Vrgin Galactic, your thoughts?

[brianb]

3 hours and no bog could get rough.

Sheesh. Just cut down on the liquid intake for a few hours beforehand .... or follow the lead of Alan Shepard, whose short hop was delayed so many times that he was forced to let go in his space suit rather than cause a scrub.

[Toadeh]

I used to work for one of the tour operators offering the galactic experience. Its amazing how many have already paid up, and its not from the millionair pool either.

Its an interesting idea, but I think the week training is a bit lapse to start with.

If the launch mechanism was to be used for satallites etc, would it generate enough go to get into orbit though? Why not just fire them up on old misiles (like we do)

[brianb]

If the launch mechanism was to be used for satallites etc, would it generate enough go to get into orbit though?

Well, you get ~500 mph - which doesn't sound much, only about 3% of the required speed - but that represents 6% less energy required to get to orbit. The 45,000 feet "launch" altitude does no harm in itself, and it's actually much better than that because you lose all the drag involved in moving through the dense lower atmosphere. All in all, it works out that you save about 20% of the launch mass, corresponding to half the work done by a conventional three stage launcher.

The Saturn V was 500 tons lighter by the time it reached 45,000 feet ....

[Earl]

Its like Rooney been paid 250k a week.

An insult to the rest of the population.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The ride would seem interesting, but I am constantly reminded of the nickname of the zero-G training flights: Vomit-comets. , or rather

Not that encouraging:rolleyes:

[brantuk]

Two planes stuck together with a space launch vehicle strapped in between doesn't sound particularly "green" to me. And it's a pretty expensive way to go weightless - you can do that for a lot less on a parachuting course or a heavy night of beer guzzling lol. I'm with Olly - entertaining as it sounds, it's a fairground ride for the rich

[polydoros]

This a very VERY expensive fairground ride... ollys bang on the money:D

[MikeWilson]

Is "Virgin Galactic" actually developing new technologies that will further humanity into space or is it just developing a high altitude multi-person aircraft?

If anything comes out of this that can be reused by the rest of us (e.g. NASA), then that's great. If not, then I don't see much use to the flights other than to increase Virgin's profits.

[Beulah]

Personally, I think private enterprise is the only thing that could possibly save space exploration and travel. The various governments have had a monopoly on spaceflight and the means of access to space for a little over 50 years. What innovations have we seen in that time? Basically nothing. The liquid-fueled rockets used today are essentially the same as the ones that put Sputnik and Mercury into space (the Proton is a direct descendant of the Sputnik's SS6 launcher - just bigger). This is because governments have little incentive to lower costs and improve efficiencies.

All the previous attempts at something new (remember Hotol ?) were pooh-poohed out of existence, as the people who supply launchers regard anything reusable as a threat. For example, a launcher that can be flown 50 times is seen by the suppliers of rockets as 49 lost sales!

Compare that with aircraft development - which had a great deal of private enterprise. That went from little wooden planes with propellers and piston engines to 747's in the same amount of time.

I concur and wonder why it has taken private enterprise so long.

Something has to happen as state budgets are cut.

[MikeWilson]

I concur and wonder why it has taken private enterprise so long.

Something has to happen as state budgets are cut.

However I don't think that there was an overarching goal of civilian transport in mind during this period of aviation's development. It just sort of happened as demand for air travel increased.

The real motivator for the big developments in aviation were for military reasons.

I suppose if Russia or China put up some form of weapons satellite or started to make moves to put some sort of exclusive nationalistic base on the moon, other nations would join the space race again.

The space race was never about a ideological future for humans in space, it was an technological arms race no less.

[Aussie]

I think it's a good thing. Everything that started first was typically small and overpriced. In time space travel will become cheaper and larger. Someone had to go first and I'm glad it is in my lifetime, maybe by the time I am 50 or 60 ill be able to fly past the moon and take some beautiful pictures for the same price a normal holiday would cost just now. Who knows.

[MikeWilson]

I think it's a good thing. Everything that started first was typically small and overpriced. In time space travel will become cheaper and larger. Someone had to go first and I'm glad it is in my lifetime, maybe by the time I am 50 or 60 ill be able to fly past the moon and take some beautiful pictures for the same price a normal holiday would cost just now. Who knows.

It might be available but judging by the demand for Virgin Galactic, you'd better have deep pockets!

[Beulah]

However I don't think that there was an overarching goal of civilian transport in mind during this period of aviation's development. It just sort of happened as demand for air travel increased.

The real motivator for the big developments in aviation were for military reasons.

I suppose if Russia or China put up some form of weapons satellite or started to make moves to put some sort of exclusive nationalistic base on the moon, other nations would join the space race again.

The space race was never about a ideological future for humans in space, it was an technological arms race no less.

Fascinating stuff.

Then we just need some extremely eccentric wealthy people to aspire to an ideological future. It's a shame that the millitary affairs are responsible for a lot of technology we have today.

[MikeWilson]

Fascinating stuff.

