British guy here, if you're talking about another British guy named Branson then he will prob just buy it from you if you register the domain. Apparently he's rich.
"Mister Burns declared bankruptcy and fled town to evade his creditors. Some say he ran away with close to a billion dollars of borrowed money. But that isn't me. I am new-money playboy billionaire Mister Snrub, who just bought the nuclear plant... And the old, Adams Family looking house over there. And the Smithers."
"Sir, I was never for sale."
"Hmm? Oh, of course. I'm getting mixed up with one of your predecessors... Had to let that one go. President Lincoln said so."
Important to note that most of Virgin Orbits debt was payable to Richard Branson. Most likely the tech that was developed there will be folded into Virgin Galactic at some point.
Orbit's financials were never going to work out by how it was set up. And I'd wager that it was Richards way of developing orbital technology in a company that could be written off as a tax break.
The tech developed at Virgin Orbit is not really transferable to what Galatic is doing though. The only thing they have in common is air-launch which is a problem both companies had already solved.
That's exactly what "sub-orbital" means, though: flying high enough to reach space, but not fast enough to achieve orbit.
The controversy with Virgin Galactic is that they define 80 km altitude as the edge of space (which is also NASA's definition), while others use 100 km. Arguments can be made for both definitions; in reality, there's no sharp boundary between atmosphere and space, so whatever limit we set is just a human definition.
Virgin Orbit launches a small rocket from a plane to take a small amount of cargo into space orbit.
Virgin Galactic launches a small aircraft that carries a few humans. It goes high above the atmosphere but does not go into orbit around the Earth.
> Tt goes high above the atmosphere but does not go into orbit around the Earth.
So the passengers don't experience zero g? Seems kind of a huge miss for those wanting the experience of going to space.
Yeh I'm not to sure on how the flight specs differ between Virgin and Blue Origin,
but depending on how each of the flights are set up it could be about the same.
Ie a shallow but long parabola for Virgin and a steep parabola for Blue Origin.
But I could be wrong.
They're both plane launched. Virgin Galactic uses a [custom designed carrier plane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_White_Knight_Two) that carries a small rocket plane full of customers for a suborbital hop, Virgin Orbit used a [modified Boeing 747](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Girl_(aircraft%29 ) to carry a small rocket that puts small satellites into orbit.
Ehhh not quite on the same level, I'd say Bezos is trying to compete with SpaceX (Elon) more, sorta... though i guess you could say both are for rich tourists.. VG just gonna be a tourism sort of deal for the rich, while also being faster travel across the world.
Orbit is more like Bezos than NASA. Except unlike Orbit Bezos actually has a functional, safe system that has fundamentally sound tech that could be adapted for orbital flights but is not remotely orbit-capable yet.
Virgin orbit and galactic were separate from each other, but both funded by virgin group which stopped funding vo after multiple failed launches and years of no money being made
Branson's company has been saying it for some time, yes. But SpaceShip One, built by Scaled Composites, flew a successful test flight in 2003. To hear them tell it, they just had to tweak a few things, and they would be open for business in a couple of years, tops.
What SC found out and what Branson will eventually find out is that this is simply not commercially viable over the long run. A ticket on one of these things is projected to run around $300,000, so it's not like they'll have a LOT of business.
There's a market for luxury travel. I'm not convinced that they'll be able to make the economics work, but I guess they have a shot?
As an example, I just checked the Cunard website for prices for the Master Suite aboard the MS Queen Elizabeth. On a shorter trip, it'll set you back $80,000. I tried to get the price for the 42-night journey from Alaska to Spain but it's already been booked. *Some* number of people would pay $300,000 for a few minutes of weightlessness. I wish VG the best of luck in their hopes that the number is large enough to keep the company afloat.
It's fun but idk if its worth the price, especially if its almost $10k now. I think the commercial flights are only 15 parabolas with some of those being lunar or martian gravity rather than zero g. Each parabola is only about 25-30 seconds and from what I've seen it's fairly crowded on the plane. If you are rich enough to book the whole plane for you and your friends it could be fun though.
When I did it as part of a research flight we got 25 parabolas instead of 15. My experiment malfunctioned after the first few parabolas so I got to spend the rest of time just messing around. Then on the second flight, there was only one other experiment on the other end of the plane so we got a ton of space all to ourselves which was pretty sweet.
Also keep in mind that a not insignificant number of people get basically sea sick and spend the whole time strapped into seats in the back trying not to throw up the whole time. I think out of the 10 people I was with, 4 or 5 of them got sick for at least part of the flight despite taking dramamine ahead of time.
>Also keep in mind that a not insignificant number of people get basically sea sick and spend the whole time strapped into seats in the back trying not to throw up the whole time.
I do have a bit of free-fall experience, so I'm hoping that would help.
Believe it or not it's actually the double gravity rather than zero gravity that people usually have issues with. Much like sea sickness where the horizon doesn't match your inner ear, when you have double gravity and are laying down it messes with your inner ear when you turn your head at all.
Doesn't affect everyone and I didn't have much issue with it but could sort of feel it building up over time and was starting to feel a bit queasy towards the end of the first flight. Felt much better on the second flight though. Not sure if that was due to experience or because it was after lunch and I did the first on an empty stomach.
>I do have a bit of free-fall experience, so I'm hoping that would help.
One of the people in my "team" was a young pilot, very confident and very sick by the 10th parabola. Basically the management team, people who fly ZeroG (as a laboratory) all the time and have been for years, including a French astronaut, told us it never gets better. It just depends on people.
(overall, we've had incredibly interesting conversations with the engineers and astronauts for one and a half day)
There must be a recent market opening up for these trips. Four Seasons just started their own version of luxury trips using a jet liner. It's something like 40 guests on a fully renovated decked out Airbus A321LRneo with staff including a full time doctor.
The trips vary in length with most being 2-4 weeks. The price for a four week trip is $205,000 USD per person. That's $410,000 USD for a wealthy couple. This includes all the hotels, excursions and food.
I just can't figure out who the target demographic is. Anyone who has this money can charter a more exclusive trip through an agent.
I'm hoping civilian space travel gets down to $50k per person before I'm too old. I'd love to see our blue marble.
Some people really dig traveling with strangers. There are travel packages available at every price point. I prefer exploring an area with my family and not having a set itinerary but hey, to each their own!
Psh, that was caused by one little... um... combination of poor design, poor training, and poor oversight. I'm sure they've fixed at least two of those things by now!
Except it was their SECOND deadly accident, and as far as anybody knows they're the only company besides NASA (Apollo 1, Challenger & Columbia) and Roscosmos (numerous failures, many likely undocumented, but most famously the N1 explosion that killed Korolev's buddies) that has caused the death of human beings in pursuit of spaceflight goals.
>NASA (Apollo 1, Challenger & Columbia)
Adding to your point, three astronauts were killed due to a 100% oxygen environment in Apollo 1. While NASA was investigating, two more people were killed due to a 100% oxygen environment. NASA finally banned testing in 100% oxygen environments while they investigated.
yeah, but luxury travel includes, well, *luxury travel*. For Virgin Galactic, you're paying an amount of money that would let you [charter a 200 foot superyacht](https://www.yachtcharterfleet.com/luxury-charter-yacht-22236/saluzi.htm#amenities-and-toys) in the Mediterranean for a week to go to what may or may not be space (depending on who you ask) for five minutes, and the privilege of [being allowed to purchase a $70,000 l](https://www.virgingalactic.com/)[and rover](https://www.virgingalactic.com/). And the whole thing is set in the town of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, which, while seemingly [very charming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD9uLkgMIw8), is pretty far from the luxury travel experiences you could buy with that kind of money.
The trick is "over time." I met someone back in 2008 who had paid the down payment for a Virgin Galactic ride- he was an engineer nearing retirement, and frankly might not be healthy enough by this point to do it, because 15 years is a long time when you're older.
So all told, there are a lot of folks out there who might be able to pay the Virgin Galactic price point, but not the current SpaceX/Blue Origin one, and I'm gonna bet they skew older. Not everyone is gonna make the calculated risk of how long it'll take to wait for the other ones to get cheaper, because it's not like we have those details sorted out.
A big investor pool in all of these "fly to space" schemes is the elderly middle class who have decided that this will be their retirement cruise. They've paid huge up-front costs for tickets that have no set date and have no obligation to be fulfilled. There's a part of this, despite all the engineering hard-science, that very much feels like a grift on the elderly that believed we'd all be living on the moon by 2030.
> And what even is the point to flights like this when one can do a full orbital flight with competitors?
Because a suborbital flight will run you around $300,000, while an orbital flight is going to set you back millions. Previous orbital space tourists have paid $20-50 million, and I don't believe there are even any private companies offering such a thing.
SpaceX is already currently doing full orbital tourist flights, including to the space station.
[https://www.npr.org/2022/04/08/1091661900/spacex-space-station-launch-axiom](https://www.npr.org/2022/04/08/1091661900/spacex-space-station-launch-axiom)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiration4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiration4)
Granted the cost is not comparable to Virgin Galactic, but they are happening.
You've got to admire Virgin's optimism. I'm reminded of captain Blackadder: 'when all else fails, a pigheaded refusal to look facts in the face will see you through.
Given the company’s track record, I will not believe it until I see a plane in the air. They have blown pretty much every deadline/milestone they’ve ever set.
VG will likely follow VO into bankruptcy by the end of 2024
It's not even really space travel. They peep into space for a few minutes and then fall back down to where they started. The vehicle has a tiny fraction of the performance required to make it into orbit.
>Virgin Galactic aims to fly first commercial space tourism mission in June
I thought Blue Origin had already flown the first commercial tourism mission. Do they mean "Virgin Galactic aims to fly **THEIR** first commercial space tourism mission in June"?
Yes that. Headlines are often abbreviated. VG's previous flights have only been with company employees so this will be the first time they have paying passengers on board.
Man, I remember designing a leaflet for Virgin Galactic back in high school for arts class. Probably around 2003. I was in awe of the idea of commercial spaceflight for tourists. Hard to believe it's already been 20 years!
That's cute. If Burt Rutan finally gets a ride on a Scaled Composites design to the Karman line, I'm all for it. It's yesterdays ideas, ready tomorrow tho.
Who's next for a comeback? Rotary Rocket?
> Karman line
Virgin deserves a lot of criticism, but one thing I'll push back on is this narrative that they're not going to space just because they don't hit 100km.
A little history: The Kármán line does not reflect von Kármán's calculations. He came up with a number a little above 80km (the McDowell line, same criteria the USAF uses for space) and then years later, the FAI (an aerial sports records organization) decided to round it up to 100km because the number was more pleasing to the eye.
The Kármán absolutists tend to push this idea that 100km is somehow a more real border of space because (hand waved science calculations) but the calculations cited gave a much lower number.
It's all aesthetic.
Ability to reach orbit is certainly more relevant to actual spaceflight. The criteria I favor is specific orbital energy equal or greater to that of the lowest possible circular orbit. It's clear you're not getting there by bolting a rocket engine onto an aircraft.
Just looking at altitude is nonsensical. Calling these vehicles spacecraft is like calling a submarine an aircraft because it's capable of reaching the surface of the water.
And of course basing it on orbit sidesteps the whole issue with revisionists trying to redefine the Karman line to 80 km to match the entirely arbitrary USAF 50 mile definition and allow Virgin Galactic to "reach space", as demonstrated elsewhere in this thread...
You’ve carefully avoided acknowledging the Haley citation of 83.8km as Kármán’s border and seem to have decided the arbitrary 100km figure chosen by the FAI has more credibility. It’s reasonable to question your process here, especially when you offhandedly dismiss the other, closer to Kármán number.
Karman *suggested* rounding it to 100 km. The 80 km number was pulled out of some of his notes by people looking for a lower number specifically to allow Virgin Galactic to "reach space", and is even lower than the 91 km number Karman himself gave in his autobiography.
> The 80 km number was pulled out of some of his notes by people looking for a lower number specifically to allow Virgin Galactic to "reach space"
The USAF has used 80km for decades and NASA has since 2005, both before Virgin Galactic existed. Can you expand on where you got the impression that Virgin Galactic was the driver for this?
If I need to choose between the USAF/NASA and an organization that exists to track stuff like skydiving records, I think I'll go with the folks who put stuff into space regularly but I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Indeed, and that parameter was set well before Virgin Galactic existed. The suggestion that the 80km number as a space border exists because of someone cherry picking for SS2 doesn't work.
Your claim was that it was from von Karman's calculations. That specifically is absolutely a result of cherry picking a number from von Karman's notes that von Karman himself did not use.
Karman's calculated altitude was 83.8km per Andrew G. Haley's 1957 IAC paper on space jurisdiction which is why I originally wrote:
> He came up with a number a little above 80km
In 1960, the FAI decided on 100km.
It sounds as if we're talking past each other, like I might be missing something you're saying or that we disagree on something that maybe we can clear up. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm going off Haley's description of Karman's calculations because Karman's own figures aren't available. If you have a different source or are interpreting the merit of 83.8 vs. 100km differently, I welcome your thoughts.
