Asymmetrical Information

And you'll be waiting for your ride a while longer I suspect.

Heck, I've been waiting three decades for them to make Rendezvous with Rama into a movie.

Perhaps, but it's still a good thing that we're getting closer. And with current events going as they are the UN Moon Treaty is less likely to be an obstacle. So I will duly be watching my own pennys more closely. ^_~

- S.P.M.

And they've named the new LLC "Virgin Galactic". Honest-to-god. How cool is that?

Ev

Jane:

Here's my tip: wait at least 5 years after first flight before booking the trip. Then make the trip before 10 years after first flight.

Why? Hopefully, 5 years will be enough time for any engineering problems with the craft to be discovered and fixed - and the craft will still be new enough between 5 and 10 years to be reliable.

As we found out in the shuttle program - twice - space flight is still inherently very risky.

Hondo, I would unconditionally take the risk of a space shuttle flight, and I think you would find many, many more like me. :)

As we found out in the shuttle program - twice - space flight is still inherently very risky.

The shuttle disasters only proved that NASA has serious internal problems.

What we found out with Challenger is that government bureacrats pushing for unrealistic flight schedule density goals over the cleary-defined objections of engineers will result in a disaster.

What we found out with Columbia is that a public space agency lacking a focused vision will continue using outdated technology, resulting in a disaster, when a newer vehicle built with a lighter profile and modern synthetics might have survived.

Space flight is certainly inherently risky, but I don't see why it has to be much more risky than a flight in an airplane (similar barriers to entry for craft and pilot, many similar engineering challenges for preserving the lives of pilot and crew), and a car is more likely to be your coffin than an aircraft...

anony-mouse:

No. Absolutely no.

Spaceflight is inherently MUCH more risky than is airline flight.

Speeds involved in space flight are vastly greater (approx 17,000MPH for orbit vs 550MPH for space flight). The range of pressures (internal and external) on a space vehicle are greater. Forces on the vehicle (structure and content) are greater. Material stresses on the vehicle are greater.

Atmospheric re-entry is a REAL problem; commercial aviation doesn't have to face this. I'm personally amazed that only 10 have been killed during or related to atmospheric re-entry during the history of space flight. (6 US/1 Israeli, on the Columbia; 3 Soviets, in two different incidents.)

The energy required for space flight is vastly greater and must be expended over a much shorter period of time. As a result, serious problems during liftoff will often be spectacularly explosive - and spectacularly explosive will likely will be fatal. Problems here have caused the remaining deaths directly attributible to space flight operations (7 on the Challenger).

In short, the machinery required for space flight is simply MUCH more complex and is operating MUCH closer to its design limits. As a result, there is a MUCH smaller margin for error.

The pressures on NASA to keep to a launch schedule are, I submit, not very different than those on commercial airlines to keep planes in the air. Periodically, a commercial plane flies that isn't airworthy - and crashes as a result. I'm pretty sure that aircraft flying that really shouldn't happens much more often than once every 10 years in the commercial airline industry. How often, I don't know. I fly enough I'm not sure I really want to know that answer.

The airlines face the same problem of existing fleet and creeping fleet obsolescence as does NASA. They deal with it the same way - upgrade if/when they have to and can find the money. Otherwise, they make do and stretch aircraft lifespans. Lots of 727s and older 737s are still flying out there.

No, commercial aviation doesn't have fatal results in anywhere near 1 out of 120 flights. The reason it doesn't is that commercial aircraft have MUCH GREATER DESIGN MARGINS OF SAFETY, thus allowing greater abuse before fatal results. Further, airplane take-offs often can be aborted safely if a problem develops or becomes apparent on the runway. After ignition, space launches are largely a matter of fate.

My advice to Jane stands: wait a minimum of 5 years after first launch to let the inevitable initial problems be found and fixed. Fly sometime before 10 years after first launch so the reusable space vehicle is still fairly young and (hopefully) hasn't significantly deteriorated from its design specifications.

My apologies: there have been a total of 11 deaths - not 10 - directly related to space flight re-entry.

I miscounted in tallying Soviet space deaths during or related to re-entry. The correct total is 4 deaths in two different incidents, not 3.

The Soviet re-entry incidents are as follows:

Soyuz 1. The first Soviet space flight fatality. A parachute malfunction at approximately 23,000ft caused the Soyuz 1 capsule to impact the ground at approximately 200MPH, killing all on board. Soyuz 1's crew consisted of a single person.

