Author Topic: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)  (Read 175079 times)

Offline eeergo

  • Phystronaut
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4994
  • Milan, Italy; Spain; Japan
  • Liked: 694
  • Likes Given: 473
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #580 on: 02/08/2018 07:30 AM »
I checked france homicide rate the other day and my mind was blown away: there were "only"  825 murders last year, over a population of 67 million. I couldn't believe it was so low, and below the treshold of a thousand. Car wrecks killed and still kill 3500 people annually, 4 times more. Unbelievable.

https://www.planetoscope.com/Criminalite/1201-homicides-commis-en-france.html

Off topic, but there are lower ones: check Spain or Austria for example (292 in 2016 for a 46.5M population = 6.3 per million (or the same as the US rate only for mass shootings, per the above statistics), or 4.7 per million in Austria, versus the 12.3 per million for France)
-DaviD-

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #581 on: 02/08/2018 08:38 AM »
As technology makes life safer, the safety standards also increase. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #582 on: 02/08/2018 04:23 PM »
You know VG is making fast progress when people discuss Austrian homicide rates!
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6360
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5891
  • Likes Given: 1699
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #583 on: 02/08/2018 07:44 PM »
Quote
Richard DalBello, Virgin, in #FAACST2018 interoperability panel: in 2018 weíre looking to launch two new vehicles: SpaceShipTwo (a powered flight coming ďshortlyĒ) and LauncherOne.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/961670561964396544

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7475
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1121
  • Likes Given: 7541
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #584 on: 02/08/2018 10:48 PM »

But otherwise, what do shootings have to do with anything?   Life is relatively safe.  1931 deaths out of >300 millions is very little.
It speaks to perception and actual levels of risk.
Quote from: meekGee
SS2 hasn't performed well to date in terms of safety (one fatal accident in a handful of powered flights) and there are also objective safety concerns just looking at the design - and no way to test it unmanned.
Isn't that the point of a flight test programme? To find problems, possibly fatal problems, and correct them before a design enters service?
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7475
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1121
  • Likes Given: 7541
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #585 on: 02/08/2018 10:58 PM »
I checked france homicide rate the other day and my mind was blown away: there were "only"  825 murders last year, over a population of 67 million. I couldn't believe it was so low, and below the treshold of a thousand. Car wrecks killed and still kill 3500 people annually, 4 times more. Unbelievable.

https://www.planetoscope.com/Criminalite/1201-homicides-commis-en-france.html
Americans will say that the US is much bigger than France (about 4.85x by population) so of course there would be more murders in proportion.

Note that "mass shootings" are a small sub set of all US gunshot injuries and deaths.

My point was the how much risk people are prepared to accept already, without really thinking about it.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • Liked: 2291
  • Likes Given: 1314
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #586 on: 02/08/2018 11:58 PM »
I checked france homicide rate the other day and my mind was blown away: there were "only"  825 murders last year, over a population of 67 million. I couldn't believe it was so low, and below the treshold of a thousand. Car wrecks killed and still kill 3500 people annually, 4 times more. Unbelievable.

https://www.planetoscope.com/Criminalite/1201-homicides-commis-en-france.html
Americans will say that the US is much bigger than France (about 4.85x by population) so of course there would be more murders in proportion.

Note that "mass shootings" are a small sub set of all US gunshot injuries and deaths.

My point was the how much risk people are prepared to accept already, without really thinking about it.

The risks aren't comparable, yet. If you live in the US for a year, you have about a 1 in 20,000 chance of getting murdered. If you drive a car in the US for a year, you have about a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying in a car crash.

If you take a 20 minute flight on SS2, you have something like a 1 in 10 chance of dying in a crash, based on flight history. That's about a million times riskier.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2018 11:58 PM by envy887 »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6360
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5891
  • Likes Given: 1699
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #587 on: 02/15/2018 06:29 PM »
Quote
Explore #SpaceShipTwo & #WhiteKnightTwo on our new website in panoramic 3D and web VR, thanks to #MicrosoftEdge

https://twitter.com/virgingalactic/status/964218032343040000

http://www.virgingalactic.com/explore/
« Last Edit: 02/15/2018 06:30 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline Andy Bandy

  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • California
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #588 on: 02/19/2018 12:20 AM »
Quote
Explore #SpaceShipTwo & #WhiteKnightTwo on our new website in panoramic 3D and web VR, thanks to #MicrosoftEdge

https://twitter.com/virgingalactic/status/964218032343040000

http://www.virgingalactic.com/explore/

Meh. 3D and VR. How about an actual space flight?