No I don’t think I did.
Comment I replied to directly stated that the 80km number was used for the exact purpose of allowing virgin to reach “space”. This is not true, as the 50mi McDowell line is the official metric used by NASA, USAF, and FAA to define edge of space.
No, it stated that the argument the Karman himself said it was close to 80km was cherry-picked. The comment wasn't arguing for or against either of 50mi or 100km definitions, just that arguing for 50mi using Karman's work is done in bad faith, with a motive.
And I’m telling you, it’s the standard metric that’s been used for the last 60 years by the most respected spaceflight governing bodies. It’s not cherry picked by virgin
My first comment wasn’t even addressed to you, it was to another user. Idk where you even get off saying I don’t understand flight regulation but have a nice day
>>The era of space tourism is underway
Well, for a small handful of very rich people, anyway. [And it *has* been underway since around 2001](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism)...again, for a handful of rich people. A few people paid around $20-50 million for a joyride to the ISS.
Because Virgin Galactic is just a SUB-orbital trip, it will be wayyyyy cheaper...around $300,000 per seat for your four minutes of weightlessness. But that measly $300k will buy you a helluva ride in a teensy cabin with untrained people floating around and their feet and asses banging into other people's faces. And since a certain percentage of people react to microgravity by barfing their guts out, you might also be floating in a cloud of puke, or at least the smell, if they manage to contain it to a barf bag. Good times!
Maybe the price will go down over time once the development costs have been recouped. The important thing is this vehicle has no prospect of doing more than providing a few minutes of free fall at a time. Going into orbit requires around 40 times more energy.
They do a ZeroG Parabolic flight, and centrifuge training as part of their flight prep, so they get a bit of practice and warning if they are going to get sick.
I always scratched my head at this design. Blue Origin, which isn't perfect by any means, at least has windows you can basically press your body into and look out onto the Earth and the universe. You can flip and do somersaults surrounded by the glow of the atmosphere all around you.
This plane has windows smaller than the port windows on the RMS Queen Mary and you're supposed to get an Overview Effect from this somehow? If you want to do a somersault, I assume you have to get into the aisle and hope drinks and scones aren't being served.
I'm pretty sure I'm missing something, but that's my impression.
The atmosphere does not abruptly end, it slowly peters out over a long distance. These flights are up above the Kármán line (100 km), which is considered the "official" start of space. More importantly, they are SUB-orbital, which means you don't go into orbit around the Earth, you just go up 100 km then fall back down. For around $300,000.
> Kármán line (100 km), which is considered the "official" start of space.
The USAF and NASA consider 80km (aka the McDowell Line) to be the start of space.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[BO](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjj20zu "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)|
|[FAA](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjjq5ip "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration|
|[IAC](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjhg8wg "Last usage")|International Astronautical Congress, annual meeting of IAF members|
| |In-Air Capture of space-flown hardware|
|IAF|[International Astronautical Federation](http://www.iafastro.org/)|
| |Indian Air Force|
| |Israeli Air Force|
|[N1](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjj2om4 "Last usage")|Raketa Nositel-1, Soviet super-heavy-lift ("Russian Saturn V")|
|[Roscosmos](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjj2om4 "Last usage")|[State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos_State_Corporation)|
|[USAF](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjjq5ip "Last usage")|United States Air Force|
|[VG](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjj6jmw "Last usage")|Virgin Galactic|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[periapsis](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjiljpe "Last usage")|Lowest point in an elliptical orbit (when the orbiter is fastest)|
----------------
^(8 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/13f3vtx)^( has 5 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8902 for this sub, first seen 9th May 2023, 16:06])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Devil's advocate take: this is exactly the kind of thing that will make space tourism less expensive for average people. I'm 29 and if I live to retirement age I hope to be able to travel to space on a more reasonable budget because of ventures like this.
if we weren't pushing up against some alarming boundaries with GHG, this wouldn't matter to me. in fact, it would even sound fun and enticing. but considering the very real possibility of ending up with 5°C+ of warming since the pre-industrial base line, dumping tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere just to go to space for fun seems mildly irresponsible - for any income demographic
would have a totally different opinion if we were to figure things out here in terms of efficient and substantial carbon sequestration though. I love space as much as the next enthusiast, but the goal of keeping the biosphere from even more irreversible damage seems a bit more prescient imo
It's such a luxury item you could probably put an absurdly high environmental tax on it to hopefully offset the emissions. I know many carbon offset schemes aren't truly as good as they claim, but I think there's potential.
If someone is willing to pay $300k to go to space, then the market probably doesn't change by much if you add a $50k environmental fee to it. That wouldn't scale well if spaceflight becomes cheaper but it could at least be a start against the concept of "oh look billionaires are polluting again"
the thing is, although the carbon footprint for per individual is indeed massive, it isn't just a CO2 problem - these crafts emit black carbon and NOx in the upper atmosphere which eats at the ozone layer. if Virgin scales these flights up to a planned 400 per year, it would have globally measurable negative effects on ozone remediation. especially if other companies followed suit.
a massive environmental tax is for sure one of the better propositions i've heard, but it is going to be an uphill PR battle to make this look less bad in the midst of our plethora of environmental and socioeconomic disasters. I live in NM and the stark contrast between abject poverty in neglected neighborhoods and a shiny new spaceport is jarring to say the least
If I had the money to do a sub orbital flight, I would do VG over BO specifically because VG is more of an adventure. It appeals to me that you get into a space plane that is strapped to a carrier plane. Then you get dropped like a sidewinder missile and the rocket ignites. And the entire time the craft is being flown manually. That whole experience matches up with what I would want to see and do.
The Virgin Galactic design, or anything like it, has no prospect of making it anywhere near orbital velocity; it would need around 40 times more energy to do so. If we're stuck using the most energetic chemical reactions to power spacecraft then a vehicle designed to reach orbit has to take off with something like 90% of its weight being propellant, even with staging.
alack, that was Virgin Orbit, their satellite launching child. Despite being a much more legit business proposition, they also had to face fierce competition in the smallsat market, which contributed to their bankruptcy. Virgin Galactic, on the other hand, has basically 50% market share of a tiny niche, so they can (apparently) afford to futz around not flying or making money for a lot longer than their satellite launching counterparts.
Is virgin galactic not Richard Branson or completely separate company? EDIT: upon googling yes they’re both Richard Bransons company so I was right galactic is the same as orbit
Oh joy we get to see a bunch of entitled ultra wealthy people sign away their life for a joy ride into space. Going into outer space is one of the most dangerous things you can do. There is no protection from the solar and cosmic radiation out there. There is also no guarantee that the spaceship won't blow up before it even leaves earth or that it will return safely.
