving into a screeching monkey while it's happening.
So "anomaly" being "outside of expected parameters", sure.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that inwardly you're not going "oh, crap, no" .. but like first responders and medical people, while it's happening you need to keep it reined in.
I wish I could dredge up some examples, but I seem to remember seeing some things which some of the astronauts said in the middle of a crisis which made them sound like it was just a little thing, when the rest of us would all be screaming "we're all gonna die we're all gonna die".
I seem to recall one of them went through an explosion or a crash or something, and then joked about it being a bit of a rough ride or something. Even the other astronauts were all stunned by it, I just can't recall the specifics of it. Apparently he was back at his office the same day, and flying the next as if nothing happened.
Big Brass Ones are kind of required at this level.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
No offense, but "the goal" was achieved decades ago. These people died for the profit of shareholders, not some "goal" of space flight which has been going on for half a century.
The goal of commercial manned spaceflight was already achieved decades ago? Odd. I seem to have missed it.
Spaceflight is dangerous. I think the best quote ever was by Mary Shafer of NASA who said "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." These people clearly don't suffer that problem.
I thank the explorers who take these risks, sometimes at the cost of their lives. Without them the world would be a much smaller and worse place. It's hard to even imagine the courage it must take to cross an ocean to an unknown continent or to fly into space. People who do these things have my everlasting respect.
Cheap access to space is a pretty damned worthy goal, regardless of profit.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The goal was "privately funded spaceflight" so that eventually, everyone could go into space instead of just fighter pilots.
And I do take offense to your statement... The men that died building the empire state building were in fact heroes. I'm sure their loved ones would take issue with your opinion. They were dedicated steel workers that risked everything because they had pride in their work and knew they could get it done. They built one of the greatest buildings ever designed, it's still stands today because of their unquestionable skill. They knew exactly what the risks were when they started that Job. Even today construction workers risk their lives to build masterpieces. Any of them could easilly get a job building ranch style houses in the Midwest for about the same pay, yet they chose no to.
Those of us sitting in chairs with our lumbar support and wrist protecting keyboard trays have no business declaring anything about the goals and risk of men that do real work for a living.
No offense, but "the goal" was achieved decades ago.
Nonsense. The goal of low-cost sub-orbital manned flights with completely reusable spacecraft has not been achieved. The fact that sub-orbital space flight was achieved decades ago, at massive expense and with single-use craft (or craft that have to be overhauled after every flight), isn't relevant. Achieving regular manned commercial space travel is also worthwhile, and also unachieved. What Virgin Galactic is trying to do is new, and worthwhile, in several ways. And even if all of the above had been done, that still wouldn't make it useless to design and test new spacecraft designs... and that's still an inherently dangerous process. Test pilots still die from time to time in aircraft, and we've been doing that for a half century longer yet.
I realize that you just wanted a chance to poke at your favorite strawman, but that just increases the ridiculousness of your statement.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I am glad not everyone shares your viewpoint. This is an entire industry still in its infancy. Using a strategy like selling rich people seats so they can be the first ones up there is perfectly satisfactory to get the technology developed and bring costs down an open it up to a wider audience. It's not a zero sum game.
Commercial manned spaceflights add nothing here. The ultimate goal being profit for shareholders and find a new way to waste money for the wealthier in exchange of something nobody else can buy, do. But at the end, it does not contribute anything to make this planet better.
Do those space ship designs look anything like what was previously used? Why is exploring new spaceship designs and launch mechanisms useless?
When you attack "profits", realize that it is profits that drove the creation of the computers and networks that you're typing this on, right? It is hypocritical for you to enjoy the benefits while disdaining the means.
No, I am not ready to die for my neighbor to live in space or elsewhere.
No one asked you to. On the other hand, how hard is to not shit on other people's achievements?
Really? Because my father is currently employed by the State of New Mexico to help get Spaceport America ready. So, it's contributing to jobs, for one thing. For another, it is absolutely ESSENTIAL for humanity to expand beyond Earth if we are to survive AS A SPECIES. If you don't want to go into space, fine...fortunately for the rest of us, who understand what commercial space flight means for humanity, you get no say in any of this.
How do you expect to ever get there if rich people aren't funding it first? Like it or not, rich people funding novelties leads to mass production and streamlining of processes which in turn make everything cheaper for us little guys. On top of that, it's THEIR money. Why should they give a damn about your opinion on how they spend it?
By the way, asshole, the only way to achieve real cheap space flight is to have commercial space flight, and just like anything that is done before it becomes the thing that everybody can afford, the first years of it are going to be expensive and only affordable by the wealthiest individuals. Just like cars used to be.
Some things will only be cheap when energy is absurdly cheap, due to the amount of energy that is required. Supersonic flight, space flight, running large wind tunnels, heated pools...those kinds of things.
Cars went almost directly from proofs-of-concept puttering around to mass affordability in less than two decades. Although the one-off concepts had been driving around for roughly a century before the first production vehicles were made.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I was with you until you suggested suicide. Please don't ever suggest to anybody that they kill themselves, particularly as ammo in an argument. It's petty.
There was a time when only the rich flew and the rest of us schmucks were still sailing in boats. Your assertion is inconsistent with history.
We will not expand beyond earth in any meaningful fashion without a fundamental revolution in our understanding of the physics required to travel interstellar distances. It's really that simple.
"But the space station!" - nope, sorry. Never anything more than a scientific / research outpost.
"But the moon!" - lol no. Worse than Mars, still dead if our sun goes.
"But Mars!" - nope, sorry. That will never be anything more than a small colony requiring constant resupply from Earth. Our Sun goes, Mars goes too. Species wiped out.
"But generational starships"- nope, sorry. We can't build a Buick where the fucking bumper doesn't fall off in 3 years... we are sure as SHIT not building a spaceship that will last the literally tens of thousands of years required to travel to our nearest neighbors with orbiting planets while supporting huge amounts of life on board. Let alone the fact that there's no guarantee the planets you find on the other end of that 30,000 year flight will be habitable in any appreciable way.
Unless and until we have "Faster Than Light" travel, we are NOT going to be traveling interstellar (or intergalactic) distances with manned flights. It really is that simple, friend.
Commercial space flight does NOTHING to probe those fundamental physical boundaries. Commercial space flight is nothing more than APPLIED SCIENCE. We know enough to send people up, and bring them back down again now. We understand how it works - commercial space flight is now just tinkering with the formula trying to make it cheaper for everybody to have a thrill ride - and with our current understanding of the universe, that's literally all that orbital spaceflight will get us. Pour that money into theoretical physics if you want to eventually get humanity off this rock as a hedge against extinction. Any other expenditure is foolish.
Or horse carriages, or trains, or cars, radios, TVs, mobile phones, computers... pretty much anything that was "brand new tech" at some point in the past.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I do not "attack" profits. I am just stating what this whole thing is about. Profits can also be made from doing actually useful things. Travel in suborbital space for the wealthiers accomplish nothing.
You disdained this business seeking profit by building new spaceships. As opposed to those profit-seeking businesses who sell food, or consumer tech, or cars?
Since you're have set yourself up as a judge that things need to be about making the planet better - what have you done to make this planet better? Slashdot posts don't count.
BTW, what achievements are you talking about? We have already send people to the Moon and we are routinely sending people in low orbit of the Earth. There is nothing to see here.
I guess you're not an engineer. Even a failed prototype is an achievement. Do you think successes are picked off trees or something? What do you think successful achievements are built upon? The lessons from the failures.
The test pilots were testing a new type of space vehicle. There was an immense amount of work going into a challenging problem. You are familiar with the term, "it's not rocket science", yes? They are tackling rocket science.
Please do elaborate on how you're part of the "we" who sent people to the moon or who send people into low orbit.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I don't see your point. Money is money. Do you think that Branson wants to only fly around rich people forever? His choices to get the funding from point A to point B are rich people, getting a government grant, or starting up a Kickstarter for a couple billion dollars. Or all of them put together. It's expensive. You take what you can get.
The point is to make space something that isn't going to get cancelled the next time the Congressman from Kansas (or wherever) wants to get a corn subsidy. A corn subsidy that no one needs, but makes him look good to his district.
The problem with the national programs is that there is no motive to take the next steps. They can only seem to get up the gumption to really make it matter when they need to do some old fashioned dick waving. That's why the US and USSR did it, and that is why China and India are doing it.
Commercialization isn't the only way of doing it, but commercialization is a method that does work for other products and services. It sure beats having to have a war (or a Cold War) to make some progress.
The Wright Brothers built a plane, glider really, that would have no possible application today other than recreation.
As you surmised, it is unlikely that something like this space plane will scale out for mass usage of space flight, but its a necessary start.
Yes, we've been to the Moon courtesy of the taxpayer. And how long has it been since anyone has been back? The US is not in such bad shape that we couldn't afford to go back. The government just sees no benefit *to them* in doing so. The people themselves have other concerns. Been there, done that.
If some rich people have the ability to fund a vision beyond what is right in front of them, then thank goodness for rich people. Some rich people, anyway. At least they are using their money for something more useful than snorting cocaine, starting wars, and fixing elections.
Did you notice that we got to space, as in actually into orbit and beyond already? As in several nations, separately with separate independent programs? Without rich people funding it?
Er, rich people did fund it, although it was in the form of taxes. Everyone else in the US and Soviet Union funded it too, because those governments shoveled nontrivial portions of their GDPs into the effort at the expense of using that money for things like reducing poverty, improving education or curing diseases.
Today, you have private companies spending their money on this effort instead, to the potential detriment of basically nobody but their own shareholders who voluntarily chose to take a risk on that investment. How can that possibly be a bad thing?
You know, the commercial aviation industry post-WWII was seen as nothing but a luxury for the "one percenters" of that day. Over time you evolved a deregulated airline market in the US that provided flight options for el cheapo travelers, first-class jet-setters and everyone in between. Maybe space flight will get there too but it doesn't do so without that first phase of being a toy for those entitled rich snobs who "just don't have the patience to take the train like the rest of us."
"95% of all Slashdot