Slashdot Mirror
Space Tourism Isn't Worth Dying For
rudy_wayne writes with this opinion piece at Wired published in the wake of the crash of SpaceShipTwo, which calls the project nothing more than a "millionaire boondoggle thrill ride." A selection:
SpaceShipTwo is not a Federation starship. It's not a vehicle for the exploration of frontiers. Virgin Galactic is building the world's most expensive roller coaster, the aerospace version of Beluga caviar. It's a thing for rich people to do. Testing new aircraft takes a level of courage and ability beyond most humans. Those engineers and pilots are at the peak of human achievement. What they're doing is amazing. Why Virgin is doing it is not. When various corporate representatives eulogize those two pilots as pioneers who were helping to cross the Final Frontier, that should make you angry. That pilot died not for space but for a luxury service provider. His death doesn't get us closer to Mars; it just keeps rich people further away from weightlessness and a beautiful view.
Just because one person isn't willing to die for a profitable origanization that helps to bring the human race in the a new age, doesn't mean a lot of others aren't...
Nothing really is worth dying. We shouldn't do anything where that is a possibility when something goes wrong. The only sane thing to do is to stop using every mode of transportation (and other activities) when the first death happens. Actually preferably before so that no one gets hurt. Then we would all be safe!
Are you promoting comments to stories now?
6 passengers per flight. That's six rich people and/or some really famous people.
It's definitely worth if it one millionaire comes down and is so awestruck he decides to invest in a spaceflight company .
It's worth it some A rated star comes down and says "this is our future" and spends the next 20 campaigning for more funding for NASA .
At one level, what is being said is true. However, at that same level, our space programs were not about space either, but about a dick waving contest with the Russians. Letting rich people experience weightlessness and have a beautiful view is noble by comparison. However, the real question is where does commercial space travel bring potentially bring us, and hopefully that does go far beyond mere tourism for the rich.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
[What] Virgin is doing it is not. When various corporate representatives eulogize those two pilots as pioneers who were helping to cross the Final Frontier, that should make you angry. That pilot died not for space but for a luxury service provider. His death doesn't get us closer to Mars; it just keeps rich people further away from weightlessness and a beautiful view.
"The cost of freedom is always high, but {humanity} have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission. - JFK"
Seriously? That's like condemning the Titanic sinking and cancelling all travel plans across the oceans. Is it dangerous? Yep. Are people going to die? Yep.
Keep pushing the envelope.
~ Note, changed Americans to humanity in the JFK quote.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
It's true that space tourism is no expansion of frontiers, and that the pilot's death was a waste. It's also true that the corporate representatives who try to this spin as such are being incredibly dishonest and callous about human life. BUT let's not forget that the pilots took on this job at their own risk. Whether they were properly informed of the true risks remains a matter of debate, but still, any sane person should have known that this is highly experimental aircraft and there is a significant risk of failure. This does not absolve Virgin Galactic of responsibility, of course. But it's is spaceflight. Shit happens. If we want to make any progress at all, we have to put aside the attitude that no risks are acceptable. If I were a pilot and wanted to ride in an experimental aircraft, I wouldn't want someone telling me that I can't do that. People die doing far less important things. More people die playing football or skiing.
Look at it this way. The challenger crew died while attempting to heroically... deliver a communications satellite into orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... Was it really that important to get a data relay satellite into orbit? Of course it wasn't. Any criticism you level at Virgin Galactic must also be directed at NASA for the space shuttle. I think that's fair, but at least be consistent in your criticism.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
That will sound bad only if you think that earning money is somehow anti-life.
Business is what makes our substenance and quality of life. We are all subsistance farmers without business and profits.
True that virgin is a space rollercoaster. The comparison is a bit off. You have to consider how many people died in building of actual rollercoasters to have a legit comparison.
Not everyone on the planet can afford a rollercoaster ride so it is too a toy for the rich.
Anyways the idea that taking a risk for money is not worth it unless there is some meaningless benefit to an abstract, non-existent, entity ( god, humanity...) is really evil.
A drive to work bears more risk then space flight.
Similarly, the Internet has done nothing for science or human knowledge, since so much of the work of pushing it and promoting it has been done for profit.
This isn't people dying so rich people can have fun. This is rich people funding the fundamental research that will make space travel practical in time.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Adam Rodgers (who wrote the article):
- Was probably a passenger on many planes in his life
- Drives a car
- Gets on the train and bus now and again
All of these daily functions he takes for granted had test pilots and drivers. All of which had people willing to the risk their lives in the hope of making our society evolve and benefit from new technology.
If these dedicated people didnt push the boundaries and take risks, our lives would be very different today.
Complete short sighted asshole article, written by a glorified twat.
Carry on Virgin, Private business or not, we could all benefit from your dedication to space travel in the future. Nothing else to see here.
You've managed to miss the point yet again, wired.
First off, test pilots take risks - they know the risks. They know them intimately. Death is always a real possibility with an experimental aircraft. Accidents happen, but I'm sure nobody there was saying "hey wouldn't it be cool if it crashed and everyone DIED?". This op-ed piece is written by a complete douche. Obviously commercial passenger space flight is going to start ridiculously expensive and be out of the reach of joe sixpack - but that's how everything starts. At one point, only the super rich could afford cars, now everyone's got one. We probably won't see affordable trips to space in our lifetime, but maybe my kid will. Or their kid after that. What I do know is that if nobody starts trying to do it, it will never happen.
Since you can't just buy a ticket to go to space at any price, it IS attempting to pushing boundaries - even if they're not the boundaries he'd like to be pushed.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
How many "rich boys" died testing initial aircrafts? or when very early cars were being bought and tested?
I mean those cars used to be expensive too, for that time? Death of Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier apparently did not get us a single step closer to commercial flights. I mean those guys died too trying to test a toy for the rich folks obviously? Damn them for not banning planes at that time itself. Imagine the problems it would have solved. No 9-11. No hijackings. Right? Damn them!
Oh wait. People making toys for the rich people, eventually ended up the technology being developed sufficiently enough to become affordable for not-millionaires to own cars and fly once in a while too. We mock the people who called for ban of useless technologies like fast cars(the first fatal car-accident reported the car as traveling at "reckless speed of 8miles/hour") and yet remain blind enough to fall for the same nonsense today.
Orbital flights mean even faster travel. Two-three hundred years ago, it was unthinkable for you to "walk" 20-30 kilometers every day to work(Hint. It took all day on a good horse). Today with cars, you don't think twice about it. Think of being able to reach Europe from America eventually within an hour, after say 30-50 years.
Of course if you are the type yearning for "simple times when world was not a small place" (and I don't say there is anything wrong with that either) you may not see this as being useful. Like the early humans hated the wheel for complicating the world. But on other hand, lots of us find it very useful to travel long distances in a short time. All technologies were initially affordable usually only by the rich however. And people did die during the course of perfecting a lot of it. The Wired article was written by an idiot.
Ok, so all those test pilots who died so i can go on holiday to the carribien , etc, etc.
Sorry, but i really think this guy does not get it. Simular to other space companies one could state that Virgin is using a business model to support the advance of technology and all of a sudden it is dirty to state that they advance technology to support their business model.Please have some respect for the guy who died probably doing what he loved to do and that is advance technology and flying rockets!
Ok Fine... Then put worthless crackwhores onboard so they can paint their nails, play CandyCrush and tweet their experience while you pilot it remotely. If they crash and die, no real loss to humanity. If they survive they can suck your cock as a reward for your fine engineering efforts. Problem solved.
I looks like the hybrid solid/liquid engine isn't going to push SS2 to 100km altitude. The original compound ran rough and it doesn't have a high enough specific impulse. The new compound explodes. Dick Rutan demonstrated a Long-EZ equipped with a liquid fueled engine in 2001. I think it is time to go back to XCOR and ask about a bigger engine.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
If rich people had not started going on vacation trips in the 19th century, nobody would be going on vacation trips now.
Space tourism is a much better motivation for rocket launches than country/ideology X trying to get an advantage over country/ideology Y.
I can feel the insecurity without even clicking the link.
Once only the rich could afford plane rides. They are the first wave of consumers that allow development so us peons can afford it later. I guess we need to send people back then a message that they oughta fucking stop being at the forefront of this guy's jealousy.
Why are pilots and astronauts and F1 racecar drivers - all of which actively picked a competitive field to enter, knowing the risks - considered more special and valuable than construction workers, loggers, or fishermen?
I note that the recent 'space rating' specs imply that flying to space 12 times a year is safer - not than a logger or a fisherman - but than a librarian.
summary was enough, just a pansy whiner blabbering about how life is precious, think of the children waa waaa.
Please nobody tell this guy how many people died building the Empire State Building. He might spontaneously combust. And no, Empire State Building didn't get us to Mars or expand human frontiers, just some rich real estate investors making money.
... That is for the pilots and space tourists to decide. Not you.
They know rockets blow up sometimes. We all know that. We've seen the challenger rocket go up in flames. We've seen many others go up as well.
It is always very sad. But despite that... when they say "we're going again" more people sign up to go then they have rockets to send.
Every
Single
Time
Is it the money? What money? Astronauts don't make much more money. Not enough to cover the risk. They go because they are going into space. They go because they BELIEVE it is important.
You say "space tourism" like it is unworthy or dirty. Its space. And every time we send something up there we get better at it. Every time we learn a little something. We get more comfortable doing it. And we think "what else might we do up there?"
It is as beautiful as it is vital.
And this writer is a disgrace to the publication for which he writes.
"wired"? This is what we can expect from a publication that presumes to be farseeing into technology and science?
Maybe you should just complete the fashion mag transition and slap some models in mascara on the cover and talk about which color is in fashion this year. If this is really how you feel then you're done.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
By going for a pleasurable drive, I will statistically kill something like a 10 millionth of a person. Should we therefore stop driving for pleasure? industrial accidents and shipping cause deaths. All for things that we can, in many cases, do without. Even constructing roller coasters, there's a risk of falling or being injured by faulty equipment. Do we want to put a stop to all of these?
It's tragic when people die but if we can't accept the risk of death at any price, we can't live.
Everything starts off being a dalliance for the powerful: the space race was an off-shoot of war between one upstart and the Old Empires, and started off as a dick-waving contest. As to travelling to Marx, Virgin may build pool toys against SpaceX incremental improvements to scuba gear, but neither is comparable to construction of an underwater city - it's just that Musk has uniquely entertaining delusions of grandeur, a pale shadow of Edison who fancies himself to be another Tesla (the cunt even named one of his concerns after the guy!).
There was a time when being a passenger in an aircraft meant being one of the "jet set". Now we have JetBlue and EasyJet and my cousin gets to fly me in a light aircraft in his spare time. New tech always starts for the rich.
I'm no worshipper of the Invisible Hand, but this is how things work right now.
finish pissing on their graves?
And actually please let Richard play with his billions of dollars and live his dream because this stimulates economy
Other than he would make millisecond trades to catch another 100 millions during the flapping of a butterfly before driving - with all those microsecond crazy stock exchange markets and all FPGA & F# fueled robotbuyers sellers - the the world economy into ruin because nobody anymore knows whom it lend money, where it owed money and perhaps if you lend and owe money to others that you are realizing that you invented a new way of "self pleasuring".
That you lend money to your self and now you try to get interest rates for your own owed money.
Economy is an illusion, money needs to be spend, if too many people sit on too much money, the illusion could break.
(this means no more /. anymore)
So please support my plea.
"Responsible Suicide with a good chance of survival."
So like nothing accomplished nothing - better stay in bed.
Some people have other ideas, some of them die. Of course you'll die if you stay in bed as well.
I'll go back to my cave then.
And SpaceshipOne was just a stunt, but it was the first step. SpaceshipTwo is the next step and it will get rich adventurers to pay for the development of SpaceshipThree which will be an orbital system. This kind of true spaceplane will eventually allow for much less expensive access to space than will be possible even with the reusable rockets which SpaceX is developing.
The test pilots/engineers didn't risk life and limb to make more money for Richard Branson. Michael Alsbury died and Peter Siebold was injured in a regretable accident doing what THEY wanted to do. THEY got to try flying to space, and, even if VG never gets to the point of vacuuming money from those looking for a thrill and wealthy enough to pay Branon for it, the crew got to make the trip, knowing that, as with many ambitious enterprises, sometimes the bear gets you.
Why not Fugu? That would like a much more apt food analogy to me. ;-)
Ezekiel 23:20
The pilots knew the score. If the risk was worth it to the people who were actually taking it, then I don't see how it's anybody else's business.
The moon wasn't worth going for. We don't really need to put satellites in space. Books gives the wrong ideas and kill people. How did the discovery of the fire help us closer to mars? That's completely the wrong thing, and so many people have died in fires.
You can't say that whatever virgin galactic is developing isn't bringing us closer to space, or making civilization a little bit better. Obviously their goal is to make space flight cheap enough for space tourists to use. How can you think that cheap space flight wouldn't have side effects for space flight in general?
Besides, it's the same thing that Orbital and SpaceX is trying to achieve - cheap space flight. Although they try to go for "commercial" level of cheap, not "tourism" level of cheap.
And the side effects might not be Mars. It might be a new material for clothes. Or a new type of energy storage for your car. It's not that easy to predict all the useful things you get from pouring down billions into research to solve really strange problems.
I don't mind if you still want to live in a perfect version of the 50s and not bring civilization forward from that point. But please stop being loud about it. Just stay in your gated community and stop using the internet, for the sake of the rest of us.
But if not-so-noble dollars fund research into space travel, i'm still for it. But this is hopefully a boon for space-x. the antares explosion and the branson event are horrible tragedies but might give more cred to the teams at boeing and spacex, etc. people that can do it right should have the contracts.
It's exactly the same situation in every industry,
Actually, it's not. Many luxury industries stay exactly that for very, very long periods of time, and when their products finally become available to the masses it's not because they made it happen, but because someone outside the industry figured out how to do it and disrupted the market.
And it's not an accident. One of the reasons the rich buy luxury goods is exactly because non-rich people can't afford it. It's a status symbol.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yes it's stupid.... but its no more stupid than all the stupid idiots who climb everest at significant expense.... a significant number of which never come back.
Wow. Apparently anything can be a /. post these days.
You gotta start somewhere. Space tourism has to start somewhere, and likely it will be expensive.
I applaud the wealthy who would push the limits rather than popping champagne at some resort.
What would the post have said about Lindbergh, Earhardt, ...?
How about some constructive comments - would the poster rather us sit on our hands???
It's just click-bait.
The entire argument is that Virgin Galactic doesn't push the boundaries so it's not worth doing and that is a huge steaming pile of BS. Why should astronauts be the only ones able to go to space? Wouldn't it be great if someday we could have safe and affordable suborbital flights available to ordinary people? Is there seriously really no value in achieving that goal? I'm actually thrilled a bunch of millionaires are ok with subsidizing this research and experiments.
The adoption of Rail travel and Airline travel by the rich is exactly what pushed down the price. The more demand there was the more that was developed for it, and the more that was developed the cheaper it beame to produce and run; and the early "rich" adopters paid the bills.
The situation you're describing is certainly true for a variety of products, but none of them happen to include the transportation industry.
Many things are not worth dying for, such as mining for metals, drilling oil, constructing buildings, yet people die in accidents relating to those dangerous professions every year.
The article seems to be more of a whine at the rich and how they spend their money than at Space Tourism. A previous post pointed out that whilst the death of the test pilot was tragic,he was a professional who understood the risks and was getting paid to do so. But the article's author appears to be using this tragedy as an excuse to hate on the rich. Sure us working Joes are always envious of the fabulously wealthy but to be honest if I were that rich I'd probably also be throwing my money around like there was no tomorrow.(Whilst hopefully not being too vulgar!)
So what if this is a "millionaire boondoggle thrill ride" and "the world's most expensive roller coaster"? Average people die every year on actual roller coasters, yet nobody makes a big deal out of it.
It's almost as if people die doing all sorts of things, even riding bicycles and walking our pets, but we just accept that there are dangers everywhere - but it's no reason to stop doing things.
You completely missed the point, there. Titanic served a useful purpose, it transported people across the sea.
SpaceShipTwo just goes up and falls back down again for a thrill. It's a roller coaster, like the article says.
If a roller coaster causes a deadly accident and is shut down, do you cry about FREEDOM and PUSHING THE ENVELOPE too?
When that roller coaster ride takes us a step further to space travel becoming normal and reachable for a lot more people FUCK YEAH.
People die all the time on their holidays. Planes crash. Bungy and parachute jumps go wrong. etc. No one goes on and on about banning all holidays even though none of those people get us any closer to spreading the seed of humanity off this one planet.
People are fucked in the head.
..and thought the world should be a bit more like that.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I suggest that if you wish for your post to be taken seriously, don't overuse the f word as you do. Just makes you seem like some fool.
So, space travel isn't worth dying over, huh?
Statistically speaking, one of the most dangerous things quite a lot of humans do every single day is step inside a car.
I suppose putting your life on the line for that shitty job you bitch about all the time is somehow totally worth it by comparison, right?
But hey, maybe I'm being too harsh. We should just be careful not not do a damn thing that might be dangerous. I mean, sitting around waiting for a random asteroid to wipe out all life on this little blue planet...what's the worst that could happen?
"...that to me is a bunch of crap trying to shoot guys up into damned space. What they're going to do is they're going to wipe out half a dozen (people) one of these days, and that will be the end of it."
Rockets explode, rockets aren't for space travel. Rockets just barely get the job done.
When people were messing around with pedal powered planes trying to get off the ground initially, I doubt anyone was thinking that we would be able to get 500 people from one side of the world to the other in 24 hours.
No, SpaceShipTwo is not going to be a fundamental change in the way we travel or what we can achieve by itself. But that's no reason why the lessons learned and/or any future cost reductions won't be stepping stones to greater things.
I beg to differ,
Grissom, White and Chaffee were NOT glorified thrill ride operator and would have cracked your ignorant skull for such a statement.
Yeah they knew the risk, but I would wage a sizable amount of money they would NOT have done that kind of dog and pony show just to entertain the Howard Hughes or the Rockfeller of the day.
Virgin Galactic is not pushing anything more than the thrill ride envelope.
no death is acceptable pursuing leasure activities. We should ban mountain climbing, parachute jumping, diving, all non-commercial travel including driving, and need I go on?
(tagged: drivel)
5 people died in the construction of the Empire State Building. These people willingly risk their lives, and it's not just for a paycheck. Article is dumb.
Getting money into space tourism promotes the advancement of technologies and interest in space.
First, anything the 1% wants to do that involves passing money around between them, rather than picking the pockets of everyone else, is their business. That's not to say we should let them externalize costs onto us -- if parts of it are falling on populated areas, that's not cool. If hydrazine is getting into the water table, or even poisoning an unmonitored (but still important) patch of ocean, that's not cool either. But billionaires spending money for a chance so see the edge of space? Fuck it, let them.
Also, what is acceptable risk to you, isn't to everyone else. Anyone who flies an "experimental craft" is at a substantially greater risk of dying than the average person. So long as the risk is theirs, again, let them. They know the risks, and do it anyhow. Some of them are old and have a bucket list, and don't think the risk is all that substantial in light of the fact that they're mortal regardless.
Lining Branson's pockets isn't my idea of a good time, but it's not my decision whether others want to.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Go fuck yourself.
People died building those Arabian whore palaces that are the tallest hotels in the world too. Kind of fucked up to die for that shit, no?
I'm so old I remember when Wired was relevant.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Argue it all you want, but funding is the most critical fuel that any space ship burns.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
But a lot of people died to bring aviation to the point where your flights were safe and cheap.
It's a price they pay for knowledge and experience, they knew the risk...better now and them than the 6 rich fellows that are supposed to ride it in the future.
I also disagree with the NASA drinking koolaid folks here.... leave NASA out of this commercial flights things, they cant pull anything off with a trillion dollars and bureaucracy... leave this to private corps like Virgin, they are doing quite good with much less and using close to 0 of tax money in the process in comparison.
Exactly how long ago was it that the potential of falling off the edge of the earth wasn't worth the risk?
... those folks who view the rich as parasites, distracting the advancement of humanity for their personal pleasure should stop and consider (a) they're throwing money at something (far) more useful than, say, buildings or a luxury yacht and (b) the side effect of this work might lead to (small?) engine technology that will, say, provide RCS for a larger system. It might also provide some aerodynamic information useful to the trans-oceanic cargo plane, etc. At worst, it might cull the herd some, right?
Does this author believe nothing should ever be done unless it furthers mankind'd foray into the future as long as someone might die? Many people die in the cultivation of foods that are not necessary for survival, the manufacture of items that aren't earth-shattering, and the testing of new technologies that don't blow your mind. History is rife with examples of casualties. I'm not saying the deaths are deserves, but merely exist as an inescapable part of creating something new.
There are many paths to the future and not taking isn't really one of them.
While Virgin Galactic may be about rich space tourists, these people should be seen as early adopters, helping bring down the price for the rest of us. The research and development here also provides a different technology approach than the bigger space companies, which are still focusing on traditional launch vehicles.
The challenge in the space industry is getting new investments from beyond the government and communication satellite operators. Space tourism provides an alternative private form of funding, helping develop new technogies and techniques. These billionaires probably have no way of spending all their money and this provides a nice way of providing funding for space and a way for them to do something they might enjoy with their money.
As for the test pilots, well I would prefer to see an automated flight as the first test flight, followed by a manned mission, but it may be too hard to provide a good system to deal with the unknowns. Test pilots fly with a passion and accept that never returning is part of the risk. It doesn't mean they should be treated as expendible, since we are talking about lives and highly skilled people, but we should accept that there is a risk which we must accept.
For the engineers and business owners knowing that a life is at stake should be incentive to double checking everything, even the assumption that it couldn't possibly fail. Everything fails, so it is more about asking in what conditions could it fail.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Why does no one ever mention the carbon footprint of space tourism? Slashdot spends a lot of time telling me about the dangers of greenhouse gasses and global warming, but is there a more irresponsible endeavor than space tourism when discussing Climate Change?
what happens if mr branson or the owner of virgin galactic decides well..... every single thing here on mars.... is actually ours or... mine.... so sure u can come over and land and do stufff... all u have too do i call me emperor..... who will he anwer too if hes there on his own base on mars... :)
Since when does slashdot publishes some random guy's opinion?
Who gives a fuck if some nutbag likes to proclaim he knows whether the death of someone else was worth it?
I'd rather have news instead.
I would make sure that each person who is risking their life on flights makes a video stating that they acknowledge the risks involved and the reasons they choose to accept them. Also let them say that in the event of their death they want the technical problem investigated, fixed and for the program to continue. That would be the best ammunition against idiots like this.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I was wondering how long it would take to read garbage like TFA. The pilots know EXACTLY how and why they're doing this job, PLUS they're the ones getting into space on a regular basis, unlike a NASA astronaut that might be years between flights. Space flight is dangerous and anything is when you're pushing an envelope...but we also learn, so today's risky 'roller coaster' becomes tomorrows stepping stone for Martian colonists.
If we were afraid to experiment, you'd be sitting in the dark, cold and not making unimaginative statements to millions on the internet.
Yet people die in parachuting accidents all the time, and there is no big fuss about it in the media. There are probably some brave guys trying out the new parachute designs for the first time as well. And no testing rocket designs it is not just about space tourism for the rich; this is just the first step towards whatever comes next. Plus I expect being a test pilot is something more than just a regular job; I would expect there is some adrenaline rush which comes with the uncertainty of the whole thing, which is part of the appeal. No risk means no excitement.
How many people died in the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge?