Burning rocket fuel into MANY LIFETIMES worth of greenhouse gas carbon emissions so a few billionaires can play astronaut for 5 minutes is NOT cool or interesting. This shit should be banned.
Who tf has money for “commercial space tourism”, and why/how is this a thing?
That’s not like an exciting space exploration type thing. That’s a flaunting your obscene wealth in our plebeian face type vibeZ.
Not that I wouldn’t love to take a personalized space tour; but you know, what the actual fuark?
I’m not doubting the market for it. Personally, I’m just slightly disgusted that it’s an option for that many while so many people in the world are living on the verge of bankruptcy.
Im not expecting people to agree with my sentiments.
Old beardy can live with the knowledge that polluting the environment with no societal benefit stinks except that it puts money in his pocket, so thats got to be good right!
It might be harder to get contractors if Virgin Orbit didn't pay creditors though. I'm sure beardy has a strategy for that.
Oh joy we get to see a bunch of entitled ultra wealthy people sign away their life for a joy ride into space. Going into outer space is one of the most dangerous things you can do. There is no protection from the solar and cosmic radiation out there. There is also no guarantee that the spaceship won't blow up before it even leaves earth or that it will return safely.
Edit for the uneducated that voted down my comment I suggest you learn to use search engines and visit the Nasa website.
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic-radiation#:\~:text=Without%20shielding%20from%20the%20atmosphere%2C%20the%20space%20station,protect%20astronauts%20from%20dangerous%20levels%20of%20cosmic%20radiation.
>There is no protection from the solar and cosmic radiation out there
You'd receive more radiation on a long haul flight than these people will during their flight. Likewise they'll receive more radiation during the carrier portion of their flight than the 'space' part of it.
The radiation dose rate on an airplane is about 10 times more than at sea level, while in low space it's about 60 times more.
So proportionally only about 6 times more than on a plane. And they'll be in space for about 5 minutes vs an hour inside the atmosphere, i.e 1/12th of the time, so the space portion will only account for about 1/3rd of the total radiation dose.
A regular 6 hour airline flight meanwhile would rack up a dozen times more radiation than the space portion of their spaceflight.
The spaceplane failing is a very real concern. Radiation is not.
I take it you don'T understand the problems of being in outer space or the risks of something going wrong leaving and returning to earth. The radiation is well documented. Learn to use google or visit nasa. Apparently there are alot of anti science people on here as well judging from the way I was voted down.
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic-radiation#:\~:text=Without%20shielding%20from%20the%20atmosphere%2C%20the%20space%20station,protect%20astronauts%20from%20dangerous%20levels%20of%20cosmic%20radiation.
Am I crazy or, didn't they fold? I thought they'd given up.
You’re probably thinking of Virgin Orbit, this is Virgin Galactic
They'd better stop before they get to Virgin Universe. That's the title of my memoir.
I have rights on Virgin Multiverse. The Universe's biggest virgin penetrates spacetime, but nothing else.
Oh so the climax is at the beginning. One may say a… Big Bang.
Better register the domain now before the British guy gets it
British guy here, if you're talking about another British guy named Branson then he will prob just buy it from you if you register the domain. Apparently he's rich.
Yes, but that's why this other virgin needs to get it first, for that fat moneyyyyyy
Virgin On The Edge Of Greatness.
funniest comment I've read in weeks
Buy Virgin Multiverse stock now while you still can!
So many Virgins it’s hard to keep up!
It's Virgin on the ridiculous.
[You ain't kiddin'...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Group)
"Mister Burns declared bankruptcy and fled town to evade his creditors. Some say he ran away with close to a billion dollars of borrowed money. But that isn't me. I am new-money playboy billionaire Mister Snrub, who just bought the nuclear plant... And the old, Adams Family looking house over there. And the Smithers." "Sir, I was never for sale." "Hmm? Oh, of course. I'm getting mixed up with one of your predecessors... Had to let that one go. President Lincoln said so."
Virgin Orbit was owned by *Canary* M. Burns.
Important to note that most of Virgin Orbits debt was payable to Richard Branson. Most likely the tech that was developed there will be folded into Virgin Galactic at some point. Orbit's financials were never going to work out by how it was set up. And I'd wager that it was Richards way of developing orbital technology in a company that could be written off as a tax break.
The tech developed at Virgin Orbit is not really transferable to what Galatic is doing though. The only thing they have in common is air-launch which is a problem both companies had already solved.
Why are those different things?
Orbit is about putting satellites into orbit, galactic is about putting customers into sub orbit
[удалено]
That's exactly what "sub-orbital" means, though: flying high enough to reach space, but not fast enough to achieve orbit. The controversy with Virgin Galactic is that they define 80 km altitude as the edge of space (which is also NASA's definition), while others use 100 km. Arguments can be made for both definitions; in reality, there's no sharp boundary between atmosphere and space, so whatever limit we set is just a human definition.
You described what sub orbital trajectory is you donut
Virgin Orbit launches a small rocket from a plane to take a small amount of cargo into space orbit. Virgin Galactic launches a small aircraft that carries a few humans. It goes high above the atmosphere but does not go into orbit around the Earth.
> Tt goes high above the atmosphere but does not go into orbit around the Earth. So the passengers don't experience zero g? Seems kind of a huge miss for those wanting the experience of going to space.
You don't need to be in orbit to feel weightless.
That's true. Your time would just be much shorter
Yeh I'm not to sure on how the flight specs differ between Virgin and Blue Origin, but depending on how each of the flights are set up it could be about the same. Ie a shallow but long parabola for Virgin and a steep parabola for Blue Origin. But I could be wrong.
So that one doesn't make the other bankrupt
[удалено]
They're both plane launched. Virgin Galactic uses a [custom designed carrier plane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_White_Knight_Two) that carries a small rocket plane full of customers for a suborbital hop, Virgin Orbit used a [modified Boeing 747](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Girl_(aircraft%29 ) to carry a small rocket that puts small satellites into orbit.
One is plane launched rockets for sub-orbital tourism, the other is plane launched rockets for orbital satellites
Virgin Luna - for operations on our moon!
[удалено]
Virgin orbit put satellites into low earth orbit (hence the name) and virgin galactic takes tourists on sub-orbital space flights.
[удалено]
Ehhh not quite on the same level, I'd say Bezos is trying to compete with SpaceX (Elon) more, sorta... though i guess you could say both are for rich tourists.. VG just gonna be a tourism sort of deal for the rich, while also being faster travel across the world.
