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 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS 
Author Message
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 8:14 pm
This was not a personal attack. This was pointing out flaws in your logic. Your logic is not you, so there's no point in getting emotional about it.


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 9:13 pm
.

well, just another opinion based on my "flawed" logic...

man-rate a spacecraft doesn't need only time but also MONEY

an ESA's official said me, that, man-rate the Ariane5, costs $2 billion

ULA claimed that man-rate an Atlas or a delta needs 5-7 years and less than $1 billion

SpaceX (that is another low costs new.space company) said that, both, Falcon-9 and Dragon (that costed/will cost a total of about $1 billion of NASA, Musk and investor funds to develop, build and test) are man-rated but they need $300M to develop the Dragon LAS (why man-rate a vehicle if you haven't a good abort system to save the crew?)

the total VG investment in SC is/will be $250 million to build two WK2 and five SS2

so, each SS2 should cost around $30 million, all inclusive, development, construction, tests, employees salaries, propellants, production lines, etc.

but the SS2's supporters are SURE that the SS2 spacecraft/rocket are man-rated... :roll:

well, also assuming that SC can man-rate the SS2 at low or zero costs with a magic wand touch, WHY do it if the SS2 hasn't any LAS to save the crew if something goes wrong???

and develop a LAS costs $300 million...

.

_________________
.
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 9:46 pm
Ok.. this was amusing for 12 pages, now it just got boring.
Until your next Gaetano


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 9:53 pm
Mchl wrote:
Ok.. this was amusing for 12 pages, now it just got boring.
Until your next Gaetano


any "logical" reply to my latest post?

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


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:36 pm
Posts: 60
Location: Denmark
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:06 pm
gaetanomarano wrote:
any "logical" reply to my latest post?

Sure why not, the problem with your last post is of course that you are comparing stuff that is only vaguely related. There is a difference between sitting atop tonnes and tonnes of explosives.
Sitting in SS2 beneath WK2 can hardly be compared!

And just one more time: neither me nor you know which safety systems are in place on SS2!


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 10:17 pm
gaetanomarano wrote:
Mchl wrote:
Ok.. this was amusing for 12 pages, now it just got boring.
Until your next Gaetano


any "logical" reply to my latest post?


No. Since reiterating what I and others have already said about man-rating SS2 would not be logical.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 707
Location: Haarlem, The Netherlands
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:24 pm
I went running last Sunday, slipped on a wet wooden bridge, and split an eyebrow on the pavement (well, the cut was closer to the temple actually). There was a lot of blood coming out, and the doctor had to put in four stitches. Considering the fact that that injury is worse than anything anyone has ever got in SpaceShipTwo, I conclude that suborbital space tourism is safer than going for a run on Sunday morning. Note that there are a whole lot of people that do the latter regularly, and it's generally considered good for their health. So there you go...

_________________
Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhere
What is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphere
Machinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus


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 11:05 pm
There is a difference between sitting atop tonnes and tonnes of explosives... the propellants inside the SS2 are more than enough to kill the passengers

_________________
.
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: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:07 pm
Since reiterating what I and others have already said about man-rating SS2 would not be logical... ok, probably it's another SC's miracle... :)

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


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:36 pm
Posts: 60
Location: Denmark
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:53 am
gaetanomarano wrote:
There is a difference between sitting atop tonnes and tonnes of explosives... the propellants inside the SS2 are more than enough to kill the passengers

And once again you took a single sentence out of a post and responded to that, instead of responding to the whole post!

The fuel in the tank of your car is more than enough to burn you alive, but that does not mean that it is likely to happen!

Please respond to all of my post if you want to discuss anything seriously, else I am also out of here!


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: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:18 pm
The fuel in the tank of your car is more than enough to burn you alive... I agree, and sometimes it happens, but cars don't fly to 70 miles of altitude at Mach 4

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


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:55 am
Posts: 137
Location: Amsterdam
Post Re: Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS   Posted on: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:25 pm
gaetanomarano wrote:
The fuel in the tank of your car is more than enough to burn you alive... I agree, and sometimes it happens, but cars don't fly to 70 miles of altitude at Mach 4


But they still go fast enough to kill you...


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: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:39 pm
culture wrote:
But they still go fast enough to kill you...


cars don't fly :)

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


Back to top
Profile WWW
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: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:02 pm
I tend to believe that all that read this forums want humanity to be safely present in suborbital space, LEO, moon or interplanetary as soon as possible. I do, and I can hadrly find any sensible reason for anyone else here. I also believe most of us here are informed about the possible dangers to humanity as whole if we remain bound to our home planet.

General public on the other hand may be even more sceptical than Gaetano. Why, using more and more billion$ for risky endavours that don't bring immediate profit, but are also dangerous? You know how difficult is the tradeof between short term profits and logn term environmental protection. Investments in NEO protection, research that enables us better undestanding of supernovas, GRB and even our own star or man induced global warming were often ridiculed in the past and present. Let alone resarch to make man able to relocate from the earth if necessary. (Which is Sci-fi even for the most fanatical optimists.)

To get off the earth safely once, a lot of reserach has to be done with less than safe vehicles. There is just no other way. But I wonder if space tourism really is te best way to improve safety. Unlike Gaetano I don't find SC and VG inherently less safe than NASA or Russian or Chinese space agencies. Let's be frank. SS1 did fly a couple of times even without the pilot, the a couple of times without passangers. From what I know, the same will happen with SS2. Space shuttle on the other hand made its virgin flight manned, and on the next flight, there were already seven people on board. Very soon some civilians were aboard and a lot of safety measures were being neglected resulting in Challenger disaster.

Currently I don't believe any rocket producer reached the level where safety can be calculated. The only possible way is to test the vehicles in real flight. Currently the best man rated platforms are at about 95 to 98% succes ratio (Space Shuttle for instance 2 total crew kills in a bit over 100 flights). To reach the safety levels, where we will start to talk about tourism, there is just no rocket that has done enough flights to have some statisticly valid answer about its safety. I'm afraid also that current interrest in space tourism will pass after the most enthusisatic individuals have flown, especially if safety provides to be inadequate.

Having said that, I'm afraid, that space tourism is not the best way to build the copmetitive space industry, which is our only hope to end the situation we are in now - appearing, that space technology had negative progress in the last 30 years or so. I'd have more confidence in a company that has manned flight in its agenda, but has a competitive unmanned lounch system, that was designed to become man rated after it proves itself with numerous unamnned lounches.


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: Sun Nov 14, 2010 2:00 pm
I don't think there's much commercial interest in suborbital unmanned flights (scientific payloads of course, but these can be launched into suborbital with more conventional means than SS2).

LEO is quite different (SpaceX' DragonLab is said to have two flights already booked), but the cost of getting there is also order of magnitude higher, which means the market (number of people being able to pay the price) is substantially smaller.


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

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


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