Branson Successfully Completes Historic First Flight To the Edge of Outer Space (cbsnews.com) 180
UPDATE: Branson's done it.
"In a live broadcast during the vehicle's descent, Branson called the trip, 'an experience of a lifetime,'" reports NBC News:
Branson's flight took off Sunday morning at around 10:30 a.m. ET, although the launch time was delayed by around 90 minutes because of overnight weather conditions at Spaceport America...
Branson was joined on his flight by pilots Dave Mackay and Michael Masucci and three mission specialists, all of whom are employees of Virgin Galactic: Chief astronaut instructor Beth Moses, lead operations engineer Colin Bennett and government affairs vice president Sirisha Bandla.
Virgin Galactic is expected to conduct several additional test flights before beginning commercial operations with private customers next year. The company has said the suborbital joyrides will likely cost more than $250,000 each, but final pricing has not yet been announced...
"It's taken 17 years to get to this flight, and of course a lot of personal wealth has been poured into it, but it also shows that this takes tenacity," said Greg Autry, a space policy expert at Arizona State University.
Earlier in the day, Virgin Galactic's Twitter feed shared a nice clip of the astronauts arriving on the launch site.
CBS News streamed their own live coverage at the top of this web page (as well as in their CBSN app), but also reported on the other options: With typical Branson fanfare, Sunday's flight will be broadcast live across Virgin Galactic's social media platforms, featuring appearances by Stephen Colbert and retired Canadian space station astronaut Chris Hadfield, along with the performance of a new song by singer-songwriter Khalid. Even SpaceX founder Elon Musk plans to be watching. "Will see you there to wish you the best," he tweeted Saturday.
And what did Jeff Bezos have to say before Branson launched his history-making flight? "Wishing you and the whole team a successful and safe flight tomorrow. Best of luck!"
Saturday CBS News offered this description of Branson's hopes: Richard Branson, the globe-trotting media mogul and founder of Virgin Galactic, plans to rocket into space Sunday morning on a flight that would make him the first owner of a private space company to launch aboard one of his own spacecraft. If all goes well, he will beat rival Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin, who is set to launch on July 20. Branson, two company pilots and three Virgin Galactic crewmates are launching from Spaceport America, near Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, on what's expected to be at least an hour-long flight, reaching altitudes a little over 50 miles above the Earth.
Branson was joined on his flight by pilots Dave Mackay and Michael Masucci and three mission specialists, all of whom are employees of Virgin Galactic: Chief astronaut instructor Beth Moses, lead operations engineer Colin Bennett and government affairs vice president Sirisha Bandla.
Virgin Galactic is expected to conduct several additional test flights before beginning commercial operations with private customers next year. The company has said the suborbital joyrides will likely cost more than $250,000 each, but final pricing has not yet been announced...
"It's taken 17 years to get to this flight, and of course a lot of personal wealth has been poured into it, but it also shows that this takes tenacity," said Greg Autry, a space policy expert at Arizona State University.
Earlier in the day, Virgin Galactic's Twitter feed shared a nice clip of the astronauts arriving on the launch site.
CBS News streamed their own live coverage at the top of this web page (as well as in their CBSN app), but also reported on the other options: With typical Branson fanfare, Sunday's flight will be broadcast live across Virgin Galactic's social media platforms, featuring appearances by Stephen Colbert and retired Canadian space station astronaut Chris Hadfield, along with the performance of a new song by singer-songwriter Khalid. Even SpaceX founder Elon Musk plans to be watching. "Will see you there to wish you the best," he tweeted Saturday.
And what did Jeff Bezos have to say before Branson launched his history-making flight? "Wishing you and the whole team a successful and safe flight tomorrow. Best of luck!"
Saturday CBS News offered this description of Branson's hopes: Richard Branson, the globe-trotting media mogul and founder of Virgin Galactic, plans to rocket into space Sunday morning on a flight that would make him the first owner of a private space company to launch aboard one of his own spacecraft. If all goes well, he will beat rival Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin, who is set to launch on July 20. Branson, two company pilots and three Virgin Galactic crewmates are launching from Spaceport America, near Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, on what's expected to be at least an hour-long flight, reaching altitudes a little over 50 miles above the Earth.