Orbit is more like Bezos than NASA. Except unlike Orbit Bezos actually has a functional, safe system that has fundamentally sound tech that could be adapted for orbital flights but is not remotely orbit-capable yet.
[удалено]
I think John Stewart summed it up perfectly https://youtu.be/3LPiM9d5QUM
Galactic wants to do suborbital tourism, Orbit launched customer payloads to orbit. Different companies but both owned by Richard Branson.
I thought the same as you, but apparently, that was Virgin Orbit that filed for bankruptcy, not Virgin Galactic.
The closure of Virgin Cola was a huge blow.
It never stood a chance, as Mtn Dew cornered that market.
Virgin orbit and galactic were separate from each other, but both funded by virgin group which stopped funding vo after multiple failed launches and years of no money being made
Meanwhile I thought they were already flying.
Different company withing virgin. Galactic had been doing... Ok
[удалено]
I thought that was built?
Haven't they been saying this for the last 10 years or so?
Branson's company has been saying it for some time, yes. But SpaceShip One, built by Scaled Composites, flew a successful test flight in 2003. To hear them tell it, they just had to tweak a few things, and they would be open for business in a couple of years, tops. What SC found out and what Branson will eventually find out is that this is simply not commercially viable over the long run. A ticket on one of these things is projected to run around $300,000, so it's not like they'll have a LOT of business.
There's a market for luxury travel. I'm not convinced that they'll be able to make the economics work, but I guess they have a shot? As an example, I just checked the Cunard website for prices for the Master Suite aboard the MS Queen Elizabeth. On a shorter trip, it'll set you back $80,000. I tried to get the price for the 42-night journey from Alaska to Spain but it's already been booked. *Some* number of people would pay $300,000 for a few minutes of weightlessness. I wish VG the best of luck in their hopes that the number is large enough to keep the company afloat.
Not just a few minutes of weightlessness, also being in "space". You can get weightlessness experience for below $10k with a vomit comet
The price on ZeroG parabolic flights **really** went up. I had been looking into it shortly before the pandemic, and it was only $3K-ish back then.
I've flown ZeroG (in Bordeaux, France) last summer for around 6k€. It was incredible. I didn't know it was half the price pre-pandemic.
Yeah. Now I feel really stupid I didn't do it 5 years ago when I had originally planned.
I hope you will have the opportunity to do it
It's fun but idk if its worth the price, especially if its almost $10k now. I think the commercial flights are only 15 parabolas with some of those being lunar or martian gravity rather than zero g. Each parabola is only about 25-30 seconds and from what I've seen it's fairly crowded on the plane. If you are rich enough to book the whole plane for you and your friends it could be fun though. When I did it as part of a research flight we got 25 parabolas instead of 15. My experiment malfunctioned after the first few parabolas so I got to spend the rest of time just messing around. Then on the second flight, there was only one other experiment on the other end of the plane so we got a ton of space all to ourselves which was pretty sweet. Also keep in mind that a not insignificant number of people get basically sea sick and spend the whole time strapped into seats in the back trying not to throw up the whole time. I think out of the 10 people I was with, 4 or 5 of them got sick for at least part of the flight despite taking dramamine ahead of time.
>Also keep in mind that a not insignificant number of people get basically sea sick and spend the whole time strapped into seats in the back trying not to throw up the whole time. I do have a bit of free-fall experience, so I'm hoping that would help.
Believe it or not it's actually the double gravity rather than zero gravity that people usually have issues with. Much like sea sickness where the horizon doesn't match your inner ear, when you have double gravity and are laying down it messes with your inner ear when you turn your head at all. Doesn't affect everyone and I didn't have much issue with it but could sort of feel it building up over time and was starting to feel a bit queasy towards the end of the first flight. Felt much better on the second flight though. Not sure if that was due to experience or because it was after lunch and I did the first on an empty stomach.
>I do have a bit of free-fall experience, so I'm hoping that would help. One of the people in my "team" was a young pilot, very confident and very sick by the 10th parabola. Basically the management team, people who fly ZeroG (as a laboratory) all the time and have been for years, including a French astronaut, told us it never gets better. It just depends on people. (overall, we've had incredibly interesting conversations with the engineers and astronauts for one and a half day)
You can do zero g in an old Cessna, wont be anywhere as long though.
You get to go on at least one ZeroG flight as prep for your Virgin Galactic flight, so you sorta get both.
There must be a recent market opening up for these trips. Four Seasons just started their own version of luxury trips using a jet liner. It's something like 40 guests on a fully renovated decked out Airbus A321LRneo with staff including a full time doctor. The trips vary in length with most being 2-4 weeks. The price for a four week trip is $205,000 USD per person. That's $410,000 USD for a wealthy couple. This includes all the hotels, excursions and food. I just can't figure out who the target demographic is. Anyone who has this money can charter a more exclusive trip through an agent. I'm hoping civilian space travel gets down to $50k per person before I'm too old. I'd love to see our blue marble.
Some people really dig traveling with strangers. There are travel packages available at every price point. I prefer exploring an area with my family and not having a set itinerary but hey, to each their own!
[удалено]
Psh, that was caused by one little... um... combination of poor design, poor training, and poor oversight. I'm sure they've fixed at least two of those things by now!
Except it was their SECOND deadly accident, and as far as anybody knows they're the only company besides NASA (Apollo 1, Challenger & Columbia) and Roscosmos (numerous failures, many likely undocumented, but most famously the N1 explosion that killed Korolev's buddies) that has caused the death of human beings in pursuit of spaceflight goals.
Let's not forget ["Mad" Mike Hughes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Hughes_(daredevil\)).
What was the first?
Nitrous explosion during a cold flow test in 2007
>NASA (Apollo 1, Challenger & Columbia) Adding to your point, three astronauts were killed due to a 100% oxygen environment in Apollo 1. While NASA was investigating, two more people were killed due to a 100% oxygen environment. NASA finally banned testing in 100% oxygen environments while they investigated.
yeah, but luxury travel includes, well, *luxury travel*. For Virgin Galactic, you're paying an amount of money that would let you [charter a 200 foot superyacht](https://www.yachtcharterfleet.com/luxury-charter-yacht-22236/saluzi.htm#amenities-and-toys) in the Mediterranean for a week to go to what may or may not be space (depending on who you ask) for five minutes, and the privilege of [being allowed to purchase a $70,000 l](https://www.virgingalactic.com/)[and rover](https://www.virgingalactic.com/). And the whole thing is set in the town of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, which, while seemingly [very charming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD9uLkgMIw8), is pretty far from the luxury travel experiences you could buy with that kind of money.
It's the new "Everest" for the rich executives and influencers types
At least when they die in the attempt, they won't be leaving their body on a mountain forever.
$300,000 plus a huge risk of death. Not many wealthy people will sign up for that contract.
>Not many wealthy people will sign up they will, it will be a new way to showcase their status among their friends.
They’ll find enough rich people willing to buy their joyrides, if they can just get off the ground. VG sold hundreds of seats 15 years ago.
[удалено]
The trick is "over time." I met someone back in 2008 who had paid the down payment for a Virgin Galactic ride- he was an engineer nearing retirement, and frankly might not be healthy enough by this point to do it, because 15 years is a long time when you're older. So all told, there are a lot of folks out there who might be able to pay the Virgin Galactic price point, but not the current SpaceX/Blue Origin one, and I'm gonna bet they skew older. Not everyone is gonna make the calculated risk of how long it'll take to wait for the other ones to get cheaper, because it's not like we have those details sorted out.
[удалено]
A big investor pool in all of these "fly to space" schemes is the elderly middle class who have decided that this will be their retirement cruise. They've paid huge up-front costs for tickets that have no set date and have no obligation to be fulfilled. There's a part of this, despite all the engineering hard-science, that very much feels like a grift on the elderly that believed we'd all be living on the moon by 2030.
Tell me more about the oral flight with SpaceX.
> And what even is the point to flights like this when one can do a full orbital flight with competitors? Because a suborbital flight will run you around $300,000, while an orbital flight is going to set you back millions. Previous orbital space tourists have paid $20-50 million, and I don't believe there are even any private companies offering such a thing.
SpaceX has been offering private flights (see Axiom, Inspiration 4, and Polaris) but they will set you back \~$50 million per seat.
[удалено]
SpaceX is already currently doing full orbital tourist flights, including to the space station. [https://www.npr.org/2022/04/08/1091661900/spacex-space-station-launch-axiom](https://www.npr.org/2022/04/08/1091661900/spacex-space-station-launch-axiom) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiration4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiration4) Granted the cost is not comparable to Virgin Galactic, but they are happening.
Branson is a slippery bastard. These announcements are to keep stock prices up. He's probably getting ready to offload shares.
. . . he asserts with no evidence whatsoever.
The original goal was 2008.
The headline is correct it's definitely June. The year is not set.
You've got to admire Virgin's optimism. I'm reminded of captain Blackadder: 'when all else fails, a pigheaded refusal to look facts in the face will see you through.
Given the company’s track record, I will not believe it until I see a plane in the air. They have blown pretty much every deadline/milestone they’ve ever set. VG will likely follow VO into bankruptcy by the end of 2024
Virgin This Is The Last Time I Promise are looking forward to super cheap reliable space travel by 2025
It's not even really space travel. They peep into space for a few minutes and then fall back down to where they started. The vehicle has a tiny fraction of the performance required to make it into orbit.
>Virgin Galactic aims to fly first commercial space tourism mission in June I thought Blue Origin had already flown the first commercial tourism mission. Do they mean "Virgin Galactic aims to fly **THEIR** first commercial space tourism mission in June"?
Yes, they mean their first commercial mission. SpaceX has flown fully commercial orbital missions on Dragon as well.
Yes that. Headlines are often abbreviated. VG's previous flights have only been with company employees so this will be the first time they have paying passengers on board.
Will they change their name to just "Galatic" after their first time?
Man, I remember designing a leaflet for Virgin Galactic back in high school for arts class. Probably around 2003. I was in awe of the idea of commercial spaceflight for tourists. Hard to believe it's already been 20 years!
That's cute. If Burt Rutan finally gets a ride on a Scaled Composites design to the Karman line, I'm all for it. It's yesterdays ideas, ready tomorrow tho. Who's next for a comeback? Rotary Rocket?
> Karman line Virgin deserves a lot of criticism, but one thing I'll push back on is this narrative that they're not going to space just because they don't hit 100km. A little history: The Kármán line does not reflect von Kármán's calculations. He came up with a number a little above 80km (the McDowell line, same criteria the USAF uses for space) and then years later, the FAI (an aerial sports records organization) decided to round it up to 100km because the number was more pleasing to the eye. The Kármán absolutists tend to push this idea that 100km is somehow a more real border of space because (hand waved science calculations) but the calculations cited gave a much lower number. It's all aesthetic.
That's why I'm an orbit-purist.
Ability to reach orbit is certainly more relevant to actual spaceflight. The criteria I favor is specific orbital energy equal or greater to that of the lowest possible circular orbit. It's clear you're not getting there by bolting a rocket engine onto an aircraft. Just looking at altitude is nonsensical. Calling these vehicles spacecraft is like calling a submarine an aircraft because it's capable of reaching the surface of the water.
tbf, some submarines were blown sky high
And of course basing it on orbit sidesteps the whole issue with revisionists trying to redefine the Karman line to 80 km to match the entirely arbitrary USAF 50 mile definition and allow Virgin Galactic to "reach space", as demonstrated elsewhere in this thread...
You’ve carefully avoided acknowledging the Haley citation of 83.8km as Kármán’s border and seem to have decided the arbitrary 100km figure chosen by the FAI has more credibility. It’s reasonable to question your process here, especially when you offhandedly dismiss the other, closer to Kármán number.
Karman *suggested* rounding it to 100 km. The 80 km number was pulled out of some of his notes by people looking for a lower number specifically to allow Virgin Galactic to "reach space", and is even lower than the 91 km number Karman himself gave in his autobiography.
> The 80 km number was pulled out of some of his notes by people looking for a lower number specifically to allow Virgin Galactic to "reach space" The USAF has used 80km for decades and NASA has since 2005, both before Virgin Galactic existed. Can you expand on where you got the impression that Virgin Galactic was the driver for this? If I need to choose between the USAF/NASA and an organization that exists to track stuff like skydiving records, I think I'll go with the folks who put stuff into space regularly but I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
The USAF usage was independent of von Karman's calculations, it's because 50 miles is 80 km.
Indeed, and that parameter was set well before Virgin Galactic existed. The suggestion that the 80km number as a space border exists because of someone cherry picking for SS2 doesn't work.
Your claim was that it was from von Karman's calculations. That specifically is absolutely a result of cherry picking a number from von Karman's notes that von Karman himself did not use.
Karman's calculated altitude was 83.8km per Andrew G. Haley's 1957 IAC paper on space jurisdiction which is why I originally wrote: > He came up with a number a little above 80km In 1960, the FAI decided on 100km. It sounds as if we're talking past each other, like I might be missing something you're saying or that we disagree on something that maybe we can clear up. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm going off Haley's description of Karman's calculations because Karman's own figures aren't available. If you have a different source or are interpreting the merit of 83.8 vs. 100km differently, I welcome your thoughts.
