What will the impact of inexpensive access to space be?

[Elmar Moelzer]

Passengers will need to wear light cabin spacesuits and helment these will require training.

You mean for the launch. Yes, they will have to. Yes they require training. No, I don't think it will be months.

There is also issue of handling bodily functions, nappies maybe answer for short trips, extended trips will require toilet training. With 2 crew and ground controlled autopilot I doubt any flight training of capsule will be needed, except how operate radio.

I remember Richard Garriotts take on that. No one can quite train you for that.
You pretty much learn that "up there" and from what he said, it is not a pleasant experience ( market niche anyone?).

[llanitedave]

Now imagine having to execute those same tasks in microgravity? In a cramped spacecraft where one careless kick or sweep of the arm could effect the spacecraft controls, knock loose a vital piece of equipment or worse yet put someone ELSE in danger?

Any space craft designed for tourist use will not have vital controls sticking out where passengers can hit them.  Cruise ships don't make the scuttles available to the passenger, do they?

[chalz]

Suppose 15 years from now all orbital flights cost <10% of what they are now. Reusability via flyback stages works and is copied by all rocket makers. Then suppose that reliability is still bad, 1 in 1000 flights is catastrophically lost. How would this restrain uses?

I think unmanned use would expand much more than manned uses. Working in space would be the most dangerous occupation possible and as a tourist location it would be like climbing Mount Everest. It sounds like a risk people would take if they thought the rewards were adequate. The training would then be welcomed by the willing and incidental for the rest.

[john smith 19]

Certainly the cell phone market along with space based communications is a big and already in process market. Right now a cell tower costs about $150k and can be up to $500k in cities where real estate values are high. High data rate suitable for internet use satellites would allow world wide access and if cheap enough could compete with cell towers. How many satellites would it take. How big would they have to be?

You mean like say Iridium or Orbcomm?

They already exist.

You might like to look up their history. People thought it was such an obvious market there would room for multiple RLV's to launch them, and launch their upgrades (as LEO comm  sats would have lower life expectancies than GEO)

Didn't happen then, and cell phone coverage is much wider now than in the mid to late 90's. 

What do you think has changed to make that idea any more reasonable?

[john smith 19]

Suppose 15 years from now all orbital flights cost <10% of what they are now. Reusability via flyback stages works and is copied by all rocket makers. Then suppose that reliability is still bad, 1 in 1000 flights is catastrophically lost. How would this restrain uses?

Current loss of vehicle stats for ELV's is around 1 in 20 to 1 in 34 launches of a given type.
1 in 1000? That's 100x better already, and BTW Shuttle stats were pretty much on the ELV figure as well.

I think unmanned use would expand much more than manned uses. Working in space would be the most dangerous occupation possible and as a tourist location it would be like climbing Mount Everest. It sounds like a risk people would take if they thought the rewards were adequate. The training would then be welcomed by the willing and incidental for the rest.

Actually every year hundreds of tourists climb Everest. The trouble is the traffic jams.

If you're looking at "risk" sports or professions you might like to consider things like commercial divers supporting oil rigs (especially saturation divers, where things can go seriously wrong) or diving in a bathysphere (yes that is an activity holiday if you're rich enough) or those zero g plane flights.

All require a fair bit of pre-work training because the environment is strange (and potentially, if not actually fatal). 

And yet people do take these holidays and work in these environments.

[edit An interesting training example would be the what people traveling to North Sea oil rigs have to do. SOP is a helicopter flight from Aberdeen or Stavanger every few weeks. Despite this all passengers have to have a certificate confirming (among other things) they have been trained in a)Putting on and taking off the dry suit (your life expectancy in the North Sea without one is about 5-10 minutes before hyperthermia sets in and you freeze to death) and have practiced ditching in a large pool.

Passengers have to pay for their training and it's been known for some workers to fake their certificate. I think it's a firing offense to be caught with a fake certificate, and probably a lethal one if the chopper ditches and you don't know what to do. Note this is not for the pilot and crew, just the passengers, because there is a significant risk of it happening and the consequences are severe.  .

So yes people do train, even for something as "trivial" as getting on a helicopter for a few hours. The North Sea is a lonely place to die.    ]

[john smith 19]

SS2 will require two (2) WEEKS of "training" we've been told by VG, most of which will be a "vacation" really and about 4 days of actual "training" one of which will be microgravity training aboard the WK2 after it drops an SS2 mission. Branson is hoping to get away with minimum training time but there are no indications that the FAA or anyone else is going to let him get away without altitude training and emergency training. Like I said about 4 days.

IIRC one of the big dampeners for Soyuz tourist flights was not the money, but the year (or 18 months) the Russians required for pre training. 2 weeks? 4 days?  That's nothing in comparison.

Quite a number of people flew on the space shuttle as "payload specialists" and "mission specialists" with no training on how to fly the vehicle.

Agreed but those payload specialists still tooks months of training learning how and what to do during an emergancy and what not to do and specifically how to live and operate as part of a crew in a hostile environment. Even if you're not "flight-crew" the training tends to be intensive if not as long.

Last time I checked they will be called "spaceflight participants," flight safety will come under the FAA as they won't be flying on a NASA owned or operated vehicle. The joker is if it goes to the ISS what rules apply there? Time to check with the Commercial Spaceflight Association I think.

Ahhh, no putting words in my mouth I NEVER made that point thank you. However far we are removed from Mercury though passengers STILL will have to undergo training in various aspects that make space flight DIFFERENT than other forms of transportation.
No "might" about it they WILL have to be trained in contingenciy and emergency operations. This is not going to be "optional" even if government regulations do not mandate it any insurance company will.

I think an interesting comparison might be oil rig workers in the North Sea. SOP is transfer by helicopter from Aberdeen or Stavanger. It's just a single flight every few weeks but all passengers have to practice
a) Putting on the full body dry suit (without it you're dead in 5-10 minutes) b) Egress in a simulated ditching (in a pool). You have to have a certificate to prove you've done this (I'm not sure if you do "refresher" training) and it has been known for people to fake the certificate and take the chance. 

OTOH crew transports have crashed in the North Sea and it's a lonely place to die. 

Spacecraft are not aircraft and they are not going to be any time in the near future. Where as people do not have to "train" to leave an aircraft in a water ditching scenerio people who fly in spacecraft do because it it a very different environment and conditions than those faced by airline passengers. We are a very long way off from the point where being a spacecraft passenger is anything like being an airline passenger. The sooner people understand that simple fact of life the sooner people will gain the true persepective on how space tourism and passenger operations will be.

As you see, sometimes they do.

Note here: NASA does not make up these regulations and training that I've been speaking of. NASA HAS regulations and the FAA is leaning towards adopting most of them for application to commercial launch providers for passenger safety. Not all of them or course but the idea of sending someone up in a spacecraft that has never "practiced" even simple procedures is pretty ridiculous. Think about it for a moment. Rent a nice "spacesuit" costume, sit in your car and then have someone time you doing an "escape" drill and check your time compared to not wearing the suit. Then try getting out of a chair on you back in the same exercise. Go up and down a ladder in the suit, if you can afford it dive into a pool and try and stay afloat while inflating a life vest. (They don't always automatically work)

Now imagine having to execute those same tasks in microgravity? In a cramped spacecraft where one careless kick or sweep of the arm could effect the spacecraft controls, knock loose a vital piece of equipment or worse yet put someone ELSE in danger?

This has nothing to do with "organizational inertia" or "outdated" rules set in stone and everything to do with the fact that the "Passengers" will in fact be dealing with very "non-standard" conditions and situations that they NEED to be trained in, aware of, and able to cope with in a way that no passenger on an airliner, ship, train, or car has had to do. This isn't about jumping into the "pilots" seat as a passenger and saving the day it is about being able to NOT get in the way of the people who are trying to save the day while also being prepared and able to do exactly what YOU need to do, when you need to do it to save your own life in an emergency.

Commercial providers know this all as well as anyone and there is no indication that they will try and "avoid" the needed training and every indication they will in fact proscribe to the same rules and regulations that history has already established.

[Dudely]

I thought we weren't supposed to be talking about tourism. . .


I think a major application will be the prospecting of off-world resources using swarms of orbital telescopes. They are not that expensive to produce, and 15 mT worth of 20-50kg telescopes could get you an absurd amount of viewing time. You could even send up improved versions over time and then turn some of the later, more capable ones into probes by attaching a propulsion system to the backside (or just send up another batch with propulsion already attached). Targeting a carbon-rich NEA with a few dozen small probes capable of basic sample return seems like it could be a very viable investment in a couple decades, considering oil companies are, today, creating robotic cities miles beneath the surface of the ocean at costs exceeding 10 billion for a single platform. 10 billion would get you a lot of failed attempts, and the potential revenue on a success would be astronomical.

With big launch costs come big projects to justify the cost of the launch. They also must prove their worth before launch. Smaller, riskier projects like the one described above could be funded multiple times by millionaires with no more of an aim than an itch to carve their name into the history of space exploration. I could think of worse things to do with it.

EDIT: I think we will come up with a set of basic rules surrounding who can mine a given asteroid. Adding real, valuable property to space would open it up to real investment where the people with money use math to extrapolate whether purchasing some asset is worth it in the long run. If an asteroid turns into an "asset" once you prospect it (again, given some set of rules as-of-yet-to-be-defined), then it suddenly becomes worth it to give a few dozen people with an engineering degree some fraction of your wealth on the off chance they are able to find a valuable asteroid and maybe return some samples. Only a few corporations even need to do anything with the asteroids at first. The potential that someone might lease your mining rights on a very valuable asteroid sometime in the future would be enough to pretty much coat the inner solar system with probes.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I think an interesting comparison might be oil rig workers in the North Sea. SOP is transfer by helicopter from Aberdeen or Stavanger. It's just a single flight every few weeks but all passengers have to practice
a) Putting on the full body dry suit (without it you're dead in 5-10 minutes) b) Egress in a simulated ditching (in a pool). You have to have a certificate to prove you've done this (I'm not sure if you do "refresher" training) and it has been known for people to fake the certificate and take the chance. 
OTOH crew transports have crashed in the North Sea and it's a lonely place to die. 

And all that does not take months to train. You can learn that in a few hours, maybe a couple of days. People will need training, but it wont be months. One could probably let them train these things on their own time and schedule as well. No need for a 18 month sabbatical.

[chalz]

Suppose 15 years from now all orbital flights cost <10% of what they are now. Reusability via flyback stages works and is copied by all rocket makers. Then suppose that reliability is still bad, 1 in 1000 flights is catastrophically lost. How would this restrain uses?

Current loss of vehicle stats for ELV's is around 1 in 20 to 1 in 34 launches of a given type.
1 in 1000? That's 100x better already, and BTW Shuttle stats were pretty much on the ELV figure as well.

Thanks for the correction. That makes it much harder to imagine a great increase in industry on orbit under my scenario.

The reason I brought up mountain climbing is that it is known to be dangerous and people still do it. But what people seem to have in mind with space tourism is not adventure sport but orbital accommodation - a LEO Hilton - something with opposing customer requirements.

The occasional millionaire thrill seeker is going to remain the only likely space tourist. And any industrial process that proves cost effective in space would have to be extremely profitable to justify the expense in operation and the risk premium involved in space.

I thought we weren't supposed to be talking about tourism. . .

Quite right, forgot my own advice.

I think a major application will be the prospecting of off-world resources using swarms of orbital telescopes.

Not sure what people expect to find. Asteroids are meteorites that haven't hit us yet and most meteorites are simple iron. We have plenty of iron on Earth already. A mineral rare on Earth is likely to be rare in Space as well. But even supposing a solid chunk of a rare earth mineral(ha) is found. Then suppose it is in a convenient place and of a manageable size. We still need enough energy or time to stop its current current trajectory and give it a new one, bring it back to orbit and dismantle it, process it or shield it and deorbit it. Not conceptually impossible but could it be cost efficient even with reusable rockets?

[Elmar Moelzer]

Current loss of vehicle stats for ELV's is around 1 in 20 to 1 in 34 launches of a given type.
1 in 1000? That's 100x better already, and BTW Shuttle stats were pretty much on the ELV figure as well.

Thanks for the correction. That makes it much harder to imagine a great increase in industry on orbit under my scenario.

Loss of vehicle does not mean loss of crew. It only meant that with STS, but Dragon, DreamChaser and CST100 will have escape systems that should make the risk of a loss of crew a lot lower, even if the launch vehicle is lost.
Also one is 1000 would be 50 times better than 1 in 20, not 100 times. I am pretty sure Atlas and Soyuz have a better track record (in case of Soyuz for manned launches).

[Lar]

Not sure what people expect to find. Asteroids are meteorites that haven't hit us yet and most meteorites are simple iron. We have plenty of iron on Earth already. A mineral rare on Earth is likely to be rare in Space as well. But even supposing a solid chunk of a rare earth mineral(ha) is found. Then suppose it is in a convenient place and of a manageable size. We still need enough energy or time to stop its current current trajectory and give it a new one, bring it back to orbit and dismantle it, process it or shield it and deorbit it. Not conceptually impossible but could it be cost efficient even with reusable rockets?

I doubt we'd be bringing back iron any time soon. Too low value Ultra high value raw materials (palladium group metals) maybe.[1]Ultra high value products made from space sourced raw materials, also maybe.

But most likely would be things to use IN space, moved from where they are to where they can be used. Water to make into LH2 and LOX[1], iron and silicon and aluminum for construction of large structures.

But it's a chicken/egg problem to get that sort of thing started. Unless you have a space manufacturing base you don't need raw materials and unless you have propellant depots you don't need propellants.

Lower cost access may get this pump primed. That is my hope anyway.

1 - Part of the Planetary Resources business plan.

[Robotbeat]

Suppose 15 years from now all orbital flights cost <10% of what they are now. Reusability via flyback stages works and is copied by all rocket makers. Then suppose that reliability is still bad, 1 in 1000 flights is catastrophically lost. How would this restrain uses?

Current loss of vehicle stats for ELV's is around 1 in 20 to 1 in 34 launches of a given type....

Disagree. Delta II demonstrated 1/75 reliability, and it was a pretty complicated launch vehicle. If your criteria for success is getting to a usable orbit for the customer, then Atlas V has basically no failures in 43 flights (there was one suboptimal flight, but the customer deemed it a success and was able to compensate), and Delta IV had just one partial failure on the first Delta IV Heavy launch (out of 24 flights). So I'd say reliability for state of the art ELVs is currently near 99%, not 95%.

Especially if you had a high launch rate like Delta II did, I'd definitely expect the reliability to approach at least 99%.

...but I agree that in order to get to ~99.9% reliability, you're going to have to go reusable, if only because you have to launch ~1000 times in order to demonstrate such a statistic.

[RanulfC]

Supersonic joy ride actually

Yeah, I was ahead of myself there

Don't we all?

You know telling someone to "not touch anything" unless told to do so, does NOT require months of training... but maybe they should have a 30 minute IQ test first.
I am pretty sure Adam Savage from the Mythbusters went on a ride on a Blue Angels fighterjet without much prior training. Certainly not days of training.

Days, they just didn't show it (An easy way to tell is during the video he "grunts" during high speed turns, that's not an instinctive thing to do and something they train people to do to resist the Gs better )
The major issue with "telling" someone not to touch anything is chances are very, very good they will anyway. You have to show them what happens when they do and WHY they shouldn't to get it into their heads

Ok, 4 days then. 4 days of actual training is not MONTHS!

No but neither is SS2 an orbital spacecraft And lets not forget those 4-days are contained within a two WEEK stay at what amounts to a luxury "resort" training center, and all the "training" is going to be in the first week, (with the flght and "recovery" period during the second) I have my doubts that the "training" will be all that effective.

Agreed but those payload specialists still tooks months of training learning how and what to do during an emergancy and what not to do and specifically how to live and operate as part of a crew in a hostile environment. Even if you're not "flight-crew" the training tends to be intensive if not as long.

A lot of that was for their actual job as a payload specialist.

No the majority of it was doing their job with the crew as cohesive whole, and learning to live and trust each other on the job, in space and on the ground. The whole reason for the training WITH each other is to be able to count on and anticipate what anyone will do in a sitation.

Would a "passenger" have to go through as rigerous training? Currently the answer is yes because there really is no such thing as a "passenger" on a spaceflight. There are a lot of situation you have to practice for so that everyone does everything in a compact and efficent manner and everyone is starting from the same frame of reference. Will it always be that way? Of course not but right now we're nearer THIS end of the spectrum than we are that end and that's the reality we have to work on.

With less expensive and more access to space by "regular" people that will change faster, but we're not there yet and when we DO get there is when things will start changing.

Ahhh, no putting words in my mouth I NEVER made that point thank you. However far we are removed from Mercury though passengers STILL will have to undergo training in various aspects that make space flight DIFFERENT than other forms of transportation.

And that can be days of training, maybe a couple of weeks. I don't see why you would need months.

Right now it is because as noted above we don't have "passengers" so anyone riding the spacecrat has to be able to deal with situations as part of a "crew" not simply a lump-of-flesh in a spacesuit. The other aspect that you have to keep in mind is some of the training is physically demanding, especially if you've never done it before. You can take an altitude chamber and accelleration training in the same day. However that usually leaves TRAINED PROFESSIONALS pretty much useless for the next couple of days while recovering. (You can usually get away with training/classroom work on those days but recall these are people who started OUT partially trained for this stuff not someone off the street) If someone goes through "microgravity" training (parabolas/vomit-comit) and they do NOT get any ill effects over the course of the day (most do to some extent) you need a day to rest before you start training again. (Again classroom stuff is usually possible)

The list goes on and we haven't even talked about simulator work, and there WILL be some of that for any spacecraft passenger. (Remember I noted you'd have to "practice" doing emergency procedures while wearing an unpressurized and pressurized suit? There are others as well)

Spacecraft are not aircraft and they are not going to be any time in the near future. Where as people do not have to "train" to leave an aircraft in a water ditching scenerio people who fly in spacecraft do because it it a very different environment and conditions than those faced by airline passengers. We are a very long way off from the point where being a spacecraft passenger is anything like being an airline passenger. The sooner people understand that simple fact of life the sooner people will gain the true persepective on how space tourism and passenger operations will be.

How, why? Where is it different? What exactly is so complicated about that, that requires months of training?

See suit comment above. But you seem stuck on the "months" aspect and I think you miss the point. The "months" currently needed are only a small part for "training" to handle the conditions and expectations of the flight. The whole thing COULD probably be cut down to a couple of weeks, or maybe a week if you really were capable of "pushing" the passenger to learn everything as fast as possible. (Something that no airline passenger has EVER had to do mind you) Currently the REST of the time is getting to know your fellow crewman and learning to work together and anticipate each other in various situations to minimize the chance of miscomunications and missunderstandings. This is of course something that a future "passenger" only type person might NOT have to learn, and what Branson and VG are leaning towards as a model. But there is no guarantee that particular model is going to work out for anything other than suborbital flights. (And no guarantee it will work out even for that)

NASA HAS regulations and the FAA is leaning towards adopting most of them for application to commercial launch providers for passenger safety.

I don't think so. I thought that right now the safety of the passengers was not governed by the FAA, only the safety of the civilians on the ground. I might be wrong though.

You are technically correct but the FAA has final say on granting launch licenses and they've pretty much decided that "suborbital" flights can get away with a signed waiver AND some sort of "training" plans for which have to be submitted to them prior too operations. No one has actually "submitted" any plans yet though because they are still feeling their way around and it is pretty clear that the FAA is not going to agree to letting people just step up and hop on a ride. "Technically" the FAA is currently prohibited from "regulating" commercial space flight beyond a certain point but in actuality they ARE going to have the final say and they are currently clearly leaning towards using a mix of current space and high performance aircraft safety and training guildlines to build upon. When the "grace" period expires, (this year IIRC) they are "tasked" with coming up with an officall set of "rules" and "regulations" to govern commercial space flight.

Since everyone, (including the FAA) had expected to actually have some real data to go on by this time that was ok with everyone but we have yet to have an actual "commercial" manned space flight, orbital or suborbital so the only thing they have to go with is what we currently have for government space and high-performance aircraft regulations and guidelines. It is assured that they will "work" with commercial entities but in the end they are GOING to have to set up the basic groundrules and they have to cover a lot of bases with very little real data. By default they will use the ones that are in place with adjustments for the situation at the time.

A lot of them won't apply directly across, but without a database to work from a lot of them WILL.

Not all of them or course but the idea of sending someone up in a spacecraft that has never "practiced" even simple procedures is pretty ridiculous.

No one said that. You can learn simple procedures in a few days. That does not require months.

Ahem, no. People HAVE said that as in comparing getting into and flying in a spacecraft SHOULD be as simple as getting into a plane or a car, etc. I agree that once there are spacecraft capable of carrying "passengers" rather than "passenger/crew" the training process could be as short as a week or two. But there aren't any PLANNED right now let alone available so we are not talking ABOUT passengers, but people who are going to be expected to "carry" a load instead of being "cared" for by a dedicated flight crew.

Think about it for a moment. Rent a nice "spacesuit" costume, sit in your car and then have someone time you doing an "escape" drill and check your time compared to not wearing the suit. Then try getting out of a chair on you back in the same exercise. Go up and down a ladder in the suit, if you can afford it dive into a pool and try and stay afloat while inflating a life vest. (They don't always automatically work)

These drills are ridiculous. Risk is part of the game. Noone practices that with a jumbo jet full of passengers. Probably not easy to get out of that either with luggage flying around and stuff. If you are afraid of the risks, go do something else, space is not for you!

Then space will never be for anyone, which is the "point" most people miss when talking about cheap-access-to-space. Space is not like ANY environment on Earth, making a very simple mistake can kill YOU, but it can also kill those around you just as easily.

Two major points:
1) Risk is part of the equation, in order to achieve the proper "answer" you must reduce the "risk" factor to a point where it is controllable. This does not mean that you have to have no "risk" that is impossible to achieve it also means that you never, ever 'fear' risk because that keeps you from properly assesing and controlling the risks. However, you must carefully and rigerously CONTROL the amount of risk generated or it WILL overwhelm and destroy you. Risk reduction and control is not a "nice" thing to have it is a neccssity.

2) There is no "game" There never was and never will be. Either you keep the fact that space is dangerous and it WILL kill you if you are not careful, and prepared in your forebrain or you WILL die and most likely take someone else with you.

Now:
Noone "practices" getting a full load of passengers out of a ditched jumbo jet? Really? I know that YOU know you are wrong here. You know how we BOTH know this? Because the CREW of said jumbo jet has spent MONTHS training for just that sort of situation so THEY can handle the passengers and try and save as many as possible. (Part of that training by the way is learning that FACT that YOU will not be able to save them all because people are people and somewhere along the line someone will do something stupid and get themselves killed. Part of your job is to recognize and keep them from killing anyone else as well)
 
Think for just a moment and then tell me how many of the "7" people on a proposed Dragon flight will be those DEDICATED "flight-attendents" who's primary job is to know what to do and how to do it in an emergency so YOU the "passenger" doesn't have to?

That's one of the major differences between spaceflight and any other transportation system. There isn't room for someone who's trained to save a "passenger" so they have to train the "passenger" to act as part of the "crew" as a whole so that everyone has the maximum chance of survival in any situation. How long will this take? Days at least for EACH "situation" so that everyone knows, understands, not just by rote their role in such situations. Till it is something you DO, not some thing you think about.

Passenger aircraft have flight crews (attendents) who's main purpose is to do all the thinking for and control the actions of the passengers because they KNOW the "territory" and they know, having been trained long and hard, what to do during an emergency. They KNOW that the "passengers" are not going to listen to the briefings, they are not going to take a "second" and note where the exits are, they know in fact that the "passenges" are going to be about useless in an emergency and more a liability than an asset. And they are trained to deal with and control that situation. WHEN there is enough "room" and capability to carry DEDICATED members of a "crew" with that same training and ability (and the means and capability to carry it out) you can have "passenges" on a spacecraft but not a moment before that.

The "drills are ridiculous"??!!?? How can you even attempt to justify that statement when I'm pretty sure you havent' even TRIED any of the suggestions? On what do you base your statement? The fact that you've flown on an airplane? Please...

The "drills" are vital, no "ifs," no "buts," no excuses. Think not? Ever wore a five-point harness? Ever tried to get it off when you can only do it by feel and can't see it directly? Yes it is a "quick-release" no it doesn't always work. Now imagine doing this on your back, in the dark with water flooding into the capsule. And you happen to be in the seat "almost" futherest from the hatch. Now imagine that you've never bothered to "practice" getting out of the capsule but have 'read' the pamphlet in the seat back in front of you. (Ok you really glanced at it but didn't read it) Your harness is stuck, but the guy in the seat furthest from the hatch got his loose...

One of two ways this situation could go: If you two have actually done drills together and trained ever a bit on this he leans over and helps you clear your harness so you can move out in order and clear the way for him to leave. The other is that he sees your not moving so he simply shoves himself over you and tries to get to the hatch which MIGHT save him but probably means you're screwed. Given the rather "cramped" conditions envisioned for most spacecraft you and he will probably both die if he doesn't actually managed to block of the hatch and kill everybody. Oh but wait! What if you have a "dedicated" flight attendant on-board? You are their LAST priority, first they get everyone who seems compentent enough to operate a buckle out THEN they can "come-back" for you if you aren't already underwater. Needs of the many and all that...

And before you think I'm picking on you about the buckle I'm not. They get stuck, they do not operate properly in certain positions, if you're wearing a thick coat (or a uninflated pressure suit) "slapping" the QR may not engage it enough to activate. I've been there, luckily it was never in a life or death situation but it DOES happen.
(And just as an FYI, no continuing to "hit" the mechanism if it is "half" cocked is useless it has to then be fully "seated" to finish opening. In my case a crewman on the aircraft had to haul off and kick me in the chest to get it to work. Didn't feel a thing though, thick coat and all )

To address a later point you make, no you will NOT have people "training" on their own. It may take no more than a few days but you are going to be in close quarters with other people if and when you have to do the real thing and training on your "own" does not equate to those conditions. You NEED to train under the conditions you will face in the real situation. If you don't your responses won't be the same and that can and will get you killed. Further and probably most important is you need to have someone there who is watching the whole process because the person doing the "training" will inevitably find "short-cuts," "work-arounds," and "simple" ways to do things that will make it "easier" on them to get done with the drill. Those will also inevitably be the WRONG thing(s) to do and probably get them and/or others killed. It's human nature to try and make things "easier" which is why it takes someone NOT involved to point out the flaws in that strategy.
(Personal note again: I had "discovered" a short and simple means to exit the lower bay of an aircraft and planned on using it in an emergency as it seemed quicker. Luckly for me I KEPT using it even after I figured it out and eventually found the "flaw" before it killed me. A fully fueled aircraft bay is about 4 feet lower than one that is not fueled. From a 4 foot higher departure point I over-rotated by about 90 degrees and ended up faceplanting onto the tarmac. Had it been an actual emergency situation the seconds I lay there bemoaning the fact it really, really hurt were probably ones I couldn't have afforded... But ya, it hurt )

Training counts...

Now imagine having to execute those same tasks in microgravity? In a cramped spacecraft where one careless kick or sweep of the arm could effect the spacecraft controls, knock loose a vital piece of equipment or worse yet put someone ELSE in danger?

I doubt that passengers will be doing EVAs. So no need to put on a space suit. Putting on a space suit in an emergency will not work anyway.

Right. You base this on what? There's also the "assumption" that I was talking about EVA, while it is include it is not all inclusive. "Passengers" will remain in their seats and strapped down at all times during flight? No "experiancing" zero-g on "passenger" flights? I'm pretty sure "Launch and Landing" suits will be required for quite a while, anyone who is considering "commercial manned spaceflights" is assuming so. And I for one, (if you haven't noticed in the various MCP threads) am confident that the bulky pressure suits of today will eventually be replaced with something better. You seem to be assuming as well that people in space won't have occasion to wear a space suit, like in-space. How does  that logic work? (Think "life-boat" drills)
But mostly the most dangerous places for "emergencies" to happen will be WHEN people are wearing space suits so trying to "assume" they won't be wearing them is really setting things up to fail. It a clear fact that training under the worst conditions you can imagine will always serve you well. (In 99% of the cases your imagination will fall short or what actually happens but you will at least have a fighting chance)

(On the note that spacecraft would keep their controls and equipment "out-of-the-way" of passengers I'll note that it used to be a common "privilage" to visit the cockpit of aircraft and the bridge of ships. Despite the access of other than "approved" personnel to ships spaces there are dozens of people injured and even killed by taking short cuts through "restricted" areas on cruise ships every year. And how do you "isolate" equipment and controls on something as small as a Dragon capsule or as crowded as the ISS? The more "people" around the higher the chances are that something will happen. People who are untrained increase this likely outcome by orders of magnitude. Fail to prepare? Prepare to fail.)

This has nothing to do with "organizational inertia" or "outdated" rules set in stone and everything to do with the fact that the "Passengers" will in fact be dealing with very "non-standard" conditions and situations that they NEED to be trained in, aware of, and able to cope with in a way that no passenger on an airliner, ship, train, or car has had to do. This isn't about jumping into the "pilots" seat as a passenger and saving the day it is about being able to NOT get in the way of the people who are trying to save the day while also being prepared and able to do exactly what YOU need to do, when you need to do it to save your own life in an emergency.

And learning that does not take months.

It greatly depends on WHAT you are learning and how well you are learning it. No it probably won't take "months" to train people to fly in space. Then again it might depending on what conditions and possible emergencies they are expected to face and how they will be expected to react to them.

Airline passengers are expected to take a few minutes and "familerize" themselves with layout of the aircraft they are on and the emergency procedures given them. Most don't and that's actually OK because the flight attendant is TRAINED to be able to get those passengers out of the aircraft in pitch-dark conditions, from a smoke filled fuselage that is sinking in rough seas. Without any help FROM the passengers because they are useless and incapable of following instructions. That's why THEY are trained for months in doing just that.

Ship passengers are expected to listen to and understand life-boat and life-jacked training when it is given to them. They are REQUIRED to participate in a certain number of drills during their voyage, (technically you can be "set-ashore" anywhere if you fail to do so with no compensation or relief, though it is very rare and unevenly enforced at best) during which you will be shown the procedure to enter and exit the life-boat and how to wear the life jacket properly. To be "fully-qualifed" (you can get an actual certificate for "qualifying" BTW) usally takes "two-days" worth of drill attendance and participation which is usually spread over about two weeks of "real-time" but some shipping lines actually offer the 'certification' as a voluntary course during the trip.
Still the "standard" is that the crew is responsible for getting the passengers organized and to safety and are trained accordingly, nominally taking several weeks to get "qualified" and normally several trips (months) to be fully certified. (As evidenced by many recent events this is another area where "enforcement" and "actuality" are have been lacking) The main point though is that crew training is aimed at getting the passengers organized and off the ship in an efficent and timely manner with the baseling assumption being they will NOT be any use in doing either. So a good crew is trained to do their thinking and reacting for them.

Now, lets imagine a "commercial" Dragon flight shall we? Seven (7) "souls" on-board, two (2) crew and five (5) passengers. Everyone is wearing the L&L suits unpressurized and strapped into their seats, access arm is in place and the hatch is closed and locked.

Emergency! What happens?

Several weeks to a month of training as a 'crew'?  (Note the assumption here that this is NOT the only scenerio practiced during this time)
Assigned passenger nearest the hatch hits his QR and rolls over to unlatch the hatch and open it. All others hit thier own QR and assist nearby persons if needed. Hatch opens, AP rolls out the hatch and assures access arm is clear and keeps the hatch open. In succession, as they trained to do each "passenger" goes from their seat and out the hatch. First one to the access arm door/gate opens it and holds it for the rest. Each in turn moves to a spot in the access "escape" route (elevator, slide basket, whatever) insuring clear access for the next person. Passengers are out the first crew member exits his seat then the hatch and takes over for the passenger at the hatch. That passenger make their way to the escape device with the others. Second crewman exits seat and hatch, first crewman moves to relieve the passenger at the access arm gate. First crewman closes hatch and proceeds to the escape device, second crewman closs gate behind them and assignd person activates the escape device.

"Ship" model: (A couple of days traing to no more than a week for ALL training)
Everyone hits their QR, move as little as possible to "assist" others if needed. All "passengers" remain in their seats. Crewman one leaves seat and unlocks and opens hatch, then moves to hold hatch and assists passengers out of capsule and onto access arm. Crewman two moves out of seat and out of capsule onto access arm and moves to open arm-gate and prep escape device. Crewman one orders first passenger to leave seat and move out of hatch, down the arm and into escape device. As soon as this passenger has cleared the hatch the next passenger is called and so on until the last passenger is out of the capsule, then Crewman one secures the hatch. Crewman one moves across access arm an into escape device to control, Crewman two closes gate and escape device door and Crewman one activates escape device.

"Airline" model: ("Familerization" at most a few hours getting into the suits and discussing scenerios)

Crewman One and Two hit QRs, passengers remain in their seat and do NOT hit QRs. Crewman one leaves seat and opens hatch and stands by to assist. Crewman two moves to passenger nearest door and releases QR and helps them out of their seat, Crewman one helps passenger out of capsule and has them standby near hatch but out of the way. Crewman two moves to next passenger and repeats process, Crewman one repeats process this continues till all passengers are gathered on the access arm. Crewman Two exits the capsule and leads/helps passengers to access arm gate and escape device. Crewman one closes hatch and proceeds to help straggling/struggling passengers. Crewman two opens door to escape device and enters, Crewman two closes arm gate and proceeds to help passengers into escape device where Crewman one ensures they are seated and strapped in. Once all the passengers are in place and strapped in Crewman one closes escape device door and moves to his seat. Once everyone is seated and accounted for escape device is activated.

Time? Set one could have it all done in well under five minutes. Set two would be closer to 10 but still pretty quick. Set three would be lucky to get it done in under 15 to 20 minutes more like a half hour. All assuming nobody actually panics and jams things up. (Less likely as training time and effort goes up)

The BIGGEST factor that shortens training is simply making vehicles larger (more room to manuever) and sending along more "Help" that reduces the need for training, but realistically it can't and won't "go-away" to airline standards. That would take a risk reduction and safety factor that is probably not achivable with current known technology, nor human nature.

Space travel is going to remain dangerous and people just willing to "risk" their lives to go into space is not enough if they are not "ready" as well. That's going to take training and preperation. How long THAT will take will depend on where they are going and for how long.

Randy

[jeff.findley]

Sure, space is not the same as any activity on earth, but there are a few analogs and they aren't nearly as tightly regulated nor do they require the sort of training you're claiming will be necessary. 

Diving is a sport that can be dangerous and does involve some relatively complex equipment to keep you alive (somewhat similar to spacesuits in that humans can't breathe water much better than vacuum).  Most divers do go through quite a bit of training and certification, but there are "fly by night" operations in other countries where you can don equipment and go diving on the same day with a bare minimum of "training". 

Climbing Mt. Everest is quite dangerous and people die every year trying to climb it.  It's also a situation where one person's mistakes can spell disaster for others.  Yet, there seems to be little in the way of regulation and little in the way of required training.  Similar to diving, there are groups that climb Mt. Everest that really have no business doing so, and that's an environment where a "happy day" doesn't involve sitting strapped to a seat during the "dangerous" parts. 

And I still think the airline analogies are appropriate, provided that emergencies are at least as few and far between as in the very early days of airline travel.  In the beginning of airline travel, flights weren't nearly as safe as they are today, yet the sort of "training" for emergencies being advocated here still wasn't required of passengers.

[RanulfC]

SS2 will require two (2) WEEKS of "training" we've been told by VG, most of which will be a "vacation" really and about 4 days of actual "training" one of which will be microgravity training aboard the WK2 after it drops an SS2 mission. Branson is hoping to get away with minimum training time but there are no indications that the FAA or anyone else is going to let him get away without altitude training and emergency training. Like I said about 4 days.

IIRC one of the big dampeners for Soyuz tourist flights was not the money, but the year (or 18 months) the Russians required for pre training. 2 weeks? 4 days?  That's nothing in comparison.

Well Soyuz orbital flight or an ISS trip does not equate to a "hop" on SS2 either so I doubt the "training" is even close to the same

Last time I checked they will be called "spaceflight participants," flight safety will come under the FAA as they won't be flying on a NASA owned or operated vehicle. The joker is if it goes to the ISS what rules apply there? Time to check with the Commercial Spaceflight Association I think.

Everyone avoids talking about it but being a "spaceflight participant" and signing a waiver is NOT going to be enough. The FAA is still going to have to issue a launch license and everyone involved is well aware that waiver or not killing "participants" in accidents is NOT going to help grow the market or business. Especially if it was preventable in any way. In the end the FAA is going to have to set some "ground-rules" once the "free-period" is over, and like everyone else they had been "expecting" to have some data to work with by now.

Really this probably isn't the thread to actually be discussing this specific of an area, but since "assumptions" have come up I felt it needed responding too.

Possibly here:
"We Need To Get More Comfortable With People Dying In Space"
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33917.0;all

Randy

[Elmar Moelzer]

No but neither is SS2 an orbital spacecraft And lets not forget those 4-days are contained within a two WEEK stay at what amounts to a luxury "resort" training center, and all the "training" is going to be in the first week, (with the flght and "recovery" period during the second) I have my doubts that the "training" will be all that effective.

I am all OK with two weeks, even 4 weeks of training, but I do not think that more than that is necessary, even for an orbital flight.

No the majority of it was doing their job with the crew as cohesive whole, and learning to live and trust each other on the job, in space and on the ground. The whole reason for the training WITH each other is to be able to count on and anticipate what anyone will do in a sitation.
Would a "passenger" have to go through as rigerous training? Currently the answer is yes because there really is no such thing as a "passenger" on a spaceflight. There are a lot of situation you have to practice for so that everyone does everything in a compact and efficent manner and everyone is starting from the same frame of reference. Will it always be that way? Of course not but right now we're nearer THIS end of the spectrum than we are that end and that's the reality we have to work on.

Sorry, but I don't see how this is in any way different for spaceflight than say a tandem parachute jump.

Right now it is because as noted above we don't have "passengers" so anyone riding the spacecrat has to be able to deal with situations as part of a "crew" not simply a lump-of-flesh in a spacesuit. The other aspect that you have to keep in mind is some of the training is physically demanding, especially if you've never done it before. You can take an altitude chamber and accelleration training in the same day. However that usually leaves TRAINED PROFESSIONALS pretty much useless for the next couple of days while recovering. (You can usually get away with training/classroom work on those days but recall these are people who started OUT partially trained for this stuff not someone off the street) If someone goes through "microgravity" training (parabolas/vomit-comit) and they do NOT get any ill effects over the course of the day (most do to some extent) you need a day to rest before you start training again. (Again classroom stuff is usually possible)

Why, why why do you need that sort of training even? In the correct setting it is completely unnecessary. Noone gave passengers on the Concorde altitude training. I see this sort of training for the crew, not the passengers.

The list goes on and we haven't even talked about simulator work, and there WILL be some of that for any spacecraft passenger. (Remember I noted you'd have to "practice" doing emergency procedures while wearing an unpressurized and pressurized suit? There are others as well).

Unnecessary.

But you seem stuck on the "months" aspect and I think you miss the point. The "months" currently needed are only a small part for "training" to handle the conditions and expectations of the flight. The whole thing COULD probably be cut down to a couple of weeks, or maybe a week if you really were capable of "pushing" the passenger to learn everything as fast as possible.

So why are you arguing with me?

Currently the REST of the time is getting to know your fellow crewman and learning to work together and anticipate each other in various situations to minimize the chance of miscomunications and missunderstandings. This is of course something that a future "passenger" only type person might NOT have to learn, and what Branson and VG are leaning towards as a model.

I lean towards that model as well. The passenger on an airliner does not spend months learn the safety/emergency procedures, it is the crew.

Then space will never be for anyone, which is the "point" most people miss when talking about cheap-access-to-space. Space is not like ANY environment on Earth, making a very simple mistake can kill YOU, but it can also kill those around you just as easily.

Newsflash, the same is true for driving a car, maybe even more so and yet people do it every day and 30,000 die every year in the US in car accidents and no one cares. That's life, it is risky, we take risks every day. Space is no different. If you explain to people to "not open the airlock", they most likely will not try to open it. I rarely hear of someone trying to open a cabin door of an airplane in mid flight... Same for all the other imagined risks a passenger in space could pose on himself and the crew and other passengers.

Noone "practices" getting a full load of passengers out of a ditched jumbo jet? Really? I know that YOU know you are wrong here. You know how we BOTH know this? Because the CREW of said jumbo jet has spent MONTHS training for just that sort of situation so THEY can handle the passengers and try and save as many as possible.

Exactly my point! The passengers don't spend months training, the crew does!!!

Think for just a moment and then tell me how many of the "7" people on a proposed Dragon flight will be those DEDICATED "flight-attendents" who's primary job is to know what to do and how to do it in an emergency so YOU the "passenger" doesn't have to?

One or two at most. Even one would be a much higher crew to passenger ratio than a on a commercial jet airplane.

That's one of the major differences between spaceflight and any other transportation system. There isn't room for someone who's trained to save a "passenger"

One crew for 6 passengers would be much more than on any other means of commercial transportation. IIRC, they are planning for two crew.

The "drills" are vital, no "ifs," no "buts," no excuses. Think not? Ever wore a five-point harness? Ever tried to get it off when you can only do it by feel and can't see it directly? Yes it is a "quick-release" no it doesn't always work. Now imagine doing this on your back, in the dark with water flooding into the capsule. And you happen to be in the seat "almost" futherest from the hatch. Now imagine that you've never bothered to "practice" getting out of the capsule but have 'read' the pamphlet in the seat back in front of you. (Ok you really glanced at it but didn't read it) Your harness is stuck, but the guy in the seat furthest from the hatch got his loose...

How likely is that situation in the first place? I think there was one (dubious) situation in the entire history of spaceflight. You can not train for every possible and impossible type of failure. Part of this thinking is why we never get anywhere. Yes spacecraft can fail, yes people can die. If you are afraid of the risk, don't go to space!

One of two ways this situation could go: If you two have actually done drills together and trained ever a bit on this he leans over and helps you clear your harness so you can move out in order and clear the way for him to leave. The other is that he sees your not moving so he simply shoves himself over you and tries to get to the hatch which MIGHT save him but probably means you're screwed. Given the rather "cramped" conditions envisioned for most spacecraft you and he will probably both die if he doesn't actually managed to block of the hatch and kill everybody. Oh but wait! What if you have a "dedicated" flight attendant on-board? You are their LAST priority, first they get everyone who seems compentent enough to operate a buckle out THEN they can "come-back" for you if you aren't already underwater. Needs of the many and all that...

Wonderful story man! You should write science fiction for a living!

And before you think I'm picking on you about the buckle I'm not. They get stuck, they do not operate properly in certain positions, if you're wearing a thick coat (or a uninflated pressure suit) "slapping" the QR may not engage it enough to activate. I've been there, luckily it was never in a life or death situation but it DOES happen.
(And just as an FYI, no continuing to "hit" the mechanism if it is "half" cocked is useless it has to then be fully "seated" to finish opening. In my case a crewman on the aircraft had to haul off and kick me in the chest to get it to work. Didn't feel a thing though, thick coat and all )

Sorry, this is such an unlikely scenario. I would rather focus on the spacecraft not ending up in the water in the first place! The money spent on 18 (!) months of training of how to open the belt buckle might be better spent ensuring that the stupid buckle opens when it is supposed to!

To address a later point you make, no you will NOT have people "training" on their own. It may take no more than a few days but you are going to be in close quarters with other people if and when you have to do the real thing and training on your "own" does not equate to those conditions. You NEED to train under the conditions you will face in the real situation.

Obviously there are things that you need to train in a group, but some things could be trained (some still with a trainer) on a separate schedule. I imagine a "commercial space participant school", where people are trained for the job. Some will do the fast round and go in 8 to 10 hours a day, some will do a couple of hours after work.
There will still be some things that will have to be done together with others and with the other participants of the exact flight, but with delays and cancellation most likely not being uncommon in the future either, you might end up on a completely different flight with different people anyway.

And how do you "isolate" equipment and controls on something as small as a Dragon capsule or as crowded as the ISS? The more "people" around the higher the chances are that something will happen.

Like what? You think that a passenger will feel the urge to push buttons he is not supposed to push? I don't get it! I have flown in small helicopters right next to the pilot, as a passenger, with no training. A few simple instructions by the pilot as we went were all that was needed. "We are going to do an auto rotation emergency landing exercise, I am going to turn off the engine. Don't be alarmed. Do this, don't do that". 5 sentences as we went. I did as I was told. I did not feel the need to start pushing buttons or jump out the helicopter in mid flight. Maybe I am just smarter than most, I don't know...

It greatly depends on WHAT you are learning and how well you are learning it. No it probably won't take "months" to train people to fly in space.

Which was my point.

[macpacheco]

Why, why why do you need that sort of training even? In the correct setting it is completely unnecessary. Noone gave passengers on the Concorde altitude training. I see this sort of training for the crew, not the passengers.

I recall the Concorde was designed to handle flying with one window blown out without depressurizing.
Plus like any airliner, it went through a lot of certification tests, which can't be done with vehicles that can't be reused hundreds of times (at a bare minimum).
Look up differences between an experimental (i.e. amateur) aircraft and a transport aircraft.
Hint, experimental aircraft are forbidden from being used for hire (PAX paying for rides).
Once space becomes a common thing, the FAA will start to put some rules around it.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I recall the Concorde was designed to handle flying with one window blown out without depressurizing.
Plus like any airliner, it went through a lot of certification tests, which can't be done with vehicles that can't be reused hundreds of times (at a bare minimum).
Look up differences between an experimental (i.e. amateur) aircraft and a transport aircraft.
Hint, experimental aircraft are forbidden from being used for hire (PAX paying for rides).
Once space becomes a common thing, the FAA will start to put some rules around it.

The Concorde flew at a maximum height (IIRC) of 18,000 meters. The air is very thin up there, which was my point.
I hope the day the FAA imposes rules on commercial spaceflight is a long way off. It will unnecessarily complicate things early on and only drive prices up. We need lots of frequent flights, especially in the beginning. There are already so many technical hurdles in the way, we don't need bureaucratic hurdles on top of that.

[RanulfC]

Sure, space is not the same as any activity on earth, but there are a few analogs and they aren't nearly as tightly regulated nor do they require the sort of training you're claiming will be necessary.

See this is why I say your "not-helping" your case because you are citing the exceptions rather than the majority

There are in fact very few "correct" analogs of activities because Earth is covered by an infrastructure base that has no equivilent in space. Even with inexpensive access that has to come first in order for almost any analogy to "work" enough to make a sensible argument. 

Diving is a sport that can be dangerous and does involve some relatively complex equipment to keep you alive (somewhat similar to spacesuits in that humans can't breathe water much better than vacuum).  Most divers do go through quite a bit of training and certification, but there are "fly by night" operations in other countries where you can don equipment and go diving on the same day with a bare minimum of "training". 

Great as long as you expect and assume that someone is going to get away with "fly-by-night" space launch. Those "fly-by-night" operations fold up as soon as someone is injured or dies and then go and try and set up somewhere else. All the while OFFICIAL diving organizations and governments are trying their best to kill them BECAUSE of the lack of safety. You sure you want to argue that is how commercial space travel should be set up?

Climbing Mt. Everest is quite dangerous and people die every year trying to climb it.  It's also a situation where one person's mistakes can spell disaster for others.  Yet, there seems to be little in the way of regulation and little in the way of required training.  Similar to diving, there are groups that climb Mt. Everest that really have no business doing so, and that's an environment where a "happy day" doesn't involve sitting strapped to a seat during the "dangerous" parts.

And for those exact reasons things are changing Actually there IS "regulation" and "required training" for climbing Mt Everest. The majority of people who have NOT taken at least minimum training and preperation don't make it past the first base camp. The number of people who TRY and fail to climb Mt. Everest far exceeds those that do, and one of the major complaints about the number of people who actually suceed is the fact that unlike lot of other "sports" (like diving) you can in fact PAY to be carried to the top if you have enough money. And at its worst it is an environment that is still far more benign than space.

And I still think the airline analogies are appropriate, provided that emergencies are at least as few and far between as in the very early days of airline travel.  In the beginning of airline travel, flights weren't nearly as safe as they are today, yet the sort of "training" for emergencies being advocated here still wasn't required of passengers.

Airline analogies are not appropriate. The simple fact is that even in early airtravel planes didn't simply go up into the air and then come down a few days later. They "traveled" and that is what caused the expansion of technology and access. They went from "point-a" to "point-b" which is what other forms of transportation were already doing, but in many case the airplane could do it faster if not cheaper. Add the fact that maintaining and operating an "airplane" was supported by a large infrastructure of industry, parts, supplies, peronel and support from the start and you lose all ability to "compare" the two. "Space" has no such system of destinations, no infrastructure, and no supporting market base to draw on. Your attempt at adding a "qualification" fails because of that very lack as well. Airplanes could and did "abort" quite often in the early days with MAYBE the loss of a "ship" but often without major injury or death for people involved. When it DID happen there were new regulations, new procedures, and new technology invented to keep it from happening again, including more aborts.

For a very long time aircraft were technically capable of doing things that no passenger could survive. Airlines flew lower than they were capable of because no "passenger" was going to submit to the indignity of wearing a complicated (and expensive) uncomfortable and prone to failure "pressure suit" despite the fact that aircraft flying in the statosphere could go faster and get to destinations quicker and cheaper. Wearing a "spacesuit" such as the Launch&Landing pressure suits is going to be a requirement because unlike any "airplane" a spacecraft can't simply drop down to an altitude where the passengers can "breath" if it springs a leak. If you're half way to Hawaii in a Stratoliner that's an option, but not if you're halfway to the Moon in Dragon capsule.

Over a hundred years has passed since the Wright Brothers and todays "aircraft" industry standards and regulations, and in that time MILLIONS of "emergencies" have happened on, to, and with aircraft. 99% of them were "minor" and could be easily taken care of by "aborting" back to a lower speed, alititude, the destination or back to base. In all that time even if the "worst" happened and the plane crashed it didn't mean that the passengers and crew were lost. After all they were surrounded by the environment of the Earth. They might lack for food or water at times but they didn't have to worry about running out of air.

Space is NOTHING like that and to forget that or try to gloss over it invites disaster to not only come in but move in and raid your kitchen cabinets! An air tank rupture but no major control functions are effected and the basic vehicle structure appears intact. On an airliner that's a "minor" emergency. Simply land at the nearst airport and wait for repairs or replacement. In Space? We lost a Moon mission and nearly the lives of the astronauts on-board.

Aircraft do not compare to spacecraft. Ships do not compare to spacecraft (No neither do submarines) Trains don't compare to spacecraft. Cars and Trucks do not compare to spacecraft. No form of transportation ON EARTH has managed to make anything but a cursory and very limited analogy to space travel.

Learn those differences, understand the lack of analogy, always keep in mind the reasons space travel is so different than any type of transportation we've had experiance with in the past and you are more than half way to true understanding of how and why it is difficult and costly, you're also more than half way to understanding how and what needs to be done to change the current paradigm and situation.

Don't and commenting on an internet forum is about all the effect you'll ever have.

Randy

[joek]

What in the heck are you two (RanulfC, Elmar Moelzer) arguing about?  The current ISS commercial crew conops won't even have a "crew"; everyone will be "spaceflight participant",  with some of those participants trained for some crew-like tasks in the event of an emergency.  Any nominal mission should be handled by autonomous systems or remote control, and require no intervention on the part of the on-board participants.