Is this wise or appropriate?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

No. You pointed out that at first, only a very few people made use of air transportation because of the cost. Then as it became cheaper, more and more people did. Which is how the aviation industry grew and grew,  consumed more and more more fossil fuel and produced more and more CO2, noise pollution, bird deaths, airport sprawl, etc. and a lot of peripheral damage due to tourism and the industries serving it. 

You have it arse up. I used the airline industry as an analogy in comparing flight costs in its infancy to what it is now, and in comparison to space tourism now, and what it may cost in the future. It has nought to do with fossil fuel, although I am sympathetic to your's and my cause.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Not an altogether risible idea, but of course civilization is dependent on it now. Still, the Covid crisis did reduce much of the frivolous flying and made the world a little cleaner and safer for a while. There isn't much to recommend a pandemic! 

No, as crook an idea as your idolised justice system in actual fact. It's here to stay and totally necessary, what we can do of course is as I suggested ..improvement in technology and new methodologies.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

As with air traffic, so also with space traffic: I disapprove of using such incidentally harmful and potentially deadly tools as playthings.

Sorry, tourism will contiue, albeit hopefully in a more sustainable manner. That's reality.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I didn't think it was on topic. His good works won't prevent anyone burning to death in a defective vehicle. Once the mechanical problems are corrected, I'm sure electric cars will be safe, clean and wonderful.  In space, bailing out doesn't seem like an option.

Quite hypocritical of you, since you were the first to go off topic with your obsession with the filthy rich and billionares. My position is non political and simply asks whether it is wise or inappropriate to send four people in to orbit without a professional aboard who may be able to act with reason and logic the others do not have, and possibly avoid catastrophe. 

Edited September 18, 2021 by beecee

[iNow]

In a weird way, Peterkin is trollish, but in a way that’s polite enough to avoid banning, but who simultaneously hijacks and needlessly spins wheels in nearly every thread he joins. High post count, low post quality… net drain instead of net add in discussions #shotsfired #meta

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

In a weird way, Peterkin is trollish, but in a way that’s polite enough to avoid banning, but who simultaneously hijacks and needlessly spins wheels in nearly every thread he joins. High post count, low post quality… net drain instead of net add in discussions #shotsfired #meta

It's an obsession that is more akin to a religious obsession I suggest, in spamming his propaganda/philosophy, and ignoring the prime issue and question at hand. 

jealousy?? envy?? or a political obsession?  

[iNow]

I don’t care. I mostly just stopped reading 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

My position is non political and simply asks whether it is wise or inappropriate to send four people in to orbit without a professional aboard who may be able to act with reason and logic the others do not have, and possibly avoid catastrophe

But nobody was “sent”

Part of the issue here is the framing of the situation. Part of it is the claim that a professional would make a difference without any concrete evidence or relevant examples being presented.

 

(Also: Everyone could simply drop the OT nonsense. Regardless of who started it, several people have perpetuated it. It takes two to tango, as it were. It’s not like the original throwaway comment was repeated until others responded, escalating the situation)

[beecee]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But nobody was “sent”

Part of the issue here is the framing of the situation. Part of it is the claim that a professional would make a difference without any concrete evidence or relevant examples being presented.

No, there is no evidence as you say, and I sincerely hope there is never ever a situation with any space tourism, where a situation may arise, where a professional is needed, or may have made a difference. That's why I asked the question. Personally though, if I was put in that position, I would like a professional.

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, there is no evidence as you say, and I sincerely hope there is never ever a situation with any space tourism, where a situation may arise, where a professional is needed, or may have made a difference. That's why I asked the question. Personally though, if I was put in that position, I would like a professional.

I did find this ....https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/15/spacex-launch-amateur-astronauts-passengers

extract:

"Though the capsule is automated, the four Dragon riders spent six months training for the flight to cope with any emergency. That training included centrifuge and fighter jet flights, launch and re-entry practice in SpaceX’s capsule simulator and a grueling trek up Washington’s Mount Rainier in the snow".

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

Obviously the powers that be, have forseen that their six months training, should allow for any eventuation. I hope so.

[dimreepr]

36 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, there is no evidence as you say, and I sincerely hope there is never ever a situation with any space tourism, where a situation may arise, where a professional is needed, or may have made a difference. That's why I asked the question. Personally though, if I was put in that position, I would like a professional.

I did find this ....https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/15/spacex-launch-amateur-astronauts-passengers

extract:

"Though the capsule is automated, the four Dragon riders spent six months training for the flight to cope with any emergency. That training included centrifuge and fighter jet flights, launch and re-entry practice in SpaceX’s capsule simulator and a grueling trek up Washington’s Mount Rainier in the snow".

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

Obviously the powers that be, have forseen that their six months training, should allow for any eventuation. I hope so.

The point of my fly-by-wire example, is to show a disconect between the pilot and the control surfaces, so, theoretically the proximity of the pilot to the control surfaces is irrelevant.

The passengers training, I note, doesn't include flight training. 

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, beecee said:

Personally though, if I was put in that position, I would like a professional.

Nobody was “put in a position” You keep framing this as if they couldn’t have said “no thanks” 

It was their choice. You can question their level of foolishness for going, but you can’t actually gauge that unless you know what situations exist where a fully-trained astronaut would make a difference 

As far as training goes, at least some of that is so they know what to expect while pulling g’s during launch and while weightless so they’re not experiencing that for the first time on the trip. Someone having a panic attack in close quarters can be a dangerous situation. Also things like the need to sleep near air vents because CO2 buildup can be dangerous because you aren’t moving.

 

On 9/17/2021 at 8:31 AM, Peterkin said:

If I missed a point, please provide information to set me straight. I thought NASA was publicly funded.  

As beecee’s link makes clear, NASA is not involved and the flight is 100% privately funded 

[Peterkin]

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

As beecee’s link makes clear, NASA is not involved and the flight is 100% privately funded 

I realize that. As the launches take place at Cape Canaveral, I just wondered how this: @dimreepr : 

Quote

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.

transaction works. Still unclear, actually, but it's not important.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I realize that. As the launches take place at Cape Canaveral, I just wondered how this: @dimreepr : 

transaction works. Still unclear, actually, but it's not important.

You should start another topic, if you want to find out...

[beecee]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Nobody was “put in a position” You keep framing this as if they couldn’t have said “no thanks” 

It was their choice. You can question their level of foolishness for going, but you can’t actually gauge that unless you know what situations exist where a fully-trained astronaut would make a difference 

My grammatical erorr then. My suggestion was simply that the "powers that be", due to the inherent dangers of space travel, would have thought it reasonable enough to include a fully trained astronaut.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

As far as training goes, at least some of that is so they know what to expect while pulling g’s during launch and while weightless so they’re not experiencing that for the first time on the trip. Someone having a panic attack in close quarters can be a dangerous situation. Also things like the need to sleep near air vents because CO2 buildup can be dangerous because you aren’t moving.

Of course! and still just basic stuff as you say re pulling g's. A fully trained astronaut's training regime is much longer then that obviously. Maybe my desire to have a fully trained astronaut up front, means I'm a big pussy cat at heart!

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The point of my fly-by-wire example, is to show a disconect between the pilot and the control surfaces, so, theoretically the proximity of the pilot to the control surfaces is irrelevant.

So you would have no problem jumping on a "fly by wire" jet, without a pilot up front?

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The passengers training, I note, doesn't include flight training. 

Three actually were ex pilots, the other a cancer surving physician with a prosthesis.

[Ken Fabian]

Beecee, SpaceX demonstrated  that crew are not necessary to fly a rocket carrying passengers, as is routinely done for rockets that don't carry passengers. Why aren't you celebrating this as a success?

Actually this made me recall The Right Stuff, where the rocket scientists were planning pilot-less rockets but there were objections. Mostly around public perceptions - test pilots who actually get to fly them made for better PR than sending chimpanzees. Or scientists. Or pilots that had nothing to do. I don't know if that reflected the actual arguments that led to having pilots and giving them some controls to operate - as well as a viewport. But it does seem like it was always a choice, not a necessity.

It may not be pilots or engineers that space tourist flights cannot do without - it could be the flight attendants.

[zapatos]

56 minutes ago, beecee said:

My suggestion was simply that the "powers that be", due to the inherent dangers of space travel, would have thought it reasonable enough to include a fully trained astronaut.

So let's assume you go up on the next flight and they send up a fully trained astronaut with you. What type of emergency on the space craft will the astronaut be able to respond to while sitting next to you?

[beecee]

16 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Beecee, SpaceX demonstrated  that crew are not necessary to fly a rocket carrying passengers, as is routinely done for rockets that don't carry passengers. Why aren't you celebrating this as a success?

Actually this made me recall The Right Stuff, where the rocket scientists were planning pilot-less rockets but there were objections. Mostly around public perceptions - test pilots who actually get to fly them made for better PR than sending chimpanzees. Or scientists. Or pilots that had nothing to do. I don't know if that reflected the actual arguments that led to having pilots and giving them some controls to operate - as well as a viewport. But it does seem like it was always a choice, not a necessity.

It may not be pilots or engineers that space tourist flights cannot do without - it could be the flight attendants.

On your highlighted section by me...I most certainly am celebrating this success. Did you read my OP? I have also defended the inevitable progress of space tourism along with space exploration and research. I defend it to the hilt and nothing short of a planetary catastrophic event will halt it. The only doubt I have ever had re space endeavours, was when it was first opened to private concerns, like Space-X. On that score I was wrong and couldn't be happier that I was wrong.

None of that though changes my personal "fear" of wanting a professional up front! [if I had a choice that is] 

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So let's assume you go up on the next flight and they send up a fully trained astronaut with you. What type of emergency on the space craft will the astronaut be able to respond to while sitting next to you?

Dunno zapatos...perhaps if I or another accompanying lay person had something as simple as a panic attack?...leaking cabin pressure...micro meteorites, I don't really know. While I would have happily swapped positions with anyone on board this flight, even without a professional, if I would have had a personal choice, then I would have been more comfortable with a Neil Armstrong. That's all I'm saying...put it down to the big scaredy cat deep within me!!

22 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

But it does seem like it was always a choice, not a necessity.

Bingo, I have never argued against that.

Edited September 18, 2021 by beecee

[Ken Fabian]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have also defended the inevitable progress of space tourism along with space exploration and research.

And I think there is nothing inevitable about it, nor see that space tourism, even as some kind of interim step, will deliver overall benefits to humanity.

If you don't want people to argue about other issues around space tourism in this thread you need to avoid including big picture opinions that others can legitimately disagree with.

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Dunno zapatos...perhaps if I or another accompanying lay person had something as simple as a panic attack?...leaking cabin pressure...micro meteorites, I don't really know. While I would have happily swapped positions with anyone on board this flight, even without a professional, if I would have had a personal choice, then I would have been more comfortable with a Neil Armstrong. That's all I'm saying...put it down to the big scaredy cat deep within me!!

I'm trying to get you to defend your position in the OP that a professional "should" be on board; not just that he could hold your hand to make you feel better. Can you do so?

[beecee]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I'm trying to get you to defend your position in the OP that a professional "should" be on board; not just that he could hold your hand to make you feel better. Can you do so?

I already answerd that.....

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Part of the issue here is the framing of the situation. Part of it is the claim that a professional would make a difference without any concrete evidence or relevant examples being presented.

 

10 hours ago, beecee said:

No, there is no evidence as you say, and I sincerely hope there is never ever a situation with any space tourism, where a situation may arise, where a professional is needed, or may have made a difference. That's why I asked the question. Personally though, if I was put in that position, I would like a professional.

 

[zapatos]

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

I already answerd that.....

No, there is no evidence.

...if I was put in that position, I would like a professional.

Sorry to be obtuse but it kind of seems like you are straddling the line when it comes to whether or not a professional is needed on board. Can you answer definitively yes/no to whether or not "a professional should be on board".

I'm unclear why you would like a professional on board if their only role is to die with you in the event of a catastrophic failure.

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by zapatos

[beecee]

43 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sorry to be obtuse but it kind of seems like you are straddling the line when it comes to whether or not a professional is needed on board. Can you answer definitively yes/no to whether or not "a professional should be on board".

I'm unclear why you would like a professional on board if their only role is to die with you in the event of a catastrophic failure.

Let me answer this way first....If I was a canditate for such an adventure, I would jump at it as is...with no professional onboard, but relatively confident going on their record, that it would be safe as can be made. But I would prefer to have a Neil with me if I had that choice. If that's straddling the line, then you are probably correct.

Obviously according to the powers that be, a professional is not really needed. 

Can I use somewhat of an analogy to further explain where I am coming from....I understand and accept that we have no real extraordinary evidence of any life off this Earth. But I believe also that due to the near inifine extent and content of the universe, life should exist somewhere/sometime.

Or another further back The Vat made another reasonable analogy 

On 9/18/2021 at 12:49 AM, TheVat said:

I assume you all know what the Darien gap is.   If I were going to drive to Panama,  and then walk across the gap, arguably the world's most dangerous jungle, to Colombia,   I would want an experienced guide with me,  no matter how intrepid I was, no matter how well equipped and fluent with phrases to charm drug runners and guerillas.     

In essence it is just me and my preferences. Hence the question in the OP as to whether it is wise or appropriate. [which in part, has been answered]

Edited September 19, 2021 by beecee

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

But I would prefer to have a Neil with me if I had that choice.

Why?

Nevermind.

Edited September 19, 2021 by zapatos

[TheVat]

My position is simple and nonnegotiable:  I want Sandra Bullock (as seen in the space adventure "Gravity") onboard with us,  and I want her to hold my hand when I get scared.  She must also be scared and then we will bond as we both bravely master our fears.    

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, TheVat said:

  I want Sandra Bullock (as seen in the space adventure "Gravity") onboard with us,  and I want her to hold my hand when I get scared.

It’s your hand you want her to hold, eh? Hmm. Ok. 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Why?

Nevermind.

Because I'm a big fat softie pussy cat at heart and need some comfort in case I stress out!

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

My position is simple and nonnegotiable:  I want Sandra Bullock (as seen in the space adventure "Gravity") onboard with us,  and I want her to hold my hand when I get scared.  She must also be scared and then we will bond as we both bravely master our fears.    

Sandra or Anne wouldn't go astray 

Just to hold my hand of course!!

[Ken Fabian]

The more sophisticated the technology becomes the less likely that any repairs in flight by non-specialists will be possible. Reliability is the key, not repairability.

Having a pilot along in an automated space vehicle because some passengers feel safer becomes a question of psychology and behavior of the passengers.

The solution for the passengers will be confronting and overcoming fears of automated/remote flight control rather than the solution being the company's via the inclusion of an unnecessary pilot that will eat up payload and profitability whilst being unlikely to be able to save anyone.

[CharonY]

49 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

The more sophisticated the technology becomes the less likely that any repairs in flight by non-specialists will be possible. Reliability is the key, not repairability.

Having a pilot along in an automated space vehicle because some passengers feel safer becomes a question of psychology and behavior of the passengers.

The solution for the passengers will be confronting and overcoming fears of automated/remote flight control rather than the solution being the company's via the inclusion of an unnecessary pilot that will eat up payload and profitability whilst being unlikely to be able to save anyone.

Well, I wonder then how reliable remote systems are. After all, presumably airplanes can also be controlled remotely and much of the flight is automated, anyway. In either case we presumably do not have real safety data to actually figure out whether having a manual backup (and hence a need for a pilot) would improve safety. As the flights are presumably very short and few in numbers it might not make much of a difference, but I think at this point one can only rely on massive extrapolation to form an opinion.