Until massive, major leaps in technology - perhaps impossible ones, as materials limitations may prevent things like a Beanstalk space elevator - rockets are going to continue to be the way we get to space.

That's fine for military and high return projects like satellites, not so good for casual tourism through.

Studied space technology as uni and one of the courses was insurance. Do you know how you insure a satellite launch -- you don't you build two satellites and two rockets

mrjonno wrote:

Until massive, major leaps in technology - perhaps impossible ones, as materials limitations may prevent things like a Beanstalk space elevator - rockets are going to continue to be the way we get to space.

That's fine for military and high return projects like satellites, not so good for casual tourism through.

Studied space technology as uni and one of the courses was insurance. Do you know how you insure a satellite launch -- you don't you build two satellites and two rockets

Yes, because failures are either immediately catastrophic, or the rockets (and usually payloads) are destroyed by a range safety officer.

So what? Doesn't mean that they aren't increasingly safe, and safe enough for people to take an informed risk of riding on them.

Not ready for commercial flight schedules, sure - but you have to get there somehow, and flight testing is part of that path.

We have been sending people into space over 50 years using rockets, if it was economically viable to do with civilians the private sector would have done it a lot earlier. There was civilian aircraft flights within 10 years of the Wright brothers. That to me implies that is something inherently unsafe in rockets that isn't applicable to aircraft.

It's around about a 1% fatality rate per launch for manned rockets, which is just about acceptable if you only do it a couple of times but if you do it commercially that pretty much guarantees the pilot is eventually going to die (and that the rocket launching company is going to get sued out of existence by relatives of the dead, no 'don't sue me contract this is dangerous ' is going to protect Virgin)

Rockets are definitely not the way forward.

While the analogy of the car does hold true to certain extent it does not quite follow.

Cars basically have not changed. The fuel up to a few years ago is almost identical. Transmissions have barely changed.

Branson is pushing the limits on conventional systems but anything new? I don't think so.

If was not for the Russian Progress supply rockets the ISS would have closed down ages ago. The crew travel using a Soyuz.

If Branson wanted to make himself useful a new supply rocket would be an idea along with a passenger delivery system.

Now that would be progress.

The ISS is currently supported mainly on Russian vehicles because the US is in the midst of a major re-tooling for a major leap forward in rocket spacecraft, one which will jump us far ahead of Russian capabilities.

It is simply absurd to say that rockets are not the way forward, but sub-orbital aircraft are likewise not useful so Branson should use rockets.

Absolutely illogical standards.

If rockets are not the way forward, what do you suggest instead?

Weaver wrote:

In addition, a video camera in the cockpit showed Mr. Alsbury switching the lever to the unlocked position, Mr. Hart said. That occurred at a velocity of about Mach 1, which is the speed of sound at a given altitude. Under normal operations, that lever would not be moved until later in the flight, when the space plane had reached a speed of Mach 1.4, Mr. Hart said. The plane’s altitude would also be higher, where the air is thinner.

Beginning to sound like a major pilot error.

Sounds like suicide to me. Does that count as pilot error?

No, not even close to suicide. The program schedule had him planned to unlock the lever at Mach 1.4, but he unlocked it at Mach 1.0 - just a bit early, considering the acceleration of that rocket motor. If that is indeed what happened - still too early to be sure - than this could be just a simple sequence error or doing a task just a little too early.

It was unlocked in the middle of the burn under 3g of acceleration. It was supposed to be unlocked some time after the end of the burn, at apogee, under zero g conditions. I don't think mistaking 3g for zero g is a simple error.

mrjonno wrote:Car's are interesting example, while there have been quite a few superficial changes a car in the 1930's still pretty much does the same thing as one in 2014. There is a great difference in safe speed on them.

Main problem with space flight is quite simply rocket propulsion is a very primitive and fundamentally not very safe technology. Something very different is required

But the problem is that we don't have anything different; that's why igniting several tonnes of combustible fuels under your arse is still the only real way to escape the Earth's atmosphere.

mrjonno wrote:We have been sending people into space over 50 years using rockets, if it was economically viable to do with civilians the private sector would have done it a lot earlier. There was civilian aircraft flights within 10 years of the Wright brothers. That to me implies that is something inherently unsafe in rockets that isn't applicable to aircraft.

To me it would suggest that the technology wasn't widely available, the up-front costs were prohibitive, regulations were in place forbidding it, or the incentives were not great enough before.

mrjonno wrote:It's around about a 1% fatality rate per launch for manned rockets, which is just about acceptable if you only do it a couple of times but if you do it commercially that pretty much guarantees the pilot is eventually going to die (and that the rocket launching company is going to get sued out of existence by relatives of the dead, no 'don't sue me contract this is dangerous ' is going to protect Virgin)

Or solutions could be put in place to either address the failure rate, or to ensure that a failure didn't end in the death of the passengers.

