Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS

I've added two interesting updates to my article

Stop writing your articles in a "bazillion" colors and I might even read them again...

I attempted to read your article with the intent of a balanced opinion, but the way your write is so obnoxious that I gave up. Stop highlighting every minute detail because it clearly is a "serious issue". If you want to make a point, then it does not start with highlighting or color coding every 3rd word. The article is unreadable.

I also stopped reading because the first 3 paragraphs were PURELY BIASED speculation. How can you conceivably compare Boeing and Scaled Composites with just common facts. Maybe you mention this later in the article, but you don't even acknowledge that Scaled Composites has been developing safe and reliable composite aircraft for 30 years. I guess for some reason that doesn't count towards their latest endeavor?

Developing spacecraft is a risky and high cost business to get into. It is a very difficult goal. Something that only companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin have achieved. Scaled Composite's worst accident happened whiel testing their hybrid rocket. That is definitely something to take into account, but not enough to discourage them from their ambitions.

Don't forget that they began as small underfunded undermanned start ups as well. Don't forget that Scaled Composites is made up of 200 motivated and smart employees doing what small companies do best, innovate. They have the financial backing of a multinational corporation. We will never develop the technology for space flight similar to any one of our favorite science fiction novels if someone doesn't take a risk.

TLDR; Stop spreading opinion based blogs with pseudoscience propped in to make it look like you have a valid point. We need more Scaled Composites, not less.

Moderators: I apologize if this comes off to critical, but my hope was that this thread would die or get closed earlier. Unfortunately my nerd rage just hit its limit.

Private spaceflight will be safe for the simple reason that it is in the companies' interests for it to be safe. Not only will an accident invite lawsuits (irrelevent of whatever the customers sign) but a high publicity accident will dissuade potential customers from buying their product. The goal of any private business is to make money, and for that reason, private space companies will always go beyond the bottom line to ensure safety.
We take risks all the time. People die in car crashes every day, but that doesn't stop people from driving. You have to take risks in order to live. The question isn't if space tourism is risky, but whether customers will accept that level of risk in order to buy the product. There are alot of people putting down alot of money, betting that the customers will accept the risk. It is also worth noting that Richard Branson is willing to bet both his life, and his mother's life, on the safety of private spaceflight.

sorry, but, it's the pop-art style of all my blogs

.

Every time the word "seems" appears in your "article" it tells people that this is something you know nothing about, like when you describe the thin "metal structure" which is not metal at all, but a composite material.

Perhaps the engineers have actually calculated that this is what it takes to make it safe!

You complain about no parachutes and space suits that can stand the vacuum of space, but that's no different than the shuttle, and thats going to orbit!


An other thing is that you highlight everything witch make it seem unreliable even if you don't read anything at all!

.

Scaled Composites has been developing safe and reliable composite aircraft for 30 years... the SS2 is a spacecraft and its passengers will face more risks

not enough to discourage them... I don't want to discourage anyone but I only suggest to adopt better design and safety standards

Scaled Composites is made up of 200 motivated and smart employees... be motivated is not enough to develop a safe spacecraft, it needs very much time and money

.

it is in the companies' interests for it to be safe... then, why have they asked to (and obtained from) some States special laws to exclude their responsabilities in case of accidents?

a composite material... maybe, a "miracle material" since the SC spacecraft is 5-10 times thinner than all other spacecrafts

the SS2 will be twice as fast than the faster military jet (that all have ejectable seats and parachutes) and goes in the vacuum of space (where a good spacesuit is necessary) but the SS2 passengers and pilots will not have any parachute nor any ejectable seat nor a decent vacuum-grade spacesuit if the SS2 will lose its pressurization

The astronauts at the international space station do not wear space suits (well anything worn in space is a space suit, but you know what I mean ) at all times neither does passengers of commercial airlines!

Don't compare SS2 to fighter jets, they don't have much to do with each other, how about the concorde instead? That did not require anyone to have ejectable seats! which wouldn't help if you are in space anyway!

By the way you will be surprised how much stress composite materials can take!

For the same reason that car makers don't want to be sued in case of accidents. Cars are safe, but there's always risk. But it's not up to you to judge what level of risk is appropriate, it's up to the customers. If you think that it's too risky, then don't buy a ticket. If people don't want to take that level of risk, then the spaceflight companies will either make the experience safer, or go bankrupt.

did not require anyone to have ejectable seats... the SS2 will fly at about TWICE the speed of a military jets, so, its passengers should have, at least, the same ejectable seats, the same suits and a parachute... but, probably, the space tourists lives, haven't the same value than military pilots lives

If you think that it's too risky, then don't buy a ticket... I know that it's too risky but I fear that space tourists don't know that

Here's what I predict will happen if you use those seats:

Inside the atmosphere after the rocket engine is turned on and you eject: instant death, by the massive g-force applied by the air breaking.

Outside the atmosphere: you will accelerate to so high velocity that you will burn op when entering the atmosphere!

All in all, you are better off staying inside, I don't even see who you want to have the responsibility for the eject!

Also, fighter jets face other kinds of risk, they get shot down and they do crazy maneuvers sometimes close to other air crafts.

The systems you are proposing are not implemented in any other spacecraft!

you've just added other reasons that show why the space tourism is too dangerous

.