Author Topic: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)  (Read 177317 times)

Offline Andy Bandy

  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • California
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #480 on: 01/12/2018 02:04 AM »
My problem with Doug Messier is that he thought he saw an explosion AND immediately reported that "there was an explosion". In his rush to have a journalistic "first" he violated one of the fundamentals of good journalism: you only report the facts.

What he did was presenting his assumption as a "fact".

That was stupid. Just plain stupid.

He recognized his error after the fact and apologized. But the damage had already been done.

That is why the Chris, Chris G, and the other reporters here stand out: they do good journalism. They don't report facts until they have it confirmed as facts. That is why, IMO, NasaSpaceflight.com stands-out over 99.9 percent of all other space news websites.

Oh come on. He wasn’t just a journalist there - he was an eye-witness, and you report what you see (or speculate one what you think you saw). 99% of eyewitnesses in the area would have made the same assumption - it sure looked like SS2 blew up! Journalists (yes even real journalists) do during breaking new speculate quite a bit, and many details are in retrospect wrong.

So I think you just cling on to this incident to explain your general dislike, since you otherwise can not find any other factual issue with his reporting on VG to explain it.

Doug has been factually wrong many times. His consistent pushing of incorrect "facts" is one of the things that got him banned from NSF.

Other than that Doug could have simply reported "SpaceShip One came came apart in mid-air and crashed before my eyes", and he still would have had his "first".
At least it would have been a helluvalot more factual.

Speculating is not what a good journalist/reporter should be doing. Unfortunately, most so-called "journalists" almost exclusively speculate. That has, unfortunately, become the norm, to the point that certain folks can't even recall what a good journalist is supposed to be.

I stand with my opinion: Doug is neither a good journalist, nor a good reporter.
Feel free to disagree.

But I digress.

I back you on this. My big problem with him is he posts as if VG had run over his wife & kids. Any points he may have are obscured by his attitude issues.
Doug is a person.  VG is a rocket company.

Doug is not perfect and certainly does not like how VG is run, but has been, overall, pretty accurate about both coverage and predictions.

VG's track record as a rocket company has been dismal.

Given how much money they have, they are the worst performing newspace company out there.

I personally find their attitude repulsive.  Marketing-centric, dismissive of everyone else, and it's never their fault.

I think history has shown Doug's coverage and attitude to be appropriate.

Well I disagree strongly with you & regard your post as pretty OTT. Not pretending that VG are prefect far from it in fact but in this particular case I’d rather take the word of literally any other website in their coverage of the company than his website.

If we're talking about assumptions, Scaled and Virgin and FAA AST made some that cost four people their lives and put three in hospital. An erroneous report SS2 blew up instead of broke up pales by comparison.

If we're talking about reliability, Branson's autobiography is not. That's what the series focuses on in looking at the two accidents. That lack of reliability in the book is not a fluke. It's certainly not new.


Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8464
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4657
  • Likes Given: 884
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #481 on: 01/12/2018 02:06 AM »
My problem with Doug Messier is that he thought he saw an explosion AND immediately reported that "there was an explosion". In his rush to have a journalistic "first" he violated one of the fundamentals of good journalism: you only report the facts.

What he did was presenting his assumption as a "fact".

That was stupid. Just plain stupid.

He recognized his error after the fact and apologized. But the damage had already been done.

That is why the Chris, Chris G, and the other reporters here stand out: they do good journalism. They don't report facts until they have it confirmed as facts. That is why, IMO, NasaSpaceflight.com stands-out over 99.9 percent of all other space news websites.

Oh come on. He wasn’t just a journalist there - he was an eye-witness, and you report what you see (or speculate one what you think you saw). 99% of eyewitnesses in the area would have made the same assumption - it sure looked like SS2 blew up! Journalists (yes even real journalists) do during breaking new speculate quite a bit, and many details are in retrospect wrong.

So I think you just cling on to this incident to explain your general dislike, since you otherwise can not find any other factual issue with his reporting on VG to explain it.

