Quote:
|
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doodler
Governments might flinch at strapping a crewed capsule onto one of these things without a bible-thick book of safety certifications, but once a booster is certified as operational, there's nothing saying a private company has to do more than ensure the capsule they strap to the nose is under the mass limit.
|
I don't like to disagree with you but...
You're talking about "cutting corners", and that leads to accidents. Now I'm not saying that a "loss of vehicle" would lead to discontinuence of private space ventures. But lose enough people and we might start to see a lack of confidence by the "investors".
Spaceflight is inherently a "risky business", and it's going to be a LONG time before it is not. |
In response to your last sentence, I agree, which is why my scenario was looking down the line to the point when corporations could launch independently of government oversight. The first launches would be from ESA, RSA, or NASA approved launch facilities and would be appropriately drumhead tight. I'm thinking down the line to when these companies have their own launch facilities in Third World countries that could give a hoot. Call me nuts, but lets look at the cost/benefit analysis. A few million a year as a kickback to some petty dictator is a drop in the bucket to the money saved by launching from a position on the equator. Bye bye First World oversight.
Also, losing people is bad, BUT as long as the profit margin is there, what's to keep investors out? It doesn't necessarily need to get to the point where people die from immediately apparent causes either. The cost of lofting manned vehicles into space is likely going to be far more expensive a proposition than unmanned, so whats to prevent a company from extending manned missions to durations that aren't very good for the long term health of the crews? Its space, its an adventure, think they'll be short on volunteers? The damage done by corners cut doesn't have to be so dramatic as a violent death in a launch accident, those are bad PR, those are to be avoided. But other more subtle corners, what's to stop them from cutting those and hiding behind an army of lawyers? Cost/benefit is the core. If they can accept the risk for the sake of increased profit, don't believe there aren't companies that won't walk across that line.