Slashdot Mirror
Some Virgin Galactic Customers Demand Money Back
schwit1 (797399) writes News reports suggest that — following last week's SpaceShipTwo crash — more than thirty of the seven hundred people who placed deposits with Virgin Galactic to fly on SpaceshipTwo have pulled out, demanding their money back. "In response to the claim that more than 30 customers are considering their position in the aftermath of the crash, a spokesperson for Virgin Galactic admitted a number of people have asked for their money back. 'We can confirm that less than three per cent of people have requested refunds,' the spokesman said." This is not a surprise, nor should it be. A company can only survive a crisis like this by responding honestly, quickly, and directly. If Virgin Galactic does this, finding the cause of the crash and fixing it, they will likely hold onto most of their customers. If they don't, those remaining customers will leave. This week's cancellations are the first immediate response to the crash. The future of the company, however, will be determined by what happens in the next six months.
...is giving the pilot the full control of the craft (ie, the ability to deploy the tail above rated speed) then they're going to have an interesting balance to strike. I don't honestly know how pilots react to being denied the option of doing something outright, especially if unanticipated circumstances could require out-of-the-box thinking to recover from some unplanned incident.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I guess they think that it is marshmallows spitting out the end of those things?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I wonder if some of these folks were already regretting their decision to tie up money in a space flight. People's finances change, life situations change, priorities change... and this is a convenient way to try to get out of the financial obligation.
No evidence on my part... just idle speculation.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
going to space would be safe and problem free!
These people are lucky that the crash happened on a test flight. This kind of thing happens, and it could've happened on their flight. Then virgin would have their deposits, and their fares, and they'd be dead.
Look, you rich, entitled assholes: being rich doesn't protect you from the deadliness of reality. Being rich doesn't insulate you completely from making deadly mistakes. This was always a risk, and nothing has changed
They knew what they were getting into.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
We MUST explore and space science and the species and stuff?!? The great space tourism market with lineups miles long?
Are you telling me the geek space myths... might be just a bit exaggerated??
in one end out the other? seemed like a good idea at the time? too simple for us mutant prosperitarians? we should be levitating & teleporting ourselves?
Please offer discounted tickets...
Clearly they're going to find and repair any deficiencies, that is why they do these tests in the first place. Off'ing a ship full of paying passengers would be very bad for business. I'd sign up if I could afford to.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
http://marginalrevolution.com/...
I could accept a 5% risk of death if I was doing something worthwhile: contributing to science or the colonization of Mars. But for a joy ride? Even if it's an order of magnitude better, a 5 in 1000 chance in death is still pretty high. That's a couple of orders of magnitude riskier than skydiving (0.0007%) or driving 10,000 miles. (0.0167%)
a) I'm impressed that you've reached a conclusion ahead of the NTSB. I'm sure they'll be glad for your help
b) Every interlock is a potential point of failure. If the interlock fails in a way that prevents the tail from deploying, everyone on board will die. Deciding to put the interlock there is not as obvious as a decision as the pundits seem to think.
Now how are we supposed to kill arrogant, money-wasting, stuck up rich people? You can't just wait for exotic uncooked meats to kill them. They have better healthcare than us!
Only 30?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Everyone has different risk tolerances.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
OK, maybe use the money to pay a sherpa to carry you up Mt. Everest.
It is not really a rocket and it didn't really explode. More sort of fall apart. A lot.
While I am all for commercial space programs, I am a bit confused why NTSB is involved at this point. This was a test flight for what will never really be commercial travel for the masses. It seems to me, VG is getting alot of free help from me the taxpayer to figure out what went wrong. I will never have a 1/4 of mil for a fun 5 minute ride, so why am I paying to help it along. Or is this another case of the middle class screw? We pay for rich people's hobbies again.
"A company can only survive a crisis like this by..." With literally zero precedent I'm not entirely sure why the author even bothered speculating. The sheer desire to GO TO SPACE is compelling enough to make this far from akin to, say, ocean voyages, or airships, or...anything really. IF I had the money to have bought a ticket I can promise you these events would not stop me from going. As Branson said, this is the cost of space travel, we have known this for a long, long, time. And I would bet most of the people who bought tickets did so knowing that going into SPACE is not a guaranteed safe trip.
A company can only survive a crisis like this by responding honestly, quickly, and directly.
Sez who? I'm sure there are companies that have survived crises like this without responding honestly, quickly, and directly.
Ummm, oooooooookay?
But thanks for the good idea. Reusable condoms! I'll make some and become a millionaire! Heheheheh!