Meanwhile, Branson's going to upstage Elon Musk. (Eye roll) You'll forgive me if I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/14/technology/richard-branson-elon-musk-spacex/index.html

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8635
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2680
  • Likes Given: 6978
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #589 on: 02/19/2018 12:26 AM »
If it was fully automated they could have already flown it to space and back dozens of times un-crewed for tests that would have generated reams of data...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #590 on: 02/19/2018 01:45 AM »
If it was fully automated they could have already flown it to space and back dozens of times un-crewed for tests that would have generated reams of data...
I doubt it. During the downtime between most flights they seem to be making aerodynamic or structural changes based on previous test data, in addition to adding hardware required for the next test flight. I donít see how making the vehicle unmanned would make those changes go any faster. Adding automation also increases the complexity of the vehicle, which would likely make the flight test process take longer. They would have to debug an advanced flight automation system in addition to debugging a mach 3 spacecraft, which is already hard enough. Iím not saying that all of the downtime between flights isn't human related, but I think it is unfair to say that just making it fully automated would automagically fix everything.
I tried it at home

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4049
  • California
  • Liked: 3345
  • Likes Given: 2110
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #591 on: 02/19/2018 04:24 AM »
If it was fully automated they could have already flown it to space and back dozens of times un-crewed for tests that would have generated reams of data...
I doubt it. During the downtime between most flights they seem to be making aerodynamic or structural changes based on previous test data, in addition to adding hardware required for the next test flight. I donít see how making the vehicle unmanned would make those changes go any faster. Adding automation also increases the complexity of the vehicle, which would likely make the flight test process take longer. They would have to debug an advanced flight automation system in addition to debugging a mach 3 spacecraft, which is already hard enough. Iím not saying that all of the downtime between flights isn't human related, but I think it is unfair to say that just making it fully automated would automagically fix everything.

Perhaps, but I think the point is that with a pilot in the loop they are forced to develop it the "NASA way" (we can't afford to make any mistakes) but without the "NASA budget". Making it able to fly without crew would add some up front cost, but would simplify testing. (for example you can decouple environmental or human comfort feature testing from flight testing)

It also begs the question whether or not it is even desirable in this century to have a craft that requires two pilots. It seems like a rather old fashioned idea in the 21st century. My prediction: SS2 will be the last spacecraft developed this way, and it will provide multiple lessons for future entrants in what *not* to do. But I still hope to see them fly it.
« Last Edit: 02/19/2018 04:25 AM by Lars-J »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9409
  • UK
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #592 on: 02/19/2018 07:41 AM »
If it was fully automated they could have already flown it to space and back dozens of times un-crewed for tests that would have generated reams of data...
I doubt it. During the downtime between most flights they seem to be making aerodynamic or structural changes based on previous test data, in addition to adding hardware required for the next test flight. I donít see how making the vehicle unmanned would make those changes go any faster. Adding automation also increases the complexity of the vehicle, which would likely make the flight test process take longer. They would have to debug an advanced flight automation system in addition to debugging a mach 3 spacecraft, which is already hard enough. Iím not saying that all of the downtime between flights isn't human related, but I think it is unfair to say that just making it fully automated would automagically fix everything.

Perhaps, but I think the point is that with a pilot in the loop they are forced to develop it the "NASA way" (we can't afford to make any mistakes) but without the "NASA budget". Making it able to fly without crew would add some up front cost, but would simplify testing. (for example you can decouple environmental or human comfort feature testing from flight testing)

It also begs the question whether or not it is even desirable in this century to have a craft that requires two pilots. It seems like a rather old fashioned idea in the 21st century. My prediction: SS2 will be the last spacecraft developed this way, and it will provide multiple lessons for future entrants in what *not* to do. But I still hope to see them fly it.

What an odd argument. The B-21 which will be the most heavily automated aircraft so far ever built when flying in manned mode is still intended to have two pilots. There is still something to be said for having two pilots and two sets of eyes, two human brains for certain key stages of operation.

Offline MaxTeranous

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #593 on: 02/19/2018 09:37 AM »
What an odd argument. The B-21 which will be the most heavily automated aircraft so far ever built when flying in manned mode is still intended to have two pilots. There is still something to be said for having two pilots and two sets of eyes, two human brains for certain key stages of operation.