Then we just need some extremely eccentric wealthy people to aspire to an ideological future. It's a shame that the millitary affairs are responsible for a lot of technology we have today.

Yes

Or a general overall improvement in appreciation of science and humanities via our (worldwide) educational systems.

[ollypenrice]

It's not the monetary cost that troubles me but the staggering fuel consumption per person for what is, in the end, a piece of Jeremy Clarksonism. Kooorphewbiggerfaster. Space for everyone would be fine if the environmental cost of getting there were anything like reasonable, but it isn't. Climb a mountain. Fly a paraglider. Beautiful. But this is a 1920s mentality still around in 2010. The whole mindset is anachronistic. (To me.)

Olly

Olly

[FraserClarke]

It's not the monetary cost that troubles me but the staggering fuel consumption per person

What is the fuel cost per person? How does it compare to a return transatlantic flight to get to the launch site?

I'm sure I could look it up, but it sounds like you might already know Olly

[brianb]

In energy terms, the cost of flying a business jet across the Atlantic is about the same as flying a ballistic sub-orbital trajectory for the same distance. The difference is in terms of the cost of the fuels ... in particular cryogenic fuels (liquid hydrogen & oxygen) which are very expensive in energy terms to manufacture & store, plus the cost of refurbishing a spaceship which re-enters the atmosphere at very high speed.

Spaceship Two has a low re-entry speed - not much different to the operating speed of e.g. the SR-71 Blackbird - so ablative shields and / or superexotic materials are not required. Most of the operating cost of the Space Shuttle is in maintainance to its re-entry system (the infamous tiles) not the fuel loaded.

But the fact remains that Spaceship Two, flying from point A back to the same place, has a fuel consumption of zero miles per gallon. Just like a rollercoaster ride - some of these are pretty darned exhilerating, and at a much lower cost to the participant.

SS2 ride? Sure, I'd love to go ... but the price has to come down by a factor of at least 10 and I don't want to have to travel halfway across the world to participate.

[ollypenrice]

I can't really add anything other than that it seems like a phenomenal waste of resources, though my original point was more about the way this orgy of environmental waste was being marketed as something green. I suppose I was also thinking that somewhere along the line Richard Branson, who is so admirable in many, many ways, has a touch of the Boys' Own Paper in his makeup. That may not always be a bad thing but this venture seems to me to be insensitive at a time when we are aware of the need to guzzle the earth's resources rather less gratuitously. If the green aspect of the venture is sincere than I will happily stand corrected.

Olly

[brianb]

it seems like a phenomenal waste of resources

Yeah, but it's not significant because the financial cost is so high. In any case, probably 99% of the stuff we do is a "waste of resources" at some level or other. We've come a long way since we had to keep the camp fire burning all night, partly to keep off the lions but mostly, I suspect, because someone had mislaid the firelighting manual.

[syd_malicious]

Bing, bong..........

"Virgin regrets to announce that it's Virgin Galactic service at 1pm today to the atmosphere has been cancelled due to the wrong sort of leaves on the runway.

An alternative bus service is available and the in-flight refreshments of crisps and second rate Costa coffee will still be available at a predictably inflated price of £25 each.

For all other Galactic journeys please do not lean out of the windows whilst travelling and have your tickets ready for inspection or you will be jettisoned immediately.

Have a pleasant day and please use Virgin again."

[Macavity]

Aside: I think Richard Branson and Jeremy Clarkson are entirely different. I think the former has real interest in technology and (misguided?) "pioneering". I sense I'd better remain silent on the latter. But the idea of someone who seems so... apathetic towards technology and cynical towards (less privileged) people...

I do remember my suburban train journey being delayed, waiting for some (as announced) "Outgoing Virgin" tho'!

[pete_l]

Yeah, but it's not significant because the financial cost is so high. In any case, probably 99% of the stuff we do is a "waste of resources" at some level or other. We've come a long way since we had to keep the camp fire burning all night, partly to keep off the lions but mostly, I suspect, because someone had mislaid the firelighting manual.

I suppose you could always plant a few trees or (better) not have any children:cool:, if you're concerned about creating too much pollution. But the main resource consumption is in the development of the vehicles, not the amount of old tyres and N2O that it burns in flight. So once the vehicle has been built, it seems a bit churlish not to use it

On a bigger scale, if it helps move the space industry away from it's mind-numbingly inefficient practices of the moment (such as launching a 2,000 ton vehicle to carry an 80 ton "delivery truck" into space, just to put a 24 ton payload into low orbit) then in the long run that has got to be a good thing.

[NessieHunter]

Richard Branson is very much the boys own paper type with boundless enthusiasm and a good business head. What he needs to do is offer this forum of space enthusiasts a ticket to be drawn amongst ourselves, to get as close to what we stare at every night (weather permitting) with a seat on board. Good marketing value for him and I for one may just turn a blind eye to all the green issues, just this once, and throw my hat in the ring!