Posted on 10/31/2014 11:41:51 AM PDT by prisoner6
The program was behind schedule and the 250k a pop Hollywooders were starting to complain about their flight into destiny. I won’t be surprised to read in the near future “insiders” talking about shortcuts being made because the egomaniacal Branson was pushing buttons to keep on schedule. Just my opinion.
true, it was heavily promoted and glamorized before it was ever ready to fly
The things we take for granted today were somewhere pioneered by those who risked life and limb to make them happen. Fire, horses, automobiles, airplanes, railroads, transocean travel...
I not only do not think it is a dumb idea, but without it, humans will never fully become a space-faring species.
Alternately, we could stay huddled on this planet and squabble over resources until we wipe each other out or The Almighty calls an end to it.
My prayers and thoughts go out for the families and friends of the pilots. They take the risk, humanity will reap the rewards.
For those of us who grew up on Science Fiction, launch explosions and re-entry accidents were no surprise, just something we hoped would not happen. They were spoken of in retrospect by the authors of such stories, in a possible future where space travel had become routine.
I grew up addicted to Star Trek. And Star Wars. But don’t confuse science fiction for reality. Reality means that humans do not yet possess technology for space tourism. Sure, we know how to send up a rocket, but the death stats are pretty grim, compared with other modes of transit. Maybe in 20, 50 or 100 years, this will be a good idea - right now it’s just stupid.
If people want to waste their money on this crap I don’t object. But the risks need to be fully disclosed, and not a dime of public money should fund it. The Constitution preserves your right to do what you want with your money - it also preserves my right to call a spade a spade - or a dumb idea. There is a big difference between NASA (science) and space tourism. Don’t confuse them.
This is all over the news in LA. I think people got so “used” to space shuttle launches in the 80’s and 90’s that we forgot how dangerous space flight is.
A lot of early launches (unmanned) blew up. By the time we were sending chimps up, we were doing better... but we lost three in the Apollo program, and nearly lost Apollo 13. We lost two shuttles, one to a launch explosion, one on reentry.
All the science in the world does not remove risk, but to imply that they aren't using science at Virgin, working with different fuels and configurations, while at Wallops Island a rocket is using relatively ancient Russian engines is a little odd.
Even in the relatively known area of commercial aviation, with all the safeguards and margins for error, we still lose aircraft.
I have little doubt the folks working on commercial spaceflight are drawing heavily from and working with those doing state-sponsored spaceflight. At some point, the former may replace much of the latter.
We don't yet possess the technology, but we are working on that. There was a time when we did not possess the technology to cross oceans, fly an aeroplane, travel at a mile a minute, and people still died getting there, pushing the envelope and developing the things which make the morning commute as relatively safe as it is. (I presume you aren't dealing with miles traveled, because one orbit is more than most people drive in a year.)
Where did that tech come from? People racing automobiles, flying planes, even the space industry--all developed by those pushing an envelope somewhere to make pushing that envelope more safe, and then incorporated in more mundane pursuits.
I'd rather have my space exploration dollars go to someone who is developing something other than Muslim outreach, for instance, or engaged in the perpetuation of the myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
At least the pursuit of profit has that streak of goal-oriented purity, of technological accomplishment not found in the political ambitions of bureaucratic minions, and to some degree it is self-funding.
Now for a number: the chance of getting killed on a shuttle mission was about 2%. A 'tried and true' NASA spacecraft.
Test pilots at virgin 1 death in 52 missions.
Roughly the same, but keep in mind the guys flying the Virgin spacecraft are test pilots, and that carries a higher level of risk.
The only way the numbers get better is to fly more successful missions. Stay ground bound, and nothing changes.
No one expected this one :-(
Where did you come up with that? The only way to truly make human space flight as safe as, say, modern commercial aviation, is to do it a LOT. Space tourism will help accomplish that. Now, that's not to say that due engineering / safety diligence should be skipped, and if (IF) Virgin was not exercising due diligence, then much as with some of NASA's human fatalities, then "bad on them".
In the early days of the shuttle program, I recall an editorial in Analog magazine discussing what to do when, not if, a shuttle flight fatally failed. There’s the brand of sci-fi that falls into the category of “speculative fiction”, or hard sci-fi, and then there’s science fantasy and the like.* Any real fan of the former knew (and knows) well what the risks are. Most would jump at the chance to go into space, even at current risk levels.
The truth is, space flight will never become 1/10th as safe as present day aviation, unless space flight is done 10x, perhaps 100x more than what NASA and it’s equivalents around the world can do. Just as what “aviation tourism” and other high(?) risk “public” aviation travel” did for aviation in the early days of that endeavor, the development of safe human space flight needs similar “input”, support, and “numbers”.
The other side of it is what will happen without a continuous push to go to space in a significant way. Humanity will “end” early. It’s that simple.
*Though sometimes enjoyable, there is VERY little “sci” in Star Wars. Star Trek was only a bit better, with an occasional half-decent sci-fi script or idea sneaking in.
The sad comment on humanity is the lack of overall vision. Where we once celebrated the pioneers, those who pushed back the boundaries of knowledge and accomplishment, now we recoil from them in quailing horror and celebrate things like "diversity" in name only.
Hopefully (although not realistically), the bad stats are there. They can only be improved by continuing to rack up successes.
In reality, there will be other failures, other casualties, and yet some of humanity stands steadfast in its intrepid nature and forges onward.
If aviation had been left to military endeavors, and the Lindbergs and Earharts, the stats would be a lot worse. Even military aviation has its accidents, from pushing the envelope in high performance aircraft as well as less exotic planes.
We, by our nature, need to explore, to push those boundaries, to accomplish things, to have a dream.
The other side of it is what will happen without a continuous push to go to space in a significant way. Humanity will “end” early. It’s that simple.
We have already been reduced by the last half-century of 'social scientists' from a nation which prided itself on its achievements to apologetics. Another half century of that, and we'll be reduced to squabbling over limited resources--limited because we will not have stepped beyond where we are and accomplished anything near the advances we are capable of.
That will lead to warfare, a decay of civility, and an eventual return to chipping flint to hunt dinner. One significant impact, a serious pandemic, and two generations out all we see now could fade into myth.
As far as resources go, the low-hanging fruit has been picked. This is our chance as a species to step beyond the confines of a single planet and tap the resources beyond our atmosphere...IF we rise to that challenge.
We should have 'been there' by now. From Sputnik to the Moon and back was less than 13 years. What have we done lately?
IMHO, it is a question of what we want for our posterity, whether they continue to develop and grow, or whether we doom them to hunter/gatherer status in the ruins.
“from Sputnik to the moon and back in less than 13 years.....what have we done lately?”
Well .... we spent 13 years frittering our country away in the pathetic Middle East, and making Wall St oligarchs much richer with taxpayer bailouts for starters. Outrageously we keep our borders open thanks to the beliefs of rich New Yorkers, who coincidentally want our right of self defense and our firearms too. Until our owned politicians run America FTBO of ONLY our nation, we will fritter away what is left of our exceptionalism.
I agree. Or as Heinlein once put it (paraphrasal), we are long since the point where we need to get our thumbs out of our behinds and get into space in a serious way. Unfortunately, most of those in power today (and many others) are only concerned with their own immediate wellbeing or power.
You are correct of course about where humanity could likely go (imagine something like the Spanish Flu, but in a version difficult to come up with a vaccine for, and what comes after that?) However, by “end” I had in mind human extinction, as in an “ELE”, to steal an acronym from a mediocre movie about the same sort of event.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.