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

Virgin Galactic Executive Summary of Submission on SpaceShipTwo Accident

parabolicarc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Virgin Galactic Executive Summary of Submission on SpaceShipTwo Accident

#31

Post by melling »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #24
melling wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all good. They're bringing more money to an industry that can then fund further development. Google, for example, is mostly an ad company. They've taken all that money and built some pretty cool stuff. Among other things, we should get self-driving vehicles and futuristic robots with that money. So, the 62 mile high space tourist plane will turn into an one orbit trip in a few years. Then to the moon in 25.

Just sort of FYI, in 1969 I was promised a tourist space station I could visit in 25 years by NASA ... (well and their lapdogs the Scholastic Press :-)

Was that the year NASA's budget was almost 4.5% of the federal budget?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-04-30-Presentation1-th...

The money dried up fast. Now it's up to private enterprise.

Re: Virgin Galactic Executive Summary of Submission on SpaceShipTwo Accident

#32

Post by raverbashing »

nulltype wrote: post #23
melling wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the second guy to say this. Stop and think... Ready for it? Because it was only months away from carrying tourists. You'll scare the tourists if you're afraid to use a human pilot.

I bet the tourists are pretty scared now.

One of the reasons why people can take a cheap flight across continents today is because people risked their lives trying it.

Of course, today there's automation, but it only goes so far

Somebody has to take the first step

Re: Virgin Galactic Executive Summary of Submission on SpaceShipTwo Accident

#33

Post by chronic40 »

tedunangst wrote: post #20
GauntletWizard wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everything an autopilot should do should have a button and a switch for humans. The switch prevents the autopilot from doing it, the button makes it happen. This isn't to disparage autopilots, but to assure control. The human should always be in control of the system, and capable of deciding when things happen.

And in this case, would have pushed the button too early, resulting in the exact same outcome.

Lol. Got em

Re: Virgin Galactic Executive Summary of Submission on SpaceShipTwo Accident

#34

Post by Intermernet »

drusenko wrote: post #28
nulltype wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet the tourists are pretty scared now.

Said tourist checking in. Still keeping my ticket I purchased over 4 years ago. Space is hard and I'll go when they're ready.

Sorry for the irrelevant comment, but I'm so jealous!

I hope you have a great (and safe) ride!

Re: Virgin Galactic Executive Summary of Submission on SpaceShipTwo Accident

#35

Post by tomswartz07 »

narrator wrote: post #6
robertfw wrote: post #4

The full transcripts were posted on the nasa spaceflight forum here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35974.440 . One user provided the following summary: > There was corporate conversational knowledge that unlocking the feather system during the transonic region would be catastrophic, but this knowledge wasn't formalized into the pilot handbook or in training. There was formal knowledge that unlockin…

They should just do all this in software. Anything that that's complex and life or death should be autopilot driven.

> Anything that that's complex and life or death should be autopilot driven.

What's your stance on autopilot driven cars and trucks?

Arguably, roadway accidents far, far outnumber the number per-capita of space accidents.

Re: Virgin Galactic Executive Summary of Submission on SpaceShipTwo Accident

#36

Post by rwallace »

tomswartz07 wrote: post #35
narrator wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should just do all this in software. Anything that that's complex and life or death should be autopilot driven.

> Anything that that's complex and life or death should be autopilot driven. What's your stance on autopilot driven cars and trucks? Arguably, roadway accidents far, far outnumber the number per-capita of space accidents.

> What's your stance on autopilot driven cars and trucks?

The sooner we can switch to them, the better...

> Arguably, roadway accidents far, far outnumber the number per-capita of space accidents.

... for this reason.

Re: Virgin Galactic Executive Summary of Submission on SpaceShipTwo Accident

#37

Post by rwallace »

tedunangst wrote: post #20
GauntletWizard wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everything an autopilot should do should have a button and a switch for humans. The switch prevents the autopilot from doing it, the button makes it happen. This isn't to disparage autopilots, but to assure control. The human should always be in control of the system, and capable of deciding when things happen.

And in this case, would have pushed the button too early, resulting in the exact same outcome.

No, in this case, by far the most likely outcome is the autopilot would have pushed the button at the right time, creating no need for the copilot to override it.

Re: Virgin Galactic Executive Summary of Submission on SpaceShipTwo Accident

#38

Post by rwallace »

zapt02 wrote: post #5

A little OT, but the contrast between SpaceX and The Spaceship Company is striking. Elon Musk is pushing for interstellar travel, while Branson is pushing for space tourism. Seems so petty in comparison.

You're talking about different timescales. Interstellar travel is the long-term goal, but everyone understands it's not going to happen in the next decade. Thus, SpaceX is launching satellites and space station cargoes and The Spaceship Company is debugging a suborbital tourist vehicle, because these are things it is feasible to do right now.

Re: Virgin Galactic Executive Summary of Submission on SpaceShipTwo Accident

#39

Post by tedunangst »

rwallace wrote: post #37
tedunangst wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in this case, would have pushed the button too early, resulting in the exact same outcome.

No, in this case, by far the most likely outcome is the autopilot would have pushed the button at the right time, creating no need for the copilot to override it.

How do you figure? Pilot thinks "I think it's time to push the button." Autopilot doesn't push button. Pilot says "autopilot is broken. I need to override." Pilot pushes button early.

If the pilot thinks the button needs pushing, they're not going to wait til after the crash to see if the autopilot is working.

Re: Virgin Galactic Executive Summary of Submission on SpaceShipTwo Accident

#40

Post by rwallace »

tedunangst wrote: post #39
rwallace wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in this case, by far the most likely outcome is the autopilot would have pushed the button at the right time, creating no need for the copilot to override it.

How do you figure? Pilot thinks "I think it's time to push the button." Autopilot doesn't push button. Pilot says "autopilot is broken. I need to override." Pilot pushes button early. If the pilot thinks the button needs pushing, they're not going to wait til after the crash to see if the autopilot is working.

What happened here wasn't that the copilot sat there waiting for the intended time to come about and pressed the button exactly at that intended time and just didn't know what the time was supposed to be. What happened was that he was frantically trying to concentrate on a zillion things at once and pressed the button a bit early because he thought otherwise he might end up pressing it too late and he had been warned about the dangers of pressing it too late but not about the dangers of pressing it too early. If there had been an autopilot, most likely the autopilot would have pressed the button at the right time while he was looking at something else.
Post reply on HN