Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS

Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS

Posted by: gaetanomarano - Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:51 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 200 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS 
Author Message
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:35 pm
Posts: 6
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:12 pm
The risk of sailing to Americas was probably (I hope) greater than beinag a SS2 passanger. But without someone taking such risks, the ships would advance much slower as they do today. I also believe, that astronauts that did the last HST upgrade were in bigger danger as well. But I have signed the "Keep Hubble alive" petitions.

The main difference in my opinion is, what are the benefits if someone is to take such a risk. In Columbus and HST example it is obvious. The benefit of space turism is certainly in popularisation and in providing companies with funding and experience for further, more reliable crafts. But it is a serious question, how will the public react if 6 very popular people are killed in an accident, which then turns out, to be easily prevented. Space tourism and private space exploration can easily get banned.

On the other hand, I dont agree, that the hyper expensive procedures that NASA is using are the only way to do manned spaceflight. There just might be a way to get to space safely and for a fraction of the price. But I'm still concerned and believe that we have to be critical.

I still believe, SS2 is an extreme vehicle. The environment where it flies, the forces and dangers are also extreme. That means that safety standards must also be extreme. Judging the facts I know now, I wouldn't go to suborbital flight with SS2 even if someone payed that for me. That doesn't mean, that thgis opinion can not change with future and new data.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:32 pm
But it is a serious question, how will the public react if 6 very popular people are killed in an accident, which then turns out, to be easily prevented. Space tourism and private space exploration can easily get banned... true, and, at the first SS2 accident, all flights will be stopped for two or more years, a government commission will study the accident and, I'm sure, the conclusions of the final relation of this commision will be that... 1. better safety systems was available, but... 2. these safety systems was not adopted in the SS2, then... 3. all the suborbital vehicles manufacturers MUST redesign their spacecrafts, implementing the BEST safety systems before fly again with passengers... all that will result in hundreds million$ LOST, thousands tourists (then, other hundreds million$ LOST) that no longer want to fly in Space, three-five years of delay to redesign (or, probably, design from scratch) and test much safer spacecrafts and, of course, another $500 million or more LOST to do all that... so, CLEARLY, it's MAINLY in the interest of SC, VG (and of all other "suborbital companies") to design now BETTER vehicles, to avoid to LOSE all the time and money invested just after the FIRST ACCIDENT !!!

probably, those who want that I keep quiet about this argument aren't SC/VG's friends but (probably) they're SC/VG's enemies!

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Ireland
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:13 pm
gitanmorona wrote:
passengers don't need to learn to fly the SS2 before it is safe for them to travel in it... I don't agree

By that token you would refuse to take a flight in a commercial airliner before you had personally passed a commercial airline pilot qualification. So as I suspected, you are a complete idiot. Would the mods mind removing this muppets sig file please?

arctic wrote:
The main difference in my opinion is, what are the benefits if someone is to take such a risk. In Columbus and HST example it is obvious. The benefit of space turism is certainly in popularisation and in providing companies with funding and experience for further, more reliable crafts. But it is a serious question, how will the public react if 6 very popular people are killed in an accident, which then turns out, to be easily prevented. Space tourism and private space exploration can easily get banned.

Everyday life is full of risks and someday, something you do will kill you. My biggest problem with gitanmorona is that he is trying to tell me that I shouldn't fly in SS2. Now as it happens, I can't afford a ticket, but I take exception to being told what I can and cannot do. I participate in several high risk sports and every week I use dangerous tools such as chainsaws, angle grinders and high voltage equipment. These tools maim and kill many people every week throughout the world. This is part of my (self-employed) job and it is a decision I made for myself. IMHO felling a rotten tree with a chainsaw is more dangerous than taking a flight in SS2. (rotten trees can fall unpredictably) Anyone that wants to tell me to stop living my life the way I want to live it can just fsck right off! And I see no reason why anyone should tell anyone else to stop doing things that they enjoy doing if it's not hurting anyone else. End of argument.

johno


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:36 pm
Posts: 113
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:36 am
Why would there be a government commission after a disaster of a FAA approved craft in a private enterprise? Was any such commission ever formed when a 'regular' aircraft with 'famous people' crashed? Did any such commission banned air transport?

If anything there will be an FAA-led investigation, which will result in revaluation of SS2 safety, and if indeed flaws in design would be found to be the reason behind a disaster, then SS2 might be grounded. If serious negligence on part of SC/VG is found, then both companies might be forced to retire from space business.

No government however will shut the entire branch of hi-tech (or otherwise) industry because of a single accident.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:43 am
No government however will shut the entire branch of hi-tech (or otherwise) industry because of a single accident... but, WHO may decide to buy a $200,000 "suborbital ticket" after an SS2 crash, with (e.g.) Bill Gates aboard???

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:09 am
Who knows. People still flew in Concorde after its very public crash. People still fly in 747's after some very public crashes. People still drive race cars, people still skydive. People (in general) are not stupid and are able to make decisions about their own safety.

We are not saying here that if SS2 has a bad accident early on that the repercussions are not going to be pretty bad. What we are saying is that you have given no evidence to point to the fact you keep espousing that it is an unsafe craft by design and manufacture. I don't see that at all. It might be but the publicly available information does not contain enough information to make an assessment one way or another. I tend to err on the side of the experts in this matter, i.e. the people making it, who are intelligent, safety concious people who want the project to survive. Geatoythingy on the other hand is an internet troll with, it appears, very little in depth knowledge of composite manufacture, space flight, and business.

I know, I said I wasn't going to comment any more, but hey ho, its 10am Sat morning, the children woke me at some ungodly hour. What else is there to do?


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:38 am
People still flew in Concorde after its very public crash. People still fly in 747's after some very public crashes... a CLEAR example of PROPAGANDA because, while you're saying that, you (like all of us) already know the answer

the Concorde has flown in thousands and thousands flights for decades and has had just ONE accident that was not even due to a malfunction in the airplane but was caused by a part lost on the runway by another airplane, launched inside one of its engines by its wheels

also, the Concorde wasn't retired for this accident but because it was too old since, after built the existing fleet, the factory has closed and the airplanes in service always was the same old ones

people fly with confidence on the 747 or Airbus because they are very safe and reliable vehicles and their safety records is very high, so high, that, probably, is more dangerous to change a bulb than fly on a 747

these vehicles are safe since made with the BEST technologies and with huge funds and also since the "experiment" on passengers with dangerous airplane has been already done in the first 50 years of the story of the airplanes

the most ridiculous thing of your post is that you compare the Concorde and the 747 with the SS2 while, also BURT RUTAN has said, that the SS2 can be compared ONLY with the airplanes made in 1920 !!!!!

the difference between a 787 and an SS2 is the SAME that exists between the latest CRAY supercomputers and the 200 Apple I with wood case!!!

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Last edited by gaetanomarano on Sat Nov 13, 2010 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:49 am
JamesHughes wrote:
the publicly available information does not contain enough information to make an assessment one way or another


dozens and dozens medicines, claimed as very safe and miraculous by their manufacturers and, often, approved by FDA, has been demostrated cancerogenous or very dangerous for the health by later and better done studies or by thousands of patients' deaths, then banned from the market!

the SC and VG engineers and managers believe that the SS2 is a safe vehicle because they are overexcited by this new adventure and by the opportunity to make tons of money, so, they (blindly) don't think that their vehicle is too dangerous!

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:07 pm
Posts: 1
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:26 pm
Please forgive my intrusion.

I preface this by acknowledging that this is likely my one and only post on this topic or board; don't get me wrong, tis a fine board but I've only so much time for this kinda thing. As such it certainly sails close, if it is not outrightly trollish or flaming and I would understand any mod / admin just deleting it on sight. Maybe I'm being an asshole, maybe I should just keep out and chill, but I just could not let Gaetano and his latest screed go uncommented any further.

