Virgin Galactic successfully flies tourists to space for first time
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
> The point of a Turing test is a passive evaluation of how intelligent a bot is.
I don't know what "the point" of the test is (that is subjective) but I know how the test works. You create a system where a tester and a subject can pass messages to each other but cannot see each other (so a chat system is great for this) and then the tester tries to determine if the subject is a robot or a person. If the tester cannot tell if the subject is a human or a robot, the robot has passed the test. Many people have pointed out the test is not necessarily useful for evaluating AI! An AGI may be extremely intelligent and useful and still not pass the Turing test, but it would nonetheless be true that it did not pass. However a highly intelligent AGI would probably be good at pretending to be a human.
> It's not a test that OpenAI is trying to pass.
We are in agreement on this. They are not trying to pass this test and their current system can not pass it. This is why I say the current system cannot pass a Turing test. I am not talking about a theoretical future system!
Completely harmless and naive in its attitudes towards harmful or controversial things, and this is trivially detectable.
We will never achieve a theoretically perfect Turing machine, or a program indistinguishable from a real human in every single respect including funny edge cases. But we can get close enough that it's meaningful to use the theoretical ideal in a colloquial sense that means "crosses the threshold in most contexts". GPT models can actually keep up a half-decent facade against a suspicious interlocutor for a while, something no program has ever done before.
Although in case of SS2 in particular, it also got delayed by the experimental nature of its hybrid engine (they changed fuels and redesigned it several times) as well as their approach to safety (2014 disaster).
Although the latter didn't happen, I am glad that SpaceX came along and made reusing (!) rockets that land at their own launch pads (!!) routine. It is not impossible that I will someday ride Starship or a descendant to orbit.
suborbital, would still be an amazing experience though.
I want the concept of launching from altitude to work because it seems like the heavy atmosphere part has different requirements and so having another vehicle to help with that seems intuitive.
I also wonder if you could make orbital flight with this type of system more achievable if the delivery aircraft and/or the rocket had scramjet ability so that it was more efficient.
This is essentially what multi-stage rockets are. Only the lowest stage is optimized for heavy atmosphere.
The "dropping from a plane" thing is theoretically a good idea. Wings and jets save lots of fuel. But in practice one needs a hilariously large plane to carry a modest rocket, and it needs to be hypersonic to really give the dropped rocket a good orbital kick, and the linkage between the rocket/plane needs to not blow up. Historically... You mind as well build a massive vertical first stage.
You could strap jets to a first stage and try to reuse it. Hello KSP!
This is what they tried and failed with Virgin Orbit. The economics of plane launch just don't work out versus the logistical hassle of it.
Lol, one small difference tho, one exists in the real world, the other one in the minds of a few British peeps.
As a point of comparison, the orbital velocity of ISS is 17,000 mph.
The max speed of Unity was given as Mach 2.88. The speed of sound varies from 340 m/s at sea level to 200 m/s at 120,000 feet. So Mach 2.88 would correspond to somewhere between 1000 - 2000 mph depending on where it was attained.
To enter orbit, a vehicle must be simultaneously at orbital altitude _and_ at orbital velocity (in the correct direction).
Furthermore, note that quoting speed as a Mach number is fundamentally only relevant to atmospheric flight. Mach number is referenced to the speed of sound, and sound does not travel in the vacuum of space.
The Virgin Galactic vehicle shoots up to very high altitude but then simply falls back to earth.
This tracks with CBC News's estimate [2], which reports that the flight generally reaches an altitude of "more than 80 kilometres up," though the CBC's report does not include altitude numbers specific to this flight.
[1] https://www.space.com/virgin-galactic-galactic02-launch-succ...
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/virgin-galactic-tourists-1.6...
If they're going to dilute that term then what's the point in having it in the first place.
I think we need a word for someone who's gone orbital into space.
I wouldn't and you wouldn't and perhaps no one should, but coincidentally, Virgin Voyages cruise line does indeed call their customers "sailors":
https://www.virginvoyages.com/help-and-support/the-days-at-s...
Though I've never understood why in the West we use that essentially untranslated term* when we don't anglicize the Russian pronunciation of any other jobs. You won't read a news article about Russian "svarshchiks", you'd just translate that to "welder".
* And now taikonaut for Chinese astronauts!
Both are huge exaggerations of the capabilities of human spacefli5.
Glad they acknowledged that, never realized how close commercial airplane flights were to that
For comparison, the SR-71 flew at 85,000 ft.
There is no clear definition of a boundary between space and not-space. Some like to use the definition of "space" as "no-meaningful atmosphere". Note that the atmosphere does extended very far indeed into what we typically deem "space". Typically we model gases (like the atmosphere) as discrete packets of continuous properties. If density is below a very low threshold, we can't do that, and have to model gases using rarified models (where gas behaves more like individual particles). If we use the 1976 Standard Atmosphere model this happens at above 86km. Therefore to atmospheric scientists, space is 86km.