Soyuz 11. A valve malfunction caused the Soyuz capsule to depressurize during re-entry, killing all on board. Soyuz 11 had a crew of 3. (I originally miscounted here.)

Columbia's end was both well publicized and recent, so I won't recap it here. Its crew consisted of 6 US and 1 Israeli citizens.

Hondo, all of your commentary is irrelevant, since this is suborbital flight, not orbital. There's no reason these flights can't be as safe as on an airliner.

Suborbital flights still face extraordinary reentry pressures, so they're definitely a lot more challenging than airline flights. These proposed flights are suborbital but still outside the atmosphere (or they'd just be really high plane flights, not space flights). I agree they can be safe, but they won't be as safe as just heading up to 40,000 feet.

Be careful what you ask for, I understand the tickets are one-way.

Mason:

I never said I wouldn't go if the opportunity was there; I'd love to see ZeroG. Pay for my ticket and I'll sign up - but as an engineer, I know better than to sign up for one of the early flights. (grin)

Rand:

John is correct. A suborbital flight to 60 or 100 miles still faces a very substantial re-entry task. There was a good reason that the original Mercury capsule had a heat shield, even though the first two flights were approx 100 mile suborbital "up & downs". Without it, the capsule would have burned up on re-entry.

The boost phase is also present for suborbital flights. Even with a piggyback assist from a large commercial airplane, for that few minutes under rocket boost your fate is literally beyond anyone's control. If the engine blows, it will blow spectacularly - and you're history.

John:

"Safe" is relativel. Statistically, skydiving is actually pretty safe. It also involves taking a calculated risk. So does the rest of life. My point is that most people simply have no idea of the relative risks involved.

However, insurance companies do have a good idea of relative risk. I understand that it's pretty hard for astronauts and test pilots to get cheap insurance.

Uhm, Hondo, I didn't say space flight was identical to aircraft; however keeping people alive and comfortable at 40,000 feet while traveling at 500+mph with an outside temperature of -20C is not exactly a walk in the park, either. But it is quite doable on the engineering side. As for physiological issues, unless someone is pregnant or obese or suffers heart problems or has some sort of prohibitory surgical histry, all of which may also preclude a soak in the hot tub, I still don't see why this sort of flight should be inherently more risky.

anony-mouse:

I agree that manned space flight is do-able, given sufficient money. Been demonstrated as such, actually - a number of times.

Whether it's do-able safely enough at a low enough cost to be a going commercial concern is another matter.

To date, those who have gone into space have with very few exceptions been government employees participating in what amounts to a generously (by commercial standards) technical R&D program. They have been flying essentially hand-build engineering prototype/custom production run items. The death rate - few fatal accidents, but out of a very small population and relatively few flights - backs this up.

Given current technology and the economics involved, I don't see that space tourism is either safe or cheap enough to be a going concern any time soon. You'll always be able to find a few folks in the world willing to pay 7 or 8 figures ($US) for a flight and take a 1 out of 100 risk of dying on the flight. IMO, that's not exactly the customer base for a successful commercial enterprise, given the large costs of making a launch.

Whether they can get govt approval on safety grounds is also quesitonable. The FAA would likely govern in the US. The FAA can, with good reason, be positively anal about flight safety.

Insurance is also another concern. Without insurance, businesses don't typically last too long. The govt space program self-insures; commercial satellites are insured by others. However, I think most commercial insurers will balk at insuring manned commercial flight for a while.

Don't get me wrong. At $10k or even $20k, I'd likely sign up now and post a bond - for a 5th year flight - so long as it was refundable at my option for either non-performance or safety concerns. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll see those conditions in my lifetime.

I hope I'm wrong.

Two corrections (it's early here):

Third para should read "generously funded (by" vice "generously (by"

Third para from end should read "commercial space flight" vice "commercial flight".

I need more coffee.

Hondo: Fair enough, I have no significant disagreements with those points.

anony-mouse:

Thanks. And I really DO hope I'm wrong.

I've fantasized about space flight since I was a boy, and would dearly love to see it commercially viable in my lifetime. Unfortunately, the aging engineer in me says that's a pipe dream.

Damn, growing up hurts sometimes.

Comments are Closed.