Accidents will happen as commercial space travel develops, but if we want more widespread space flight we shouldn't be deterred by them <\/p>\n
ANOMALY. That was the bland term used by both Orbital Sciences and Virgin Galactic to describe what turned out to be the destruction of their respective spacecraft last week. <\/p>\n
Orbital's cargo ship was lost when its Antares carrier rocket exploded a few seconds after lift-off, while Virgin's SpaceShipTwo, designed to carry high-flying tourists, came apart in mid-air killing one pilot and injuring the other (see \"SpaceShipTwo crash: Wings were unlocked too soon\"). <\/p>\n
Why such understatement? There's a tradition of euphemism in space flight: think of \"Houston, we've had a problem\". That's partly born of reluctance to jump to conclusions when the situation is unclear; it's also rooted in the mindset that any deviation from the plan, no matter how dramatic, must be examined and explained. As Space Race test pilots put it: \"To err is human, to forgive is divine; neither is Air Force policy.\" <\/p>\n
That mentality has never been clearer than in the aftermath of the Challenger shuttle disaster in 1986. The combination of fault-finding, wounded national pride and budget constraints led to a cooling of political backing for crewed space flight from which NASA has never really recovered, leaving it dependent on private contractors like Orbital Sciences. <\/p>\n
By contrast, the SpaceShipTwo crash, while obviously tragic for those involved, is ultimately an industrial accident one that the company, and industry, should learn from. That's the attitude needed if human space travel is ever to become routine, as many hope it will. The UK Space Agency, for example, plans to open a British spaceport by 2018. And one firm thinks it could be launching 400 space tourists a year within a decade (see \"UK spaceport plan boosts engineering careers\"). <\/p>\n
Of course, the challenge for such firms at the moment is finding passengers willing to buy a ticket, now the perils have been so dramatically highlighted. Space tourism currently looks less like a pleasure trip than an extreme sport, to be conducted at tourists' own risk. \"If certification of spacecraft was demanded as you would for, say, a Boeing 787, in all probability the industry would never get off the ground,\" Virgin Galactic's boss George Whitesides told New Scientist before the crash and before his firm was forced to rebut allegations that it had taken a lax approach to safety. <\/p>\n
Still, as we went to press, New Scientist had no confirmed reports of Virgin customers cancelling seats. Space tourism generally will survive and perhaps even thrive. The huge expense and frequent accidents of early aviation did not stop the well-heeled from getting on planes, followed by the rest of us. History may repeat itself. <\/p>\n
Should it? Air travel is a means to an end, whereas today's space tourism is an end in itself. When it comes to knowledge, real progress lies with robots. Machines go where we currently cannot to the far side of the moon, for example, from which vantage point China's Chang'e 5-T1 last week returned the stunning image above. Next week, the Philae lander will try to touch down on comet 67P (see \"Rosetta: Days from the toughest space landing ever\"). If it succeeds, it will help us understand the origins of the solar system, and perhaps of life. <\/p>\n
Next to that, space tourism might look like no more than an enviable indulgence. But we won't know what space really has to offer humanity until more of us can go there. That means making space travel safer and that implies the cycle of investigation and improvement that has made air travel what it is today. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See original here: <\/p>\n
Why space tourism is worth the risk<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Accidents will happen as commercial space travel develops, but if we want more widespread space flight we shouldn't be deterred by them ANOMALY. Continue reading