Now let's say you're building an orbital space plane. To stay aloft, your gravity opposing forces come from two sources: aerodynamic lift and centrifugal force. When you go faster, both forces increase, so for every altitude, there's a speed which keeps you aloft. However lift force is a function of density, and density drops with altitude. Therefore there is a point where aerodynamic lift is essentially meaningless compared with the centrifugal. At this point, you are more of a orbital vehicle than an aerodynamic one, so we can say that you are "in orbit". This altitude is The Kalman line. The important thing to note is that the Kalman Line is a definition prescribed to a specific vehicle (the Bell X-2, although it is rarely discussed in that context). Changing the weight and lift properties change it. Hence the boundary is very fuzzy and the exact source of definition changes depending on how it's calculated. It's also been calculated based on aerothermal heating considerations, and based on the operational limits of air-breathing engines. Therefore, it's been cited as 83km, 86km, 90km and 100km depending on the specific source. A key takeaway here is that The Kalman Line is a speed as well as an altitude, so it doesn't even make sense to use this as a boundary in a suborbital context. But for orbital scientists/engineers, you safely say that's space is not below 80km, and certainly above 100km.
Now imagine you are the US Air force and some of your pilots flew an experimental aircraft (the X-15) 90km altitude, and you want to put astronaut wings on them to gain some inter-service rivalry clout. Well for you, the definition of space is then 90km.
Now let's say you are the FAA and want to quantify where your jurisdiction ends. Well, pick an arbitrary definition based on Kalman's notes. 100km should be good enough for your needs.
Now let's say you are a satellite engineer and want a definition where your satellites will actually stay in orbit for a few trips around the earth without thrust corrections. Pretty hard to do at 80km, there's too much air. As it turns out the lowest sustained circular orbits occur at around 125 km. So 125 km is a good definition of space for you.
There's some much needed historical context. Now let the useless arguments surrounding the pedantry of fuzzy definitions continue.
Additionally, in orbit there is no force opposing gravity, so your description is somewhat inaccurate in its premise if not the point.
> Additionally, in orbit there is no force opposing gravity
There is when we treat the vehicle in a rotating reference frame centered around the earth origin, as is typically done for orbital calculations. It is completely correct to treat the vehicle in such a manner. And is of course exactly how the Karman Line was first proposed to be calculated.
You can use coordinate frames to magick up some imaginary force that explains what happens in a limited, non-inertial frame, but that does not mean the force exists. There is no magical force that appears to lift an object up and away from the Earth once it's traveling fast enough.
I've never once used an imaginary centrifugal force in any of my orbital calclulations, for what it's worth.
> I've never once used an imaginary centrifugal force in any of my orbital calculations, for what it's worth.
The equation for determining an orbital speed for given altitude can be derived from an inertial reference frame calculating the acceleration required to sustain circular motion or from a force balance in a rotating reference frame. You can start from first principles given either and derive the exact same equation. So you could choose to if you so desired. And again, as per the above example, sometimes considering the rotating frame makes the problem more intuitive. Neither is more correct than the other. Strict doctrine to one as being "more correct" only limits understanding of how problems can be solved.
As for the ubiquity of using a rotating frame, I'm not saying it's not done. I'm just saying it's not necessarily typical for orbits to de facto be considered in such a frame.
I really hate this way thinking about centrifugal force and rotational frames. It's a breeding ground for pointless internet arguments like this one instigated by the most frustrating of pedantry. Spreading this idea that using centrifugal force is somehow wrong only acts to restrict understanding of physics. It also handicaps you from solving problems in ways that could be better served by changing frames.
Edit to address your edit: And a hearty "fuck you" to you as well, you smug, pedantic arse
As a physicist, though admittedly not working in orbital mechanics, I can assure you working with non-inertial frames and their concomitant pseudoforces is nothing out of the ordinary. Whether or not these forces are "magical" or even "real" is more of a philosophical question, secondary to the fact of their utility.
As for the "existence" of the force, I suppose you're right in that it can get quite philosophical, as even our "Earth-Centered Inertial" reference frame isn't truly inertial.
I think we all knew that.
For me, there's nothing outer about the ISS. It's also as low as you can go, barely above the earth, tightly bound to us. But I think it turns out it's not really wrong to call this area outer space. I'm not sure, for me it would be logical to have different words for being close to the Earth (in orbit or lower) and any other place in space.
Outer outer space could be called interplanetary, interstellar, intergalactic, etc. Not sure if there's words for the space between the Earth and the Moon (other than HEO), or above the Moon but inside the Earth's sphere of influence.
I would have assumed at least 100km.
Sometimes, you just have to call out the obvious. But it's been upvoted again. It seems more people have a rather dim idea of this contribution to science and humanity.