Doug has been factually wrong many times. His consistent pushing of incorrect "facts" is one of the things that got him banned from NSF.

Other than that Doug could have simply reported "SpaceShip One came came apart in mid-air and crashed before my eyes", and he still would have had his "first".
At least it would have been a helluvalot more factual.

Speculating is not what a good journalist/reporter should be doing. Unfortunately, most so-called "journalists" almost exclusively speculate. That has, unfortunately, become the norm, to the point that certain folks can't even recall what a good journalist is supposed to be.

I stand with my opinion: Doug is neither a good journalist, nor a good reporter.
Feel free to disagree.

But I digress.

I back you on this. My big problem with him is he posts as if VG had run over his wife & kids. Any points he may have are obscured by his attitude issues.
Doug is a person.  VG is a rocket company.

Doug is not perfect and certainly does not like how VG is run, but has been, overall, pretty accurate about both coverage and predictions.

VG's track record as a rocket company has been dismal.

Given how much money they have, they are the worst performing newspace company out there.

I personally find their attitude repulsive.  Marketing-centric, dismissive of everyone else, and it's never their fault.

I think history has shown Doug's coverage and attitude to be appropriate.

Well I disagree strongly with you & regard your post as pretty OTT. Not pretending that VG are prefect far from it in fact but in this particular case I’d rather take the word of literally any other website in their coverage of the company than his website.

If we're talking about assumptions, Scaled and Virgin and FAA AST made some that cost four people their lives and put three in hospital. An erroneous report SS2 blew up instead of broke up pales by comparison.

If we're talking about reliability, Branson's autobiography is not. That's what the series focuses on in looking at the two accidents. That lack of reliability in the book is not a fluke. It's certainly not new.
And it's certainly not going to be corrected, by the author, the minute it turns out it wasn't accurate.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6434
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1780
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #482 on: 01/12/2018 06:27 AM »
Quote
It was a beautiful day for flying in Mojave, CA today! Here's a shot of VSS Unity after being released from her mothership, VMS Eve on her 7th glide flight. Getting #NMReady #SpaceShipTwo

https://twitter.com/virgingalactic/status/951632073306947584

Online Olaf

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
  • Germany
  • Liked: 417
  • Likes Given: 215
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #483 on: 01/12/2018 07:31 AM »
(Does anyone know how well the surviving pilot is doing? Haven't heard.)
Quote
Re: FAILURE: Space Ship Two Test Flight - UPDATES - Oct. 31, 2014
« Reply #482 on: 10/12/2017 07:53 PM »
It looks like Peter Siebold is back.
https://twitter.com/SETP_ORG/status/918325740847820802

Offline SimonFD

Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #484 on: 01/12/2018 07:46 AM »

"naturally orientate " - shouldn't that be "naturally orient"?


Depends on which side of the Atlantic you are. On this side "orientate" is correct.  8)
Mrs Doyle: "What would you say to a cup of tea, Father?"
Father Jack: "FECK OFF, CUP!"

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6434
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6083
  • Likes Given: 1780
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #485 on: 01/12/2018 11:28 AM »
Richard Branson blog:

Quote
Exciting day for Virgin Galactic with VSS Unity’s fastest ever glide flight achieved in the latest test.

At this stage of the glide flight programme, each flight is essentially a dry run — and one step closer to commercial service in New Mexico’s Spaceport America.

VSS Unity was released from the mothership VMS Eve and dropped from 50,000ft, reaching speed of Mach 0.9. That is around the maximum airspeed we can achieve before the rocket motor ignites.

Behind every test flight is months of hard work, preparation and analysis on the ground. To replicate the conditions of rocket-powered flights, water ballast is added to simulate the weight and positioning of the rocket motor where possible. VSS Unity also flew with her thermal protection system fully applied. This makes sure that heat loads generated by air friction during rocket-powered boost and supersonic re-entry cause no damage to the spaceship. It’s a good look though, with the upper surfaces of the previously white feather flaps are now covered in a protective silvered film.

Congratulations to VSS Unity pilots Mark “Forger” Stucky and Mike “Sooch” Masucci, as well as VMS Eve crew, CJ Sturckow, Kelly Latimer and Richard Starke, for a well-executed flight, supported of course by the Virgin Galactic and The Spaceship Company teams on the ground.



I still have to pinch myself every time Virgin Galactic does a test flight. I was asked recently whether I ever thought when I started out with the Virgin brand that I would be trying to go into space. The answer is never, but I’m so proud of how far we’ve come and I’m sure the team are busy analysing all the results of the test to see what comes next.

You can follow Virgin Galactic’s latest updates on their website and social channels.

https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/virgin-galactics-fastest-ever-glide-flight

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9547
  • UK
  • Liked: 1757
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #486 on: 01/12/2018 01:55 PM »
My problem with Doug Messier is that he thought he saw an explosion AND immediately reported that "there was an explosion". In his rush to have a journalistic "first" he violated one of the fundamentals of good journalism: you only report the facts.

What he did was presenting his assumption as a "fact".

That was stupid. Just plain stupid.

He recognized his error after the fact and apologized. But the damage had already been done.

That is why the Chris, Chris G, and the other reporters here stand out: they do good journalism. They don't report facts until they have it confirmed as facts. That is why, IMO, NasaSpaceflight.com stands-out over 99.9 percent of all other space news websites.

Oh come on. He wasn’t just a journalist there - he was an eye-witness, and you report what you see (or speculate one what you think you saw). 99% of eyewitnesses in the area would have made the same assumption - it sure looked like SS2 blew up! Journalists (yes even real journalists) do during breaking new speculate quite a bit, and many details are in retrospect wrong.

So I think you just cling on to this incident to explain your general dislike, since you otherwise can not find any other factual issue with his reporting on VG to explain it.

Doug has been factually wrong many times. His consistent pushing of incorrect "facts" is one of the things that got him banned from NSF.

Other than that Doug could have simply reported "SpaceShip One came came apart in mid-air and crashed before my eyes", and he still would have had his "first".
At least it would have been a helluvalot more factual.

Speculating is not what a good journalist/reporter should be doing. Unfortunately, most so-called "journalists" almost exclusively speculate. That has, unfortunately, become the norm, to the point that certain folks can't even recall what a good journalist is supposed to be.

I stand with my opinion: Doug is neither a good journalist, nor a good reporter.
Feel free to disagree.

But I digress.

I back you on this. My big problem with him is he posts as if VG had run over his wife & kids. Any points he may have are obscured by his attitude issues.
Doug is a person.  VG is a rocket company.

Doug is not perfect and certainly does not like how VG is run, but has been, overall, pretty accurate about both coverage and predictions.

VG's track record as a rocket company has been dismal.

Given how much money they have, they are the worst performing newspace company out there.

I personally find their attitude repulsive.  Marketing-centric, dismissive of everyone else, and it's never their fault.

I think history has shown Doug's coverage and attitude to be appropriate.

Well I disagree strongly with you & regard your post as pretty OTT. Not pretending that VG are prefect far from it in fact but in this particular case I’d rather take the word of literally any other website in their coverage of the company than his website.

If we're talking about assumptions, Scaled and Virgin and FAA AST made some that cost four people their lives and put three in hospital. An erroneous report SS2 blew up instead of broke up pales by comparison.

If we're talking about reliability, Branson's autobiography is not. That's what the series focuses on in looking at the two accidents. That lack of reliability in the book is not a fluke. It's certainly not new.

If you want quality reporting keep to sites like this don’t refer to people who’ve been banned from here.

Offline imprezive

  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #487 on: 01/12/2018 02:31 PM »
There is an argument to be made that there are really only 4 new space launch companies anywhere near flying the US: Blue Origin, RocketLab, Virgin, and maybe Vector. I’d think if people where space enthusiasts they’d want all of them to succeed. It sure feels there are people here hoping Virgin doesn’t.

