5 ms·

If you're interested in the extraordinary characteristics that are needed to be a test pilot or an astronaut or the early history of the space program, check ou

If you're interested in the extraordinary characteristics that are needed to be a test pilot or an astronaut or the early history of the space program, check out Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff" ( http://www.amazon.com/Right-Stuff-Tom-Wolfe-ebook/dp/B00139XSBA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1415484020&sr=8-2&keywords=the+right+stuff http://www.amazon.com/Right-Stuff-Tom-Wolfe-ebook/dp/B00139X... ) It also puts the Virgin and other private space travel experiments into context. This stuff is really hard and dangerous. It takes a special breed of people to sign up for it and then figure out how to survive when things go wrong or when things are less than ideal. It's not just guts but also a lot of intelligence and the ability to stay calm when you are less than a minute from oblivion. Chuck Yeager had a number of close calls.

nisa 12y ago
> This stuff is really hard and dangerous. I really don't know why they don't control these prototypes remotely. It's 2014 and while I see that a human is the better choice for space travel because machines can't yet understand every situation it's kind of strange to endanger the test pilots for early test flights. Especially in light of recent fuel changes and aerodynamic problems. That being said. My uttermost respect for everyone involved in these endeavours. In the digital age it's more and more looking like a miracle that humans where on the moon in 1969.
- m_mueller 12y ago
  From what I get Virgin Galactic was under extremely high pressure to get their founder into space by end of 2014 because of contractual obligations with their Arab sponsors. That may have led them to do riskier stuff in order to advance as quickly as possible after lots of delays with their machine. They seem to be in a pretty bad spot now unfortunately.
  - omilu 12y ago
    Initial evidence indicates the plane broke up because of operator error (deployed feather while under power) rather than mechanical failure because of inadequate testing.
    - sitkack 12y ago
      Why was this operation valid?
- teleclimber 12y ago
  It's really hard to control these things remotely. If you use remote control you have to worry about latency, which can make recovering from bad situations impossible. And if you rely on auto-pilot you are testing both a vehicle and its autopilot at the same time. For a highly experimental vehicle this is extremely risky. The reason you need to test the vehicle is because you don't know 100% for sure what it's going to do. And if you don't know, how can you design an autopilot that brings it back every time. Consider what happened with SS1 when it started rolling uncontrollably: http://gfycat.com/GargantuanRecentJackrabbit http://gfycat.com/GargantuanRecentJackrabbit can you imagine an autopilot that would properly handle this situation? Good thing they had Mike Melvill in there.
  - kenrikm 12y ago
    Which is worse losing a test vehicle or losing pilots? Latency should be a non issue at the distances they are dealing with.
    - teleclimber 12y ago
      Well you don't want to lose either obviously. You don't go in there thinking you might lose the vehicle. We're not the 1950s anymore.

nisa 12y ago

> This stuff is really hard and dangerous. I really don't know why they don't control these prototypes remotely. It's 2014 and while I see that a human is the better choice for space travel because machines can't yet understand every situation it's kind of strange to endanger the test pilots for early test flights. Especially in light of recent fuel changes and aerodynamic problems. That being said. My uttermost respect for everyone involved in these endeavours. In the digital age it's more and more looking like a miracle that humans where on the moon in 1969.

m_mueller 12y ago
From what I get Virgin Galactic was under extremely high pressure to get their founder into space by end of 2014 because of contractual obligations with their Arab sponsors. That may have led them to do riskier stuff in order to advance as quickly as possible after lots of delays with their machine. They seem to be in a pretty bad spot now unfortunately.
- omilu 12y ago
  Initial evidence indicates the plane broke up because of operator error (deployed feather while under power) rather than mechanical failure because of inadequate testing.
  - sitkack 12y ago
    Why was this operation valid?
teleclimber 12y ago
It's really hard to control these things remotely. If you use remote control you have to worry about latency, which can make recovering from bad situations impossible. And if you rely on auto-pilot you are testing both a vehicle and its autopilot at the same time. For a highly experimental vehicle this is extremely risky. The reason you need to test the vehicle is because you don't know 100% for sure what it's going to do. And if you don't know, how can you design an autopilot that brings it back every time. Consider what happened with SS1 when it started rolling uncontrollably: http://gfycat.com/GargantuanRecentJackrabbit http://gfycat.com/GargantuanRecentJackrabbit can you imagine an autopilot that would properly handle this situation? Good thing they had Mike Melvill in there.
- kenrikm 12y ago
  Which is worse losing a test vehicle or losing pilots? Latency should be a non issue at the distances they are dealing with.
  - teleclimber 12y ago
    Well you don't want to lose either obviously. You don't go in there thinking you might lose the vehicle. We're not the 1950s anymore.