Weaver wrote:If rockets are not the way forward, what do you suggest instead?

Fucking big elastic bands.

Weaver wrote:The ISS is currently supported mainly on Russian vehicles because the US is in the midst of a major re-tooling for a major leap forward in rocket spacecraft, one which will jump us far ahead of Russian capabilities.

What are they planning? Never read anywhere about this "major leap forward". It sounds very Chinese to me.

It is simply absurd to say that rockets are not the way forward, but sub-orbital aircraft are likewise not useful so Branson should use rockets.

Branson is only interested in one thing; money. How it is earned I don't think really bothers him.

Absolutely illogical standards.

If rockets are not the way forward, what do you suggest instead?

Not developing anything at present. We have so many problems on earth that need to be solved it is rather disgusting wasting so much time and money on space research.

Warren Dew wrote:It was unlocked in the middle of the burn under 3g of acceleration. It was supposed to be unlocked some time after the end of the burn, at apogee, under zero g conditions. I don't think mistaking 3g for zero g is a simple error.

I don't think this is right. What's the source for this?

Scot Dutchy wrote:


Branson is only interested in one thing; money. How it is earned I don't think really bothers him.

I disagree, he has so much money now that he is looking for ways that interest him to spend it.

Spearthrower wrote:

Weaver wrote:If rockets are not the way forward, what do you suggest instead?

Fucking big elastic bands.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Weaver wrote:The ISS is currently supported mainly on Russian vehicles because the US is in the midst of a major re-tooling for a major leap forward in rocket spacecraft, one which will jump us far ahead of Russian capabilities.

What are they planning? Never read anywhere about this "major leap forward". It sounds very Chinese to me.

Research "Orion Spacecraft" and "Space Launch System".

It is simply absurd to say that rockets are not the way forward, but sub-orbital aircraft are likewise not useful so Branson should use rockets.

Branson is only interested in one thing; money. How it is earned I don't think really bothers him.

Which says nothing at all to address my point. You cannot say Branson should not use suborbital planes because they are not the way forward so he should use rockets but that rockets are not the way forward. Simply illogical.

Absolutely illogical standards.

If rockets are not the way forward, what do you suggest instead?

Not developing anything at present. We have so many problems on earth that need to be solved it is rather disgusting wasting so much time and money on space research.

Money spent on space research provides returns on the investment around 20-fold. Not spending money on research does not equate to equal improvement on conditions here on Earth - money spent on research leads directly to improvement of conditions on Earth.

Luddite arguments are rarely factually correct.

I don't think anyone here is against space research but that doesn't mean there isn't a fundamental flaw with linking rockets to civilian flight that absolutely no one is trying to correct.

Rockets are fine for the military,science and high return and commercial projects like satellites but they simply are the wrong technology for casual civilian flight.

It's not the same as with aircraft which have basically become safer and safer with time, a year 2014 rocket is basically not significantly safer to use than one built in the 1950's

mrjonno wrote:
It's not the same as with aircraft which have basically become safer and safer with time, a year 2014 rocket is basically not significantly safer to use than one built in the 1950's

Why is it not the same? What is the barrier which keeps rockets from becoming safer with ongoing use? Are you aware that they have, in fact, become safer over time? Are you erecting the same sort of barrier that allegedly keeps one "kind" from evolving into another "kind"?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

mrjonno wrote:
It's not the same as with aircraft which have basically become safer and safer with time, a year 2014 rocket is basically not significantly safer to use than one built in the 1950's

Why is it not the same? What is the barrier which keeps rockets from becoming safer with ongoing use? Are you aware that they have, in fact, become safer over time? Are you erecting the same sort of barrier that allegedly keeps one "kind" from evolving into another "kind"?

I never did see no plane turn into no rocket. Seems to me that if they could we'd have no planes left as they'd have all upped and gotten into rocketry.

Boyle wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

mrjonno wrote:
It's not the same as with aircraft which have basically become safer and safer with time, a year 2014 rocket is basically not significantly safer to use than one built in the 1950's

Why is it not the same? What is the barrier which keeps rockets from becoming safer with ongoing use? Are you aware that they have, in fact, become safer over time? Are you erecting the same sort of barrier that allegedly keeps one "kind" from evolving into another "kind"?

I never did see no plane turn into no rocket. Seems to me that if they could we'd have no planes left as they'd have all upped and gotten into rocketry.

How do you know??1? Were you there???1?