Your seat in space

Alan Boyle — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:19:30 GMT

Here are some of the pictures and artist's conceptions associated with the SpaceShipTwo interior plan:

Popular Science:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/
e92d5924625fd010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Dispatches From the Final Frontier:
http://michaelbelfiore.com/blog/2006/09/
spaceshiptwo-interior-mockup-unveiled.html

Notes from Personal Spaceflight:
http://www.personalspaceflight.info/2006/09/
28/spaceshiptwo-event-notes-early-edition/

Your seat in space

Gaetano Marano - Italy (latest article: CorkScrew Orion or SwissKnife Orion?) — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 07:03:31 GMT

I've seen the conceptual drawings of the SS2 with its "motherplane" for air launch and I've a doubt about safety for common passengers. The SS1 was a prototype driven by test pilots that have the "risk to die" as part of their job. But the new SS2 doesn't seem a sort of space-747 bullt with the same long, complex and expensive design procedures of a new airlines' plane. It appears to be (and, probably, IS) only a "better made SS1", then, only another prototype with the same risks of the SS1. I think that, for REAL and SAFE sub-orbital space tourism we need vehicles developed and built with the same NASA/Boeing/Airbus high standards (and investments...). It must be (also) the MAIN interest of all space tourism companies (that plans to invest hundreds of million$ in the new business) since ONE single crash of a (cheap built) sub-orbital vehicle (maybe, with a celebrity aboard...) may KILL the entire space-travel market for years!

Your seat in space

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:47:21 GMT

just a question... why did space-tourists must spend $200,000 (and seriously risk their life) to experience a 7-G force and a couple minutes of zero-G if they can have the SAME experience with the astronauts' centrifugal and zero-G-airplanes? ...at a fraction of the cost, ZERO risks ...and the same space-vomit...

Your seat in space

D. Gordon, Aurora Colorado — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:09:46 GMT

While I applaud the efforts to bring space within reach of the citizens, I question whether or not any of these companies are looking at the truly big picture. Branson and the rest talk about putting space within reach of the "common man" but to me, being able to afford $200,000 per person is certainly NOT common. When they can get the ticket prices down to where I can take myself, my wife, and my son up for just a couple hundred more than it would cost to stay a Disneyworld for a weekend, then we can talk.

Your seat in space

John - St. Louis, NMo. — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:42:29 GMT

Sub- orbital is interested, but for $200.000, I want at least one rev of the planet.

Your seat in space

Martha, El Paso, Texas — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:34:51 GMT

You have to remember that this is just the beginning. There are always going to be some risks involved with something like this at first. Yes it is expensive, but Virgin Galactic has promised more flights as time goes by. It will get better, but we have to have a little faith here people! I for one, am excited about this. If you check out the New Mexico X Cup Expo (October 20-22) you'll get a better picture of what is happening. I went to the first one last year and was impressed with everything.

Your seat in space

Chris House, St. Paul, MN, USA — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:56:52 GMT

I'm truly amazed at how pessimistic some of these other people to reply to this atricle are being. Although some people are so afraid for their lives that they clearly don't have the right attitude to go on a flight, they surely can clamp down on their excessive negativity about it. Referring to NASA engineering as "better" is just plain silly - many of NASA's failures derive from their overly paranoid attitude of recent years. Nobody likes to see anybody die, but flying to space is still an inexact science. Where NASA tries to keep people safe by removing as many risks as possible, they add many more risks by having an inefficient bureaucracy of non-technical people running the show (with a few exceptions such as Mr. Griffin), or people whose technical skills haven't been used for many years, and so they are well out of practice compared with the likes of Mr Rutan who has constantly kept his "gears spinning". Unless we do take some risks and field more types of hardware we will never get very good at doing it safely. If there is a fatal accident in one of these up and coming suborbital companies, you can be sure that the lengthy waivers the passengers sign will protect the companies offering the service from the inevitable endless fleet of attorneys who also don't understand the spirit of an explorer. If there is an accident, it will be too bad, but it will give us valuable learning materials. One cannot engineer perfection until one can see how "bad things" unravel what appears to be a good design. We learn from our mistakes, but if we don't even try at all, we've learned NOTHING. Pessimism is not at all a good attitude to have in this day and age when our species clearly needs a huge jumpstart in civilian space technology. Would you rather a few of us die trying to learn how to travel to other planets, or are you going to just give up and accept our fate on this (potentially) dying world.

Your seat in space

Mark Dickinson, Pottstown PA, USA — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:10:41 GMT

QUOTE:just a question... why did space-tourists must spend $200,000 (and seriously risk their life) to experience a 7-G force and a couple minutes of zero-G if they can have the SAME experience with the astronauts' centrifugal and zero-G-airplanes? ...at a fraction of the cost, ZERO risks ...and the same space-vomit... Gaetano Marano - Italy Because it's there!

Your seat in space

Adam, New York, NY — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:21:39 GMT

I have no doubt going to space would be cool. And if you have the money, $200000 is worth it. But to go up in space and spend only an hour or so? That sucks. To be in a restrictive environment with minimal viewing area? Lame. Spacewalks outside the craft however... now there's no ceiling to how much I'd pay for that.

Your seat in space

R.P. Nettelhorst — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:52:48 GMT

Concerning the pessimists: I have yet to see a statue raised, or anything else named, for those who muttered, "it's not worth it," "too dangerous," "it can't be done," or "isn't there something better we can do with all that time and money?"

Your seat in space

Mr Emperor Xenu — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:06:52 GMT

I am Emperor Xenu sent from another galaxy to warn you that if the new SpaceShipTwo does not have in-flight copies of the Mission Impossible trilogy, I will irradiate your puny attempts at space travel with one shot from my death ray. Long live Tom Cruise!

Your seat in space

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:59:23 GMT

Chris House (St. Paul, MN, USA) said... "Would you rather a few of us die trying to learn how to travel to other planets, or are you going to just give up and accept our fate on this (potentially) dying world."

--------

I agree about the fact that NASA and big aerospace companies are not perfect and make mistakes, but they (generally) have very high enginnering and maufacturing standards and the (risky) spaceflights made with prototypes are made with (very expert and "cold") test pilots, NOT with airlines-like passengers! I don't suggest to cancel the commercial plans for sub-orbital flights. I just want to remember you that an SS1 flight is very close to an X-15 flight! It's not like travel with an airlines' plane! EVERY SS1/SS2 flight was/is/will be an EXPERIMENTAL flight like the X-15 was! So (I think and suggest that) the sub-orbital hardware must be BETTER than common airplanes, NOT something that looks (and IS) like a "homemade wood biplane" built for the local air show! All commercial sub-orbital/orbital flights must meet the BEST safety standards.

Your seat in space

M Wilson, California — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:02:00 GMT

Ok, so how many of you purchased HD TV's when they were new? At over $6,000.00? Now you can get the same for what? Under $2,000.00? And now you can get better units for much less. This will be much the same. The initial cost will be high and the service will be minimal. As time goes on, I have no doubt you will get an orbit and more for less money. Give it some time!

Your seat in space

Frank Glover — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:32:28 GMT

Other customer satisfaction considerations: http://www.space.com/news/050624_space_tourism.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8348834/page/3/ ...as to why do this (which is expensive to most of us reading this, but need not be exceptionally risky), rather than some approxamation with parabolic airplane flights and centrifuges, it's because *you* the participant will know that it's not the same. After all, you could create an indoor 'cold room' with artificial snow, low oxygen, and steep simulated terrain...but no one will say that's the same as actual mountain climbing either (though it might make a good training device), and you don't get the same personal satisfaction (or bragging rights) from using a simulator. And suborbital vehicles *are* higher, faster, longer time, zero-g parabolic 'aircraft.' (though not all of them will use wings) Also be careful how you use the word 'experimental' in this context. It means something very specific to the FAA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_aircraft ...and in any case, SS2 will be no more experimental than the Concorde was, and it used to do every day (fly at over twice the speed of sound) what rocket powered research planes like the X-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-2 did with difficulty and risk in the 1950's.

Your seat in space

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:40:20 GMT

Frank Glover said... "in any case, SS2 will be no more experimental than the Concorde was" ----------- the Concorde [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde ] was a joined project of two countries (France and UK) developed buy two major aerospace companies, with the higher technologies available, a multi-billion$ investment (at '60s prices!) and all the time to have a perfect vehicle: 4 years from construction start (1965) to its first test flight (1969) and seven more years (1976) to fly with passengers in a commercial travel! ...clearly, the SS2 can't be compared with the Concorde, while it CAN be compared with the X-15 ... I think that sub-orbital flights' companies are too hasty to turn their prototypes to commercial...

Your seat in space

Frank Glover — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 06:05:33 GMT

The developmental cost, developmental time and number of participants for the Concorde doesn't alter the fact that it was a commercial (and therefore non-experimental) aircraft that regularly exhibited performance that only specialized high-performance experimental aircraft could acheive decades earlier. And did so, in part, because of them. That, after all, is the very purpose of those experimental programs. The technological lessons learned are eventually to be used later in production military and civil applications. That SS1 (which can be considered a prototype) and SS2 had/will have X-15-like altitude performance is *thanks* to the X-15 and other predicessors. In any case, the very first time a SpaceShipTwo takes flight, it will not be carrying fare-paying passengers, any nore than did the first flight of a Concorde in 1969, or a Boeing 747 in 1970 (which did not even try to raise its landing gear, that day). There will be a normal series of test flights, incrementally getting closer to its intended, typical operating mode (like its X-Prize predecessor, which did not try for 100km the first time out, either) looking for surprises, as all other commercial aircraft do, before the FAA certifies them airworthy and fit to carry passengers. And individual vehicles will undergo some test flying before delivery to the customer, even after the basic design is approved. (Does not a new car already have a few miles on it?) This is what test pilots are for, even for a commercial vehicle. Spacecraft (even if barely a spacecraft in this case) need be no different than aircraft in this respect, when they're reuseable. You test your first models incrementally, expanding their operational envelope and insure they'll behave as you expect, before the first one is ever sold to a customer. This is normal practice, no matter who the manufacturer is, and as it should be. Scaled Composites has produced many other kinds of aircraft, and knows this as well as Boeing and any European manufacturers. No matter how much money or time is involved in development, if it doesn't get FAA blessing in the end, it can't carry passengers for hire. That's what counts. And nothing is perfect (or expected to be). The only Concorde fatality involved something as mundane as runway debris damage...

Your seat in space

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:35:58 GMT

Frank Glover said... "the Concorde doesn't alter the fact that it was a commercial (and therefore non-experimental) aircraft" ------------ to be clear... I'm NOT against sub-orbital/orbital/lunar/mars space tourism since I think it may become (in a the long term) one of the best "killer applications" of the space business and I will be HAPPY to see many tourists fly in space/sub-space (or, maybe, fly with them!) ... I only wish/want/suggest them to develop, build and use these vehicles without rush and with the SAME design, manufacturing and flight (high) standards of the Concorde, airlines' planes and space agencies' vehicles

Your seat in space

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 03:00:02 GMT

Frank Glover said... "nothing is perfect (or expected to be). The only Concorde fatality involved something as mundane as runway debris damage" -------- just to add... Concorde was PERFECT since it's only crash was due to an EXTERNAL problem

Your seat in space

Luc Jordan, Cincinnati, Ohio — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:07:35 GMT

Gaetano, the point I think that you are missing is that the crafts being built do not need the extensive testing that earlier craft have been through simply because they are built on the same technologies, the same science, and the same materials as other planes, with only a few improvements. These improvements will not take years to test. They will take months. There are very few "new" technologies on these craft, just current techs used in new ways. Thus, the possibility of disastrous effects are MUCH lower than for any previously-built ships or aircraft.

Your seat in space

Gaetano Marano - Italy — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:37:14 GMT

Luc Jordan (Cincinnati, Ohio) said... "the point I think that you are missing is that the crafts being built do not need the extensive testing that earlier craft have been through simply because they are built on the same technologies..."

-----------

When I was young and model planes' enthusiast, "months" was the time to design and build a MODEL airplane, not a REAL plane... cars, ships, airplanes, trains, spacecrafts, etc. are ALL based on well known technologies, but ALL need YEARS to implement a new model... despite they have already accomplished the moon missions with capsules, NASA claims that next moon landings (in 2020) need 15+ YEARS of research, development, design and tests to be accomplished, not "a few months"... a safe airplane for passengers needs 5-10 years of design and tests, many million$$$ and hundreds engineers... this is the reaon Boeing or Airbus don't build a new model every year... of course, an airplane can fly also if built in less time and with less money and engineers, but "the possibility of disastrous effects are MUCH **HIGHER** than for any previously-built ships or aircraft"... and we are talking of COMMON planes able to fly at 10 km. max of altitude and subsonic speed, while the SS2 is a rocket that will fly to 140 km. in the VACUUM, at supersonic speed, 7-G of (bad working) spacecraft-like reentry negative acceleration...

also, we have not "same technologies" like the SS2 nor any large experience since the only two vehicles comparable with the SS2 was the SS1 and the X-15 that (both) made a few experimental flights! sub-orbital flights' companies can build and launch these vehicles and passengers can fly with them, but ALL we (companies, observers, passengers) must be perfectly aware of the very high risks of these vehicles and flights (at least until they will have a 15-20 years airlines-like experience)

Your seat in space

John Charles, Houston, TX — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:05:42 GMT

Alan, you quoted Chuck Lauer as saying, "" There'll be virtual-reality mission simulations, rehearsals for evacuations and even practice sessions in a hyperbaric altitude chamber." I am guessing he really said--or meant to say--"hypobaric" chamber. A lot of people use "hyper-" and "hypo-" intechangeably, but they mean the opposite.

Your seat in space

Alan Boyle — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:44:57 GMT

John, I'm sure you're right about the "hypobaric" reference. I probably misheard Chuck and passed along the wrong term. So I took the liberty of correcting the spelling in the item. Thanks so much for pointing it out; I'm learning something new every day here.

Your seat in space

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:14:30 GMT

I'm with John of St. Louis... for $200k, I want to travel a little more than 100 miles from where I started (or, at least, land somewhere other than where I took off).

But, to be realistic... how much for a ride on the Mothership? 60000 feet at over the speed of sound, seeing the blackness of the sky, and watching the Sun rise in the west would be more than enough for me.