Eleven, although until February 17, 1937, there had been only one fatality, setting a new all-time record in a field where one man killed for every million dollars spent had been the norm. On February 17, ten more men lost their lives when a section of scaffold carrying twelve men fell through the safety net.
http://goldengatebridge.org/re...
In other Googling I found an average of 120 people commit suicide annually on that bridge.
Should the bridge go away now?
Now that's one way to look at the question of whether or not a space tourism endeavor is worthwhile. Personally I think the environmental impact, vs. For Who and For What Purpose is a major issue. To me those are just incredibly wealthy people looking for fun ways to spend their money. This isn't like trans-Atlantic air travel in the 20th Century, which actually had a clearly demonstrable economic and societal purpose.
On the other hand, I can well believe nothing would have stopped those gentlemen under similar conditions from trying again. This is what they did as a career for-life, and economically speaking, they had a good employer and seeming economic benefit to do what they did.
Full disclosure: I am only a software guy. I try to do backups, but am only so-so there.
Folks, as a former graduate of our Air Force Academy and a jet instructor pilot -- please don't portray those pilots as victims! They were both doing what they loved and they certainly knew the risks involved. I'm not sure what type of ejection seats the craft had, but they also both knew that a serious malfunction at those altitudes and speeds was not going to be survivable. Knowing all that -- I would gladly take their place and I know a lot of folks who would do the same. One of my classmates became a shuttle pilot. I didn't make it that far. But if I had the $250,000 to fly to edge of space as a passenger, I would gladly take the risk -- and please don't call me stupid or a victim. We seem to forget what freedom really means. We get to make our own individual choices, don't impose your life algorithm on me.
The pilots and engineers are immoral. To aid and abet a program that must inevitably lead to prominent people getting blown up on the way to space after paying 250,000 dollars for the privilege is just plain lacking in a moral concern for other's lives. They are willing to spend other people's lives to indulge their personal interests in engineering and space. And people will get blown up because nothing is 100% safe in this world, especially spaceflight. Wasn't there just a spectacular Antares launch vehicle failure? We know these things are inevitable. Space shuttles have exploded. Branson is planning multiple flights per DAY. Look for a future headline screaming: "Branson spaceflight disaster kills Stephen Hawking, Katy Perry, Tom Hanks, Ashton Kutcher, and Leonardo DiCaprio. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie next."
E Proelio Veritas.
Horse crap.
The arching sky is calling
Spacemen back to their trade.
ALL HANDS! STAND BY! FREE FALLING!
And the lights below us fade.
Out ride the sons of Terra,
Far drives the thundering jet,
Up leaps a race of Earthmen,
Out, far, and onward yet ---
We pray for one last landing
On the globe that gave us birth;
Let us rest our eyes on the friendly skies
And the cool, green hills of Earth. - Heinlein
Every body up there gets us closer to the day when we regard space travel as normal and natural. We're not going to make it off this planet and out into space by sitting here and waiting for another cold war. Nor should we.
I think it's short sighted and dismissive to look at the Virgin crash as a death for tourism's sake. It is another death by another brave pioneer in the quest to reach the stars. I don't care who is footing the bill and what their reasons are.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Ocean liner tourism, and jet plane tourism aren't worth dying for either, but people still do (die) even in this day and age of mature technologies in both of those areas
it was not worth all the lives lost in atmo flight dev if people are just going to go on vacation. Hogwash. P.S. There are no federation starships. Silly to even reference never mind use in an argument.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The article is flamebait.
The business can be intended as a profitable provider of luxury services and still wind up furthering science through its efforts.
SpaceshipTwo builds demand and interst to be able to fly to space. Rich people are often famous people and when they're all taking a fabulous roller coaster ride and making it sound amazing, then everyone will want to.
The Apollo program failed because no one gave a shit after a while. This is a way to build interest in spending to go back. If a few people die doing it, I would be surprised if it will stop the momentum of getting this going.
It was a test flight. Pilots die in test flights all the time. That's a risk of being a test pilot. It's their job to be the idiots who try things out before sending other people up.
Sherpas and other guides die to take people to the top of Everest so how is this any differnt?
Back around 1838, ocean travel by steamships was considered part pipe dream, part cutting edge tech. It was commonly believed you would need a coal-mine worth of coal for the crossing plus it was dangerous. Shortly after the first successful ocean crossings, another steamship (the Moselle) wanted to show off the new tech by doing a full-speed run on the Ohio River before on-lookers lining the shoreline near Cincinatti. The boilers exploded raining body parts and blood down on the surrounding area, with ~149 killed, missing, or injured. Yeah, you can imagine the headlines ... and you also know how prominent, dominant, and safe steamships became as a mode of sea travel.
Life at the edge of tech (except for computer tech :) has risks ... and by the way, those were test pilots in Space Ship Two, persons who were willingly testing out new technology for the future benefit and safety of others.
And ... isn't it weird to see such an article in something as purportedly future thinking as Wired?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
You'll know we're serious about space travel when there are entire cemeteries full of astronaut graves. Aviation went through the same phase, yet it seems many do not have the stomach for societal advancement.
SS2 is the space equivalent of the biplane barnstormer giving rides around the fairgrounds post WWI. Not everyone could afford it, and it didn't really get you anywhere except 'up'. People died doing it every now and again too. But people who took these rides a) had money and b) were able to see things from a different viewpoint and c) saw potential. These short rides turned into mail delivery, then short haul passenger service, then to airlines. Take that short parabolic arc and extend it a bit, and you have a high speed passenger service between two airports/spaceports. NY to LA in 15 minutes? Yes, this is still Concorde-level cost wise, but people would pay for the experience and to actually travel in a timely manner. Higher speeds and altitudes and you can get to the other side of the Earth in 45 minutes. Much more fun and adventurous than a 13+ hr flight. Perhaps it will never advance to the point that commercial aviation has done (i.e. the travel mode for the masses), but then again, perhaps it will. If people want to try to do this, and people want to pay to do it with knowledge of the risks, I say let them. If we don't dare we will never advance.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
I must be an idiot (and I'm sure plenty here will speak up to tell me just how), but it all seems obvious to me. This roller coaster is just a means to an end. Who really believes Branson will be stop at 'going up and back down again'? Once they've got the bugs worked out and the system is proven this will turn into a trans-continental suborbital transport, not simply a rich man's roller coaster. Branson dreams of the 400 passenger London-to-Tokyo in an hour transport we all read about in the sci-fi of our youth. Who's going to do that? Not NASA. They're stalled. Government's got bigger fish to fry. Who's going to bankroll the R&D for a high speed bus? No one. Too boring. Who's going to get on board for a program where "ANYONE CAN GO TO SPACE!" Everyone. They'll line up. They have lined up. The future in the books we read as kids will come from such endeavors. Quit pooh-poohing the what is essentially a lab experiment that is the first step to the goal; look at the goal and applaud the lab experiment first step.
Poor folk will benefit from this, too. Eventually, after enough people have died working out the kinks in space travel, those rich folks will start flying around at ever increasing altitudes (as if looking down their noses at us isn't high enough). After a while, they're going to get tired of roughing it and start taking some poor folk with them to be their servants, as they do on their yachts and planes.
Space exploration Deaths:
NASA: 10+ that I can think off off hand. Not including X-15 test pilots that died.
Private Industry: 1
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The Virgin galactic people died for the noble heroic reason they said they died.
If you have an issue with giving the rich all the powers of medium size countries including the power over life and death, this is a funny place to start complaining.
But the internet has made it possible for me to have seen more naked ladies then all of my ancestors combined.
cars started out as a luxury item.
A lot of automation and car technology came from F1. Why is it morally wrong to die for something you like? Why must it always be noble?
Let's turn the table around: what about all the winners of IgNoble prize?
The point I'm getting at is: sometimes we do things just because it's fun. It's uncertain if the practices or technologies we discover along the way is used for future development, even though it's not explicitly included in the abstract. But it's ok to appropriate them.
SpaceShip Two is a test bed for research. A test bed that can help pay for this research by taking a few wealthy people on a thrill ride.
