Surely the final Starship carrying passengers will not have auto flight termination?
I don't see how this would work for Starship, since it won't have an abort system.
Maybe something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_crew_capsule for launch abort.
We'll see how the commercial spacecraft industry deals with this, but I do think that we are at far too early of a stage to start expecting progress in this area. The first few decades of commercial spaceflight will be dangerous just like the first few decades of commercial aviation, or for that matter the first few centuries of commercial shipping. The answers, varied or uniform, will be interesting and I hope that I'll be around to see them.
Whether the same idea could be adapted to a whole plane I don't know, but I would be skeptical of just on the basis that you probably wouldn't trigger such a thing unless the plane has had a substantial failure such that it could overpower any drogue chute.
one could envisage a '747-like' sized plane with many passenger escape-pods similar to the pod from an B-58 Hustler -- but who would pay the astronomic cost for such a ticket?
and similar to what the other person in this thread mentioned : those escape pods won't help during takeoff/landing phases.
http://www.chuckyeager.org/news/sr-71-disintegrated-pilot-fr...
I love the serendipitous detail of what happened on his next flight, though I'm sure it was not so amusing when it happened.
For those out of the loop on the nerd-flex, "Habu" was an unofficial, insidery nickname for the SR-71. It's the name of a venomous snake from somewhere with an SR-71 base (was it Okinawa? I think it was Okinawa), that the locals applied to the plane, because it (like the snake) was black and dangerous-looking.
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/crew-escape-sy...
I'd take my chances and stay with the orbiter
That's a lot of energy to bleed off.
But we were in a hurry, so it was just part of the project.
In the very first missions with only two astronauts, the shuttle had ejection seats. They were removed when more than two people flew at a time, because a) it is not possible to add more, and b) crew ride on two decks, not one.
After the loss of Challenger serious consideration was given to designing some sort of escape capsule for the entire crew, but it was decided that the weight and practicality considerations were not worth it.
The bottom line is that it is impossible to design any practical means of high-speed travel that can cover all eventualities. A century of extensive experience has led to air travel being the safest way to travel on average, but there are still fatalities. Maybe once we have a century of experience with Starship and its descendants we'll be able to say the same about space travel.
To be pedantic, the early flights had ejector seats for the pilot and commander, and the post-Challenger orbiters had a 'fire-pole' bail-out system. These systems could only be used in a very limited set of circumstances.
Shuttle death rate was about 1 in 75, which is insanely high.
Crew dragon hasn’t had anywhere near enough launches to compare. F9 itself though has and its a great system.
Going to be a long time before it’s a trusty as a 737 max though.
To compare with other launch methods, you'd need to use the same metric.
IIRC, Soyuz is actually more deadly, but it's been some time since I've seen the stats. Both Soyuz and the Space Shuttle are by far the most deadly form of transportation.
Worryingly for the shuttle the second failure was well into its lifespan. 5 failures in 50 launches then no failures for 200 more launches is better than 1 failure every 60 launches despite the second being theoretically better from the numbers.
Source: https://www.space.com/12376-nasa-space-shuttle-program-facts...
I expect these things are only on test flights indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Dragon_In-Flight_Abort_Te...
No. The shuttle broke up when the overall stack became unstable due to the right hand SRB separating because a strut that attached it to the external tank failed (due to a blowtorch effect from a failed O-ring). The Challenger orbiter ended up 'on top' and broke into several chunks - without involvement of any FTS - because of the aerodynamic stress (one of these chunks was the crew compartment). The SRBs were destroyed by their FTS systems, but this was more than 30 seconds after Challenger broke up. The ET simply disintegrated.
[Edit] added emphasis that the orbiter break-up (and destruction) was not due to any FTS.
The point is that rockets carrying crew do indeed have FTS systems - presence of a crew doesn't negate that need.
That doesn't sound very automatic.
Autonomous flight termination systems are not "AI". It uses an on-board GPS and INS to figure out where the rocket is. It applies a pre-defined set of rules to the state vector and if any one of the rules fail it terminates the flight. You can read more about them here: https://www.gps.gov/cgsic/meetings/2019/valencia.pdf
*old man shouts at The Cloud*
An other question if you don’t mind: Did you ever used software which was not AI in your view?
Worth mentioning that the previous state of the art solution relied on a radio link too. Not sure if it was an implementation where jamming could led to flight termination, or where jamming could lead to failure to terminate a flight. But jamming, and resistance to it, was a concern even before autonomous flight termination.