200 grand is too much? At the moment but one day...
Submitted by brainwipe on Thu, 2008-01-24 10:27
Give it a decade or two. Short of major accident/scandal, it'll get a lot more affordable.
Submitted by byrn on Thu, 2008-01-24 10:36
Without being too depressing, I can't help but think that a catestrophic failure is almost guarenteed. SS1, for all its pioneering spirit, hardly ever flew. If you check out the flight logs (link: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/logs-WK-SS1.htm ) only 3 times did it exceed 100km (the magic sub-orbital space line in the sky), and one of those it suffered notable control issues (loss of trim control).
As far as I can ascertain SS2 will be an evolution of the SS1 model (its bigger, still launches from a flying platform, and still does a straight up/down flight pattern). They say they have 200 passengers already booked up, which is about 33-40 flights (you have to assume they are going to want to have all the seats full). Thats 10 times more flights than the original design ever did.
I fully support the entire gung-ho'ness of it all, and I expect that the 200 peeps who have stumped up $200,000 each do as well, and I expect the risk is a big attraction to them, however I'm reasonably confident that at some point there are going to be 7 less customers halfway through a run, as if a failure occurs during motor burn I don't think there is going to be much room for recovery.
Looking at other high-speed ventures (notably the Space Shuttle and Concorde), both have had terminal incidents from otherwise fairly minor-seeming issues (a puncture, and a bit of insulating foam falling off) simply due to the speed and environment they fly in...
Submitted by babychaos on Thu, 2008-01-24 11:19
Hm, true, but in a way the two staging of the system takes a chunk of the risk out. A single stage system is quite dangerous as you have to shift a huge mass to the desired velocity. By using a carrier aircraft they turn the launch into a very unusual plane takeoff. The second stage propulsion is pretty much as simple as you can make it... a tank of laughing gas near a rubber bung.
I know what you're saying mate, and it definately is risky, but the two examples you've got aren't actually that similar - the shuttle is designed to carry largeish payloads to full orbit - a problem orders of magnitude harder than a suborbital hop. Concorde was designed for supersonic flight, which is also damn difficult...
The only reason the X-prize wasn't a safety nightmare is that suborbital hops aren't in the same technical league...
Submitted by byrn on Thu, 2008-01-24 11:30
I've just been reading through the cheery Wikipedia article on Space Disasters (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters ). Its interesting to see that while Russia and america are on about par in terms of numbers of fatal accidents, America win on headcount due to the shuttles bigger payload.
I know orbiting is far harder than just a quick jump (can't find the velocity orbit needs right now, but I have some vague recollection of 2-3km/s?), however ultimately you need a controlled and regulated explosion to get you there, its just the size of it that matters. I don't know how much redundancy is built in to the design of SS1/SS2, however it would be "interesting" to see how it would cope with some failures to its "transform into glider" abilities, which must be susceptible to damage from any outside force...
Submitted by babychaos on Thu, 2008-01-24 11:42
The big difference here, and I mean BIG that no-one has mentioned is that this is commercial, not governmental. Any commercial system is bound to be safer because of the commercial suicide that any company would have if any terminal was to go wrong. Therefore, money will be thrown at it until it is safe and the FAA/JAR (aeronautical governing bodies of USA and EU respectively) will have to be happy with it before it gets off the ground. NASA don't have to worry about the FAA/JAR because they aren't covered by it. NASA have to complete a task (especially when in a race) to save face in the eyes of public money. A commercial organisation have to keep themselves in business, selecting the safest option.
Talking about 'controlled explosions' is actually a bit of a misnoma. A jet engine is a series of millions of 'controlled explosions' every second. It's not actually an explosion is it? It's the ignition of fuel components to provide force - which is what your bike does.
Also, listing space disasters is a bit of a poor statistic. A lot of the space disasters occurred while researching and stretching the boundaries of what was known. This commercial flight will be based on many years of research. Accidents in the 50s and 60s didn't have that research to stand upon. If you were going to start listing statistics, then you should include the number of peace time flying accidents before 1930. You'd never go near an aeroplane again.
I think this is not much further devoid than the high flying aircraft that we have already. I don't think there will be fatal accidents, I think there are going to be problems that will lead to early aborts and a safe return to Earth. There are balloon and 'glider' flights that have been this high.
Submitted by brainwipe on Thu, 2008-01-24 11:54
I think your statement that because it's commercial it'll be inherently safer is flawed.
Whilst I agree that they may have that as their motive and it's more of a consideration, history is littered with disasters that were through cutting corners in the interest of cost or through a "race" similar to the USA and USSR had in space.
The titanic is a prime example. Speed of the journey was a factor in the incident being as bad as it was. Done so that they could market the ship as being quicker than rivals.
Maybe there isn't a direct correlation as the competition is not so advanced, but to make a sweeping generalisation that commercial is safer than government is IMO wrong.
I personally hope this venture succeeds, but I also think it would be foolish to assume that it will have only minor problems. To hope? Yes. Assume? No.
Submitted by baron on Thu, 2008-01-24 12:26
I have to agree with Baron...a private company has fisal restraits and limitations too, and if anything more pressure to reduce time-to-market.
Submitted by babychaos on Thu, 2008-01-24 13:25
If anything a commercial environment (especially one involving shareholders) will be most concerned with profit as is it's obligation. Think "It's my job to apply the formula..." from Fight Club.