In economics there is a concept called "willingness to pay". Tapping into the higher "willingness to pay" of the wealthy has been used to bootstrap a company or pay for product research, design and development again and again and again.
Among other things SpaceShip Two is researching:
- The mothership carrier concept.
- A hybrid rocket motor design.
- The feathered re-entry concept.
- New materials.
SpaceShip Two is an intermediate step in a journey, not a milestone in that journey itself. Technologically speaking that is, it is perhaps a milestone in terms of paying for that journey.
It is also not a dead end itself, I will discuss that in a separate post.
SpaceShip Two is not a technological dead end. An alternative design of SpaceShip Two can carry a payload rather than passengers. In this alternative design the SpaceShip Two craft is a "mothership carrier" type of vehicle to launch a more conventional but small rocket from. This small rocket will deliver small satellites and payloads to orbit.
The basic idea is to utilize multiple stages of "motherships" to deliver the payload. Each mothership optimized for different environments and stages of the flight. More importantly these early stage vehicle are reusable. Unlike say the early stages of a Saturn 5.
That said, SpaceShip Two's current role is that an a development test bed. The wealthy thrill ride thing is just a method of funding this research and development. This is discussed in a different post.
LOL - seriously?
I love Rutan's designs, love the idea of SS1 and SS2, and wish them the very best - I would love for them to succeed beyond even what we all hope for BUT - the peak of human achievement? We went to the moon 45 YEARS AGO. Testing a shuttlecock aircraft design that isn't even aiming for low earth orbig, for a private company, doesn't quite measure up.
Loading...
Each and every penny. Each and every life lost to get to space.
You are mistaken about SpaceShip Two being a dead end. See post http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Ahh, how many people die in car accidents? Space travel aint that dangerous.
Find a job you love, and never work a day in your life.
You are wrong about SpaceShip Two being a dead end, see http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
...but people do it 33,000 times per year.
That's going to take a seriously huge ship, which will be very different from the SpaceShipTwo, not to mention the gigantic plane to carry both of them up.
very much a hindsight leftist rant. I wonder if author feels the same way about the many other products throughout history that were initially cost prohibitive for any but the very rich or governments.
Lets put the stated safety into perspective as well. The goal is not to achieve the level of safety offered by a modern jetliner, rather that of commercial aircraft of the 1920s.
... Don’t believe anyone that tells you that the safety will be the same as a modern airliner, which has been around for 70 years." -- Burt Rutan, 2008
"This vehicle is designed to go into the atmosphere in the worst case straight in or upside down and it'll correct. This is designed to be at least as safe as the early airliners in the 1920s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
That's going to take a seriously huge ship, which will be very different from the SpaceShipTwo, not to mention the gigantic plane to carry both of them up.
You are mistaken. An F-15 fighter jet has successfully launched anti-sattelite rockets. 5 launches in the 1980s. Again, I'm referring to small satellites and payloads, not delivery of astronauts to space stations.
UH How many people die in car accidents every year? What percentage of those are tourists?
How about other recreational activities? I personally have delt with a number of individuals who got themselves killed skiing and snowboarding.
And it's my job (Fire/EMS) to help people who try to kill themselves doing something fun.
Sure, Virgin is building a "millionaire thrill ride". I don't dispute that. But more broadly useful technical knowledge and expertise will still be gained in the process. Furthermore, the test pilots know the risks, and accept them willingly; I'm sure if Virgin asked for volunteers, there would be a long line of people (both qualified and not) lining up to test these things.
If you're going to criticize it for not doing enough to help us get to Mars, you might as well criticize any and all non-essential spending of any kind that doesn't help us get there. Or if you really want to look at the cost/benefit angle, should we not be prioritizing fixing the problems on this planet first, before we embark on the exceedingly expensive and dangerous endeavor of putting humans on another one (which, lest we forget, is extremely hostile to Earth-based life)? If we are (as the author seems to be) worried about a "dinosaur killer" asteroid event, we should put the money into figuring out how to detect and deflect incoming asteroids. Seems to me that would be much more cost-effective, and have higher odds of success than evacuating humanity to Mars.
Most of the ubiquitous technologies we enjoy were once expensive toys for wealthy early adopters- automobiles, cell phones, televisions, etc.
It's not hard to understand how it works. The first product iterations of new technologies start with very high price points for several reasons. Specifically, R&D costs need to be covered and there isn't yet efficient manufacturing infrastructure or market competition to drive costs/prices down. Luckily, there are curious wealthy folks who want to take these things for a spin, probably out of a mix of vanity and opportunity, and their patronage helps fund the continuation of the enterprise.
With the momentum gained by selling those few units up-market, competition and continued manufacturing efficiencies lead the industry increasingly down market, and the products become accessible to greater numbers of people with greater supply and at lower price points. Case in point- nowadays large numbers of people considered to be in poverty own cell phones. Cell phones are also in widespread use in poor developing nations. None of it would have happened if Motorola wasn't able to sell a $4,000 phone to Zach Morris' dad.
Does this author believe nothing should ever be done unless it furthers mankind'd foray into the future as long as someone might die?
Yes. Unfortunately, he's not alone, either.
If these dim-witted, pants-wetting twatwafflers had their way, we'd all be locked in a basement, wearing beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, and singing, "I'm an Oscar Meyer Weiner".
We'll have a coupon day!
Subtract 100 years. Change all references of "space ship" to "airplane".
Bogus article. The airplane had its naysayers too. Now we all take the airplane for granted as a necessity.
Also: all the guys who stayed home the day Columbus set sail for the new world are dead now, too.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Just like only the government should build ships to explore what is west of the Pacific ocean. . . .
Only the government should risk lives to build flying machines. . . .
Only the government should send people into low-earth orbit to repair satellites. I mean, it is okay to send someone up up a giant live electrical tower to keep the electricity on, but not okay to send them into space to keep the internet on.
An anti-satellite rocket does not need to achieve orbital velocity, though.
Is that carbon fiber worth dying for, then?
Yes.
Technological advancement saves lives and brings us closer to an understanding of the universe. Thousands of people die every day for far less; to die in the pursuit of knowledge is one of the best reasons there is.
I would rather die in the quest for knowledge than die because of an accident, or heart disease, or cancer, or because my parts simply wear out.
The Author argues that SpaceShip Two was not the Enterprise. But the Enterprise was about that quest for knowledge, about exploration, about building a better world. You don't have to be sailing between stars to be reaching for them.
I understand the closed off and "please make me safe. so very safe" mentality many people have, including myself to an extent. I really, really do not understand why some people find the need to judge others who are more adventurous or simply want/need other things from life than fit in their own personal worldview. There is no problem with being a bit of a pansy, my genetic lineage shows that off; but there is a problem when you start telling others they have to be too.
I have no interest in climbing Everest, I don't get it, it's a big hunk of rock with thin air at the top. Yet people die every year to experience the hardship, see the whiteout from the summit and tell people they did it. People die every year diving, skydiving, hiking, driving to the movies, walking up and down stairs, riding motorcycles or even riding a bicycle. You're relatively safe typing in a cube, and if that's all I ever want to do great -- but I can't start saying others' personal risk thresholds are *wrong* so you can feel better about your own choice.
Basically, this is one of the sadder things the editors at Wired have chose to pay someone to write, let alone chosen to then publish.
I am very disappointed in Wired for this opinion piece. Granted, it is an opinion, but its presentation is closer to a mainstream article, probably due to the popularity of the topic and timeliness. No one has said it better than Michael Interbartolo (Google him if you need to know his qualificarions), who said on Google+:
"I completely disagree with this article.
"Commercial spaceflight even suborbital tourist is important because it opens up space to more folks. The technology to do these "rich man" flights pushes development of rocketry (remember the only current US made engine in regular use is spacex's merlin) and quick turnaround of spacecraft.
