Virgin Rocket Ship Crash Watch

Poll: Would you want to go into space?
Yes (58)
73.42%
No (15)
18.99%
Only if I'm on the flight with Branson (6)
7.59%
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 years ago
#61
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
The impacts rather low.

Struggling to think of a huge disaster involving nuclear waste.
Or any nuclear event that had a significant lasting impact except for in the immediate vicinity.
0
reply
Elcor
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 years ago
#62
TIL space tourism => spending billions of £ getting huge masses of radioactive waste to escape velocity.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Shadez
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#63
Report 4 years ago
#63
yeah i would totally go and then take a ****, then i can say ive been to space n **** ( get it maaan i have too much free time)
0
reply
Tillybop
  • Study Helper
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 years ago
#64
(Original post by Queen Cersei)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29861259

I don't feel like the Virgin Galatic exploding is a particularly good sign for space tourism. Personally I wouldn't even want to go into space (mainly because I suffer from hideous travel sickness and watched Gravity the other day).

How does everyone else feel about space tourism? Would you want to go into space?
Yes. I'd go. But not right now. Space tourism is fairly new, and to be fair the companies like Virgin don't exactly have amazing knowledge of how it works.

Many companies seem to think they will be able to go to space - whether it's just into low Earth orbit or all the way to other planets.

Take Mars One for example, who believe that they will be able to go to Mars in 2032 on just $6 billion. They're an example of a company trying to skimp of costs, and putting lives at risk as a result. It costs over $100 billion just for the International Space Station, let alone creating a whole new civilisation on another planet with a whole life support system. The companies think they can do it - and they think it is easy. Which is worrying given that the company has absolutely no experience in sending people to space.

Then you have companies like virgin that clearly throw money at projects like these. But they are trying to rush into space tourism far too quickly, without taking the time to make it safe. It is even possible that the technology just isn't there yet, but they aren't willing to be patient with it.

Too many companies seem to think that they can go to Space, when the reality is it's just not feasible. When NASA and the other big space companies aren't doing something, you know it probably shouldn't be done. They aren't investing in space tourism or going to Mars. Probably because they are spending money on more valuable projects or cannot justify spending money on it, but also because we can't really do it...yet...

So I would go to Space, if I knew the company were trustworthy, and if I knew it would be as safe as possible. :yep:
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#65
Report 4 years ago
#65
(Original post by Tillybop)
Too many companies seem to think that they can go to Space, when the reality is it's just not feasible. When NASA and the other big space companies aren't doing something, you know it probably shouldn't be done. They aren't investing in space tourism or going to Mars. Probably because they are spending money on more valuable projects or cannot justify spending money on it, but also because we can't really do it...yet.
Unfair way of looking at it. Don't ask what they are doing, ask what they'd like to do. You don't think NASA has an interest in an affordable, reusable space delivery system? You don't think they'd want to get to Mars? It's simply a question of them having, relatively, a tiny budget and not being able to afford the luxuries.

Also, the not being able to do it yet argument doesn't really hold water. How do you know whether you can do it or not unless you test it? Before NASA started the Apollo programme they didn't have a clue how to get a man into space, let alone get him back safely.

The problem is purely money. Nothing else.
0
reply
Tillybop
  • Study Helper
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 years ago
#66
(Original post by Drewski)
Unfair way of looking at it. Don't ask what they are doing, ask what they'd like to do. You don't think NASA has an interest in an affordable, reusable space delivery system? You don't think they'd want to get to Mars? It's simply a question of them having, relatively, a tiny budget and not being able to afford the luxuries.

Also, the not being able to do it yet argument doesn't really hold water. How do you know whether you can do it or not unless you test it? Before NASA started the Apollo programme they didn't have a clue how to get a man into space, let alone get him back safely.

The problem is purely money. Nothing else.
NASA did have an affordable and reusable space shuttle. They had it. It was expensive, and at times dangerous.

They wouldn't go to Mars yet. Because they know we can't. They know we need more time to figure out how we could actually make it possible. Right now it isn't. There are so many unanswered questions about going to Mars, and until they are resolved we shouldn't be looking to go there. NASA have said that they are planning to send a manned mission to Mars, but it's not just their budget, it's the fact that we need to work to get the technology up to standard, and have everything sorted so that the entire mission doesn't end in disaster.

Well the crash that happened clearly shows that they can't do it yet. They shouldn't have done a manned mission first. Even NASA had the sense to do a trial run with an animal (however cruel that is) before they sent a human up into space. Yes it meant that they missed the chance to have the first man in space, but at least they trialled it. Because yes they had no idea if they could do it, but they tested it first, to make sure that the risk of someone being killed was kept as low as possible. They knew they could do it.

It isn't just money. Money is a huge factor of course, but I think Virgin have more than enough money to get the project off the ground, they just don't have the technology to keep it there.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 years ago
#67
(Original post by Tillybop)
Too many companies seem to think that they can go to Space, when the reality is it's just not feasible. When NASA and the other big space companies aren't doing something, you know it probably shouldn't be done. They aren't investing in space tourism or going to Mars. Probably because they are spending money on more valuable projects or cannot justify spending money on it, but also because we can't really do it...yet...
NASA and the other companies aren't doing space tourism because they're government run scientific agencies, tourism is left to the private sector. On top of that, science budgets globally are being slashed which largely leaves in to the private sector to be making these innovations.

Your general attitude of "accident happened, it's not safe" makes me wonder how you can even step out your front door. Planes crash, you would still go on one of those. Trains crash, cars crash, buses crash, bikes crash. I bet you will still use all those. Space is inherently dangerous, especially when you normally sit on hundreds of tons of explosive materials to get there, and once you are there you will die in a matter of minutes if you lose pressure, but that's no different to other forms of transport that have been developed over the last century.

Planes, you're being kept in the air by riding on an wing that is, in places, much less than 1mm thick full of explosive fuel in an environment that will kill you in no time, at a height were you would easily fall to your death, and speeds which mean you're carrying a hell of a lot of energy.
Submarines, you're stood in a little tube surrounded by crushing pressures, not to mention that even if you could survive those pressures, you would be dead in minutes because you would drown.

you're also declaring Galactic unsafe because WHEN TESTING EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT there was a fatal error. As for not being able to keep them in thge sky, the previous 53 TEST flights managed to fly and land. I suppose you also suggest we further slash the NASA budget and the ESA budgets because of the incident with the Antares launch on Tuesday?
You said they should have done a trial run with animals. How exactly do you train these animals to control the craft then? The difference between this and first going into space is that when first going in it's a simple case of the Rocket's computers do all the work, with galactic you need a man in there to control it too. They're completely different circumstances. A more comparable example would be when Niel Armstrong crashed the LLTV, hmmm:

And more generally, the pioneers will take the risk, and these test pilots are among the pioneers. The Apollo astronauts knew that if there was a problem on the pad they were gonners; there was no easy way to get them to a safe place, so if they rocket blew they blew with it, and back then the rockets weren't quite as reliable as they are now. Did that stop them? Hell no.

RE: Mars
As has been said, space exploration isn't cheap. We haven't not been to Mars because we can't, we haven't been because the funds haven't been allocated to get there. NASA's budget is something like $18bn p/a, for which they need to service the ISS, man the ISS, man all their ground stations, launch new satellites, which take prioroty over Mars because we learn from them. They have to use that budget to pay for their private contracts after the shuttle program was canned, they have to use that to get their men to the ISS (which costs $60m per man).

How would we get to Mars? Well, there are the two main ways really: you either go straight there, or you stop off somewhere, whether that be the moon or the ISS or whatever. There is nothing bar funding stopping either.
Trivially we can get to Mars, how many probes have been there? How many things have been carried even further?
1
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 4 years ago
#68
People might also want to consider this: If as a species we stop pushing the limits in space, how will we ever build the Starship Enterprise?
0
reply
AdamCee
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#69
Report 4 years ago
#69
(Original post by Queen Cersei)
Haha you both have a lot more faith in it than me! What if the first voyage turns out to be another titanic?!
What if the next car you get into crashes? Not likely, but it's possible. And probably more likely the first voyage will be another Titanic

Depressing outlook on life but... It's the truth I guess
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#70
Report 4 years ago
#70
(Original post by Tillybop)
Well the crash that happened clearly shows that they can't do it yet. They shouldn't have done a manned mission first. Even NASA had the sense to do a trial run with an animal (however cruel that is) before they sent a human up into space.
Further note that they didn't send the animal to test it, whether the animal were there or not the test of the rocket would be the same. The animals were there to say they were first, and to observe the impact of micro-gravity among other things. Even if they wanted to test it with a payload reflective of a manned launch, they don't need biological organisms, they just need the mass in there.
0
reply
emobambam
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#71
Report 4 years ago
#71
I doubt private space tourism will be successful in our lifetimes but maybe our children will be able to do it.I would love to go to space.I think it would be an adventure even if it was the next Titanic.I have always wanted to go up in what Americans call the Vomit Comet.I wonder what the stars look like from the havens?the veiw must be incredible!
0
reply
Profesh
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#72
Report 4 years ago
#72
(Original post by Queen Cersei)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29861259

I don't feel like the Virgin Galatic exploding is a particularly good sign for space tourism. Personally I wouldn't even want to go into space (mainly because I suffer from hideous travel sickness and watched Gravity the other day).

How does everyone else feel about space tourism? Would you want to go into space?


How very defeatist of you.
0
reply
Tillybop
  • Study Helper
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#73
Report 4 years ago
#73
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Further note that they didn't send the animal to test it, whether the animal were there or not the test of the rocket would be the same. The animals were there to say they were first, and to observe the impact of micro-gravity among other things. Even if they wanted to test it with a payload reflective of a manned launch, they don't need biological organisms, they just need the mass in there.
I'll reply to the other one later because i am running late.

surely observing the impact of micro gravity is a test. They checked it was safe for humans. Therefore they did test it. Had the monkey come back seriously harmed then they probably wouldn't have sent Alan Shepherd up there.
0
reply
Summit
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#74
Report 4 years ago
#74
No, I wouldn't go to space. Gravity scared the living **** out of me.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report 4 years ago
#75
(Original post by Summit)
No, I wouldn't go to space. Gravity scared the living **** out of me.
The events in Gravity, while theoretically possible, are wildly exaggerated. Space is a very big place so the chance of the knock on effect is very slim, and if ISS is anything to go by there would be measures in place to try to protect the individuals.

In reality, they would have had much more warning. All objects over a certain size (not sure how small it is these days) in LEO are tracked so that if there is a potential collision the ISS (or shuttle back in the day) could be moved or the crew move into a protected area.

But the entire idea of Gravity scaring you so you don't want to go into space is like saying the idea that somebody might have shot a bullet straight up nearby would stop you going outside for fear of it killing you; the odds are astronomical (and in all the time we've been in space it hasn't happened yet, despite all the junk we really ought to have deorbitted.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Summit
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#76
Report 4 years ago
#76
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The events in Gravity, while theoretically possible, are wildly exaggerated. Space is a very big place so the chance of the knock on effect is very slim, and if ISS is anything to go by there would be measures in place to try to protect the individuals.

In reality, they would have had much more warning. All objects over a certain size (not sure how small it is these days) in LEO are tracked so that if there is a potential collision the ISS (or shuttle back in the day) could be moved or the crew move into a protected area.

But the entire idea of Gravity scaring you so you don't want to go into space is like saying the idea that somebody might have shot a bullet straight up nearby would stop you going outside for fear of it killing you; the odds are astronomical (and in all the time we've been in space it hasn't happened yet, despite all the junk we really ought to have deorbitted.

Posted from TSR Mobile
The gravity thing was just a joke! lol

Seriously though, I really don't whether I would go or not. Earth is so comfortable
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#77
Report 4 years ago
#77
(Original post by Tillybop)
I'll reply to the other one later because i am running late.

surely observing the impact of micro gravity is a test. They checked it was safe for humans. Therefore they did test it. Had the monkey come back seriously harmed then they probably wouldn't have sent Alan Shepherd up there.
What do you mean "come back"?
Why go to the expense of bringing an animal back when you don't need to? And again, it's also largely about the "first to put x into orbit" too; you can quite easily theoretically consider the effects of microgravity on Earth, and most of tue effects, to my knowledge, are only really an issue during extend exposure, not when you're just looking at a couple [of hundred] orbits like in the initial [and slightly later] missions, rather it's more for your ISS and missions to other planets.

And they could have been pretty sure it was safe for short term exposure coz Gagarin, and the Russians didn't care as much about safety.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
scrawlx101
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#78
Report 4 years ago
#78
Reading through i dont think i would,besides i wana skydive/handglide in my lifetime and fly to the peak of mt everest or something and i definetely wana visit easter island.
0
reply
Edminzodo
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#79
Report 4 years ago
#79
If it didn't involve any pain . . .
0
reply
Iggy Azalea
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#80
Report 4 years ago
#80
I GET TRAVEL SICK. :yucky:
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (502)
37.6%
No - but I will (103)
7.72%
No - I don't want to (92)
6.89%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (638)
47.79%

Watched Threads

View All