30/700 = 4% even if you round it to the more than 700 as 800 you get 3.75% which is more than 3%, not less.
Better check those tolerances again.
Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.
Probably that 11 years after the amicus briefs, attorney wars, counter accusation from VG of claim-fruad, FOIs trying to reveal that VG does indeed have records of "investments" and "investment instruments" but the meaning of these words and of "cash", or "credit" or debit" may take several more years to resolve and multiple court challenges.
In response to the claim that more than 30 customers are considering their position in the aftermath of the crash, a spokesperson for Virgin Galactic admitted a number of people have asked for their money back.
So they are cowards who were dumb enough to think this wasn't genuinely dangerous?
Mt. Everest.. Mt Blanc.. a large part of the 'club' is being someone who can afford - and otherwise thinks themselves above the likelihood, of cheating the statistics. There is a certain lackluster cheating death and being above the rest arrogance that goes with these types of adventures, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. There is also a lot of jealousy and resentment amongst the crowd who sits in their chairs at home criticising those who choose to try something different - without that kind of investment and spirit, humanity on whole would not be better off.
I want to fly on the very next flight after an accident like this. You know they'll be on their toes!
And those risk tolerances change over time. It's been 10 years since SpaceShipOne won the X-Prize, and Virgin Galactic started taking reservations not too long after that. Someone could have gotten married and had multiple kids since then. What was an acceptable risk to them as a bachelor, may not be an acceptable risk as a parent. I wouldn't be surprised if this has been a latent concern for some time, but one could be ignored for the meanwhile since it was still a ways off. Heck if the schedule kept slipping like it has been, the risk equation could have changed again, so why not kick the decision down the road. This crash forced the issue into clear view.
It's hard to know what to do when you have more money than you can possibly spend. What a dilemma! ... not much excitement in that.
Let's see... 10 minutes of fear, joy, excitement?
Or... give some money to "poor people"?
I just don't have a frame of reference for the dilemma these people face.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
"The new national sport of space geeks, unbridled speculation based upon the flimsiest of information.
We saw how that worked out for the engine hysteria didn't we . . ."
mfwright@batnet.com
The NTSB says they recovered the engine and NOX tank. No evidence of explosion in those components. Now, perhaps you are thinking of a different kind of explosion, such as how BOAC flight 781, a de Havilland DH.106 Comet 1 exploded -- a fuselage failure instead of engine failure. According to forensics after the wreakage was lifted from its watery grave, inspectors concluded that the aircraft had broken up in mid-air. If SpaceShipTwo experienced a similar type of failure, it could explain how one pilot survived -- he could have been blown out of the aircraft like that captain flying British Airways Flight 5390, who found himself "out in the breeze" after a windscreen failure, and who survived only because he didn't get pulled completely free and fell.
Or perhaps you were talking about the 2007 ground test of the rubber-fueled engine, where the three engineers were standing inside the danger zone when the test went wrong. That's why you run tests, to find out if things do go wrong, and you take proper safety precautions. To compare that failure with this one just doesn't hold up -- they are two different failure modes.
A little dysentery never hurt anyone^W the species.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Or perhaps you were talking about the 2007 ground test of the rubber-fueled engine
Perhaps? Did you not notice my explicit mention of the year 2007, which itself was a hyperlink pointing to news coverage of the very incident you describe?
To compare that failure with this one just doesn't hold up -- they are two different failure modes.
That's why I'm not comparing the two failures to each other. I'm citing the 2007 incident as a counterexample to the claim that until this recent (2014) incident, "it HADN'T exploded". It had indeed exploded, and it had indeed killed people before. It was a static firing, and it was a different fuel, and it was a different engine. But it was still Scaled Composites' SpaceShipN for Virgin Galactic.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
3% cancellations after a crash of a brand new, unproven edge technology? Malaysia Airlines cancellations peaked at 20% after its two recent accidents involving well-tested conventional technology:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Moral: people who panic and fly off the handle in response to technological problems don't become the one percenters who can afford a tourist space flight.
Virgin Galactic's 55 successful flights is damn good.
Well, 54... Still those are good odds.
Better than most people play in the lotto.
Spaceship 2 is kind of similar to NASA's X-15 and to their supersonic lifting bodies - they had a long series of crashes and fatal incidents. In any aircraft / spacecraft in atmosphere at supersonic or transonic speeds its very easy to get torn apart by the aerodynamic forces. - For instance if a pilot accidently put down the undercarriage at supersonic speeds that would almost certainly be enough to rip their aircraft apart..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..