"We failed to make the shuttle the 72 hour turnaround it was promised but folks like +Virgin Galacticà and others look to make space tourism as regular and frequent as commercial aviation. The design is extensible to a next generation of long range sub orbital high speed travel around the world. The UK and Dubai are already talking about a spaceport for virgin galactic so think about flights from the US to Europe and the middle East in probably under an hour. When travel time is reduced and if the price comes down due to regularity of flights the world becomes smaller and more connected. How much has folks perspective changed since they could travel beyond their city by car, or state by rail or flying?
"So while spaceship two will never get us to mars it didn't mean their effort is not worth it. After all commercial aviation is still from a certain point of view for rich folks to fly to far away destinations instead of traveling by bus or steamliners and on two Malaysian flights this year alone how many people were lost? Should we stop flying airplanes +WIREDÃ?
"Gus Grissom was right in the 60's and it still applies today even to space tourism. 'We are in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us, it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life.' So to all the steely-eyed missile (wo)men of virgin work the problem, fix it and get back to flying.Ã"
Reading this article, it's strangely reminiscent of the events in Ferguson... It appeals to the uneducated over a topic as old as wealth itself: class warefare. Why do you need to hate on successful people? Yah, some people get lucky and are born into a rich family. But I know at least 20 people whose parents were not well off, went to school, worked hard, and are now pulling six figures a year. Stop lusting over what others have. This isn't the hunger games: a rich space tourist isn't robbing you of anything.
Look at your own money spending habits... That $600 iphone with the $100 plan a month would be better spent in your retirement savings... The money you're throwing at that new Prius that you have 19% interest on could have been spent on a 1995 Geo with the same gas mileage (or a motorcycle, in which case, you'd look cool too). You had to have that new MacBook pro. You have to have the latest in skinny jeans. You eat out every night of the week. You insist on "organic" when you don't even really know what that means.
Want to go to space in a plane? No one is preventing you from being rich. You're just act like a poor person.
Seems to be allot of misconception here about what a space plane is; Skylon is a purpose built true space plane, SpaceShipTwo is NOT. That said, let's get a grip, he was a paid employee and knew what he was getting into. It was voluntary, he still deserves to be mourned and not spat on because he was doing it for a space tourism company.
Who is Adam Rogers to tell me what should make me feel angry. I'm excited for the engineering, the price, etc. I, btw, could care less about Mars. Adam doesn't know the first thing about engineering achievement. It's not in the end goal that makes it amazing. Many people don't care about the ISS, but the technology developed for the project is awesome. Now, go tell the families of the pilots what you just said to the world, i'm interested in the response.
A large shocking event which, due to hubris and poor designs, kicks everyone in the butt and makes space travel *much* safer. Until then, count me out.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
An anti-satellite rocket does not need to achieve orbital velocity, though.
Since it was a kinetic weapon it needed to achieve and maneuver in actual satellite orbits. Again, 1980s tech.
Does he want to make it illegal?
If tourists want to go to space, goddammit, get out of the damn way!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I have no issue with billionaires getting blown up in the ridiculously conspicuous consumption of their ill-gotten gains, what I have an issue with is that a skilled pilot died instead. All the more reason to remotely pilot these vehicles...and heavily promote them to lawyers and politicians as well as billionaires.
No, being a kinetic weapon it would gain a lot of destructive power by not being in a nearby orbit. The satellite would slam into it at orbital speed.
An anti-satellite rocket does not need to achieve orbital velocity, though.
To be more specific about my 1980s tech comment. The antisat rocket was launched from an F-15 at 38,000 feet. The 30 pound payload was delivered to the target satellite at an altitude of 340 miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
SpaceShip Two reaches a microgravity environment at an altitude of 68 miles. Launching from this altitude is very different than the F15's 7 mile altitude. Now consider an additional 30 years of engineering advancements.
"NASA sRLV program
By March 2011, Virgin Galactic had submitted SpaceShipTwo as a reusable launch vehicle for carrying research payloads in response to NASA's suborbital reusable launch vehicle (sRLV) solicitation, which is a part of the agency's Flight Opportunities Program. Virgin projects research flights with a peak altitude of 110 km (68 mi) and a duration of approximately 90 minutes. These flights will provide approximately four minutes of microgravity for research payloads."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
No, being a kinetic weapon it would gain a lot of destructive power by not being in a nearby orbit. The satellite would slam into it at orbital speed.
I expected my point would not be clear. See other comment.
NUFF Said.
The test pilot who unfortunately lost his life knew the risks. No one forced him to take the job. Equally no one should be able to tell him he couldn't do it because all he was testing was an aircraft to give rich people thrill rides. The article is just asinine.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Sure, there are some niche scientific uses for suborbital flights. But that is still isn't the same as managing orbital flight.
The ASM-135 was also suborbital, you'll note.
Here's a novel idea... Why don't we let the people involved make the decision for themselves about whether it's worthwhile. It's their lives and money. People need to stop minding other people's business. This isn't the land of the free anymore. It's the land of the pussies!
He got electrocuted when he was replacing a space heater. How does that bring us closer to a working TOE? He died in vain, we should stop using electricity!
Its no different than any other dangerous sport.
The death rate for first time climbers on Mount Everest is something like 5-10% (lower now, used to be higher.) People going a second time have a better survival rate but the percentages are still single digits for deaths. And paid guides (Sherpas) get killed every year.
By comparison to adventure space flight, adventure mountain climbing is just a bit cheaper. Do we condemn one and not the other?
How about base jumping? Or even sky diving? A small, but consistent number of planes crash delivering people to the jump point. So adventure sky diving? Do we condemn it as well?
Pretty much any sport we engage in has its dangerous elements and people die all the time (albeit slightly less spectacularly!)
Industrial workplace accidents happen all the time. Sometimes they are fatal. A trucker loses control and crashes, a welder falls off a skyscraper, a road paver doesn't wear the right type of mask and suffers severe lung damage, an electrical engineer at a power plant grabs the wrong thing and is electrocuted.
OK a lot of injuries don't result in death but 8 injuries that effectively cause the person to lose 10 years are pretty much the equivalent of a life.
We don't stop building skyscrapers, roads, bridges, using electricity. Get over it and grow up.
Early rumor had it that passenger Justin Bieber died, and I was trying really hard to feel sad.
Table-ized A.I.
What a load of horse crap. Not worth it? Not doing something amazing?
Let me tell you about dreams. A lot of people have always dreamed of going to space since they were kids. It's a dream that the vast majority will never achieve as it is simply out of grasp to the common (or even wealthy) individual. That is, not without companies like Virgin pioneering the way for "space tourism". Now for the first time we can perhaps look forward to really seeing the stars in our lifetime. For the first time we may be able to grasp that dream and make it a reality. Sure it'll only be available to the rich initially - aren't most things? But over time it'll become more accessible to us all. That's the beauty of progress.
The guy who wrote this article is a short sited jerk. Get a life pal - or maybe just remember what it is to have a dream.
The history of flight itself is a macabre masterpiece of horror. Didn't you know? Before the Wright Brothers' famous flight, people had already died in flight many times. They were just the first to survive it, and if I recall correctly, their legs were broken.
Test pilots were once lauded as the bravest of souls. They climbed into machines never proven in flight to find out the hard way whether engineers overlooked anything or made mistakes on calculations. Every time a new manned flight technology was raced for, parts broke, things went wrong, and often, people died.
Humanity reached its current state of achievement because people have remained brave throughout the long, difficult journey. If we are to advance farther, then we must not allow tragedy to provoke cowardice. It would be an insult to all those whom brought us to this point through sheer tenacity in the face of overwhelming difficulty.
There were two men on that vessel, and the surviving one intends to push forward. Think about that. He survived the failure of an experimental vessel, witnessed his friend and coworker's death, and was injured yet he still maintains resolve. Did he ask anybody to be afraid on his behalf?
Those who say that space tourism is not worth the cost of development are either looking for an excuse to kill it and using this tragedy opportunistically or they're simply ignorant of history. Obviously, this technology will not be available to access by the public until it is developed to the point that its safety is proven. Competitors in the space industries need to maintain their dignity in the face of this event.