As he has made abundantly clear so far, Gaetano is not one for even trying to understand anything anyone posts unless it dovetails with the assumptions he rode in on. No matter how many patient explanations and appropriate illustrative analogies are supplied, he always manages to ignore them or twist the obvious out of all recognition, then post another woefully ignorant rebuttal. Just one look at his garish website and one is treated to the claim that Google robbed his idea for the X-Prize, though little reason is evident in the justification for that claim or other allegations of intellectual theft he makes. Put simply, by arguing the technical aspects and facts with him, you are engaging in a never ending story of counter post after counter post; though this is probably not news to you all. This technical argument is what he wants most I think, he appears to view himself as some luminary within space vehicular operations, blessed with an innate technical intuition and a visionary mind. So gifted is he that mere trifles like qualifications or training are not required by him, nor do the qualifications of others present an issue. These arguments only sustain his view of self importance and the idea that he is doing what must be done to educate lesser people. Of course you might find the technical argument to be amusing so who am I to argue. However, there is an alternative to the merry-go-round of pointing out the obvious technical aspects and receiving stunning misunderstanding in return. Start pointing out and going through all the logical fallacies that he commits in his arguments.

So far and on at least one other board - where he started the exact same discussion as here at almost the same time - he has made the following errors. Appeal to tradition, false analogy & incomplete comparison, perfect solution & Nirvana fallacy, false attribution,burden of proof, special pleading, quoting out of context, martyr complex, appeal to consequences and ad nauseam. Now I am perfectly aware that Gaetano will, or at least can make up excuses for these just as readily and as quickly as he does for anything else put to him. I also realize that this post of mine might not be particularly helpful, as it will definitely feed his persecution complex and notions of his voice of truth being suppressed by dogmatic thralls. It would however give him less to harp on about in regards to SS2, or anything for that matter. Ignore his technical claims, point out the failure in logic and refuse to be drawn any further until he remedies these failures. If he has no grounds for making the claim then the claim itself may be dismissed without further thought. Who knows, it might eventually sink in and effect some change or it might just make him stop, move to other pastures.

Again I apologize profusely if this over steps a line and I apologize to Gaetano for what is unambiguously harsh words against him. However reason is clearly not impinging, nor halting the hawking of this empty claim - amongst many others - across various fora and blogs. If you have an opinion Gaetano then that is your right, it is also your right to compose an article expounding your opinion and post it to your site and blog. I just don't see why you think that we then have to be force fed it by you spreading it far and wide, if you don't get the traffic on your site then that should be telling you something. Please, by all means participate in other discussions but stop using forums and blogs as mere platforms for whatever it is you are grinding your ax on today and generating traffic. Why don't you create your own forum on your own site / blog to discuss these things? Let interested dissenters come to you instead of you going out to preach unto the masses.

That's just my take on this latest claim from the lad, I may have made some errors myself, indeed I may even be a bigger crank for actually doing this. Whatever, I shall take my leave of you all now.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 6:11 pm
OK last post on this subject. YOU ARE BEHAVING LIKE A MORON. You want to stop SS2 because you (and probably only you) think is is badly designed and manufactured, before it has even done ONE suborbital flight. You are accusing the SS2 engineers of being cavalier with their passengers safety, with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. You are writing stuff that is bordering on libellous, again, without any evidence whatsoever. In that last paragraph you are accusing the SS2 engineers of putting money over passenger safety. That is a very silly thing for you to do. You, an unqualified internet troll, think you know better than some of the best composite and suborbital engineers on the planet. You obviously have no idea on how utterly stupid you sound. You could probably have put forward good arguments on why you think there may be issues with S2 safety, but no, you dive straight in with outrageous accusations. That is NOT the way to get you points put forward.

Oh well, it's your funeral. Keep an eye on the post for the summons.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 6:31 pm
JamesHughes wrote:
OK last post on this subject. YOU ARE...


I read a bit of criticisms and a couple of insults in your last comment... :)

about the SS2 safety I've found other possible issues that I will add in my article

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:36 pm
Posts: 113
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:44 pm
Gunvorral: thanks for your input! Pointing out logical fallacies to Gaetano will most likely result in them being ignored or dismissed as irrelevant, but it's still a good idea, even if only as a training in spotting them :)

I 've been following Gaetano's site for some time, because he reminds me of an acquaintance of mine, who in turn is designing 'cheap energy' devices (or flat out perpetuum mobiles). I was always wondering if both of them would be similar to argue with. Guess what? They are :D


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:47 pm
Gunvorral wrote:
Please forgive my intrusion. etc.


I'm sure you won a free ride on the SS2 :)

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:36 pm
Posts: 113
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:55 pm
I told you :D


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:59 pm
Mchl wrote:
I told you :D


what else answer to personal attacks?

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 200 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use