They're all reptilian aliens (Score:5, Funny)
Elon Musk, too. That's why he's really building a 'Starship'; he'll secretly include his alien FTL drive system in it, insist on going on the maiden flight into 'orbit', and then mysteriously disappear when he actives the FTL drive and heads back to his home planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk, too. That's why he's really building a 'Starship'; he'll secretly include his alien FTL drive system in it, insist on going on the maiden flight into 'orbit', and then mysteriously disappear when he actives the FTL drive and heads back to his home planet.
Promise?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are the wrong age for Roswell, you forgot this one:
https://www.newyorker.com/cart... [newyorker.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't an FTL communications device be easier? I mean, I wouldn't know, I haven't built one recently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm calling your bluff. The Roswell incident was in 1947, not in "the 1950's". You're not going outweird us weirdos that know all about it.
Regarding the rest, though: pretty impressive.
In another dimension, Evel Knievel... (Score:5, Funny)
is watching with interest. He completed a privately-financed sub-orbital flight 47 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, Evel Knievel tried but failed to do a rocket-powered jump 47 years ago. The parachute deployed before the rocket left the launch ramp.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not say he successfully completed the mission.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: In another dimension, Evel Knievel... (Score:2)
So did Super Dave Osborn (Score:2)
The amount of coverage... (Score:2)
That these billionaires are getting for rolling about on their hoards of gold and excess is disheartening.
Historic? Not really... (Score:2)
All of this and more was done decades ago. This is not even Virgin's first flight. They get nowhere near the 100km Karman line altitude that everyone except the USA defines as spaceflight. The X15 in 1962 beat that ffs; the Virgin craft does about 70km. (btw - fair comparison; they're both launched from a mother ship instead of autonomous vertical takeoff)
This isn't about advancing technology (Score:2)
Its about the planet sized egos of Branson and Bezos. They've built the worlds most expensive boys toys. Even Ego Prime Ellison just stuck to his yachts, he must be kicking himself now.
Al lthese party poopers. THIS IS NERD NEWS (Score:5, Informative)
It's a new spacecraft taking tourists into space !
THAT IS NEWS FOR NERDS.
If you're not interested, maybe this isn't the site for you.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the cheesy self promoter acting like the this mission is some huge accomplishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Paying customers not dying is very important. Just ask the airline industry.
Re: Al lthese party poopers. THIS IS NERD NEWS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a huge accomplishment. Rocketry is extremely difficult.
It is! And I'm glad they're moving this along. It's just super disappointing that it took this long since SpaceshipOne first reached space to carry paying passengers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a new spacecraft taking tourists into space !
They are all Virgin Galactic employees, not tourists. Good job, I hate tourists.
Re: Al lthese party poopers. THIS IS NERD NEWS (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It might be possible that one day rich people will be able to fly from one part of the world to another within an hour, using something like this.
Is there any reason for me (or most other people) to celebrate this? I thought you were being ironic at first, then I suspected you are actually serious.
Riding other's coattails (Score:2)
I see this as more of an attempt to hitch a ride on the currently hot (again) topic of private space exploration.
Technically and in terms of its objectives this is not a particularly advanced mission (to be charitable). The extra gimmicks surrounding it are clearly designed for most flash and bang, to draw extra attention (which, eventually, turns into more money for the already rich guy).
In that light, it's more on par with the shenanigans by the Kardashians (but then again - it's Branson, he was doing thi
Still Why? Seems more like a mockery.. (Score:2)
The news in this should be that there is news in this and that a billionaire is effectively distracting space enthusiasm for a pointless mission. If only this were at least a step toward reaching orbit then that would be something.
He seems more like someone reaching for fame based on a technicality. And the media is buying it. The vision that, one day common people will be able to experience 4 minutes of weightlessness for a quarter of a million dollars is very backward and does a disservice to space ent
Re: Still Why? Seems more like a mockery.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:2)
So what? Another monkey is sent on suborbital flight.
Branson is better than Bezos -- at PR (Score:2)
Looks like he successfully created a lot of hoopla over a ho-hum achievement. Bezos' flight will be more technically advanced, but probably not as well publicized.
News flash (Score:2)
Rich man cosplays as space cargo. Gets credit for doing something great, but just got shrink wrapped to a chair and then turned loose to look out of a window once at destination.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich man cosplays as space cargo. Gets credit for doing something great, but just got shrink wrapped to a chair and then turned loose to look out of a window once at destination.
Well, yeah, sure. If you ignore the part about him commissioning the ship design, paying for the build, and the testing, and building the spaceport....Other than that, he was just a passenger.
Pissing Contest (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it hard to get excited about this pissing contest between Branson and Bezos, launching on short suborbital flights.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk's company SpaceX has been launching people into orbit for the past 15 months.
Congrats on reaching US Space. (Score:2)
$250K isn't bad (Score:4, Insightful)
The company has said the suborbital joyrides will likely cost more than $250,000 each
That's not a terrible price. I was expecting something in the millions. I'm interested in doing this, and I'm sure a lot of others are thinking the same. It's a good thing for these companies that there are over 15 million millionaires in the US.
Blue Origin (Score:2)
The reason Blue Origin put out that seemingly petty statement about how crossing the Karman line required to get into actual space, is someone paid them $28 million dollars for a ride on their rocket! That is a lot of money. For $28 million, they had better get *some first* and into Guinness for that kind of money. I mean they could have paid $250,000 and gone on VG instead. Blue Origin needs to provide that value of being a first to that person or they would feel very ripped off.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems Branson's flight was all Virgin employees, so no paying passengers yet.
What should *really* make anyone paying $28M for 5 min in space feel ripped off is that Dennis Tito got to stay a week on the ISS for $20M.
SpaceX is also sending up a commercial flight later this year which will do a few orbits of the earth ... not sure how much the passengers are paying though.
Some record (Score:2)
I'm a card-carrying space nutter, but this and the Bezos thing are pointless. This 'record' of being "..the first owner of a private space company to launch aboard one of his own spacecraft." will appear absolutely nowhere in any historical documentation other than the 'way back machine' in less time than it takes Brittany Spears to send a tweet.
How about being the first privately financed probe to Venus, first privately financed space telescope, first privately financed thorium reactor...any number of
"Arriving" by bike (Score:2)
The video of Branson "arriving" by bike is so lame ... Why not include a clip of him swimming as well, for the cross-Atlantic portion of this zero-carbon arrival ?!
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Symbolically indeed.
Should have been launched from, good luck and thanks for all the fish, NM.
Re: (Score:2)
It is symbolically another step to show the extent of wealth inequality.
FTFY.
This isn't doing anything to advance science. It's just another trip for the 1%. Another luxury for the 1%ers to afford, while there are many, many homeless people.
Re: (Score:2)
It is symbolically another step to show the extent of wealth inequality.
FTFY.
This isn't doing anything to advance science. It's just another trip for the 1%. Another luxury for the 1%ers to afford, while there are many, many homeless people.
It keeps the employees from being homeless.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one am not against some degree of wealth inequality -- yes, there should be benefits to advancing society. The problem is that wealth inequality has reached absurd levels. It has reached levels which provide the opposite result: slowing down the progress of society as many of those ultra-wealthy spend their time protecting their wealth from competition rather than creating more wealth.
Re: (Score:3)
I for one am not against some degree of wealth inequality -- yes, there should be benefits to advancing society. The problem is that wealth inequality has reached absurd levels. It has reached levels which provide the opposite result: slowing down the progress of society as many of those ultra-wealthy spend their time protecting their wealth from competition rather than creating more wealth.
If you really want to help wealth inequality, there is almost certainly a bigger disparity in quality of life between you and the bottom 1% than you and the top 1%.
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
Except it's not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is symbolically another step to show the viability of privately organised space travel, provided he survives the trip. I find that interesting "news for nerds".
