Comments on: How safe is space tourism? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:19:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Tourisme Spatial et Risques « Dr. Goulu http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32165 Tourisme Spatial et Risques « Dr. Goulu Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:08:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32165 [...] risque d’y laisser sa peau comme simple client ? C’est la question posée dans “How safe is space tourism ?” sur Bad [...] […] risque d’y laisser sa peau comme simple client ? C’est la question posée dans “How safe is space tourism ?” sur Bad […]

]]> By: Dr. Goulu » Tourisme Spatial et Risques http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32164 Dr. Goulu » Tourisme Spatial et Risques Tue, 29 May 2007 09:01:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32164 [...] risque d’y laisser sa peau comme simple client ? C’est la question posée dans “How safe is space tourism ?” sur Bad [...] […] risque d’y laisser sa peau comme simple client ? C’est la question posée dans “How safe is space tourism ?” sur Bad […]

]]> By: Irishman http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32163 Irishman Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:12:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32163 Millimeter Wave said: >Although he does address that issue, he does so by introducing an additional irrelevant argument: he points out that, in an abort situation, the X planes were capable of jettisoning fuel, and then introduces a whole argument about the difficulty of jettisoning fuel or oxidizer from a hybrid rocket. This completely misses the point; you wouldn’t *need* to dump the fuel or oxidizer from a hybrid rocket to avoid an explosion. There’s a fundamental safety difference between an engine running on LOX & kerosene and one running on nitrous oxide & rubber. Lab Lemming said: > The article suggests that failure to eject the solid propellant will lead to center of mass problems in the glide stage, and/or a very heavy, very fast landing. I think that's one of the faulty assumptions. The experimental rocket planes of the past were edge performance vehicles. They relied on dumping fuel to get to their nominal landing weight. They were optimally designed to those criteria, so did not have performance margin. Do you think a commercial aircraft today <i>has</i> to dump it's fuel or it will overstress the landing gear? No. It is a safety practice to dump fuel, but if aircraft are partially fueled they don't dump it all every time, only on risky landing situations. And they are designed to be able to take the full weight landing full without overstressing the landing gear or aircraft frame. Since these new rocket planes do not have to jettison their fuel for safety, and they are not being designed at the margins of performance, they will be designed to land with their fuel systems full for just such an emergency landing. Ergo, being heavy will not be a concern, and there will then not be a cg issue. I'm concerned about safety, and what will happen to the industry if someone does something phenomenally stupid/unsafe. But the comparisons in this article do seem a bit unfair. Millimeter Wave said:
>Although he does address that issue, he does so by introducing an additional irrelevant argument: he points out that, in an abort situation, the X planes were capable of jettisoning fuel, and then introduces a whole argument about the difficulty of jettisoning fuel or oxidizer from a hybrid rocket. This completely misses the point; you wouldn’t *need* to dump the fuel or oxidizer from a hybrid rocket to avoid an explosion. There’s a fundamental safety difference between an engine running on LOX & kerosene and one running on nitrous oxide & rubber.

Lab Lemming said:
> The article suggests that failure to eject the solid propellant will lead to center of mass problems in the glide stage, and/or a very heavy, very fast landing.

I think that’s one of the faulty assumptions. The experimental rocket planes of the past were edge performance vehicles. They relied on dumping fuel to get to their nominal landing weight. They were optimally designed to those criteria, so did not have performance margin. Do you think a commercial aircraft today has to dump it’s fuel or it will overstress the landing gear? No. It is a safety practice to dump fuel, but if aircraft are partially fueled they don’t dump it all every time, only on risky landing situations. And they are designed to be able to take the full weight landing full without overstressing the landing gear or aircraft frame. Since these new rocket planes do not have to jettison their fuel for safety, and they are not being designed at the margins of performance, they will be designed to land with their fuel systems full for just such an emergency landing. Ergo, being heavy will not be a concern, and there will then not be a cg issue.

I’m concerned about safety, and what will happen to the industry if someone does something phenomenally stupid/unsafe. But the comparisons in this article do seem a bit unfair.

]]> By: v3rlon http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32138 v3rlon Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:33:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32138 Comparing experimental rocket planes to a tourist industry is a tad unfair. Early airplane flights didn't always end well either, and they are quite safe now. Unless you are a Czechoslavakian Flight Attendant (see the Guiness Book of World Records for falling), falling from 30,000 + feet gets you just as dead as an explosion in space. What about all the SR-71 flights? Those pilots got their astronaut wings, didn't they? Of course, many of the flights were classified, so we do not know how many their were. I am just saying their is a difference between a TEST plane designed to push to the bleeding edge of technology, and something that is designed for consumer grade use. Besides, only multi-millionares can afford it right now, and killing one of those off would invite a horrendous lawsuit from a family that very likely knows some REALLY capable attorneys. Comparing experimental rocket planes to a tourist industry is a tad unfair. Early airplane flights didn’t always end well either, and they are quite safe now. Unless you are a Czechoslavakian Flight Attendant (see the Guiness Book of World Records for falling), falling from 30,000 + feet gets you just as dead as an explosion in space.

What about all the SR-71 flights? Those pilots got their astronaut wings, didn’t they? Of course, many of the flights were classified, so we do not know how many their were.

I am just saying their is a difference between a TEST plane designed to push to the bleeding edge of technology, and something that is designed for consumer grade use.

Besides, only multi-millionares can afford it right now, and killing one of those off would invite a horrendous lawsuit from a family that very likely knows some REALLY capable attorneys.

]]> By: NeverTheTwain http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32139 NeverTheTwain Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:35:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32139 I'm surprised nobody has mentioned how often and how strenuously Burt Rutan, at least, has stated the importance of safety to his approach to spacecraft design and space travel. The famous hands-off "shuttlecock" reentry system of SpaceShipOne (and Two) is one manifestation of this attitude; so is his dedication, for now, to the hybrid rocket motor. There's no telling what else's he's got in the works. Rutan might have some oddball ideas about the ancient Egyptians, but when it comes to aerospace engineering, he's not a good man to bet against. Just ask the company that put up the money for the X Prize. I’m surprised nobody has mentioned how often and how strenuously Burt Rutan, at least, has stated the importance of safety to his approach to spacecraft design and space travel. The famous hands-off “shuttlecock” reentry system of SpaceShipOne (and Two) is one manifestation of this attitude; so is his dedication, for now, to the hybrid rocket motor. There’s no telling what else’s he’s got in the works.

Rutan might have some oddball ideas about the ancient Egyptians, but when it comes to aerospace engineering, he’s not a good man to bet against. Just ask the company that put up the money for the X Prize.

]]> By: Magnum http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32140 Magnum Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:27:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32140 I hate, despise, lawyers as much as anyone, but how could so-called space tourism companies possibly leave themselves open to being screwed by lawyers? I mean, customers of space tourism will be the mega-rich at first, and any space tourism company that has the slightest intention of staying in business will get the law team of each of its customers to sign off on the client's perhaps reckless adventure. I hate, despise, lawyers as much as anyone, but how could so-called space tourism companies possibly leave themselves open to being screwed by lawyers? I mean, customers of space tourism will be the mega-rich at first, and any space tourism company that has the slightest intention of staying in business will get the law team of each of its customers to sign off on the client’s perhaps reckless adventure.

]]> By: Tailspin Tommy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32141 Tailspin Tommy Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:59:57 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/07/how-safe-is-space-tourism/#comment-32141 You can always tell the pioneers. They're the ones full of arrows. Note that those shooting the arrows don't run any exploratory or innovation risk, they simply protect the status quo--always a popular pass time by those who don't have the guts to explore or the creativity to innovcate. As for accidents turning popular opinion against space tourism: we offered open cockpit biplane rides for 15 years. When some idiot would manage to crash his biplane we inevitable were hit by a ricochet in the press. And there was NO impact on our reservation rate or bottom line. The only impact will be if the Feds over react, and tell Columbus he can't sail. You can always tell the pioneers. They’re the ones full of arrows. Note that those shooting the arrows don’t run any exploratory or innovation risk, they simply protect the status quo–always a popular pass time by those who don’t have the guts to explore or the creativity to innovcate.

As for accidents turning popular opinion against space tourism: we offered open cockpit biplane rides for 15 years. When some idiot would manage to crash his biplane we inevitable were hit by a ricochet in the press. And there was NO impact on our reservation rate or bottom line.

The only impact will be if the Feds over react, and tell Columbus he can’t sail.

]]>