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.
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.
Space planes will never be useful and there will only be 5 computers in the world.
Is this guy really so short sighted to believe that tourism is the only thing we could do in space? Or is this just click bait cashing in on the dead?
Wrong. Space planes were actually the preferred method of getting to space before the Apollo program. And the only reason we shifted to rockets was because we didn't have the time to screw with the planes.
Space planes are better if we can get them to work properly. It gets us to the upper atmosphere while spending a fraction of the fuel and getting us to a pretty good speed.
Obviously you need a form of propulsion that will work in vacuum... so the wings only take you so far. But it does effectively take care of the first stage of the rocket boost at a tiny fraction of the weight, fuel, etc. And it is reuseable which is HUGE if we're going to do a lot of launches.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You think it's leading to a dead end. You may even be right. But you don't know that for sure. If they milk millionaires for funding to experiment with aerospace technologies, then as long as they're not being reckless in their risk-taking I see no problem.
The Hierapolis sawmill is not an automobile. It can not drive you to work or be used to transport large amounts of commercial goods over highways. It can only sit in one place. Developing the Hierapolis sawmill is not going to get you an automobile, because such a vehicle would have to be designed very, very differently from the Hierapolis sawmill.
Citation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_internal_combustion_engine
I trust that makes the point rather well. If not, then a meaningful discussion with you will not be possible.
No. What actually happens is that people design a sawmill and hope to get a good sawmill. In some cases, this process leads to other interesting discoveries, like an automobile. But spending your time and energy on constructing a sawmill, when you don't need a sawmill, but you do need an automobile is just stupid. That's why I like Space-X much better. Their goal is to take existing rocket technology that works, and make it better and cheaper. They are just as likely to stumble upon useful spin-off technology, but even in the event that fails, they are still on their way to complete their useful primary goal.