Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS

.

as explained in this article I think that the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS since, all suborbital spacecrafts, seems very fragile and the space-tourists (actors, managers, singers, etc.) never can be trained like professional astronauts

.

This risks and dangers are part of the appeal of space tourism. Everyone involved is well aware of the hazards and have signed liability releases six ways to Sunday.

The rest of that rant deserves no comment. There's always someone who would even criticize Mother Teresa...

depends if the risk is 1% or 30% or 80%



probably the space tourism businessmen... but how many (potential) "tourists" know the truth???



true, many have thought that she hasn't adopted true medical techniques to the patients

anyhow, all vehicles can be designed to be safe or dangerous

.

trolls will be trolls, but i think i've seen enough compelling arguments to agree that mother teresa was a queen amongst trolls - she was a huge funding source for the catholic church, yet managed to make few if any meaningful improvements to the lives of the people she served. she was crazy, and believed that suffering was the way to salvation - not exactly useful to people whose daily existence was defined by suffering.

That really wasn't my point. Or maybe you proved it...

there are many risky activities... policemen... Formula 1 driver... parachuters... firemen... etc. but ALL them are done at the BEST possible safety standards

can you imagine a policeman without a gun? or an F1 driver without the helmet? or a paratrooper without a backup parachute? or a fireman without a fireproof suit?

well, the space tourism lacks the MINIMUM safety standards that, also much less risky activities and jobs, always match

the space tourists not even will have a parachute, an ejectable seat a decent spacesuit... it's much close to a suicide, than a travel to Space

.

Yes I can.
Many police forces around the world do their jobs without needing to threaten the civilians with the risk of being shot. In my opinion an armed police force is a symptom of a sick society.

johno

One thing I don't think you are considering when you compare NASA or Russian manned space programs with these nascent space tourism ventures is the fact that they are sub-orbital.

Sub orbital is just 100 miles up and and order of magnitude "safer" than orbital because of the velocities and energies involved. Its really apples and oranges from a safety perspective.

Building a sufficiently robust pressure vessel for a quick jaunt up to high altitude isn't very difficult, does not need elaborate structures, and does not require the safety measures of something going to LEO. I doubt anyone who gets the money and has the experience to fly real hardware is going to risk killing customers.

Space tourism is the "low hanging fruit" that is going to nurse commercial space access. This is the only way to take it out of the few hands of government agencies and allow space access to "the common man". "Nervous nellies" like you are not helping. Unless you have better ideas or a few billion dollars to make sure that everything that flies is as safe as your bed, there is an American expression that is useful here: STFU.

F1 is not raced to the highest possible safety standards. UK police do not carry guns. Even firemen do not wear the best POSSIBLE fireproof clothing.

At the moment there is NO space tourism business (ignoring $20mill flights to ISS), so at this stage no minimum safety requirements have been set. The craft are not yet built or tested (well, SS2 is close), so no-one has any idea of what safety systems are planned for these things. They will have safety systems, but there is always some risk to spaceflight, or any of the professions you mentioned earlier. It will be higher for spaceflight, but that is why you sign on the dotted line.

.

they are sub-orbital... but no pressure, no oxygen and -100 °C like around the ISS

an order of magnitude "safer" than orbital... yes, if reached with a safe vehicle and spacesuits

not require the safety measures of something going to LEO... the safety measures must be based on the external environment, not on the altitude

Space tourism is the "low hanging fruit" that is going to nurse commercial space access... a "nurse" that could kill the baby in the cradle

better ideas... make better vehicles

.

.

F1 is not raced to the highest possible safety standards... but many drivers have survived to serious accidents

UK police do not carry guns... after some of them have been killed, they will soon have guns

firemen do not wear the best POSSIBLE fireproof clothing... the best possible to work within the fire

no minimum safety requirements have been set... that must be done by commercial space companies

no-one has any idea of what safety systems are planned for these things... nearly ZERO for the SS2

will have safety systems, but there is always some risk to spaceflight... true, but only risks that can't be avoided

.

That's already happened, and they still don't - same back home in Norway - guns are not standard issue for police officers.

Well, you did say the highest possible safety standards. Now you appear to have changed your mind and now mean simply high safety standards. I would expect suborbital spaceflight to also have high safety standards, but not the highest possible safety standards - usually because the incremental improvement in safety is not worth the extra cost.

Of course the ultimate safety standard is not to fly at all. Or drive, Or eat, or drink beer, or cross the road.

maybe, in future (and better designed) vehicles, but (as explained in my article) NOT with the SpaceShipTwo that (if remains unchanged) will have VERY LOW safety standards, not enough to fly at low (airlines' jets) altitudes with only test pilots aboard!

There is an argument that computer controlled can be safer than human controlled in a lot of circumstances taking out human error which would negate the argument for trained astronauts and test pilots after all the first couple of successfully flights of the Mercury project were flown by HAM and Enos a couple of chimps with a bit of primitive computer control. So whether its for science projects or joy rides i think its upto the individuals concerned to evaluate the risks and benefits of the trips they take, they will i hope be better informed than a chimp that has to decide between banana chip or electric shock. In the early days of planes it was a lot more risky and people still chose to fly for both scientific learning and pleasure.