It's stupid because it's simply text completion on a GPT-2 level. There's already an association between space travel and carbon, so you hear space travel and just go "yes, but global warming". No thought was put in either acquiring the association in the first place, nor in deciding if this is a good moment to use it. And definitely no fact checking.
It's a mix of stupid and evil because this kind of text completion turns the public discourse in an echo chamber of unproductive repetitions, which creates the strangest of paradoxes - like the more climate concerned somebody is, the more likely they are to be against nuclear power. This never happened because anybody made the case for nuclear being bad for climate and people actually believing this claim. There was no case and no claim in the first place - just GPT-2 style reflexes and blind associations. Space tourism bad, bio-fuel good.
And it's plain evil because it assumes that we should only dare to dream if we follow the current orthodoxy. It's not even something like "in order to dream we should make sure survival is ensured", because it was never about doing the math or actual tradeoffs. It's simply that some dreams are being painted as dirty and we shouldn't be allowed to have them, ever.
the words of a religious lunatic.
Also, your explanation of why GP attitude is evil is not clear at all. You can dream and still thing that this is stupid. In fact, the dream of a nice earth for all of us is a beautiful dream, much more than a 5 minute ride for a very few.
And the inclusion of nuclear power when it was not mentioned in the original post is like a GPT hallucination.
Lack of farsightedness in this thread is weird!
Science doesn't work in a linear manner. When Ramanujan and Hardy were working on Primes, nobody knew some of the work would lead to cybersecurity applications.
We cannot be sure that these advancements don't lead to anything significant in the future.
The only focus should be on taxing the profits of this company, and also applying a high levy/VAT to the ticket price.
We also cannot be sure that this service won't cause huge damage. If we're going to assign value to it based on its unknown potential, we must consider both its possible benefits and its possible detriments.
But the more time goes by, the more I think the movie nailed it.
Personally, I put far more value on giving people an unparalleled (and in some cases life changing) experience than a few years of commuting.
[1] https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-carbon-footprint-of-space...
but they will be doing both those things.
people who go to space don't stop driving cars when they get back.
Fortunately, they don't seem to have had a major incident since 2014 and the FAA has certified them for commercial flights.
This is a tangent, but I was thinking that we got a bit lucky with the first Starship orbital flight test.[0] When you look back, chunks of fondag could have easily taken out specific Raptors which would have led to a trajectory towards a city. Now we know that Booster 7's flight termination system was basically non-functional.
SpaceX has a pretty great reputation with safety, nothing like Virgin, but that Starship test seemed far from safe.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_Integrated_Fli...
From the launch site to actually have a trajectory that hits the inhabited part of the island isn't that easy. One Raptor getting hit wouldn't be enough. The whole central steerable core of engines being knocked out, and not only that, in a way that shifts the trajectory in the exact 'right' place is incredibly unlikely. Specially as the rocket would likely also try differential steering.
The flight termination system might very well have worked just fine in most circumstances. By the time it was triggered the rocket was in strange position and already flipping. We don't have official information yet but it seems likely that had something to do with it.
For anything bad to happen a huge number of very low-probability events would have to combine to lead to that outcome.
Virgin Galactic is definitely the closest to being a space OceanGate in the making, being deliberately manually piloted and IIRC having various points in the flight profile where it's essentially a guaranteed loss of crew if the pilots make any mistake.
If lack of air qualifies as going to space, then the economy flight I was on last week got me four-fifths of the way to space.
Neither it, nor VG is anywhere close to capable of taking me into orbit, though.
Blue Origin's approach is more scalable, but they won't talk price at all which suggests they are charging just as much if not more - likely whatever the market will bear. It will be a long time before they've flown all the customers who are willing and able to pay current prices, so there is no profit incentive to decrease prices.
NASA has contracted SpaceX Dragon flights at about $70M per seat, and the OIG estimates the cost to SpaceX at $55M per seat. If we are extremely optimistic about Starship and say it will cost the same amount to launch as Falcon 9 / Dragon, and has 100 passengers instead of 4, that brings the price down to $2-3M per seat, so still way more than Virgin Galactic, although you get more as well (Inspiration 4 was LEO for 3 days, instead of freefall for 3 minutes).
The only way I could see the prices going down significantly is if you had something like Starship alone (without super heavy booster) doing frequent sub-orbital hops (like daily). I won't venture a price WAG for that though.
At least Blue's vehicle has shown itself to be pretty safe for passengers.
... they can't.
> they complete those reservations
... they wont.
There are arguments for and against calling that "space", especially since the vehicle isn't designed for orbit. Either way it's an achievement, and I don't see value in belittling it. Why not express excitement for one day going higher?
If you are now going to resort to "the FAI's definition", by the FAI's standards Yuri Gagarin did not fly the first orbital flight because he ejected from Soyuz I near the end, something the USSR kept secret so it could claim the achievement.
Moreso though, if you're not achieving orbit, you're not really visiting space proper, imho.
Smells like sour grapes. Turn off the news it’s not good for you