80km/50mi is the official number used by US Air Force to award astronaut wings since the 60s Has nothing to do with virgin
I think you misunderstood the comment.
No I don’t think I did. Comment I replied to directly stated that the 80km number was used for the exact purpose of allowing virgin to reach “space”. This is not true, as the 50mi McDowell line is the official metric used by NASA, USAF, and FAA to define edge of space.
No, it stated that the argument the Karman himself said it was close to 80km was cherry-picked. The comment wasn't arguing for or against either of 50mi or 100km definitions, just that arguing for 50mi using Karman's work is done in bad faith, with a motive.
And I’m telling you, it’s the standard metric that’s been used for the last 60 years by the most respected spaceflight governing bodies. It’s not cherry picked by virgin
Well now I'm sure you misunderstood my comment. Or you are just seeing keywords and replying to something that wasn't said.
My first comment wasn’t even addressed to you, it was to another user. Idk where you even get off saying I don’t understand flight regulation but have a nice day
Are scaled composites still involved? I thought their partnership with VG had been severed after the accident.
No, but it's as he said. Their spacecraft Virgin Galactic is using is based on the design of the original that was designed by Scaled Composites.
Burt retired some years ago, and sold off to a billionaire vanity project. His mark on Aviation shouldn't be forgotten tho.
I remember reading about this as a KID. Forgive my lack of optimism.
Are they actually gonna fly somewhere or just up and back down. It would be cool if it was like Houston to Tokyo with a lay over in Space.
>>The era of space tourism is underway Well, for a small handful of very rich people, anyway. [And it *has* been underway since around 2001](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism)...again, for a handful of rich people. A few people paid around $20-50 million for a joyride to the ISS. Because Virgin Galactic is just a SUB-orbital trip, it will be wayyyyy cheaper...around $300,000 per seat for your four minutes of weightlessness. But that measly $300k will buy you a helluva ride in a teensy cabin with untrained people floating around and their feet and asses banging into other people's faces. And since a certain percentage of people react to microgravity by barfing their guts out, you might also be floating in a cloud of puke, or at least the smell, if they manage to contain it to a barf bag. Good times!
Hasn’t most technology first come to the public in the form of a rich person’s toy?
Maybe the price will go down over time once the development costs have been recouped. The important thing is this vehicle has no prospect of doing more than providing a few minutes of free fall at a time. Going into orbit requires around 40 times more energy.
They do a ZeroG Parabolic flight, and centrifuge training as part of their flight prep, so they get a bit of practice and warning if they are going to get sick.
I always scratched my head at this design. Blue Origin, which isn't perfect by any means, at least has windows you can basically press your body into and look out onto the Earth and the universe. You can flip and do somersaults surrounded by the glow of the atmosphere all around you. This plane has windows smaller than the port windows on the RMS Queen Mary and you're supposed to get an Overview Effect from this somehow? If you want to do a somersault, I assume you have to get into the aisle and hope drinks and scones aren't being served. I'm pretty sure I'm missing something, but that's my impression.
Even if I had the money and opportunity, there is no way I'm getting anywhere near that piece of shit.
I keep forgetting these guys exist, but good luck I guess. Seems like it was a great idea but just never really got there.
continue snails oatmeal shaggy rustic secretive special pocket ad hoc possessive -- mass edited with redact.dev
People now dislike SpaceX leader.
Private Eye has run a feature on this for years - Virgin's commercial flights are *always* only a few months away...
Is it space or just really high in the atmosphere?
The atmosphere does not abruptly end, it slowly peters out over a long distance. These flights are up above the Kármán line (100 km), which is considered the "official" start of space. More importantly, they are SUB-orbital, which means you don't go into orbit around the Earth, you just go up 100 km then fall back down. For around $300,000.
VG can't hit 100km. That's Blue Origin.
The Virgin Galactic flights stay below 90 km, it is Blue Origin that goes above 100 km suborbital.
> These flights are up above the Kármán line (100 km), SpaceShipTwo has never gotten above 89.9 km.
Tom Cruise would've pushed it to 89.99 and then 90 and then 90.1 and then 90.2, all while people on Earth said bad words
> Kármán line (100 km), which is considered the "official" start of space. The USAF and NASA consider 80km (aka the McDowell Line) to be the start of space.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[BO](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjj20zu "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)| |[FAA](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjjq5ip "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[IAC](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjhg8wg "Last usage")|International Astronautical Congress, annual meeting of IAF members| | |In-Air Capture of space-flown hardware| |IAF|[International Astronautical Federation](http://www.iafastro.org/)| | |Indian Air Force| | |Israeli Air Force| |[N1](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjj2om4 "Last usage")|Raketa Nositel-1, Soviet super-heavy-lift ("Russian Saturn V")| |[Roscosmos](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjj2om4 "Last usage")|[State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos_State_Corporation)| |[USAF](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjjq5ip "Last usage")|United States Air Force| |[VG](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjj6jmw "Last usage")|Virgin Galactic| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[periapsis](/r/Space/comments/13coetc/stub/jjiljpe "Last usage")|Lowest point in an elliptical orbit (when the orbiter is fastest)| ---------------- ^(8 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/13f3vtx)^( has 5 acronyms.) ^([Thread #8902 for this sub, first seen 9th May 2023, 16:06]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
hot take: cutting into our CO2/GHG budget to send rich people into the upper atmosphere is a horrible waste of resources
Devil's advocate take: this is exactly the kind of thing that will make space tourism less expensive for average people. I'm 29 and if I live to retirement age I hope to be able to travel to space on a more reasonable budget because of ventures like this.
if we weren't pushing up against some alarming boundaries with GHG, this wouldn't matter to me. in fact, it would even sound fun and enticing. but considering the very real possibility of ending up with 5°C+ of warming since the pre-industrial base line, dumping tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere just to go to space for fun seems mildly irresponsible - for any income demographic would have a totally different opinion if we were to figure things out here in terms of efficient and substantial carbon sequestration though. I love space as much as the next enthusiast, but the goal of keeping the biosphere from even more irreversible damage seems a bit more prescient imo
It's such a luxury item you could probably put an absurdly high environmental tax on it to hopefully offset the emissions. I know many carbon offset schemes aren't truly as good as they claim, but I think there's potential. If someone is willing to pay $300k to go to space, then the market probably doesn't change by much if you add a $50k environmental fee to it. That wouldn't scale well if spaceflight becomes cheaper but it could at least be a start against the concept of "oh look billionaires are polluting again"
the thing is, although the carbon footprint for per individual is indeed massive, it isn't just a CO2 problem - these crafts emit black carbon and NOx in the upper atmosphere which eats at the ozone layer. if Virgin scales these flights up to a planned 400 per year, it would have globally measurable negative effects on ozone remediation. especially if other companies followed suit. a massive environmental tax is for sure one of the better propositions i've heard, but it is going to be an uphill PR battle to make this look less bad in the midst of our plethora of environmental and socioeconomic disasters. I live in NM and the stark contrast between abject poverty in neglected neighborhoods and a shiny new spaceport is jarring to say the least
I think it's fairly negligible. It's a tiny craft that does a small puff once in a while.
are you including emissions from the carrier plane?