Submitted by Nibbles on Thu, 2008-01-24 14:35
Fair enough, it was a sweeping generalisation but in this case, I think it would mean the end of the industry for commercial space travel. They can't afford to do that.
Comments
200 grand is too much? At the moment but one day...
Give it a decade or two. Short of major accident/scandal, it'll get a lot more affordable.
Without being too depressing, I can't help but think that a catestrophic failure is almost guarenteed. SS1, for all its pioneering spirit, hardly ever flew. If you check out the flight logs (link: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/logs-WK-SS1.htm ) only 3 times did it exceed 100km (the magic sub-orbital space line in the sky), and one of those it suffered notable control issues (loss of trim control).
As far as I can ascertain SS2 will be an evolution of the SS1 model (its bigger, still launches from a flying platform, and still does a straight up/down flight pattern). They say they have 200 passengers already booked up, which is about 33-40 flights (you have to assume they are going to want to have all the seats full). Thats 10 times more flights than the original design ever did.
I fully support the entire gung-ho'ness of it all, and I expect that the 200 peeps who have stumped up $200,000 each do as well, and I expect the risk is a big attraction to them, however I'm reasonably confident that at some point there are going to be 7 less customers halfway through a run, as if a failure occurs during motor burn I don't think there is going to be much room for recovery.
Looking at other high-speed ventures (notably the Space Shuttle and Concorde), both have had terminal incidents from otherwise fairly minor-seeming issues (a puncture, and a bit of insulating foam falling off) simply due to the speed and environment they fly in...
Hm, true, but in a way the two staging of the system takes a chunk of the risk out. A single stage system is quite dangerous as you have to shift a huge mass to the desired velocity. By using a carrier aircraft they turn the launch into a very unusual plane takeoff. The second stage propulsion is pretty much as simple as you can make it... a tank of laughing gas near a rubber bung.
I know what you're saying mate, and it definately is risky, but the two examples you've got aren't actually that similar - the shuttle is designed to carry largeish payloads to full orbit - a problem orders of magnitude harder than a suborbital hop. Concorde was designed for supersonic flight, which is also damn difficult...
The only reason the X-prize wasn't a safety nightmare is that suborbital hops aren't in the same technical league...
I've just been reading through the cheery Wikipedia article on Space Disasters (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters ). Its interesting to see that while Russia and america are on about par in terms of numbers of fatal accidents, America win on headcount due to the shuttles bigger payload.
I know orbiting is far harder than just a quick jump (can't find the velocity orbit needs right now, but I have some vague recollection of 2-3km/s?), however ultimately you need a controlled and regulated explosion to get you there, its just the size of it that matters. I don't know how much redundancy is built in to the design of SS1/SS2, however it would be "interesting" to see how it would cope with some failures to its "transform into glider" abilities, which must be susceptible to damage from any outside force...
The big difference here, and I mean BIG that no-one has mentioned is that this is commercial, not governmental. Any commercial system is bound to be safer because of the commercial suicide that any company would have if any terminal was to go wrong. Therefore, money will be thrown at it until it is safe and the FAA/JAR (aeronautical governing bodies of USA and EU respectively) will have to be happy with it before it gets off the ground. NASA don't have to worry about the FAA/JAR because they aren't covered by it. NASA have to complete a task (especially when in a race) to save face in the eyes of public money. A commercial organisation have to keep themselves in business, selecting the safest option.
Talking about 'controlled explosions' is actually a bit of a misnoma. A jet engine is a series of millions of 'controlled explosions' every second. It's not actually an explosion is it? It's the ignition of fuel components to provide force - which is what your bike does.
Also, listing space disasters is a bit of a poor statistic. A lot of the space disasters occurred while researching and stretching the boundaries of what was known. This commercial flight will be based on many years of research. Accidents in the 50s and 60s didn't have that research to stand upon. If you were going to start listing statistics, then you should include the number of peace time flying accidents before 1930. You'd never go near an aeroplane again.
I think this is not much further devoid than the high flying aircraft that we have already. I don't think there will be fatal accidents, I think there are going to be problems that will lead to early aborts and a safe return to Earth. There are balloon and 'glider' flights that have been this high.
I think your statement that because it's commercial it'll be inherently safer is flawed.
Whilst I agree that they may have that as their motive and it's more of a consideration, history is littered with disasters that were through cutting corners in the interest of cost or through a "race" similar to the USA and USSR had in space.
The titanic is a prime example. Speed of the journey was a factor in the incident being as bad as it was. Done so that they could market the ship as being quicker than rivals.
Maybe there isn't a direct correlation as the competition is not so advanced, but to make a sweeping generalisation that commercial is safer than government is IMO wrong.
I personally hope this venture succeeds, but I also think it would be foolish to assume that it will have only minor problems. To hope? Yes. Assume? No.
I have to agree with Baron...a private company has fisal restraits and limitations too, and if anything more pressure to reduce time-to-market.
If anything a commercial environment (especially one involving shareholders) will be most concerned with profit as is it's obligation. Think "It's my job to apply the formula..." from Fight Club.
Fair enough, it was a sweeping generalisation but in this case, I think it would mean the end of the industry for commercial space travel. They can't afford to do that.