Would you go on a privately owned spaceship?

The first ever British astronaut was a space tourist aboard a USSR supply run to Mir so the concept works (On a comical note the British companies funding the trip failed to raise all the money so the USSR decided to make up the difference to avoid the UK any embarrassment, that was rather nice of them).

As long as its properly regulated to a high level the shouldn't be a problem.




Marine Iguana said:
1 of which could have been avoided :(
Click to expand...

Both could have been avoided.
 
Even if the worst happened and you got sucked out of an airlock you'd still make history.


If anyone here ever goes just remember to take Hovis with you or we'll call your thread about it photoshopped (we can tell from the pixels and from seeing lots of 'shops in our time).
 
if Russia can put a man into place with there track record of "soviet efficiency" surely a private company will have no problems!?
 
What I've seen so far from these SpaceX etc companies are just glorified high-altitude aircraft.

They take off, fly like a normal plane up to silly high altitude. Then the baby ship detaches and ignites a rocket motor to gain some extra altitude where the sky starts to turn black. Yes I'd love to see that, but it's not really space travel is it :confused:

They use chemical rockets, which are pretty safe. It's a controlled combustion so it can be stopped in an emergency. Pretty much the worst thing that can happen to a aircraft (and its occupants) at that altitude is a pressurisation failure either through hull damage/failure or through pressure systems failing. No doubt they will have 2 or 3 redundant systems to cover themselves from any lawsuits. The rocket motor stuff is probably one of their smallest concerns.
 
simulatorman said:
NASA spacecraft are publicly funded and there is nothing wrong with them.
Click to expand...

Sure they've done amazing things but you can't say there's nothing wrong with them.

1) Insulation foam on Columbia breaking off and damaging the leading edge of the wing causing catastrophic failure on re-entry...

That's not to say the something similar wouldn't happen if it was privately funded :D
 
Merlin5 said:
I think anyone paying to get on early flights would be nuts, I mean even NASA get it wrong, but they are absolutely meticulous with detail and won't fly if they're not happy with the tiniest issue. So would you trust a brand new private company to maintain the same level of detail and safety as NASA and to get you into space and back home without it blowing up?
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as being meticulous. Technology changes, designs change... The shuttle is a ridiculously complex bit of equipment needing NASA's meticulous army for it to stand a chance - and still they lost 40% of the vehicles over the fleets life. The new private vehicles are dramatically different - far cheaper to operate, they are simpler.

An analogy might be the comparison between a 1960's F1 car and an Audi A8, at least from a reliability point of view...
 
I'd consider it.

NASA is meticulous, but some of their more recent "incidents" have been caused by funding - sub-contracting to lowest bidders. A private company, at least in the early stages, would probably have far more attention to detail as their entire business model (and a vast amount of upfront investment) would rely on developing a reliable and safe track record.

The mention of airline's having planes crashing was interesting though - I'm sure quite a few airline's have gone bust following major incidents. (No facts to back this up).
 
Alex_S said:
Sure they've done amazing things but you can't say there's nothing wrong with them.

1) Insulation foam on Columbia breaking off and damaging the leading edge of the wing causing catastrophic failure on re-entry...

That's not to say the something similar wouldn't happen if it was privately funded :D
Click to expand...

That's called an accident and can happen anywhere..... :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom