Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Math and Science (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=70)
-   -   SpaceShipOne captures X-prize! (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30590)

catlin101 07-10-2004 14:21

Re: SpaceShipOne captures X-prize!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory
Does anyone else find it slightly scary that COMPANIES will be building rockets to put normal people in space?

I mean, I'm all for innovation and pushing the envelope, but god knows how safe company xyz's rocket is. NASA does more testing than anyone could even imagine... and the price of one shuttle is astronomically high. One has to wonder how safe these things will be.

There better be some serious regulation and oversight on these bad boys.


No, I think exactly the opposite. I think that this is a great example of how work done by private enterpreise outperforms government work. NASA and their contractors have a "high cost culture" that leads them to say, well, if its going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then its just going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Because private enterprise cares about money, they find ways to do things cheaply and effectively. As an example, check out SpaceX, a company developing launch vehicles that will cost one third of current ones. They claiming that there vehicles will also have breakthrough improvements and safety and reliability, and their reasons make a lot of sense. When things are run by the government, they just get stuck in a time frame, and don't move forward. Ignoring SpaceX, launching a satellite today costs basicly the same amount that it did thrity years ago. This is because the launch contracts were done mainly through the government.

To install serious regulation, like you said, would be to "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs." Regulation on these companies is already far too much. For instance, going back to SpaceX, they have been ready to go for quite a while, but have been swamped with endless regulation from all kinds of agencies that has pushed their launch dates back and back. In order to improve both the safety and the cost, the government just needs to let the companies take care of themselves.

It baffles me that people have so much mistrust for corporations, when they are the reason that we have everything we have that is good. Computers for instance, are largely unregualted, and look at the phenominal performance and cost increases that have ocurred. And, by the way, most companies are actively taking actions such as creating lead-free products on their own, not becuase of government mandates. Supermarkets are another great example. There's a reason why they don't sell you rotton food, and its not regulation. Its because if they sold you rotton food, then you'd never go there again. There are so many stories of people from the former soviet union, and even people from somewhat socialist european economies, who come to the United States and are absoluteley flabbergasted at the selection and cost of our supermarkets. If less regulation was used across the board, all industries would see this sort of improvement. Space travel is no exception. If we want to see tickets to space for less the one hundred thousand, with safety and reliability, the thing to do is just tell the regulatory agencies to ease off. Of course, there are some checks that do need to be made-- but not nearly the number that currently exist.

In conlusion, thirty years ago, NASA said that they could provide space travel to average citizens in thirty years. At 600 million per launch, they're far from their goal.

Marc P. 07-10-2004 16:17

Re: SpaceShipOne captures X-prize!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by catlin101

It baffles me that people have so much mistrust for corporations, when they are the reason that we have everything we have that is good. Computers for instance, are largely unregualted, and look at the phenominal performance and cost increases that have ocurred. And, by the way, most companies are actively taking actions such as creating lead-free products on their own, not becuase of government mandates. Supermarkets are another great example. There's a reason why they don't sell you rotton food, and its not regulation. Its because if they sold you rotton food, then you'd never go there again. There are so many stories of people from the former soviet union, and even people from somewhat socialist european economies, who come to the United States and are absoluteley flabbergasted at the selection and cost of our supermarkets. If less regulation was used across the board, all industries would see this sort of improvement. Space travel is no exception. If we want to see tickets to space for less the one hundred thousand, with safety and reliability, the thing to do is just tell the regulatory agencies to ease off. Of course, there are some checks that do need to be made-- but not nearly the number that currently exist.

There's a pretty good discussion on regulation going on on
Slashdot concerning space regulation. The general understanding is there is definitely a need to regulate, simply because it is such a dangerous undertaking. The examples given do not necessarily apply to space travel, simply because the stakes are much higher. Computers weren't regulated because their typical use doesn't have the potential to kill anyone. A spaceship is capable of not only killing passengers, but anyone unfortunate enough to be on the ground if one were to come crashing down.

Generally speaking, companies do everything in their power to prevent injury to their customers. Injury and death are simply not good for business. However, without some form of regulation, there would be no minimum safety requirements companies would have to meet before launching people to the stars. If that were the case, anyone could build a rocket out of the trash can in their backyard. Charge cheap rates and have passengers sign a waiver disclaiming you from all liability, and things can get ugly really fast.

The goal of regulation is to prevent problems before they happen. Supermarkets and restaurants are regulated to an extent- they have to pass federal health inspections every so often to keep their license to sell food. Any store caught selling bad food is immediately subject to federal inspections and evaluations. Wherever there is the potential to cause harm to innocent people, there is regulation. Cars are a great example- perfectly safe when used properly and held to strict standards and government safety checks, deadly and dangerous if something goes wrong. Private spaceflight is a new industry, and has plenty of hurdles to overcome before becoming as widely accepted as planes, boats, and cars, but regulation is a necessary measure to keep things safe.

Adam Y. 07-10-2004 16:47

Re: SpaceShipOne captures X-prize!
 
Quote:

The true lesson is more along the lines of "Walk before you run." Test the designs to find out where they break. Identify the problems. Correct the design to eliminate them. Note that every airliner since the Comet has rounded corners on the windows (and doors).
Yeah I agree with you on that part. I guess the DC-10 airliner problem probably would have been a better example. Those airplanes lost engines due to a lack in regulation of repair procedures. How about the Bopal disaster in India. I think the main thing that we have to concern ourselves as engineers is falling into a false sense of security because if we don't we will do something incredibly stupid and maybe even dangerous.

Alan Anderson 08-10-2004 10:49

Re: SpaceShipOne captures X-prize!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc P.
...A spaceship is capable of not only killing passengers, but anyone unfortunate enough to be on the ground if one were to come crashing down.
...Private spaceflight is a new industry, and has plenty of hurdles to overcome before becoming as widely accepted as planes, boats, and cars, but regulation is a necessary measure to keep things safe.

Airliners are just as capable of hitting people on the ground if they "come crashing down". Cars are already on the ground (and are much more likely to hit people if something goes wrong, because they are generally operated near people). There's nothing special about spacecraft in this way.

Consider the safety rules for a FIRST robot. There are a few absolutes regarding a robot's interaction with the field, but only general guidelines for how to implement the rules. Regulation is fine if it gives a standard or goal, but if it specifies things in too much detail, it overly restricts the options available, and smothers innovation.

The old rules for rocket-propelled launch vehicles are written with the assumption that rocket equals artillery. Launch pads are still located on firing ranges, and the range safety officer requires the ability to destroy the vehicle if it threatens to leave the range in an uncontrolled manner. That's not appropriate for passenger craft. The proper standard is to demonstrate the ability to maintain control in every probable situation, and to demonstrate the ability to survive a loss of control in all but the most improbable situations.

Even with extremely restrictive regulation, there will always be accidents. You can't legislate luck.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:17.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi