SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#81

Post by vcjohnson » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 7:58 PM UTC

atlantic wrote: post #30

mixmax wrote: post #23

What this weeks events show us is that space travel is hard. Really hard. Most systems operate in extreme conditions, sometimes bordering on the improbable. Thousands, sometimes millions of horsepower in an engine smaller than a car, cryogenic liquids at -200 degrees celsius cooling a nozzle that is 3000 degrees celsius 5 millimeters away, heatshields designed to absorb obscene amounts of heat, the list just goes on…

> This is commendable, and is what drives the human race forward. Without these fearless men we wouldn't have gone to the moon. We wouldn't have explored the depths of the ocean. We wouldn't have flown the skies. That's one way of looking at the matter. Another is that without this untrammelled technological evolution (I hesitate to use the word "progress") we wouldn't be living through the greatest mass extinction e…

>A lot of this effort could go instead into finding a better cohabitation between humans and the other species with whom we supposedly share the planet.

This is a false dilemma. We have 7+ billion people on the planet. There is most certainly a significant amount of effort going towards the future you mentioned. They are not mutually exclusive (and are, most likely, going to be a product of each other)

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#82

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 7:58 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #29

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its sad, sure. Sorry for their loss. But people take far greater risks for far less reason. Monster Truck rallys. Motorcycle racing. Skiing. We don't change national priorities every time somebody dies at those activities. SO lets keep it in perspective, and salute the brave folks who are trying to expand human boundaries.

I think you're overlooking the fact that Virgin Galactic isn't a national priority, it's a commercial venture. And it'll probably take years of testing to convince many people to take their flight, assuming they want to spend the money. The ability of the United States to send people to space ended because of the last shuttle accident. So, yes, people dying did affect our national resolve. I think if you do the math,…

Virgin Galactic is American. We don't reserve that name for government employees. There are several such commercial ventures in America right now. And some of them are close to sending Americans into space.

Its a priority for these Americans to send people into space. I don't think I've overlooked anything. The importance of this adventure (to the people involved) has so far been worth the risk, partly because they regard it as far more important that motorcycle racing.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#83

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 7:59 PM UTC

revscat wrote: post #70

atlantic wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is commendable, and is what drives the human race forward. Without these fearless men we wouldn't have gone to the moon. We wouldn't have explored the depths of the ocean. We wouldn't have flown the skies. That's one way of looking at the matter. Another is that without this untrammelled technological evolution (I hesitate to use the word "progress") we wouldn't be living through the greatest mass extinction e…

You are getting downvoted, but I actually agree with you. Space travel is awesome, but so is living, and right now we are not living in a way that is sustainable over the short term. Space travel is, for me, an anachronistic hold-over from people who grew up with Heinlein, Asimov, etc., but is not something that is realistic given the environmental situation. Realistically, any vehicle that is dependent upon currentl…

> Space travel is awesome, but so is living, and right now we are not living in a way that is sustainable over the short term.

Space travel is fundamental to the human species living sustainably in the long term. Correcting greenhouse gasses doesn't help us if the next day we find a planet-killer asteroid is a few weeks away.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#84

Post by DanBC » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:00 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #72

untog wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many years ago, trying to combine "flying in the air" with "safe enough to carry tourists regularly" would be seen in a similar light.

It took 54 years to go from the Wright Brothers first flight to the Boeing 707. It took 53 years to go from Yuri Gagarin's first flight (one orbit) to this suborbital flight test.

It only took 8 / 9 years between Gagarin's flight and landing men on the Moon. That's remarkable.

It's depressing to think how much closer we'd be to humans on Mars if we had focussed all the Afghan and Iraq war money on space research.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#85

Post by seanflyon » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:00 PM UTC

marze wrote: post #69

mixmax wrote: post #23

What this weeks events show us is that space travel is hard. Really hard. Most systems operate in extreme conditions, sometimes bordering on the improbable. Thousands, sometimes millions of horsepower in an engine smaller than a car, cryogenic liquids at -200 degrees celsius cooling a nozzle that is 3000 degrees celsius 5 millimeters away, heatshields designed to absorb obscene amounts of heat, the list just goes on…

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…

> Seeing only the first paragraph, I already know that some rubber in the hybrid engine detached blocking the nozzle and causing the whole engine to explode.

Does this same concern apply to plastic-based fuel? It does seem like a terrible idea to have people in the rocket the first time you try a new fuel mixture.

"During the nine months since the previous rocket-powered test in January, Virgin Galactic switched SpaceShipTwo's fuel mixture from a rubber-based compound to a plastic-based mix — in hopes that the new formulation would boost the hybrid rocket engine's performance."

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#86

Post by skndr » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:01 PM UTC

revscat wrote: post #74

tomrod wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until when? The next large asteroid? The next close-by gamma burst? The sun goes nova? Let's go see the universe, and take life along with us.

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.

The other efficient forms of propulsion actually require you to be in space due to low thrust-to-weight. Chemical rockets get us off the planet first.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#87

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:01 PM UTC

revscat wrote: post #74

tomrod wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until when? The next large asteroid? The next close-by gamma burst? The sun goes nova? Let's go see the universe, and take life along with us.

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.

There's no reason to believe chemical rockets can't get a small, self-sustaining colony going. Asteroid/comet mining, a Mars base, etc. are likely possible with current or near-current technology.

No, we're not going to move a billion or two people with them, but that's not what we need to make humanity multi-planet.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#88

Post by nawitus » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:02 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…

>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.

I think people should make that decision themselves.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#89

Post by tdicola » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:02 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #76

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…

> Apollo program, which was well managed and had no in-flight failures that resulted in loss of life The flaws in Apollo One were so severe the three crew died on the launchpad. Describing that tragedy as "no in-flight deaths" is accurate but misses some important information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

Not to mention there were certainly other problems with Apollo like mission 13, or 11 barely landing before running out of fuel (computer problem forced Armstrong to take manual control and find a new landing spot at the last minute). Ultimately though Apollo was just too big and expensive a program to maintain, for better or worse.

Re: SpaceshipTwo crashes shortly after Mojave test flight

#90

Post by pessimizer » Fri, Oct 31, 2014, 8:03 PM UTC

atlantic wrote: post #30

mixmax wrote: post #23

What this weeks events show us is that space travel is hard. Really hard. Most systems operate in extreme conditions, sometimes bordering on the improbable. Thousands, sometimes millions of horsepower in an engine smaller than a car, cryogenic liquids at -200 degrees celsius cooling a nozzle that is 3000 degrees celsius 5 millimeters away, heatshields designed to absorb obscene amounts of heat, the list just goes on…

> This is commendable, and is what drives the human race forward. Without these fearless men we wouldn't have gone to the moon. We wouldn't have explored the depths of the ocean. We wouldn't have flown the skies. That's one way of looking at the matter. Another is that without this untrammelled technological evolution (I hesitate to use the word "progress") we wouldn't be living through the greatest mass extinction e…

You're forgetting how cool it would be for rich people to burn a couple hundred thousand to fly in space for two and a half hours. It's clearly the highest expression of the human spirit, and you're a hopeless hater cynic.

I wonder what the carbon footprint of space tourism is, and will be if it becomes cheaper and more popular? I feel guilty flying on a plane.