SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

Post by jack-r-abbit » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:27 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #102

melling wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that your opinion, or do you have some facts to support that statement? As part of the program, we should be building better machines and not crawling along at 12 inches a day, of course.

Well, sure. Just look at all the jobs that are still being done by humans. Even fairly simple and formulaic jobs like working in a fast food restaurant are still in the human domain (that may be starting to change, finally, but it hasn't happened yet). For that matter, look at the problem of operating an autonomous vehicle right here on Earth. Everyone from DARPA to MIT to Carnegie-Mellon to Google has been working o…

Post by seanflyon » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:33 PM UTC

zepolud wrote: post #31

Test pilots? In the 21st century? I find it absolutely reckless and inexcusable to require live humans riding on a prototype rocket when you have all the processing power needed to automate/remote manage the vehicle literally in your pocket. EDIT: To those downvoting, you should really check that all current spaceplanes have the capability to fly and land autonomously--Boeing X-37, Dream Chaser, even Buran was fully…

Post by CamperBob2 » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:38 PM UTC

cstross wrote: post #111

revscat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not going to happen with chemical rockets. Until a radically different propulsion system is developed the only planet we have is this one.

Actually, it could happen with chemical rockets -- if we abandon the idea of sending canned monkeys beyond the atmosphere. We can afford to send up a couple of hundred tons of prokaryotic spores every year until the cows come home, with solar sails to get their packages up above solar escape velocity. Over a few decades or centuries that's a lot of unicellular organisms to scatter on the direction of exoplanets; we c…

Post by knodi123 » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:40 PM UTC

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #98

larrys wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing to keep in mind with new complex systems is that they will inevitably go thorough a phase where things are discovered over time. At the start "n" is small 1 flight, 5 flights etc. It's pretty much a given that there will be failures it's just a matter of when and how critical a failure. The failures would be loaded toward happening early on and then fixed so that one particular failure shouldn't happe…

This makes me think of all those crazy warning labels that warn you not to do some incredibly stupid thing (ie "don't use the hair dryer while sleeping"). You know every dumb warning has some sort of story behind it. :)

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:42 PM UTC

kashkhan wrote: post #109

marze wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some say this is an "inevitable" result of pushing boundaries. No. This is the result of a poorly managed program. What they are doing is much easier than the Apollo program, which was well managed and had no in-flight failures that resulted in loss of life, while accomplishing an infinitely harder task. This is a tragedy, obviously. But the program is about six years behind schedule, been going for 10 years. The mos…

there's no need not in this day and age to have test pilots. If they use computers, they can debug the engine in flight conditions by running maybe ten times as many test flights. Delays of months between flights are dangerous. Until you have a 1000-10,000 flights to build up operational data and envelope, this is a death trap causing unnecessary deaths.