Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 269 posts

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#141

Post by justinclift »

bigtones wrote: post #2

Brilliant well written article. Not without bias, but you can see through the words on the page and into the immense pressure that team at Virgin Galactic must have been under to get their boss into space and to beat Bezos, all for the inflated ego of one man. Branson did put his life on the line to achieve that accolade though, which was a gutsy move.

> Brilliant well written article.

Personally, I found it the exact opposite. It's like the author was trying to pad something simple into "War and Peace" type volume.

Gave up after just a few paragraphs, as it's clear the author had no intention of getting to the point any time soon.

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#142

Post by hughw »

monocasa wrote: post #129
IggleSniggle wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SpaceShipTwo is an inherently risky experimental test craft—with death always waiting on each side of a narrow envelope—and it always will be. Management is willfully ignorant of this. This comment reminded me of another story from a previous aerospace era (blimp cruise liners aka airships), the summary of which is: > A British Lord wanted to build the best airship in the world – and so he had two rival design team…

Hmm, that certainly colors a rumor I've heard about Apple. That they'll have two or three teams compete on a new product... but they won't tell the teams that they have competition until final demo day.

"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret!" -- Dr. Strangelove

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#143

Post by dylan604 »

sellyme wrote: post #138
dylan604 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, you're right, sports have never been rigged you might of well have responded with the one word reply of "Wrestling!"

You literally said "100%".

You honestly believe that the NBA has never had officials go soft on calls for their star players, or not call the rules for how many steps without putting the ball on the floor, or the whole under the ball carrying or whatever the rules are they decide not to call?

You think no officials of any sport did or didn't make a call because of some bet somewhere? You think a sports player didn't make a catch? You think sports players aren't using performance enhancing drugs so that you might be entertained while they get rewards?

Some people just really want to believe that television is real. It's just not healthy to have this much faith in TV.

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#144

Post by rozab »

worker767424 wrote: post #100

> The ship uses rocket power to get into space, but glides back to Earth and lands on a runway, like the space shuttle would do. Does that mean it can't do a go around?

I understand it has pretty good glide characteristics, MUCH better than the space shuttle, allowing for abort at basically any stage of the flight. Also they actually get given parachutes, unlike pre-Challenger STS missions.

The space shuttle was really grim.

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#145

Post by ChicagoBoy11 »

mabbo wrote: post #67

This highlights why having automated pilots in spaceships is so critical. Software can be tested more thoroughly than humans, and cannot override safety protocols. If the rules say to abort, the software aborts. Humans get to say "I think we'll be fine", and put lives on the line.

In contrast, humans can also say: "It's saying to abort because the sensor reading is incorrect, we'll be fine." It's tricky... in the airplane world, I think it is understood that the current state of the art is an extremely well trained and competent pilot coupled with a nice advanced cockpit is the gold standard. Where each of their responsibilities lie, and how well they work together, is where the rubber meets the road. The record is beyond question that increased automation has drastically reduced airplane fatalities, while there are also being many, many fatal accidents which are quite clearly a case of automation gone awry. Effectively putting both of them together is quite a fascinating problem, and one I think we are still in the infancy of fully understanding, particularly in brand new domains that are emerging like self-driving cars, etc.

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#146

Post by WalterBright »

mabbo wrote: post #67

This highlights why having automated pilots in spaceships is so critical. Software can be tested more thoroughly than humans, and cannot override safety protocols. If the rules say to abort, the software aborts. Humans get to say "I think we'll be fine", and put lives on the line.

Automation is critical, but also the ability to override software that fails is critical, too. Armstrong overrode the failed LEM computer to land safely. Of the 3 737MAX software stab trim runaway incidents, only one crew followed the stab trim override instructions and saved their plane.

Pilots are never perfect, and neither is the software. Need both watching each other.

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#147

Post by WalterBright »

Mitzz wrote: post #71

While I'm super excited about the future of space tourism, I dread a "Hindenburg" catastrophe that stops the whole idea for a generation.

If the Hindenburg disaster had not been filmed, it likely would not have stopped Zeppelin travel.

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#148

Post by iab »

rpmisms wrote: post #120
justapassenger wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people driving 150mph on the freeway deserve to get respect and have others comment about size of their balls?

Huge difference. Deviating from a flight plan, even majorly, is orders of magnitude less dangerous than glancing at your phone on the highway. Airspace is really big, and flying into area outside their flight path is so unlikely to hurt anyone as to be laughable. The ballsy part that deserves respect is pushing the envelope on safety, executing perfectly, and playing it off like it's nothing.

> The ballsy part that deserves respect is pushing the envelope on safety, executing perfectly, and playing it off like it's nothing.

None this competent happened in the story though, so unsure the relevance

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#149

Post by Sebb767 »

rpmisms wrote: post #120
justapassenger wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people driving 150mph on the freeway deserve to get respect and have others comment about size of their balls?

Huge difference. Deviating from a flight plan, even majorly, is orders of magnitude less dangerous than glancing at your phone on the highway. Airspace is really big, and flying into area outside their flight path is so unlikely to hurt anyone as to be laughable. The ballsy part that deserves respect is pushing the envelope on safety, executing perfectly, and playing it off like it's nothing.

> Deviating from a flight plan, even majorly, is orders of magnitude less dangerous than glancing at your phone on the highway.

No. These safety margins are expensive and they are there for a reason. Airliners don't expect a f-ing rocket to shoot by and just the air disturbances caused by it can seriously hurt or kill people.

> The ballsy part that deserves respect is pushing the envelope on safety, executing perfectly, and playing it off like it's nothing.

It does not deserve respect because it risked the safety of other people. I'd agree fully if all they risked was their live, but this way, it's exactly like going 250 km/h on a limited freeway - you're putting the lives of other people at risk and that's not cool.

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#150

Post by Sebb767 »

doctor_eval wrote: post #80
JohnFen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about that is deserving of respect? Edit: This was an honest question, and I was hoping for an answer that would help me to understand. It's a shame that this is getting downvoted rather than someone enlightening me.

Anyone can win if they are allowed to break the rules. You get my respect by completing the mission within the rules.

To be fair, the rules they are really up against are those of physics and they naturally can't break those. FAA rules are rather pale in comparison.
Post reply on HN