Shape Ship Two crashed

[Balladeer08]

Space Ship Two crashed

Apparently it blew up after the rocket motor ignited. It crashed east of Mohave. There were two pilots on board. Report is one survivor with "major injuries".

 

[richard_daily]

Apparently it blew up after the rocket motor ignited. It crashed east of Mohave. There were two pilots on board. Report is one survivor with "major injuries".

Just heard about this. What a horrible accident. I hope that it will lead to stricter safety standards...

 

[1sickbastard]

For those who don't know what this is about:
Read the story here.

ShapeShip2 with its high-altitude reusable lift platform
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qWovdGs59MY/S6odshrllGI/AAAAAAAABUA/tx2R4kUh-5w/s1600/Virgin+Galactic+2.bmp
http://mightymega.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/virgin_galactic_spaceship2_powered_flight_1.jpg
ShapeShip2
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Virgin-Galactic-Spaceship-Two-test.png
http://starcasm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Virgin_Galactic_SpaceShipTwo.jpg

 

[Wrong Element]

Just heard about this. What a horrible accident. I hope that it will lead to stricter safety standards...

These accidents are sadly routine when it comes to any kind of experimental air travel, let alone travel that technically qualifies as being in space.

The takeaway from this is that we're still a long way from space tourism being viable. I doubt Branson will live long enough for this to become safe enough for even the biggest daredevils to want to risk it.

 

[Libsam]

Didn't they say the private sector could do it better?

 

[snugglestruggle]

Shape Ship reminds me of Project Black Star.

 

[doctor_insanus]

Pretty bummed by this.

It's a shame that our national space program was one of the many victims of the "drown it in a bathtub" crowd.

 

[Balladeer08]

Pretty bummed by this.

It's a shame that our national space program was one of the many victims of the "drown it in a bathtub" crowd.

Truly. If the human race is to survive, we have to establish a presence off this planet. The moon and mars are within reach.

http://slogansheroes.net/DinoAstronauts.html

 

[AllyRose]

One of the pilots is dead.

 

[Balladeer08]

http://www.turnto23.com/news/virgin-galactics-spaceship-two-experiences-in-flight-anomaly-103114

live feed

 

[KingOrfeo]

Truly. If the human race is to survive, we have to establish a presence off this planet. The moon and mars are within reach.

http://slogansheroes.net/DinoAstronauts.html

Yeah, all true -- but nobody's gonna go live out their lives inside sealed artificial life-support environments on the Moon or Mars for anything as abstract and distant as "racial survival." Space will be colonized when somebody figures out a way to make colonization economically profitable, not before.

 

[Balladeer08]

Yeah, all true -- but nobody's gonna go live out their lives inside sealed artificial life-support environments on the Moon or Mars for anything as abstract and distant as "racial survival." Space will be colonized when somebody figures out a way to make colonization economically profitable, not before.

I would gladly accept a 1-way ticket to the moon today, were there a place there where I could live out my life. I'm even willing to become a farmer in the hydroponics area. Or any other job they can find for me.

So there is at least one exception to your rule.

 

[unregistered]

 

[1sickbastard]

Yeah, all true -- but nobody's gonna go live out their lives inside sealed artificial life-support environments on the Moon or Mars for anything as abstract and distant as "racial survival." Space will be colonized when somebody figures out a way to make colonization economically profitable, not before.

Not entirely true.
There are plenty of people who would gladly jump at the chance to establish permanent settlements off planet.

However, you are correct that those settlements must be economically self-sustaining because very few entities can provide continuing funds to keep hauling up consumables (foodstuffs, replacement parts, new equipment) outta the well (Earth's gravity).
Part of what consortiums like Virgin Galactic & Space X are trying to do is make cost per kg to LEO, GSO or beyond commercially viable propositions for a permanent human presence.

 

[Balladeer08]

Apparently there is no way to fix the typo in the thread name. DYAC!

 

[KingOrfeo]

I would gladly accept a 1-way ticket to the moon today, were there a place there where I could live out my life. I'm even willing to become a farmer in the hydroponics area. Or any other job they can find for me.

So there is at least one exception to your rule.

Not entirely true.
There are plenty of people who would gladly jump at the chance to establish permanent settlements off planet.

Think about it. It's like living in Antarctica, or in a submarine, only worse. You have to spend your whole life sealed in a can, your daily life immediately dependent on complex and expensive machinery. You can never again take a simple walk outdoors without a pressure suit. You will never again feel the wind on your face or enjoy the wildlife. You must live in constant fear of cosmic rays, since no atmosphere is there to block them from the surface -- your habitat (and your pressure suit) had better be well-shielded. Absolutely anything that has to be imported from Earth (which will mean most manufactures and most raw materials other than rocks, for some decades to come) will be a pricey luxury good. And you might find out eventually -- nobody really knows yet -- that living a very long time in a low-gravity environment is bad for your health somehow.

Maybe you are eager to live that kind of life, maybe many are, but most people would balk at it.

 

[FGB]

Yeah, crashing a spaceship must not be very good for you...Never known anybody to live over it before or did I miss something...

 

[KingOrfeo]

However, you are correct that those settlements must be economically self-sustaining because very few entities can provide continuing funds to keep hauling up consumables (foodstuffs, replacement parts, new equipment) outta the well (Earth's gravity).

Well, yes, but, no, what I meant was, space will not be colonized until a way is found to make space-based industrial activities profitable for those (on Earth) who invest in them. The only other reason to go into space is for scientific research, and you can't base any massive permanent colonization on that. Lots of scientists live in Antarctica, for brief periods, but nobody intends to raise their families there.

And we're not nearly there yet. E.g., there is untapped mineral wealth on the Moon -- so? There is untapped mineral wealth in Antarctica. It remains untapped because conducting mining operations in an environment where you have to dig through a mile of ice to scratch the dirt, and the ore must be shipped out and all supplies shipped in by snow-tractor across a vast desert of ice, and all miners have to get hazard pay just for working there, is too expensive to be profitable. But, those are trivial problems compared to the problems of mining the Moon and making it pay -- consider how costly it is, national-budget-level costly, just to get anything from Earth to Moon or vice-versa. And when they get there, the miners need pressurized habitats and pressure suits and freeze-dried food-stores and everything else astronauts need, all very expensive.

Those problems might be surmountable eventually. Some companies at any rate are betting they can make a profit on mining near-Earth asteroids. We'll see.

 

[1sickbastard]

.....

 

[1sickbastard]

Well, yes, but, no, what I meant was, space will not be colonized until a way is found to make space-based industrial activities profitable for those (on Earth) who invest in them. The only other reason to go into space is for scientific research, and you can't base any massive permanent colonization on that. Lots of scientists live in Antarctica, for brief periods, but nobody intends to raise their families there.

And we're not nearly there yet. E.g., there is untapped mineral wealth on the Moon -- so? There is untapped mineral wealth in Antarctica. It remains untapped because conducting mining operations in an environment where you have to dig through a mile of ice to scratch the dirt, and the ore must be shipped out and all supplies shipped in by snow-tractor across a vast desert of ice, and all miners have to get hazard pay just for working there, is too expensive to be profitable. But, those are trivial problems compared to the problems of mining the Moon and making it pay -- consider how costly it is, national-budget-level costly, just to get anything from Earth to Moon or vice-versa. And when they get there, the miners need pressurized habitats and pressure suits and freeze-dried food-stores and everything else astronauts need, all very expensive.

Those problems might be surmountable eventually. Some companies at any rate are betting they can make a profit on mining near-Earth asteroids. We'll see.

These problems will be surmounted eventually. Material sciences are constantly becoming more advanced and there's already a shitload of money being spent on sending payloads into orbit. That what Virgin Galactic & Space X have been trying to do; bring the cost of lifting cargo to LEO, GSO & TLO down to the point that it is economically viable to have a permanent human presence in space.

 

[Skiddles2014]

Didn't they say the private sector could do it better?

How many NASA shuttles and rockets have blown up in the past?

Right, now shut the fuck up.

 

[Libsam]

Right, now shut the fuck up.

Oh Hell No!

EAT MY SHIT YOU PISS DRINKING BEAR GRYLLS WANNABE!

 

[Learnsmith]

Didn't they say the private sector could do it better?

I will say that, as someone who is generally skeptical of capital, I do think the private sector has things to offer in the push toward space - namely, in helping absorb costs. I am okay with SpaceX handling cargo runs for the ISS, and if it affords NASA or ESA the budgetary latitude to dream bigger, then I'm okay with that. Not saying I advocate for lower safety or security measures, but in this case I think the picture is more complicated.

I'm interested in space disasters - I read a lot on the history, and I play a lot of KSP, and one thing that's become clear to me is how tricky flight-testing and development really are. You look at Apollo, you look at Salyut, you look at STS, and the chain of events is often so long, so intricate. Little oversights add up. It happens because deadlines come and go, or budgets run red, or part bids end up at risk. People in the accounting and engineering and flight get "go fever," or otherwise encounter scenarios in-flight that have never been accounted for. It's shitty and human and tragic. Just awful.

 

[Libsam]

Thanks to all you hot fucks who actually have the stamina to knock around the questions I have in my head.

Let me see if I've got this right, in layman's terms.

1) Without investment from the 1% illuminati style big pharm/business/bank/government cohort the rest of the plebs will never be able to make it happen because it's not profitable at the moment.

2) We know the private sector can do it because in the past the government never really built it, they just provided subsidies to the lowest bidding contractors to accomplish our space exploration goals.

Who knows what the answer is? Let India do it on the cheap? Their labor is cheap, they probably don't have as many regulation$ to deal with and in the end they'd be easier to control than China.

 

[Libsam]

Oh and here's a fun quote I picked up a few years ago, it's always stuck with me.

"I felt about as good as anybody would, sitting in a capsule on top of a rocket that were both built by the lowest bidder" ~ John Glenn