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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14  Next
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS 
Author Message
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: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:01 pm
SS2 will have to be FAA/AST certified, meaning it will have to prove itself in hundreds of flights/hours of operation... that, very probably, won't allow to this vehicle to fly with passengers

They are not amateurs... but they look pretty close to... :)

Stating that SS2 is made of metal... SC hasn't released any info about this and many other points, so, we can only guess about that, looking at SS2 images

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


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: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:12 pm
should be an obvious design objective... unfortunately, they have not even protected enough the SS1 test pilots with a decent spacesuit, so, they was very lucky to return alive from their trips...

this particular industry is still in an infancy state... with ALL the risks related with its age

add to column along with it's solution...
maybe, it's possible to design a safer vehicle, but there are some big risks that can't be avoided

_________________
.
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: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:20 pm
I'm sorry, but you are really talking rubbish.

Burt Rutan is a world renouned aircraft designer, with a number of world record holding aircraft under his belt, so from that point of view the SSx's are going to be good airplanes. SC have an enviable track record in producing world beating craft in composite materials, so I think your comments on their manufacturing quality, that you have made solely from pictures, are bordering on the libelous. By no means are they amateurs at aircraft design, and the high altitude flights of many of their craft mean they also know a thing or two about making airtight aircraft. More than you do.

Yes, they are gliders, so they have one shot at landing. Had you noticed that of all the SS1 and SS2 tests flights, every single landing has been successful? Every one a glide flight. 13 for SS1, one for SS2.

Dumping NOx prior to landing. Not sure if it does this at present, but not a difficult thing to achieve (you need a valve and some pipe...and that's about it). NOx being a gas can be easily jettisoned. To be honest, even with NOx about on landing, the likelihood of any issues on landing are remote since the rubber fuel itself is so inert and the NOx need to be in contact with the rubber AND ignited to cause a problem.

And I'm sorry, but if the only way I can read your articles is, on your suggestion, to cut and paste the article in to notepad, when, to read EVERY OTHER WEBSITE I HAVE EVER WANTED TO READ, I can just, you know, read it off the screen, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to bother. Notwithstanding the fact that your arguments contains many fallacies and are full of inconsistencies, you make your readers even more annoyed with that ridiculous colour scheme.

Finally to quote Rutan, (Yes, he said exactly this, so saying that prospective passengers are not aware would be fallacious)

"This vehicle is designed to go into the atmosphere in the worst case straight in or upside down and it'll correct...This is designed to be at least as safe as the early airliners in the 1920s...Don't believe anyone that tells you that the safety will be the same as a modern airliner, which has been around for 70 years."


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: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:15 pm
SSx's are going to be good airplanes... maybe, until they flies under 30,000 ft. of altitude...

they also know a thing or two about making airtight aircraft... I hope you're right... for passengers lives

every single landing has been successful...
the suborbital flights should be thousands

13 for SS1, one for SS2... but, ALL them, without propellants aboard... an aborted flight will be another story

but not a difficult thing to achieve... maybe, they'll add this feature, but, after, the problem will be the vehicle center of gravity

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


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: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:21 pm
can be easily jettisoned... but not if the flight will abort at low altitude

NOx need to be in contact with the rubber AND ignited to cause a problem... as I've already said, it can be a big problem in case of plane crash

cut and paste the article in to notepad... in the next article's update I will ad a b/w version, as I've done in other articles

Finally to quote Rutan said: "This is designed to be at least as safe as the early airliners in the 1920s. Don't believe anyone that tells you that the safety will be the same as a modern airliner, which has been around for 70 years."

I've already read his statement in the SS2 wikipedia page and I agree with him... the SS2 is a 1920-built vehicle but that will fly to 70 miles of altitude! :)

.

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


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 27
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:15 pm
LOL, arguing with this guy is like trying to get through a brick wall with water erosion. You can't just keep making up your own facts from pictures you saw on the internet. People here are refuting what you say with third party facts. Can you PLEASE give us evidence to support your opinions?

Magnets, How do they work?


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:04 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Norway
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:14 pm
Techno311 wrote:
Magnets, How do they work?


Pure magic!


Back to top
Profile ICQ
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:26 am
Posts: 44
Location: Switzerland
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:40 pm
LOL, his level of ignorance now reaches comical levels. Oh dear, I don't even know where to start, so I just won't. Gaetano, start by reading this: http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/combined_white_knight_spaceshipone_flight_tests. You can learn a lot from it (and, yes, I've read every single test log). The N20 dump, handling characteristics in an aft-CG configuration (i.e. with a heavy rocket-motor-thingy in the back), it's all there. And dude, seriously, the word COMPOSITES is right in the effing company name! Every single airplane they've designed and built in the past 35 years has been composite. They have world renowned expertise in composite structures and airplane design and you - some dude on the internet who looked at some pictures - seem to be the only one that knows they've now switched to metals, and overnight lost all their expertise. Man, why did I feed this troll? Gaetano, I'm never going to visit your site again (not even for kicks), for this simple reason: it would give you a hit from a renowned research institute, which you would then undoubtedly find in your server logs and post about in a fashion similar to this: "OMG, YOU GOTTA BELIEVE ME, BECAUSE PEOPLE FROM THIS UNIVERSITY VISIT MY BLOG. SO, I GOTTA BE SMART, RIGHT? THEY EVEN COME AND STEAL MY IDEAS!". You, sir, are a hoot.

He's almost ruined a few other forums with his incessant spamming (before getting banned), but I propose that we just keep him around here for laughs (as long as he stays confined to a few threads). :lol:

Also, Techno311: redditor?

_________________
For every complex problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. - Henry Louis Mencken


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: Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:52 pm
We have him and Dan now. Just one more and we can have a party.


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: Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:56 pm
Aww... come on... such harsh words about my favourite photoshop engineer.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:26 am
Posts: 44
Location: Switzerland
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:00 pm
We have to try to get Gaetano and Dan in a thread together and find a subject that they disagree on. That would provide a cheap night of entertainment! Hmm, let's see...

Dan, progress isn't fast enough, is it? And Gaetano, progress is way too fast, isn't it? The industry isn't ready for launching tourists into space, let alone fascinating things like high resolution space telescopes! Discuss.

_________________
For every complex problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. - Henry Louis Mencken


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 816
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:38 pm
JamesHughes wrote:
We have him and Dan now. Just one more and we can have a party.

three is a crowd, I thought . . .

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


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: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:50 am
The N20 dump... it can be implemented but the SS2 has all the oxidizer located in a single place and this may change the center of gravity if dumped rather than burned with the motor rubber... that's why I think that all aborted flights landings will be made with the full propellants load aboard

I'm never going to visit your site again... so you lost the LONG LIST of concerns about the SS2 and the commercial space tourism and all its update

almost ruined a few other forums (before getting banned) ... the orbital and suborbital commercial space is a big business (no matter if it's really safe for passengers) so I understand why I receive lots of personal attacks (and ban, when it happens)

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


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: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:58 am
We have to try to get Gaetano and Dan in a thread together... I don't know who "Dan" is, but, personal attacks are a classic consequence when someone posts critics on forums and blogs about multi-million$ (or multi-billion$) business (like e.g. about $50 million in tickets already collected by VG from space tourists)

people that own (or work for) these new.space companies want to make money with these business and don't like criticisms

so, the first step is to try to confute all the critics' opinions, but, if the list of concerns is too long, the best way is to INSULT THEM

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


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: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:12 am
.

just one safety problem: is the SS2 man-rated?

all manned spacecrafts (that are a crew/passenger cabin + a rocket at its back) need to be MAN-RATED

this long and complex procedure needs about 5 to 7 years, but the SS2 will be ready to fly with tourists less than TWO years after built

maybe, the (few) SC guys are "miracle men" that do in TWO years the same things that thousands NASA or Boeing engineers do in 5-7 years...

but the manned spacecrafts aren't man-rated only for a "bureaucratic reason" but (mainly) because it's "rocket side" MUST send a "signal" to the "cabin side" in time if something goes wrong (like e.g. if the rocket motor is close to explode) so, the spacecraft's LAS, can separate the cabin from the rocket and save the "astronauts"

well, I don't know if the SS2 will be really man-rated (in 1/3rd the time!) but, surely, the SS2 passengers will have NO ejectable seats NOR parachutes NOR a launch abort system NOR an ejectable cabin...

.

_________________
.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14  Next
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


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