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 930
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 240

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4307
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2534
  • Likes Given: 525
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #489 on: 01/12/2018 04:27 PM »
There is an argument to be made that there are really only 4 new space launch companies anywhere near flying the US: Blue Origin, RocketLab, Virgin, and maybe Vector. I’d think if people where space enthusiasts they’d want all of them to succeed. It sure feels there are people here hoping Virgin doesn’t.

You may not have been reading this forum for the last several years. My impression is that most people here do/did want VG to succeed and have become disappointed/disillusioned by VG's lack of progress, fatal accidents, etc, not to mention Branson's relentless cheery schedule over-optimism that repeatedly sets the fan club up for disappointment.

We're all space fans here, and we had hoped for better results from VG. There's a difference between disappointment and hoping for a program to fail. The disappointments are from hopes that have been repeatedly dashed by failures, schedule slips, etc.

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1172
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #490 on: 01/12/2018 05:02 PM »
You may not have been reading this forum for the last several years. My impression is that most people here do/did want VG to succeed and have become disappointed/disillusioned by VG's lack of progress, fatal accidents, etc, not to mention Branson's relentless cheery schedule over-optimism that repeatedly sets the fan club up for disappointment.

We're all space fans here, and we had hoped for better results from VG. There's a difference between disappointment and hoping for a program to fail. The disappointments are from hopes that have been repeatedly dashed by failures, schedule slips, etc.

Every space entrepreneur has given unrealitic schedule. Every. Single. One. Remember Bezos who said he expected manned flights to happen in 2017? What about Elon Musk, who said after Atlantis conducted her final flight that there won't be gap in manned launches? Well... Falcon 9 never sent people to orbit - not in 2011, not in 2012, not (even as pessimists expected) in 2016. Hell, not even in 2017 and most probably it won't happen in 2018. Oh, 2018 was expected to be the year when people fly beyond Low Earth Orbit, on a circumlunar trajectory.

But Musk is forgiven for that. Because he's Musk, right?

Schedules always tend to slip, and Virgin Galactic makes no difference. The only difference between VG and other space companies is that VG conducts manned flights right from the beginning - and that's why there are in-flight accidents. Some people will say it's reckless. Maybe they're right. But other companies are faaar too hesitant. Extremely cautious.

Branson doesn't always express optimism. This is what certain people deliberately choose to read.

Here are some of his words people tend to ignore:

"Setbacks are one thing, but what if the worst happens: could Virgin Galactic survive a second crash? We can't guarantee that there won't be another one, and we can't guarantee that the next one won't be technical. What would we do if that happened? How would we all feel? We'd have to look at what had gone wrong and then decide at the time. But I'm not one for giving up. In my ballooning adventures we had many catastrophes but we kept pushing on. So my instinct would be that, whatever happens, we'll carry on until we succeed."

« Last Edit: 01/12/2018 05:02 PM by Svetoslav »

Offline Andy Bandy

  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • California
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #491 on: 01/12/2018 05:07 PM »
Quote
If we're talking about assumptions, Scaled and Virgin and FAA AST made some that cost four people their lives and put three in hospital. An erroneous report SS2 blew up instead of broke up pales by comparison.

If we're talking about reliability, Branson's autobiography is not. That's what the series focuses on in looking at the two accidents. That lack of reliability in the book is not a fluke. It's certainly not new.
And it's certainly not going to be corrected, by the author, the minute it turns out it wasn't accurate.
[/quote]

Branson would have to write a new book to fix all the mistakes in this one about Virgin Galactic. Readers will be surprised to learn there was a WhiteKnightOne. He moves the rollout of WhiteKnightTwo from July to January. And that doesn't even get into his selective retelling of the crash.

But, I digress.