The value of the pilots' lives is primarily *their* concern. They clearly understood the risks and felt that taking part was worth the risk. The fact that *you* don't think the cause is sufficiently noble is 100% irrelevant.
So, to make "rich people" travel in weightlessness is bad, but the war and military objectives for almost every single technological breakthrough we had last century is good. Count them: the car, the submarine, the internet, GPS, planes, etc. Of course, not all these claimed lives, but many died for all this. That is acceptable, I suppose.
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
Does he honestly think that Branson, or any other company that could make this sort of thing pay commercially, is likely to invest billions in suborbital flights and then just sit back and say "OK, that's fine, let's just collect the fares"? Because it's a stone-cold certainty that there's far, far more money to be made in pushing on to orbital capability and more - and that if one company can make it pay, others will follow to get a slice of the action. As for being for "rich people" - so what? So was early air travel. Look at it now. And let's be clear - the amount of space exploration we're likely to do for pure science is infinitesimal compared to what would get done if the private sector managed to really start making space pay. So, no, the test pilot didn't die in vain, or in the wrong cause. He died doing a worthwhile job, knowing the risks he was taking, in a cause that may contribute in a small way to our finally getting into space in the way that we so desperately need to do if our species is to have an extended future.
Looking at the ground photos from Edwards AFB the new fuel mix and the engine my NOT have caused an explosion.
Rather, vibration from the added power of the NOX fuel injector my have caused structural damage to the fuselage that caused the disintegration of the body.
Looks like an event-series shows the engine start and pick-up but then loss of exhaust plume which may have been the pilot shutting down the engine, followed by loss of the wings during a head-over-tail roll then massive disintegration of the body.
Well, lots of people build and fly plane-kits now days.
Not sure that is a valid business model for a tourism industry; the tourists onboard will not have parachutes.
And may be increasingly difficult to hire pilots who will know that any flight is a one-off in a home-built rocket-dragster.
SpaceShipTwo was a stepping stone to SpaceShipThree which actually added some practical level to the business model of Virgin Galactic. SpaceShipTwo was built entirely to get the initial capital rolling and then further utilize the profits to build a market for suborbital flight like for the Kangaroo Run or From New York to Tokyo.
Imagine a day where the US President is able to take (NASA One?) from DC to Moscow within two hours to put out some political fires. Virgin Galactic is working towards that plan. So while I don't much care for a business model that is some tourist trap to get a few wealthy people to spend 14 minutes floating, I do enjoy the idea of making Space flight potentially affordable.
Who knows, perhaps one day, we could make a trip to the moon as routine as a grocery run. We will have to spend time time and sacrifice a bit to get there. I am still sorry for the loss of the individual who passed away, but I only feel he would feel his contribution to society would best be not wasted by continuing to build on his sacrifice.
Place something witty here
Sure, there are some niche scientific uses for suborbital flights. But that is still isn't the same as managing orbital flight. The ASM-135 was also suborbital, you'll note.
Niche? Many satellites are in low earth orbit. The International Space Station is at 211 miles. Hubble is at 370 miles. Earth imaging at 373 to 497 miles. Again the F-15 launched ASM-135 hit a satellite at 345 miles in the 80s.
An interesting graphic:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
So are these safety zealots going to pass laws that no one can go into space?
Seriously, if a person is too afraid of getting on a rocket, exactly what right does he or she have to prevent others from doing as they will?
I've done a lot of things in my life that other people consider foolish and dangerous, like drag and motocross racing, street bike riding, playing Ice Hockey, climbing radio towers and telephone poles, even dabbled in rock climbing.
Safety doesn't get you much to talk about or experience in the end. I have a lifetime of rich experiences.
It's like "not having an accident today" is somehow the equivalent lof being the first person to fly, or walk on the moon. Agoraphobia should not be a goal, but for some people it appears to be.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If that's the way you feel, please stay on the ground. You wouldn't want any arrows in your back, you know.
It's a step in the right direction. You have to walk before you can fly. Cowards never die, they just fade away.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
The logic is that this somehow isn't pioneering or useful because it was invested in by the rich for the rich?
That makes no sense. If that were true, then most of the things we take for granted (plumbing, cars, computers, travel, etc) would never have left the rich because they were first developed by and for the rich.
I think that this is a pioneering step and who knows what this will eventually lead to. Maybe it will lead to something, maybe it won't, but since they aren't using my money to do it (unlike NASA) I don't care if it's for tourism or not.
BS article alert! BS article alert!
It's really sad to see so many posters saying that people don't have the right to try something risky because they wouldn't try it themselves.
Since when do you get to dictate that no one is allowed to skydive, climb mountains, scuba dive, or engage in other risky behaviours, even if they're just for "thrills"?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
While "rich kids toy'" gets the publicity and PR, NASA does suborbital flights and has looking for private launch firms to help there as well as orbital flights. To this end a few month's ago Forbes reported NASA awarded Virgin Galactic a suborbital contract.
A quick web search turned up the Suborbital Research Association, which is composed of people interested in the science side of suborbital flights.
No, Virgin Galactic flights are not just for rich playboys and playgirls. There is science waiting for the flights as well... science that may well private suborbital flights financially viable.
To instill confidence in the program...
Hey, Rudy: go fuck yourself.
Obvious Troll is Obvious.
best left to academics in ivory towers who have no connection to the real world.
You do not seeem to "get it" that by re-writing Kennedy's words, you simultaneously eliminated his point AND made a very false statement. As a matter of historical fact, most of humanity has been unwilling to pay the "cost of freedom"; in most societies, the general population cares more for its own skin than for freedom and therefore lives under varying levels of tyranny as the preferred option rather than risking their lives to gain freedom for themselves and their posterity.
This is why I have always opposed "nation building" and any idiot politician in eather party in the US (like the Bushes or the Clintons) who believes in it - if a people are unwilling to stand up and fight for their own freedom then there is no point in fighting for them and giving them that freedom because they will not value it nore stand up to keep it. If, on the other hand, a population is willing to stand up and fight for their freedom, then there is no need for us to go fight for them and give it to them; in fighting for it themselves, they will value it more and fight to preserve it.
Incidentally, the JFK quote is out of place here for another reason: JFK was pushing a national program that was to boost multiple national interests (create new materials, technologies, techniques, etc) and achieve diplomatic ends (impress the world and encourage non-communist countries to see that communism was NOT the best way forward) with a program that would pave an open-ended road forward. The Spaceship Two project is not a national effort, but rather just a cooporate project to make a service that caters to the super-rich, while technologically being a dead-end. No spaceship two derivative will ever go to orbit (the architecture will not support a fuel load large enough to achieve orbital speeds) and if it DID there'd be no safe return (it needs no heatshield and can feather during the fall as a speed brake because it never achieves even a reasonable fraction of orbital speed - and if it ever DID it would need a real (very heavy) heatshield to avoid being destroyed
[[Space Tourism Isn't Worth Dying For]]
Plenty of people will beg to disagree.
Go fuck yourself. This article honestly pissed me off and it should piss you off too. If scientific/engineering endeavors like this and the enthusiastic philanthropists who support them are ridiculed it casts a negative light on eactly the kinds of things and people we should be encouraging. It's dipshits like the guy who wrote this article who are the cause of NASA being under-funded and new engineering endeavous seeing so much criticism about random unrelated shit they never get the go-sign or end up having huge hurdles imposed by governments and comittees. If some random billionaire just up and wants to fund something which will benefit the future of humanity and you try to make trouble for them because they aren't doing it the way you personally want them to do it there is something seriously wrong with you and any effect you have is going to have a negative effect on all of our futures.
Some people are utterly risk adverse (such as the article author Adam Rogers).
Some people are utterly risk thriving (lots of us!!).
Some people are in between.
It's a matter of personal constitution and personal choice to decide if space tourism is or isn't worth dying for. NOT someone else's decision!!