Apples to oranges. The humans aren't on board the B-21 to fly from A to B on a well planned and steady course, they're there to deal with the realities of combat airspace and to drop the nuclear bombs.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #594 on: 02/19/2018 02:48 PM »
It's 2018 for heavens sake. Pilots are a liability. A pilot pulled the lever that destroyed the previous test vehicle. The root cause of that tragedy was choosing to have pilots in the first place.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8635
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2680
  • Likes Given: 6978
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #595 on: 02/19/2018 05:19 PM »
The purpose of this "VG Spaceliner" is to transport the passengers on a pleasure-ride to the boundary of space in safest most efficient manor that this design will allow.  The flight profile of suborbital vehicles is well understood and testing from the onset should have been un-crewed for the specifics of this design... Only after sufficient evaluation has been done should pilots be incorporated to "monitor" the systems and only intervene "if" necessary for regular scheduled passenger flight safety after they have been qualified... The purpose of SS2 is not to demonstrate the "hand-flying skills" of pilots on board which would best left to aerobatic demonstrations and competitions... This is coming to you from a pilot's perspective, "leave the ego on the ground"...
« Last Edit: 02/19/2018 05:26 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Gliderflyer

Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #596 on: 02/19/2018 10:34 PM »
If it was fully automated they could have already flown it to space and back dozens of times un-crewed for tests that would have generated reams of data...
I doubt it. During the downtime between most flights they seem to be making aerodynamic or structural changes based on previous test data, in addition to adding hardware required for the next test flight. I donít see how making the vehicle unmanned would make those changes go any faster. Adding automation also increases the complexity of the vehicle, which would likely make the flight test process take longer. They would have to debug an advanced flight automation system in addition to debugging a mach 3 spacecraft, which is already hard enough. Iím not saying that all of the downtime between flights isn't human related, but I think it is unfair to say that just making it fully automated would automagically fix everything.

Perhaps, but I think the point is that with a pilot in the loop they are forced to develop it the "NASA way" (we can't afford to make any mistakes) but without the "NASA budget". Making it able to fly without crew would add some up front cost, but would simplify testing. (for example you can decouple environmental or human comfort feature testing from flight testing)

It also begs the question whether or not it is even desirable in this century to have a craft that requires two pilots. It seems like a rather old fashioned idea in the 21st century. My prediction: SS2 will be the last spacecraft developed this way, and it will provide multiple lessons for future entrants in what *not* to do. But I still hope to see them fly it.
I think they would have to develop it ďthe NASA wayĒ in either case. They arenít rolling these off an assembly line and probably canít afford (in terms of money and time) to rush through testing while losing a bunch of vehicles in the process. Trial-and-erroring your way to victory doesnít work if you have a small budget and no revenue from test flights.

I also donít know if I agree that making it automated would simplify testing. Computers are only as smart as we program them to be, so a lot more analysis would and testing would need to be done to ensure that the computers wonít get confused and plow the vehicle into the ground (which also makes it harder to fly from a regulatory standpoint, because that makes the FAA a LOT twitchier). Automating it would also make it heavier (and therefore bigger and more expensive) because of the added actuators and power systems for the actuators.

While I wish them luck, I do agree with you that SS2 will be a lesson in how not to do things. I think it will be a ďradical vehicle configuration changes and hybrids are badĒ lesson and not a ďpilots are badĒ lesson (although I am a pilot, so I may be biased).
I tried it at home

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8288
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4499
  • Likes Given: 872
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #597 on: 02/20/2018 12:46 AM »
If it was fully automated they could have already flown it to space and back dozens of times un-crewed for tests that would have generated reams of data...
I doubt it. During the downtime between most flights they seem to be making aerodynamic or structural changes based on previous test data, in addition to adding hardware required for the next test flight. I donít see how making the vehicle unmanned would make those changes go any faster. Adding automation also increases the complexity of the vehicle, which would likely make the flight test process take longer. They would have to debug an advanced flight automation system in addition to debugging a mach 3 spacecraft, which is already hard enough. Iím not saying that all of the downtime between flights isn't human related, but I think it is unfair to say that just making it fully automated would automagically fix everything.

Perhaps, but I think the point is that with a pilot in the loop they are forced to develop it the "NASA way" (we can't afford to make any mistakes) but without the "NASA budget". Making it able to fly without crew would add some up front cost, but would simplify testing. (for example you can decouple environmental or human comfort feature testing from flight testing)

It also begs the question whether or not it is even desirable in this century to have a craft that requires two pilots. It seems like a rather old fashioned idea in the 21st century. My prediction: SS2 will be the last spacecraft developed this way, and it will provide multiple lessons for future entrants in what *not* to do. But I still hope to see them fly it.

Ironic, given how much effort they invested in branding the "New Space" moniker...





ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8590
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3482
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #598 on: 02/20/2018 01:11 AM »
Ironic, given how much effort they invested in branding the "New Space" moniker...

Who, VG? They've never been a part of it.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Liked: 764
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Reply #599 on: 02/20/2018 02:48 AM »
It's 2018 for heavens sake. Pilots are a liability. A pilot pulled the lever that destroyed the previous test vehicle. The root cause of that tragedy was choosing to have pilots in the first place.

But the whole thing was designed over 10 years ago...

Also isn't it fundamentally more difficult to automate an airplane then a rocket? Rockets have been flying automatically since the 1960s, but even today most airplane takeoff/landing still require a pilot.

Tags: