Is this wise or appropriate?

[beecee]

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-spacex-tourist-crew-healthy-happy.html

SpaceX's tourist crew 'healthy, happy and resting':

Extract:

Its main goal, however, is to prove that space is accessible to ordinary people as the United States and private companies like SpaceX seek to further commercialize the cosmos.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

OK, don't get me wrong, as personally I would jump at the chance to be a part of something like this. But I can't help thinking, shouldn't an astronaut/professional be part of the payload? Great to see automation and remote control from Earth doing such increduble things, but even normal air travel today is mainly automated, but who would fly on a jumbo or any jet airliner without a pilot? I can't help thinking that while this is momentous, that perhaps illustrating that space tourism will certainly be a way of the future for many, that a professional should be on board in case of any unforseen circumstances.

My mind goes back to Gemini VIII and the sudden wild uncontrolled rocking and  rolling when it docked [first time ever attempted] with the Agena partner. On this flight was Armstrong of course, and his cool, calm and ultimately successful manouver in bring Gemini under control was certainly a reason he was chosen to lead Apollo 11 and the first Moon manned landing. OK, we were obviously doing things for the first time ever, but my point I believe still stands.

What do others think? 

[Peterkin]

They don't seem to be clueless; I'm not terribly worried about their safety.

I am, however, concerned that this is a one-off advertising gimmick - presumably to promote the newest fad in overpriced leisure activities, so that all future passengers are likely to be useless rich people, wasting jillions of dollars and  fuel. Depending on the fuel used, they'll produce a significant to unacceptable amount of air pollution and CO2 emission . To no good purpose whatever.

[beecee]

27 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

They don't seem to be clueless; I'm not terribly worried about their safety.

I am, however, concerned that this is a one-off advertising gimmick - presumably to promote the newest fad in overpriced leisure activities, so that all future passengers are likely to be useless rich people, wasting jillions of dollars and  fuel. Depending on the fuel used, they'll produce a significant to unacceptable amount of air pollution and CO2 emission . To no good purpose whatever.

Certainly not clueless as two are ex pilots, but obviously  my question stands...without a professional astronaut? 

Worth noting also that even in the event of an unforseen mishap, they have no docking mechanism to dock with the ISS...On second thought could the ISS's  RMS, [robotic arm] be able to latch onto it?

Edited September 16, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

I'm sure they've made plans for various foreseeable problems. Nobody has plans for the unforeseen ones. Sometimes the rocket explodes and everybody dies - including the professional astronauts.

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I'm sure they've made plans for various foreseeable problems. Nobody has plans for the unforeseen ones. 

 

So what are the possible "foreseeable problems" that they have made plans for? How will they be handled? It's the unforseen ones I'm obviously speaking of anyway. We could fly an automated jet from the US to Australia, but I'm pretty sure most passengers would still like a pilot up front. And they all probably have recieved some sort of training also, but that doesn't imo, cover experience, which maybe needed in certain situations. 

The space explorative industry is 100% necessary, as will be a return to the Moon, and onto greater achievments. We were not born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb [with all due respects to our fart arse little blue orb 😉] and just like Earth based tourism today, whether by sea or air, tourists will follow after the explorative sciences have done their prioritive bit, in as a safest and cleanest manner possible.

But my question stands....Are they too confident in attempting a still rather dangerous venture, without a professional on board?  Is it a wise and appropriate thing to do considering the safety of thehumans on board? [be they billionares or not]

 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

presumably to promote the newest fad in overpriced leisure activities, so that all future passengers are likely to be useless rich people,

Yes, like that useless, lazy Bezos.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Are they too confident in attempting a still rather dangerous venture, without a professional on board?

How should any of us know?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Is it a wise and appropriate thing to do considering the safety of thehumans on board?

It's their decision. They have the resources and information to make the one that seems right, wise and appropriate for each of them.

[beecee]

49 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

How should any of us know?

I'm asking for opinions...You have given yours...thanks. 

49 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It's their decision. They have the resources and information to make the one that seems right, wise and appropriate for each of them.

Not everyone is as smart as you. 🤭Perhaps there decision/s are wrong.

You take it easy, you sound rather edgy...🙄

Again the question/s stand.....Are they too confident in attempting a still rather dangerous venture, without a professional on board?  Is it a wise and appropriate thing to do considering the safety of thehumans on board? [be they billionares or not]

_{^{https://theconversation.com/spacex-inspiration4-mission-sent-4-people-with-minimal-training-into-orbit-and-brought-space-tourism-closer-to-reality-167611}}

The future of space tourism?

Sending a crew of amateur astronauts into orbit is a significant step in the development of space tourism. However, despite the more inclusive feel of the mission, there are still serious barriers to overcome before average people can go to space.

For one, the cost remains quite high. Though three of the four are not rich, Isaacman is a billionaire and paid an estimated $200 million to fund the trip. The need to train for a mission like this also means that prospective passengers must be able to devote significant amounts of time to prepare – time that many ordinary people don’t have.

Finally, space remains a dangerous place, and there will never be a way to fully remove the danger of launching people – whether untrained civilians or seasoned professional astronauts – into space.

[Over 110,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

Despite these limitations, orbital space tourism is coming. For SpaceX, Inspiration4 is an important proof of concept that demonstrated the safety and reliability of their autonomous rocket and capsule systems. Indeed, SpaceX has several tourist missions planned in the next few months, even though the company isn’t focused on space tourism. Some will even includes stops at the International Space Station.

Even as space remains out of reach for most on Earth, Inspiration4 is an example of how billionaire space barons’ efforts to include more people on their journeys can give an otherwise exclusive activity a wider public appeal.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-spacex-tourist-crew-healthy-happy.html

An Interesting mixture of the four all civilian crew.....

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by beecee

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, beecee said:

My mind goes back to Gemini VIII and the sudden wild uncontrolled rocking and  rolling when it docked [first time ever attempted] with the Agena partner. On this flight was Armstrong of course, and his cool, calm and ultimately successful manouver in bring Gemini under control was certainly a reason he was chosen to lead Apollo 11 and the first Moon manned landing.

Armstrong was able to bring Gemini under control because he had access to the controls. Does the Dragon have onboard pilot controls? Regardless, if the module has limited functions, as in it doesn't dock, doesn't try to get close to a satellite, etc., then I am unsure an onboard pilot is all that critical.

[iNow]

The thing I hate most about this effort is I’m not one of the folks onboard. 

[beecee]

48 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Armstrong was able to bring Gemini under control because he had access to the controls. Does the Dragon have onboard pilot controls? Regardless, if the module has limited functions, as in it doesn't dock, doesn't try to get close to a satellite, etc., then I am unsure an onboard pilot is all that critical.

My point is that irrespective of the many successes of Space-X and other companies, space exploration or tourism is still ranked as dangerous. It was also the speed which Armstrong reasoned out the problem with Gemini VIII that saved the day for the mission. I'm not sure what a professional astronaut would achieve if some unexpected or unforeseen event were to take place, but just that little bit of experience, could possibly save the day, with or without onboard controls. Wasn't there a Mercury incident also where the capsule returned and started to sink? Grissom I believe was the astronaut who was later killed in Apollo I along with Chaffee and White. A lay person in that situation may not have survived.

If I was a billionare and decided to partake in such an adventure, remote controlled or not, I would love an experienced, fully trained astronaut to be along for security.  

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

The thing I hate most about this effort is I’m not one of the folks onboard. 

Bingo!!!

Edited September 17, 2021 by beecee

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

Wasn't there a Mercury incident also where the capsule returned and started to sink?

Yes, and we’ve learned a lot in the intervening 60 years… like how to use a computer to correct for these things 

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Bingo!!!

Jealousy is a cruel mistress 

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Jealousy is a cruel mistress 

I'd probably wish you the best of luck, swear a bit under my breath, and break your legs just before you entered the capsule!😛 

[zapatos]

32 minutes ago, beecee said:

It was also the speed which Armstrong reasoned out the problem with Gemini VIII that saved the day for the mission.

But it's not like he was the only one working on the problem. People on earth were working on it at the same time. If Armstrong had been on earth instead of in space the problem still would have been corrected. There was nothing magic about being in space that allowed the problem to be solved.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

But it's not like he was the only one working on the problem. People on earth were working on it at the same time. If Armstrong had been on earth instead of in space the problem still would have been corrected. There was nothing magic about being in space that allowed the problem to be solved.

I gave the gemini VIII example as how the skills of an astronaut is needed, and in this incident, both Armstrong and Scott were close to blacking out. I don't believe ground crew could have fixed the problem. https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/gemini-8-forgotten-mission-almost-ended-space-program/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_8#Emergency

But again my point is that the skill of a professional, an astronaut in this case, maybe needed...we now have fully automated controlled cars, but I don't see any nation relaxing laws that may eliminate the need for anyone behind the driver's seat, and of course the previous example I gave...I would bet that a fully automated flight from the US to Australia could be successfully done, but I seriously doubt it will ever happen without a professional at the pointy end...in this case a pilot. 

I sincerely hope that all goes to plan without any problems and believe it will going on the success rate of Space-X, but it does not lessen the still present dangers of our still baby  steps into space. 

Space-X and the other private companies are putting space travel out in front again, and are making momentious discoveries of technology in the process.

If they want an old run of the mill Aussie to give it a go then I'm their man...but gee, I would like a Neil Armstrong sitting beside me.

Edited September 17, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I gave the gemini VIII example as how the skills of an astronaut is needed, and in this incident, both Armstrong and Scott were close to blacking out. I don't believe ground crew could have fixed the problem.

But now they can, besides what's the point of a blacked out professional astronaut?

I'm with @zapatos on this, it seems valid risk for the extra cargo.

But as to the wisdom of space tourism, it's one of the few taxes on a billionaire; why not let them pay for, an otherwise public investment.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But now they can, besides what's the point of a blacked out professional astronaut?

A professional astronaut with his experience, may be able to take some action to prevent any mishap, one way or the other.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm with @zapatos on this, it seems valid risk for the extra cargo.

? What extra cargo are we talking about? Perhaps you need to read the OP, specifically and obviously this bit..."shouldn't an astronaut/professional be part of the payload?" 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But as to the wisdom of space tourism, it's one of the few taxes on a billionaire; why not let them pay for, an otherwise public investment.

See this is the thing with yourself and obviously Peterkin so far....you have all avoided the question at hand, because of your political agenda and opinion. Personally, I don't give a stuff about whether Space X or any of the other space companies is run by billionares or government concern. I asked a simple question, taking into account of course, of the still recognised dangers and things that can go wrong in space endeavours, and whether any craft fully automated/computer controlled or not, should be without a professional astronaut. The political stance is simply that space exploration, space science, space tourism, will all continue, as they should, with of course the first two exploration and science leading the way. And of course it goes without saying that the private concerns, particularly Space X, have achieved massive technological advancements since they started their operations...advancements that have my full support and admiration. That will most certainly not vanish, just because space tourism, at this time, is understandably strictly for the filthy rich...much as airline travel was when it first got off the ground. 

But hey, we digress....the question again is, shouldn't an astronaut/professional be part of the payload? Great to see automation and remote control from Earth doing such increduble things, but even normal air travel today is mainly automated, but who would fly on a jumbo or any jet airliner without a pilot? I can't help thinking that while this is momentous, that perhaps illustrating that space tourism will certainly be a way of the future for many, that a professional should be on board in case of any unforseen circumstances. Afterall space is still a highly dangerous undertaking, with so many variables and scenarios that can go wrong. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

A professional astronaut with his experience, may be able to take some action to prevent any mishap, one way or the other.

Most modern aircraft are fly by wire, so technically they are all capable of being flown remotely.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

But hey, we digress....the question again is, shouldn't an astronaut/professional be part of the payload?

No.

 

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Most modern aircraft are fly by wire, so technically they are all capable of being flown remotely.

Of course, have I said any different....the point you brush over and relative to my question, is that they all still have a pilot.

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No.

Thank you finally for an answer not poluted by politics. Personally, I'm not so sure, hence my question. For instance, Would you fly from the US or Europe to Australia on an aircraft, operated by fully ground computer and/or controlled, "without a pilot", just in case.

Edited September 17, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

Just now, beecee said:

Of course, have I said any different....the point you brush over and relative to my question, is that they all still have a pilot.

Way to miss the point... 

They all have a pilot; they just don't need to be onboard...

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But as to the wisdom of space tourism, it's one of the few taxes on a billionaire; why not let them pay for, an otherwise public investment.

 They've contracted out all space flights: it's the public paying Musk, not the other way around.

https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

They've contracted out all space flights: it's the public paying Musk, not the other way around.

https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html

Way to miss the point; it's investor's not the tax payer.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

They all have a pilot; they just don't need to be onboard...

Exactly, and for safety and just in case.

 

[joigus]

I think @Peterkin has a point and should be given a fair hearing before anybody gives them another flurry of neg-reps. I would like to hear more arguments.

After all, I don't know of any waiting list of well-to-do people in line for handling the LHC accelerator to produce QCD jets --wo. the assistance of a professional physicist.

What about well-to-do people waiting in line to extract ice cores in Antarctica? --wo. the assistance of a professional field geologist?

Aeronautics has an undeniable element of thrills for the rich that we should discuss dispassionately.

Having said that, I totally understand @iNow's point:

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Jealousy is a cruel mistress 

That element plays too.

Mind you, amateur astronauts can fall on our heads. Perhaps irrelevant?

Edited September 17, 2021 by joigus

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Exactly, and for safety and just in case.

 

What button could they push onboard, that's in any way different from the button they push on the ground?