Offline Andy Bandy

  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • California
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #492 on: 01/12/2018 05:09 PM »
Quote
If we're talking about assumptions, Scaled and Virgin and FAA AST made some that cost four people their lives and put three in hospital. An erroneous report SS2 blew up instead of broke up pales by comparison.

If we're talking about reliability, Branson's autobiography is not. That's what the series focuses on in looking at the two accidents. That lack of reliability in the book is not a fluke. It's certainly not new.

If you want quality reporting keep to sites like this don’t refer to people who’ve been banned from here.
[/quote]

Avoid Branson's book as well.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2551
  • Liked: 446
  • Likes Given: 1039
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #493 on: 01/12/2018 05:25 PM »
Is Doug Messier as bad as Keith Cowing ?  ::) I used to read Nasa watch... a long time ago.
... that ackward moment when you realize that Jeff Bezos personal fortune is far above NASA annual budget... 115 billion to 18 billion...

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #494 on: 01/12/2018 07:42 PM »
These current reports are the best to hear about reasonable plans to finish Space Ship Two such that it may be flown as a commercial space tourism service.

Suggest that BO's NS is an excellent motivator for this. SX's lunar free return also.

The last thing Branson wants is "negative bragging rights" owning to being a complete and total business idiot from day one regarding Space Ship One/Two (attempted to do in one program, something already difficult if done as three separate programs - rationalize/stabalize SS1 and fly it with few passengers to learn/prove concept as a business, build/fly SS2 experimental only w/o making 100km, refine SS2 props/operations to replace SS1 expanding the business *safely*).

He may recast history as much as he likes, silly but meaningless. The real issue is that of getting a reliable vehicle with propulsion flying many mission without further incident. Before NS does the same.

SX/BO/ULA haven't killed anyone. Everyone except VG, who is literally and figuratively dead last.

And its only Branson's fault. Too cheap, risky, quick, and stupid. Really, really bad combo. SC got out of the picture awhile ago.

Perhaps he can dig himself out of this mess he caused himself.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2551
  • Liked: 446
  • Likes Given: 1039
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #495 on: 01/13/2018 06:56 AM »
From my parallel readings of Parabolic Arc and NASA watch, I felt that Parabolic Arc was far better.

I would tell that, bar the specific case of Branson and VG, and very unlike Cowing - that liked to pick (FUTILE) fights with the entire world of aerospace - Messier looked pretty neutral in his reporting. He reports launches and events without being much opiniated.

This said, what Woods170 said is troubling

Quote
Doug has been factually wrong many times. His consistent pushing of incorrect "facts" is one of the things that got him banned from NSF.


need to learn more about this.
... that ackward moment when you realize that Jeff Bezos personal fortune is far above NASA annual budget... 115 billion to 18 billion...

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #496 on: 01/13/2018 07:35 AM »
From my parallel readings of Parabolic Arc and NASA watch, I felt that Parabolic Arc was far better.

I would tell that, bar the specific case of Branson and VG, and very unlike Cowing - that liked to pick (FUTILE) fights with the entire world of aerospace - Messier looked pretty neutral in his reporting. He reports launches and events without being much opiniated.

This said, what Woods170 said is troubling

Quote
Doug has been factually wrong many times. His consistent pushing of incorrect "facts" is one of the things that got him banned from NSF.


need to learn more about this.

Mr. Messier repeatedly made the claim (supposedly from his inside sources) that NASA found problems with the Falcon 9 during the CRS-7 failure other than the faulty strut, and that the strut was not the cause of the failure.

*edit

Here's the only remaining post with a quote from him (parabolicarc) that I can find.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40621.msg1555109#msg1555109

/edit
« Last Edit: 01/13/2018 07:51 AM by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1172
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #497 on: 01/13/2018 08:25 AM »

SX/BO/ULA haven't killed anyone. Everyone except VG, who is literally and figuratively dead last.

And its only Branson's fault. Too cheap, risky, quick, and stupid. Really, really bad combo. SC got out of the picture awhile ago.


Depends on what you call "dead last". Yes, BO, ULA and SX have sent hardware to space, but they never conducted even a single manned test.

VG is still the only company that has conducted manned rocket flights in the post-shuttle era.

Such comments, frankly, amuse me. Flying test aircraft is always risky, and test pilots are well aware with the risks. Critics, on the other side, contribute to the culture of extreme risk aversion. Has our world has become too nice and fearful? Do we think that the recent past was grim and the distand past - disgusting?

VG takes more risks and that's why I think the company should be applauded.

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #498 on: 01/13/2018 03:46 PM »
It's difficult to applaud Virgin Galactic taking unnecessary risks with human lives. However, I can unequivocally applaud the bravery of their pilots and ground crew.

Space travel will never be 100% safe but it's the 21st Century and gigantic leaps have been made with autonomous control of vehicles. Some risks are now pointless and actually counterproductive. SpaceX and Blue Origin will both have conducted dozens of umanned tests of their systems before a single paying passenger steps aboard. I'll be happy to see SpaceShipTwo fly above the Karman Line eventually but it appears Virgin Galactic bet on the wrong horse and latched on to a dead-end technology that scales poorly and is fundamentally less safe than competing systems.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #499 on: 01/13/2018 04:55 PM »

SX/BO/ULA haven't killed anyone. Everyone except VG, who is literally and figuratively dead last.

And its only Branson's fault. Too cheap, risky, quick, and stupid. Really, really bad combo. SC got out of the picture awhile ago.


Depends on what you call "dead last". Yes, BO, ULA and SX have sent hardware to space, but they never conducted even a single manned test.
Depends on what you mean by conducting a manned test.

Dragon and NS have launched HSF capsules, and both claim that humans along would have been safe on those flights, only held back because doing so would contravene (and thus slow down) the ability to fly them as qualified for both national need (NASA to ISS), as well as commercial use (SX - lunar, BO - suborbital) in this case tourism.

(And NASA has alluded to if Soyuz was unable to fly, there might be means of using existing flying vehicles (Dragon) to do so under duress.)

Quote
VG is still the only company that has conducted manned rocket flights in the post-shuttle era.
To what advantage? Perhaps because it was cheaper than teleoperated flight?

Quote
Such comments, frankly, amuse me. Flying test aircraft is always risky, and test pilots are well aware with the risks.
This appalls me.

You take risks when it will get you somewhere.

And ... in VG's case, they did avoid risk where they could have gained. They could have reflown SS1, as I mentioned above, to the benefit of finishing the original program, being able ultimately to fly 2-4 tourists. So why not take the risk, to get the certain benefit?

Quote
Critics, on the other side, contribute to the culture of extreme risk aversion. Has our world has become too nice and fearful? Do we think that the recent past was grim and the distand past - disgusting?
You misunderstand my above post.

Like fighter pilots that think they are brave when they fly just off the skin of a larger aircraft to "haze", they're just foolhardy.

Combining flight programs was just cheap and stupid, and the risk did not advantage them. I'm saying Branson "chickened out" on SS1, and got cheap.

Yes HSF is risky. Many are/have been willing to risk. But just to save a buck? No point.

Even greater is the irony that the above post suggests something that in the end would have gotten you your fannish delight of first manned 100k passengers cheaper/quicker/safer, and would have led to the brilliant success of VG.

I was trying to get you your success after all. Apparently, you need to believe Branson's foolishness more than simple professionalism. What I was arguing for.

Now, with SX, the same cannot be true. CC is a political football, as you know. So it doesn't apply.

As to NS, suggest its about Bezos desire for "gradatim" unlike VG which hasn't and has hurt them and others.

Something for nothing??

Quote
VG takes more risks and that's why I think the company should be applauded.
Applauded for which specific gains please? Perhaps I'm missing something?
« Last Edit: 01/13/2018 05:01 PM by Space Ghost 1962 »

Tags: