Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS

At low altitude SS2 is nothing more or less that any other (rutan) plane... yes, but the passengers will not even have a parachute to jump out if the SS2 is lost

Yes you are, and you're still doing it, because you said that the entire man-rating process for SS2 will have to be done in 2 years even though it has already been 5 years in development.


SS2 was designed from scratch to carry people. That is it's purpose. The 5 years of design and build are very relevant to the process of man-rating it.

Following your logic, if I was to spend a week working on something but didn't get it completely finished I should scrap it on the following Monday morning and start again. You are an idiot.


Why is that a problem? My basic diving course took 3 days before I was allowed to use the equipment in the ocean. The safety procedures before an airline flight take 3 minutes. The passengers don't need to learn to fly the SS2 before it is safe for them to travel in it.

And why did you ignore my suggestion that you design a better suborbital spaceship than SC? You obviously think you know a lot more than their engineers about all the issues.

johno

did you ever get an parachute when entering a plane - in case it gets lost - ??? well... i didnt. not in a glider, not in anold cessna, not in a budget airliner and not even in a business class fancy A3something....
At high altitude they are of no use and chances they might be of use at low altitude are minimal.... dont you thing Rutan has thought of this? I my opinion this is a bit ignorant. These dudes are smart enough tot do a thorough risk assessment before building anything at all.
And yes, accidents might happen as they do with kind of vehicle.

cheers,
c.

It comes down to this.

SC have built a spaceship. Gaetowhatever thinks the design in unsafe, and the craft is badly manufactured (I don't know how as he hasn't seen the plans, and is making up his mind from photographs, but that's his choice).

Known facts are that the craft has been designed form the start to be a man rated suborbital spacecraft, with a hybrid rocket motor (The safest sort of rocket motor). It will undergo 50-100 flight tests prior to being presented for FAA certification.

The FAA will need to certificate the craft prior to it ever carrying passengers. This certification will also have a lower safety standard than, for example, airliners, because, lets face it, space travel is inherently more dangerous that air travel. This fact will be known by any passengers. Its the same as driving a car on the road vs driving it on a track. The safety levels are different because the task is different.

If SC2 (which has been designed specifically for the task in hand, by the foremost experts in the area) fails the FAA tests, then no passengers flights will take place.

Quite simple really. Passenger flights wont take place until the required safety standards are met. Most people here think that since the craft is being manufactured by the acknowledged experts in airlaunched sub orbital craft (after all, they are the only people ever to have done it), that is will be well made, and will do the job it is designed for. That's what the evidence points to. No other valid evidence has been presented to counteract that point. Hearsay and opinions gleaned from looking at pictures don't really count.

Of course SC could have made a mistake, and the design of SC2 is complete rubbish. However, SC have an enviable record in building aircraft and spaceships, so that scenario seem exceedingly unlikely, and in the long run, if the craft isn't up to the job, it won't be used for the job because it wont be certified.

@ gaetanomarano
First of all, please please please use the edit button, instead of posting so many short posts right beneath each other!

Second, I didn't read it all, but this bit just jumped into my eyes.



So basically you don't think that Scaled Composites have learned anything during the construction of SS1 and development stages of SS2?
And neither will they make any changes to anything after the test flights?


By the way, as far as I remember, SS1 actually didn't have any accidents, I could be wrong, I didn't follow all this back then!

it has already been 5 years in development... but the time has been well spent only if SC has developed a man-rated vehicle

SS2 was designed from scratch to carry people... my sincere impression is that it's not enough safe to carry tourists

passengers don't need to learn to fly the SS2 before it is safe for them to travel in it... I don't agree

why did you ignore my suggestion that you design a better suborbital spaceship... it's not my job to design a spacecraft, also, design a better vehicle needs very much money, probably two-four times more than the $250M invested by VG... I'm sure that the SC engineers (and other engineers they may hire) can design a better vehicle with more time and more funds

not in a glider... the SS2 isn't a glider but much closer to a military jet

the craft has been designed form the start to be a man rated suborbital spacecraft... we are not sure of that, probably it has been designed like an airplane, but a spacecraft is a bit different since it goes in Space and has a rocket in its back

hybrid rocket motor (The safest sort of rocket motor) ... but also the less used in real vehicles, then, we can't say that it's safer

50-100 flight tests prior to being presented for FAA certification... this is good, since (I hope) the SC engineers will find (and modify) all the SS2 design flaws before fly with passengers

The FAA will need to certificate the craft prior to it ever carrying passengers. This certification will also have a lower safety standard... if they do that, this is BAD, since the SS2 must (and can be designed) to be safer... FAA should NOT certify a dangerous vehicle only because "the space is dangerous"... it's nonsense! FAA must certify the vehicle ONLY if it adopts ALL the well known and ready available safety systems... FAA can't close their eyes only to allow VG to make more profits with a cheaper designed and built spacecraft

space travel is inherently more dangerous that air travel... but this doesn't mean that a vehicle can be built and launched in space with tourists without apply the BEST safety rules!!! ... ONLY the unexpected "risks of space" can be accepted, NOT the risks that come from (e.g.) the lack of a good spacesuit!

If SC2 (which has been designed specifically for the task in hand, by the foremost experts in the area) fails the FAA tests, then no passengers flights will take place... probably this is exactly what will happen

people here think that since the craft is being manufactured by the acknowledged experts in airlaunched sub orbital craft... also the millions Toyota called back (since dangerous) was designed by an ARMY of "acknowledged experts in ... CARS"

SC have an enviable record in building aircraft and spaceships... all them was airplanes and the SS1 has been flown very few times compared with the hundreds flights that expects to do the SS2

you don't think that Scaled Composites have learned anything during the construction of SS1 and development stages of SS2... the SS1 was an experimental vehicle and the SS2 is pretty similar to it without the deep design changes that (I think) must be done to fly with passengers

.


at last, I believe that SC, VG and their space tourists, should ONLY say "THANK YOU" to me, because I'm warning them about several design flaws, that, if not modified in time, could trasform a rich suborbital business in a DISASTER !!!


.

It have been proven that the majority of the headline faults Toyota experienced were driver error, not faults with the cars (in at least two of the runaway cars its was PROVEN that the brake pedal was never depressed!) . Strange that this fact hasn't made it to the public conscience yet....But anyway, it seems by your definition, NO ONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD is qualified enough to made suborbital spacecraft to carry passengers. The problem with that is it means that no-one will ever be qualified because you have to start somewhere.

Yes, given infinite time and infinite money, SC could make a better spacecraft. But they don't need to. They need to make one that is safe enough (and that means as good, but not as good as airliner safety levels). I think given their expertise, they have probably done that. After the 100's of qualifying flights the SS2 will either be ready for passengers or it won't be.

Anyway, I give up. You are mostly talking complete rubbish. Your arguments are hopeless, and you insist of relying on supposition rather than the known facts. If you turn out to be right (I seriously doubt it, but it is possible), then that will be a feather in your cap, but at the moment, anyone of importance (not me!) certainly won't be paying you any attention, because you refuse to be moved from your entrenched (and in my opinion, completely wrong) view even when presented by effective evidence.

Bye.

headline faults Toyota... this one was ONLY an example... there has been lots of vehicles, airplanes, devices, computers, etc. designed by army of engineers with serious design flaws inside them

NO ONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD is qualified enough to made suborbital spacecraft to carry passengers... never said that! ... the right procedures to design a safe military jet or a safe airplane or a safe spacecraft are well known... they only need to apply these well known principles

given infinite time and infinite money... not "infinite" but only the right amount of time and money to design a vehicle that can safely carry passengers... is there any specific and valid reason to fly suborbital passengers in 2012 ??? NO, so, they can wait two, three or more years to fly on a safer spacecraft

certainly won't be paying you any attention... well, I hope that, at least, the FAA will pay attention to the SS2 risks...

Just an FYI, SS1 dumped excess NOx at or close to apogee, so that obviously had the ability to dump in flight (you can see it doing the dump in a video on tube - quite interesting). Although I do not know for sure, I would expect this to also be built in to SS2.