Virgin Galactic Successfully Reaches Space (bbc.com) 87
The latest test flight by Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic successfully rocketed to space and back. From a report: The firm's SpaceShipTwo passenger rocket ship reached a height of 82.7km, beyond the altitude at which space is said to begin. It marked the plane's fourth test flight and followed earlier setbacks in the firm's space programme. Sir Richard is in a race with Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to send the first fee-paying passengers into space. He founded the commercial spaceflight company in 2004, shortly after Mr Musk started SpaceX and Jeff Bezos established Blue Origin. In 2008, Virgin Galactic first promised sub-orbital spaceflight trips for tourists would be taking place "within 18 months". It has since regularly made similar promises to have space flights airborne in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they manage to shoot a rocket into Uranus (rocket will have to be painted red), will they need to change their name from Virgin Galactic to just Galactic?
(Just field testing adapting a Chuck Norris joke for this situation).
Re: (Score:2)
The above post will become invalid in 2620.
New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours (Score:1)
Alot of people see this as a silly vacation attraction for the super-rich, which it is, but that misses the most exciting element of this spaceflight system.
Virgin has already quietly announced plans for point to point suborbital flights, connecting cities in a fraction of the current travel time.
As Virgin Galactic flight hardware is proven and deployed around the world we are opening up humanity to the biggest increase in travel speed since the advent of jet powered aircraft.
Truly an exciting time to be al
Re: (Score:1)
2 hours to Hong Kong also fits under the category of things "for the super rich".
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a totally good thing. When you are alpha-testing new tech, you want wealthy early adopters to take the early risks.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. I mean what do they have now? Basically an X15, technology that has been around since the 60s. So what is the commercial plan? Are you going to go New York to Tokyo 2 people at a time in a plane that has to be carried up to altitude by another plane? I don't see any commercial possibility at this point. Not saying it isn't cool, just that it isn't useful.
Re: (Score:3)
Virgin has already quietly announced plans for point to point suborbital flights, connecting cities in a fraction of the current travel time. As Virgin Galactic flight hardware is proven and deployed around the world we are opening up humanity to the biggest increase in travel speed since the advent of jet powered aircraft. Truly an exciting time to be alive!
Because....? If I had a private jet I'd get a lot faster to where I was going too. Despite all the talk of making space "affordable", compared to the airplanes they're still gold plated. A sub-orbital rocket going half way across the Earth will require about 7.9 km/s delta-v, going to orbit is 9.3-10 km/s. Putting that into the rocket equation says you can bring about twice as much payload to fuel compared to LEO. So what's the cost to orbit today? $62 million / 22800 kg = ~$2700/kg for an F9, if you take h
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it need to be scaled acainst the price of existing orbital rockets? If you restarted from the required fuel and stated a minimum baseline cost from that, That would be a lot more useful.
Well replace $62 million with $200k and you get $3k/seat in fuel, but not even a fuel tank to keep it in. Everything has to be manufactured, inspected, maintained and eventually refurbished or replaced even if you can spread the cost over many launches. A long haul flight uses about 0.75 gallons of fuel per seat per 100 km and it costs about $1.75, so a 10000 km flight is around $130 in fuel. Typical total cost to the airliner with labor costs, maintenance cost and deprecation is around $6-700, so already y
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course if they can get their cost per mile below that of Concorde (New York to London cost about $10,000 without discounts), tha
Re: (Score:1)
There are factors here you aren't considering. Compared to the major cities in Asia, US cities are a major downgrade with "third world" infrastructure and amenities.
At present the US is still where you need to do business. Why expend all the money it would take to upgrade infrastructure enough to provide first class living in the dilapidated US. That is trillions of dollars. You can simply fly in on a quick jump from your home in ASIA when needed for a mere $100k.
Re: (Score:1)
What is the downmod for? Someone doesn't like to hear the truth?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The original plan for the Concorde was Paris to Los Angeles. Boeing bought some regulations from the FAA in order to block them. The problem is that with the longer route blocked, there was no reason to continue to develop the Concorde to bring down cost, and it became an albatross.
In space, no one can hear your sonic boom. I would expect the rockets to eventually be assisted by hyper ram jets, cabin room to be expanded, and cheaper initial launch system designed. There are a lot of ways that an enter
Re: New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours (Score:1)
The Concorde was economically sustainable for a long time. What actually happened is that the fleet essentially aged out.
Re: (Score:2)
Also keep in mind that the Concorde was still a plane, without passengers having to wait for launch control or go through free-fall training. The actual travel time isn't just the air time, and i can't see it go down to Concorde times for Virgin Galactic any time soon.
not quite space (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not quite space (Score:5, Informative)
The Kármán line isn't just an arbitrary altitude, either. It's the point at which the atmosphere relatively abruptly [mrreid.org] starts transitioning from "well mixed, with a composition like at the surface" to "increasingly dominated by light and ionized species"
Of course, Kármán defined it as the rough point at which lift ceases being relevant for an aircraft moving at orbital velocities (which is also a meaningful definition).
Re:not quite space (Score:4, Interesting)
Karman did some calculations on where lift becomes irrelevant (this depends on design parameters for the wing, so a different altitude for each design), arrived at an altitude of 85 km and rounded up to 100 km.
Branson has some precedent: the USAF defined 80 km as the boundary of space, in order to be able to call their X-15 pilots astronauts.
Re: (Score:3)
2) The reclassification of X-15 pilots as astronauts wasn't done until 2005, long after the X-15 program ended (and most of the pilots were dead). So no, it wasn't factor in the decision to classify space as beginning at 80 km.
The USAF used 80 km because that's 50 miles. And that sounded like a nice, round, easy-to-remember number to set as the boundary. Simple as that.
Re:not quite space (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
80KM is the altitude at which the US military, FAA, and NASA grants the United States Astronaut Badge [wikipedia.org]
Re:not quite space (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on who is doing the saying.
Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin: only SUB-orbital. (Score:2)
Elon Musk's SpaceX is able to put satellites into orbit. That distinction should be made in every news story about those companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX Launches Crew Vehicle to Space Station in 1 Month, Crew in 6 months, and test Mars Rocket by end of 2019. Meanwhile VG and BO in "Hot Pursuit" with 3D Computer Simulations of Vaporware Rockets
Sorry, you can say what you want, but for all intents right now VG is flying an X-15, and BO is launching a souped up Redstone rocket, while SpaceX is actually flying a vehicle somewhere around the Saturn IB equivalent. Two of those get you to "space" in a purely academic sense
Helpful parent comment. Mod up. (Score:2)
Orion Spacecraft [nasa.gov]. Quote: "... is building...".
Boeing Starliner [boeing.com]. Quote: "... is being developed...".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That is true and all but it is also wildly inconvenient. Some satellites sometimes dip below 100km during transfer to a higher orbit. Do they momentarily leave space? And what do we call that place were you can occasionally encounter a non-crashing satellite?
Also, unlike the KÃrmÃn line, the 80km line stays nicely put while the real KÃrmÃn line dances around all the time.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Video from the flight (Score:3)
nice looking views from space
https://twitter.com/virgingala... [twitter.com]
Thanks (Score:3)
Some may argue about where the line for space is.
But what really matters is, what do you *see* when you are up there? That unquestionably looks like you are in space.
Well, probably that and weightlessness. So two things, two things that make for authentic "space tourism".
Stuff like this makes it seem pretty likely I'll be able to afford a visit to space in my lifetime, something I would love...
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty questionable definition, since air-breathing aircraft like the SR-71 can sustain altitudes where the sky is black. That "looks" like space, but since you're still talking about atmospheric flight, it obviously isn't.
Here's a photo from 83k feet with a black sky: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
The aircraft's altitude record for sustained flight was roughly 2k feet higher than that, and it's reached higher in climbs. Baumgartner jumped from 128k feet from a balloon, where there an even sharp
Space seeing is Space believing (Score:2)
Yes but again, I don't care if there technically is a tiny bit of air out there.
Space is like Porn - I know it when I see it. This is what really matters in terms of viable tourism. There will always be some that argue you aren't technically in. space, but they'll be arguing on the ground while I am looking at the Earth as a whole from above, and stars unfiltered by atmosphere...
Now what I am wondering is, if there's still some small bit of atmosphere that implies some effect of gravity. So at that heigh
Re: (Score:2)
Even at the altitude of the international space station (408 kilometers), gravity is still around 88% as strong as it is on the ground. You feel weightless in orbit because you're in freefall towards the earth (only you keep missing it because you're moving forward really fast), not because of your altitude. A flight at 85k feet might look like space, but you'd be experiencing normal gravity (still less than a percent off sea level at that altitude) inside the aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Even at the altitude of the international space station (408 kilometers), gravity is still around 88% as strong as it is on the ground. You feel weightless in orbit because you're in freefall towards the earth
Ok, that's a great point, but the end effect is again - you see space, you feel weightless. That's close enough to satisfy most people's definitions of "in space" for the purposes of tourism.
Re: (Score:2)
You can probably get the same effect with a normal reduced-gravity aircraft (AKA "vomit comet") and turning off the cabin lights ;)
That type of aircraft was used to shoot this OK Go music video, with the whole thing being done weightless (it's all one take, but they essentially fast-forward the 50% of the time spent at higher gravity): https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The vomit comet doesn't give you near enough of a view to be considered space, and it's weightless periods are much more limited (20-30 seconds at a time), over multiple dips and climbs).
A sustained period of calm, non-screaming-dive weightlessness is probably a lot easier to sell and probably easier on most stomachs.
Re: (Score:2)
Space tourism would necessarily mean that your thirty minute (or however long) visit had you being weightless
It's a 2.5 hour flight, but the free fall portion is only 5 minutes.
Well, minimal but something. (Score:2)
It's a 2.5 hour flight, but the free fall portion is only 5 minutes.
That's sad to hear, but at least you'd get quite a view on the way up and down.
It's probably better to start with five minutes and have them judge how long the average person does in free fall. Like is 80% of the ship throwing up? I wonder what the plans are around that.
Altitude at which one is in "space"? (Score:2)
There are competing definitions of the altitude at which one is actually in "space". Some organizations (i.e. USAF) say 80km, some (international records-keeping bodies) say 100km.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The US likes to hand out "astronaut" medals and ribbons like they were Special Olympics medals.
Weasel words (Score:5, Informative)
The firm's SpaceShipTwo passenger rocket ship reached a height of 82.7km, beyond the altitude at which space is said to begin.
"Is said to" depends on who says it. The mesosphere extends to around 85 km.
The FAI considers anything below 100 km (the Karman line) to be aeronautics, not astronautics.
Re: (Score:2)
Not weasel words, just something without a clear and universal definition.
The USAF and NASA will definitely consider anyone between 85km and 100km to be an astronaut.
Also Pluto is a planet.
Space ? (Score:1)
I though the accepted altitude between atmosphere and space was the Kármán line [wikipedia.org].
But 82.7Km is still inside the Mesosphere so I don't know on what they base their claim.
They won't be the first (Score:2)
Sir Richard is in a race with Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to send the first fee-paying passengers into space.
And it's a race they have lost already. Russia sent the first tourist into space, and it was an orbital flight at that. [space.com]
Am I the only one to find this very unexciting? (Score:4)
Am I the only one to find this quite unexciting? And I am not just talking about a 20km difference. I mean, we are essentially talking about something that an aircraft from 1959 could do (nobody called it a spacecraft), without even having to be released from a significant height - and it's been in development for over a decade. And we can't even compare it to other private "space" ventures because as we know the hard part about getting into earth orbit which is what the others are doing is not the height, but the speed (required for the orbit), which is at least a magnitude higher than this Virgin craft does, hence so much harder. ;)
I could see how an "edge of space" ride could be interesting tech, but it would have been "inspiring" if it had been delivered in the 00's. A 60 second powered flight in 2018 somehow seems "meh" to me. The "80km space" thing is just adding some insult
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and before I get "yeah, but at least they are trying what are YOU doing you sofa critic" I am not saying that they should not be trying, but at this point I think this particular approach this company is pursuing is giving very little ROI (investment in time and money), so they are probably not doing the right approach.
Didn't this happen quite a while ago? (Score:2)
The firm's SpaceShipTwo passenger rocket ship reached a height of 82.7km, beyond the altitude at which space is said to begin. It marked the plane's fourth test flight and followed earlier setbacks in the firm's space programme. Sir Richard is in a race with Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to send the first fee-paying passengers into space . He founded the commercial spaceflight company in 2004, shortly after Mr Musk started SpaceX and Jeff Bezos established Blue Origin. In 2008, Virgin Galactic first promised sub-orbital spaceflight trips for tourists would be taking place "within 18 months". It has since regularly made similar promises to have space flights airborne in the near future.
Didn't this happen way back when NASA started paying the Russians to fly astronauts to the International Space Station?
Re: Didn't this happen quite a while ago? (Score:2)
Didn't this happen way back when NASA started paying the Russians to fly astronauts to the International Space Station?
No, I would think it first happened in 1983 when the ESA sent a German up on the space shuttle.
Or did they just bum a ride for free? Can't find much info on whether they paid or not.
100 km is "space" (Score:2)
SpaceShipOne even recognized it.
Interesting, but not overly impressive (Score:2)
I'm not really sure I see the point in Virgins/Blue Origins suborbital hoppers. They can't really go very far, they don't give you much time in weightlessness (less than 6 minutes), they're not terribly reusable and they're wickedly expensive. For better or worse I think the BFR/Starship/Superheavy is really the only launcher with a chance of opening up access to space at this point, even their BFR/S/SH craft in its point to point transport roll would be a better ride than SS2/NS. Blue Origins New Glenn