I'm not going to mock your sentiment, because I understand and relate. But this isn't how humans roll. If predecessor test pilots took the same tack, we'd be a rather flightless world. It's beyond sad that young man died, but he knew the risks, and his death will ultimately make humankind safer. Yes, at the moment, space tourism for the upper crust, but that was it was with all manner of voyages in generations past. Eventually, mankind will be in space, and if we're to believe the likes of Elon Musk and Neil Degrasse-Tyson, we *must* inhabit other moons and planets, in order to further insure the survival of the species.
people die in the construction of buildings all the time. what did they die for? some skyscraper for some rich people to work in?
people die meaningless deaths all the time.
WÌÌfÍ--ÍSÌÒÍ...Í...ÌHÌÍfÍÍÍ--ÍÍÍ
It might not be worth it to you, or even to me, for a test pilot to die for space tourism. But taking that risk was worth it to the test pilot, for the chance to fly in space. People take bigger risks for lesser (but still personally satisfying) rewards all the time. I'm sorry it bothers you, but it's not up to you. That's the definition of private activity.
Here is what would make it worth while:
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars...
When astronauts look down on earth from space, they are moved by her beauty and fragility, by the vastness of uninhabitable space that stretches into the distance. If we can give people with influence a glimpse of that perspective, and motivate them to work for humanity's future, that will make it all worth the sacrifice...everything else is merely fluff!
That's just what it is: one person's opinion; an opinion at that from someone who is apparently already bitten by the fear bug, trying to sell it to us as socio political righteousness. Learn your history; horse, buggy, train, car, airplane. All followed the same basic route and left victims in its path. It's the way it is.
As long as the Eloi keep flocking to the siren, the Morlocks are willing to provide!
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
I think it is simply great that people can do what they want.
We all benefit from the risks others take and they should reap the rewards for their risks.
Questioning the motives or how they manage to get this project off the ground sounds like someone who is jealous.
In order for spaceflight to be viable, it must reach a commercially successful phase. NASA is a socialist boondoggle and a waste of taxpayers dollars on pie in the sky dreams. All the blown-up shuttles in the world have gotten the Common Man no closer to living on Mars. Private firms and entrepreneurs like Burt Rutan, backed by Virgin Galactic, have brought the USS Enterprise closer to reality than all the governments combined. THIS IS the future of humanity so long as we don't let it rest in the hands of a few elite military fly-boys studying bees (yet again...).
... and yet many have climbing Everest.
Let people do what they want. Provided I don't have to clean up after their mess, I don't care.
the technological advances made in this entirely voluntary endeavor.
People like him have always been around.
Fortunately their stagnation is offset by people who are motivated to actually do something that means something.
I need to correct myself slightly. Looking at Wikipedia, I see that Paul Allen bankrolled the initial venture. Branson came in somewhat later.
Either way, the point is the same, as my conversation preceeded both. Selling rides, at least in the form of offering them as a perk of being an investor, was disucssed very early on.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
but test-driving an experimental spaceship is. Sign me up.
Yes, it is terrible someone lost their life in this pursuit. But without such a pursuit we as a global society will remain stagnant and possibly not reach our potential flying among the stars. We need to keep pushing the envelope and not become complacent. One day the continuation of our species may have to rely on the technologies invented by such pursuits.
For their first few years, airplanes had no practical use. They couldn't fly far or very high, they were unreliable and hard to control, and they couldn't lift very much. Mostly they gathered crowds to watch and took people up on short joy rides. But this provided the foundation and impetus for further advancements.
The airline industry may not survive unless we get into space. Imagine getting from Los Angeles to Rome in 30 minutes. Jet lag will become a thing of the past. It may be expensive now, but the price will come down over time ?
Your cell phone uses a chip that implements a digital signal processing algorithm called Linear Predictive Coding. Texas Instruments built the first less than perfect production version and introduced it in a toy--the Speak n Spell.
To have waited for a "serious" application would have delayed introduction and nobody knows by how much. If the rich will pay to play in the edge of space, it is likely (but not guaranteed) that it will motivate more innovations. Are we really prescient enough to say what should not be done?
Climbing Everest has become so last year that a new
expression of "stuff" is needed.
So up up and away....
BTW: Everest is lethal too.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
What a way to go ......
Dumbest article I have seen today. There is no technology that has not gone through the expensive early adopter phase. Attempting to turn this into class warfare is stupid, immature and shows how shallow the AUTHOR is, not the classes he is attacking.
"Suborbital" is a very different concept from "low earth orbit".
"Suborbital" means you don't have enough speed to stay in orbit. Getting to the required altitude is the easy part of getting into orbit. Once you're there you need to stay there, which takes far more energy to achieve.
SpaceShipTwo is strictly suborbital, as is apparently ASM-135.
It doesn't matter if SpaceShip Two is suborbital, it provides a 4 minute launch window at 68 miles altitude. With respect to the 1980's ASM-135 being suborbital, that it when launch from an F-15 at 7 miles altitude. A microgravity environment at 68 miles is a very different starting point. Plus we have 30 years of additional engineering advances since those launches.
Known physics, the actual economy, and dwindling resources are not on our side.
Actually, the price of travelling by boat has basically increased over time. This is due to the fact that boating is mostly for pleasure. Who crosses the Atlantic by boat nowadays ? Not the poor.
In the case of Virgin Galactic, starry-eyed people believe that some day everyone will get to travel in one of these hypersonic planes, but I don't see that happening. The reason is that it is much much cheaper and immensely less dangerous to fly economy with any carrier. Basically the longest flight is something like London-UK to Auckland-NZ. That currently takes about 30h. Of course it would be nice to do it in 2h but this is not essential. The Concorde did not make supersonic flight happen for the masses. It was only for the very rich / super busy and would have stayed that way forever had the Concorde continued to be exploited.
Concurrently, really going to space (i.e. > 100km altitude, reaching orbital velocity) is going to stay hugely expensive using chemical rockets. There is basically no known technique that can make that cheap and safe, until we build a space elevator. Going to the Moon is essentially pointless: nothing of value to do there, and I'm not sure we will manage to send people to Mars within this century. This is hugely hard, barring some unexpected advances in thrust technology.
Many people on this thread mention the parallel between aviation progress in the first half of the 20th century and what is happening now with SpaceX, Virgin galactic, and so on.
The difference is essential though. In the beginning of the 20th century we simply did not know enough about fluid dynamics to make aerodynamic flight happen easily. This is still a tough field (turbulence, etc) however we have made huge progress. We can model it relatively well, we essentially know now how to simulate it, etc. The basic equations (Navier Stokes) have been known for a long time, and thank to a huge theoretical, computational and practical effort, we now have cheap, save, available, commercial flight for everyone.
In the case of space dynamics, things are actually fairly simple. We have known about minimum orbital speed, escape velocity, and so on since Newton. We've made measurable progress with chemical rocket engines since then 1950s, but the principles were known at the time. We know how much energy we need to expend to reach space. We know how to navigate space, We know how to do it.
We actually know that we *cannot* do it cheaply at present. What we need to reach a new level is a lot of basic research in materials to build space elevators, better ion drives, perhaps nuclear engines in the future. At the moment we cannot send humans effectively beyond low Earth orbit, and again, this is not cheap. It is not so much a question of entrepreneurship, it is a question of long-term, constant investments. As in several decades.
"Microgravity" is irrelevant in this context, it just means the ship is falling. Sure, it's a little bit easier from 68 miles than from 7 miles, but again, that's just the altitude, which is already the easier part. It does nothing to help you gain orbital velocity.
And, rocket engines have not developed that much in 30 years. We are still stuck with the weight-to-energy limitations of chemical reactions.
A 68 mile altitude absolutely does help. Reduced gravity, reduced drag, etc. From that point 100% of a rocket's fuel payload can be devoted to achieving a low earth orbit. Engineering advances absolutely help because the payload, say a satellite, may be much smaller and lighter.
The difference in gravity is negligible. The lack of drag does help, but you don't need to go quite that high for that. At 7 miles you're past most of the atmosphere already.
Past the half-way mark. I'm not so sure you'd be past the 2/3 mark though.
It's a help, a significant help ; but there's still a significant amount of work to do.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"