I just got back from a pleasant evening hanging out with some of the local space geeks (Clark Lindsey, Jeff Foust, Phil Smith, and Pat Bahn). The main topic of conversation was obviously SpaceShipOne and the ramifications of the flight. Two noteworthy things came up. First of all, Pat confirms that the giggle factor is pretty much dead as far as investors are concerned. He can't go into details for obvious reasons, but he speaks from direct experience. Everyone suspected this would happen, but it's nice to have real data. The second point that came up which I thought I'd mention is this: In the SS1 development program so far there have been four incidents in which the pilot saved the plane. The landing problem on the December 17th test, the uncommanded nose rise on the August 27th test, the computer failure on the May 13th shot, and the roll problem on the most recent flight. In an unmanned system each one of those would most likely have lead to loss of vehicle. The lesson is clear - pilots are good. Again, no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to alt-space, but it's nice to have further confirmation.

Mr. Case wrote:
"The second point that came up which I thought I'd mention is this: In the SS1 development program so far there have been four incidents in which the pilot saved the plane. [snip] The lesson is clear - pilots are good. Again, no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to alt-space, but it's nice to have further confirmation."

Isn't another possible lesson that this vehicle is unsafe? If the pilot keeps having to "save" the plane from unanticipated events, then it seems to have very thin margins.

Isn't another possible lesson that this vehicle is unsafe? If the pilot keeps having to "save" the plane from unanticipated events, then it seems to have very thin margins.

I think it's not very surprising to run into unanticipated incidents during testing. If this was an operational vehicle I'd agree with you, but it's really an R&D prototype, so a few surprises are par for the course.

Perhaps the lesson that can be justified on the basis of Rutan's experience is just that you want a pilot on your X vehicle, and further evidence is needed to make a compelling argument for piloted operational vehicles. I think the operational vehicle case for a pilot is strong, but I'd have to back that up with other data.

local space geeks

Local - meaning the Washington, D.C. area?

John - yup, DC area. Oops.

It's also unclear how many of those were significant threats to the pilot's safety - saving the mission isn't the same thing as returning safely. From

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/20/tech/main624957.shtml

[Rutan Said] "It was no big deal in terms of safety and no big deal in terms of getting it back to the runway we like to land on. But it was not a smooth flight from the standpoint of trajectory . . ."

But I consider this a private X plane. There almost certainly WILL be deaths along the way in private space development. It is something to be avoided, but then again, I think part of the problem with NASA is that they are hemming themselves in with draconian rules in an attempt to be "safe." In the long run, accepting some danger but aggressively improving designs while getting flight experience would save more lives.

VR wrote:
"[Rutan Said] "It was no big deal in terms of safety and no big deal in terms of getting it back to the runway we like to land on. But it was not a smooth flight from the standpoint of trajectory . . .""

But was that a reference to the trim control problem or the sudden unexpected rolls during ascent?

I'm also not sure that I buy the argument that it is better to have a pilot aboard a dangerous vehicle because the pilot can prevent bad things from happening. First, there are bad things that can happen that are beyond the pilot's control. Second, the flip side of all of this is that if you don't have the pilot aboard and the vehicle is destroyed, you don't lose a life.

Note that I'm not claiming that nobody should ever do this, it's too dangerous, blah blah blah. I'm arguing against Mr. Case's apparently blanket claim that having a pilot aboard is inherently good. It's not, particularly if the vehicle has a pretty high degree of risk associated with it. One way to reduce that risk is through things like redundant control systems, greater ground testing and modeling, etc. But simply tossing a risky bird into the air and saying it's okay because there is a pilot aboard to save it is not a valid argument.

This talk of more deaths during space activities has me thinking...

Let's get the government to establish a national astronaut's cemetary, and make it *big*. The acreage would send the message that many more deaths are to be expected, and, implicitly, that this cost is acceptable.

(The cemetary would be for anyone who dies in space or in a space vehicle, not just government employees.)

I'm arguing against Mr. Case's apparently blanket claim that having a pilot aboard is inherently good.

I'm not making a blanket claim, though I see how it could be read that way. Obviously the vehicle has to be designed appropriately, but at some point you have to fly it rather than just simulate. At that point, if you have a pilot, and the pilot has options (which is part of appropriate design), you'll generally be better off than you would be in a vehicle designed to be purely automated. Having a knowledgeable person in the loop makes it much less likely you'll lose the vehicle. The paradigm of building something as best you can and planning on simply blowing it up in flight if things don't go as planned is expensive, and makes genuine reliability hard to attain. If there are options for abort and recovery throughout the flight envelope, and a person on the vehicle who can make informed decisions about which option to choose, the chances of saving the vehicle are quite good. I pretty much assumed that most of the readers of this blog would understand the phrase 'pilots are good' as shorthand for this paradigm. Apologies for my lack of clarity.

Incidentally, this being a blog and all, you should feel free to refer to me by my first name. If you prefer a title and last name, I'm Dr. Case. When I got my Masters I tried to get people to call me "Master" but somehow it didn't take :-)

Boy, this thread is starting to look like a detrollified version of sci.space.policy.

Local?

Hmm, Andrew, DC local space geeks must stop being so limited. I am outside the beltway, but I might be at Beltway Bob's Friday evening and run with either MVH3 or DCH4 on Saturday. And where were y'all on Wednesday for the WIA event? Still on the left coast?

Dwayne, based on the quotes in the article, it appeared to me to be a general comment about the flight, not a specific problem.

The point is that you seem to be assuming that SpaceShipOne is very dangerous. It is a test vehicle, and it has had problems, but the actual *safety* risk to the very experienced Melvill is unclear.

Not too many years ago, test pilots regularly accepted levels of risk we would consider insane today. Ultimately, acceptable risk is a value judgement.

To win the X prize, the craft has to be manned. Given that this thing was built and flown by aircraft designers and pilots, it makes sense that they would have a human fly it. If they had relied on automation, they would probably be at SpaceShipTen by now and spent 400 million.

VR wrote:
"The point is that you seem to be assuming that SpaceShipOne is very dangerous."

No, you're putting words in my mouth. Go back and reread my comments. I _asked_ if it is dangerous (note the question mark at the end of the sentence). I disagreed with Dr. Case's characterization that all the problems prove that a pilot is a good thing. I don't think one can make a blanket statement like that, at least without more data. And I posed an alternative interpretation--that all these problems that could have resulted in loss of vehicle may prove not that a pilot is a good thing, but that the vehicle is operating on margins that are too thin.

Melville himself has indicated that SS1 is unique in that it requires the pilot to assert control throughout the powered ascent portion of the flight. Perhaps that was not a good choice and an automated control system would have been a better choice. And maybe they have to add some safety margins to this thing before they fly it again.

VR nails it. In order to get a pilot-less craft in the air with an acceptable enough non-error rate (90% perhaps?), there has to be a hefty cost in on-ground testing. Testing in the air with a pilot gives you cheaper feedback without having to lose as many test craft. There has to be a break-even point between that cost and the cost of testing in the air with a pilot...and I imagine the virtual cost of losing a life is factored into that as well.

It's very unlikely that they could have gotten as far as they did, as quickly as they did, on the budget that they did, and get the FAA license, if the vehicle had been unpiloted.

Given that it's a requirement for the prize that the vehicle be piloted, the most sensible thing to do is to use the meat servos and wetware already on the vehicle to fly it, rather than spending a lot of money on software and hardware that may or may not work, and would be difficult to persuade the FAA to give a license for on early flights.

NASA's "avoid risk to crew at all costs" approach is one of the reasons that space is expensive, and frequently doesn't work.

And I predict that whatever the problem is found to be, it won't be "margins," whatever Dr. Day thinks that means.

"The giggle factor is pretty much dead as far as investors are concerned". Uh, and how much money did this sub-orbital flight make? None, you say? Oh, but they've proved they can compete with NASA for the LEO market? Maybe. As an investor, I'll believe it when I see it. (And LEO, in case you were entertaining some fantasy, is --within any conceivable investment horizon-- the only thing in space that will ever be even marginally profitable.) As much as I would love to be proven wrong . . .

Mike - They've proven there's large amounts of public interest. People are seriously asking about how to book tickets. You may not be interested in investing, but other people certainly are.

As to this comment: And LEO, in case you were entertaining some fantasy, is --within any conceivable investment horizon-- the only thing in space that will ever be even marginally profitable.

-would you like to take a bet? Really. $250 in 2004 dollars says that there is at least one suborbital launch services company (or division of a company) that is profitable on or before July 2014. We can formalize it through longbets.org

Andrew,

'Public interest' is something I would be very leery of, but you may be right about a possible suborbital niche. Even so, spaceflight will continue to be marginally interesting to me until something besides chemical rockets can be found to lift heavy weights off the earth. I heard there's serious talk about a 'space elevator' for example (What do you think of it, BTW?) based on nanotube technology, that might bring to-orbit costs down, and so bring some endeavors into the realm of profitability. But I get the willies thinking about the awful 'TWANG!--uh,oh!'moment. Among other things, I wonder what role insurers play in all this? Small aircraft companies practically disappeared because of liability issues, and we're talking about space rockets.

Mike - I think that space elevators are realistically possible with near future technologies, but just not worth the money at this point. Chemical rockets are fine for lift to LEO. The inefficiencies of the current market are not due to fundamental technological limitations. Rocket fuel is cheap, and there is plenty of margin to improve operations. When prices hit the low hundreds of dollars per pound and the market is in the low trillions of dollars, a beanstalk might be able to raise venture funding. In the meantime, I don't think beanstalks are economically credible.

I suppose I should start posting to this site. I get tired of posting on blogs sometimes. I'll see how long I maintain interest here.

Hey Andrew, it was good to see you last week. I thought I'd weigh in on you comment about GEO elevators (or space elevators, if you prefer). I certainly don't think such a structure could be built with today's technology. Nor do I think it's likely to be developed in the near future, for reasons you already mentioned (markets, cost, etc.).

I've heard terms like carbon and boron nanotubes thrown around casually, which is just one of the major hurdles associated with building strucutres like space elevators. I happen to know someone working for the DoE on nanotechnologies (the person also worked at Sandia on other projects). This person (I don't have permission to use the name) told me we are a long, long way from mass production of nanotubes. Buckyballs are another story, but still a ways off. This contact could be wrong, but I defer to the expert.

Anyway, we can't even develop routine access to space via sustained space markets using existing technology. As is often the case, many space advocates tend to leap blindly instead of walking purposefully. The reason I enjoy meeting with Andrew, Pat, Jeff, and Clark is that they temper the ebullience with realistic and measured optimism.

Dwayne, I share your skepticism that a pilot is essential to the vehicle system (I simplify your argument here, so fogive me if I'm out of line). However, SS1 is designed to carry people, so the pilot is part of the system. I, too, consider the SS1 nothing more than a private X-plane, so anamolies are expected. Anything less is arrogance destined for failure. I think we can all rattle off many programs that had hair-raising prototype flights, and many that reamined dangerous throughout their operational lives.