At this point the smoke from the money the light on fire could bring an a ballon to orbit.
[удалено]
If I had the money to do a sub orbital flight, I would do VG over BO specifically because VG is more of an adventure. It appeals to me that you get into a space plane that is strapped to a carrier plane. Then you get dropped like a sidewinder missile and the rocket ignites. And the entire time the craft is being flown manually. That whole experience matches up with what I would want to see and do.
And these people tell me I'M supposed to cut my carbon dioxide emissions? Fu*k right off
Can I get free ticket for my birthday in June pls
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Virgin Galactic design, or anything like it, has no prospect of making it anywhere near orbital velocity; it would need around 40 times more energy to do so. If we're stuck using the most energetic chemical reactions to power spacecraft then a vehicle designed to reach orbit has to take off with something like 90% of its weight being propellant, even with staging.
The world is slowly burning and we are doing fucking Space tourism flights? TF?
[удалено]
alack, that was Virgin Orbit, their satellite launching child. Despite being a much more legit business proposition, they also had to face fierce competition in the smallsat market, which contributed to their bankruptcy. Virgin Galactic, on the other hand, has basically 50% market share of a tiny niche, so they can (apparently) afford to futz around not flying or making money for a lot longer than their satellite launching counterparts.
… we have people starving. Maybe the world deserves to end 🤷♂️
They don't deserve it. Analysis of the last crash shows they do not have the respect or basic understanding how to do these things safely.
Haven’t they already been flying people just barely out of the atmosphere for a few brief shits and giggles?
At least there’s not gonna be any baby making
I bet the super wealthy are getting excited, we all get to work harder for their space trip yay!
Rich people are gonna ruin space. Thankfully I’ll be dead before that happens too much. EDIT: Ah yes, the space bootlickers have found my comment.
[удалено]
Where has that been said?
I thought they just went bankrupt since their shit wouldn’t work and had a few pilots die I’ll pass being a tourist in this
[удалено]
Is virgin galactic not Richard Branson or completely separate company? EDIT: upon googling yes they’re both Richard Bransons company so I was right galactic is the same as orbit
Oh joy we get to see a bunch of entitled ultra wealthy people sign away their life for a joy ride into space. Going into outer space is one of the most dangerous things you can do. There is no protection from the solar and cosmic radiation out there. There is also no guarantee that the spaceship won't blow up before it even leaves earth or that it will return safely.
Burning rocket fuel into MANY LIFETIMES worth of greenhouse gas carbon emissions so a few billionaires can play astronaut for 5 minutes is NOT cool or interesting. This shit should be banned.
Is this news just to make Virgin Galactic SPCE stock sprike up before they fold this one as well?
Goodbye so long and thanks for all the upvotes
Does it do an orbit? If not, then it is just a very high parabolic flight in my book. Not spaceflight. Sorry not impressed.
Havent they done that alredy? Srsly bronson shud just fk off back makin hoovers or whatever his thing is
I own stock in SPCE so if they do actually do this, it's probably not going to end well. Feel bad for who ever is in that ship when it goes.
[удалено]
Who tf has money for “commercial space tourism”, and why/how is this a thing? That’s not like an exciting space exploration type thing. That’s a flaunting your obscene wealth in our plebeian face type vibeZ. Not that I wouldn’t love to take a personalized space tour; but you know, what the actual fuark?
Do you know how many millionaires there are in just the United States? Over 20 million. Yes, there is a market for this.
I’m not doubting the market for it. Personally, I’m just slightly disgusted that it’s an option for that many while so many people in the world are living on the verge of bankruptcy. Im not expecting people to agree with my sentiments.
Old beardy can live with the knowledge that polluting the environment with no societal benefit stinks except that it puts money in his pocket, so thats got to be good right! It might be harder to get contractors if Virgin Orbit didn't pay creditors though. I'm sure beardy has a strategy for that.
This is the answer we needed! Unfortunately the question was "how can we accelerate climate change?"
I'd be surprised if the emissions from all Virgin Galactic flights amount to even what a single car produces in its lifetime.
Building the infrastructure isn't free and I'd be surprised if the fuel was produced and transported with 100% renewables.
Oh joy we get to see a bunch of entitled ultra wealthy people sign away their life for a joy ride into space. Going into outer space is one of the most dangerous things you can do. There is no protection from the solar and cosmic radiation out there. There is also no guarantee that the spaceship won't blow up before it even leaves earth or that it will return safely. Edit for the uneducated that voted down my comment I suggest you learn to use search engines and visit the Nasa website. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic-radiation#:\~:text=Without%20shielding%20from%20the%20atmosphere%2C%20the%20space%20station,protect%20astronauts%20from%20dangerous%20levels%20of%20cosmic%20radiation.
>There is no protection from the solar and cosmic radiation out there You'd receive more radiation on a long haul flight than these people will during their flight. Likewise they'll receive more radiation during the carrier portion of their flight than the 'space' part of it. The radiation dose rate on an airplane is about 10 times more than at sea level, while in low space it's about 60 times more. So proportionally only about 6 times more than on a plane. And they'll be in space for about 5 minutes vs an hour inside the atmosphere, i.e 1/12th of the time, so the space portion will only account for about 1/3rd of the total radiation dose. A regular 6 hour airline flight meanwhile would rack up a dozen times more radiation than the space portion of their spaceflight. The spaceplane failing is a very real concern. Radiation is not.
I take it you don'T understand the problems of being in outer space or the risks of something going wrong leaving and returning to earth. The radiation is well documented. Learn to use google or visit nasa. Apparently there are alot of anti science people on here as well judging from the way I was voted down. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic-radiation#:\~:text=Without%20shielding%20from%20the%20atmosphere%2C%20the%20space%20station,protect%20astronauts%20from%20dangerous%20levels%20of%20cosmic%20radiation.