Yes, that is true. On the other hand, this is not very far removed from SpaceshipOne in 2004. The pace of development is disappointing.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeff Who ? Richard Who ? (Score:2)
>> Richard Branson,.... will beat rival Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin
Jeff Who ?
Richard Who ?
Re: (Score:2)
Their launch system is fairly worthless. Maybe someday it will turn into something more relevant, but right now it's only a mild curiosity.
That makes it perfect for Slashdot.
I don't think we should cure all earth problems first, I think we should cure them simultaneously. If these guys would spend more of their money making Earth better, I'd be more excited about how they spend their money.
I am not offended to see this story here. I clicked into it, obviously. Nobody else participating in the conversation i
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Their launch system is fairly worthless. Maybe someday it will turn into something more relevant, but right now it's only a mild curiosity.
I think it's useful to explore different possibilities. Do keep in mind that Virgin Galactic spun off the company Virgin Orbit, which uses the air launch technique for small satellite launches (and has succeeded in launching to orbit twice, so far).
Air launch for the first stage has some advantages (but also disadvantages).
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
I think it's useful to explore different possibilities.
So it needed to be built to find out that it's useless and therefore sucks.
Fucking brilliant.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's useful to explore different possibilities.
So it needed to be built to find out that it's useless and therefore sucks. Fucking brilliant.
Correct. The fact that a random idiot on Slashdot is willing to give the opinion "it's useless and therefore sucks" is not the same as actually doing the work.
Re: (Score:2)
And by the way, that it's "useless and therefore sucks" is an observation - I have no opinions on the matter. ;)
Since you have no knowledge on the subject, no, it's an opinion.
Pretty much every idea has somebody saying it's stupid and useless. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but paying attention to random idiots with no particular knowledge of aeronautical engineering posting on /. is a foolish idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that may actually be.
What's really stupid, though, is continuing to develop it now that it's been proven it's worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
All that has happened here is that Branson has won a race against some other billionaires to do something which was starting to get old already in grandad's time.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
I guess this depends upon the design goals of said system. If the goals were to lift passengers as far as LEO or GSO, or route them to the Moon or beyond, then I’d have to agree with you. No doubt about it.
But if your design brief was to give passengers a couple of minutes of micro-gravity, to let them see the curvature of earth and the darkening of the sky as their vehicle reached the edge of space, then I’d say that the Virgin Galactic solution well have met all the design criteria.
Now, if you wanted ‘more’ in terms of flight performance, then I guess what you’d be looking for would be a vehicle that could maybe give you a complete orbit of the planet, followed by re-entry and touchdown? Certainly possible. But the cost, complexity and risks would be far, far greater than VG’s mission profile.
You’d have to think about giving your passengers diapers or equipping your vehicle with ISS-style lavatory facilities. You might be risking some of the passengers losing their last meal, something that could easily ruin the experience for others on board.
It’s all a trade-off.
But seeing as likely 99% of us couldn’t afford any of the available options [Branson has the cheapest right at $250,000], we might just as well enjoy the progress and innovation as it unfolds.
Re: (Score:2)
But if your design brief was to give passengers a couple of minutes of micro-gravity, to let them see the curvature of earth and the darkening of the sky as their vehicle reached the edge of space, then I’d say that the Virgin Galactic solution well have met all the design criteria.
We've come close to that for decades with the "Vomit Comet", at a fraction of the price. Branson's craft has meant one longer peroid of zero-G replacing several shorter ones, and an apogee that meets the lowest definition of space, but not accepted by most.
In the 21st century, it is just a billionaires vanity project.
Re: (Score:2)
Better something than nothing. Far better a space race than a war race. Cheer on the space race will save your life because the war race will likely kill you.
From small things big things grow. A lot of engineering puzzles must be solved and proven to work before we can start planning a colony on a world around another star. That challenge well worth winning it would define us as a species, a galactic species and society of achievement.
Re: (Score:2)
Better something than nothing. Far better a space race than a war race.
I am not convinced that Musk and Branson were ever likely to start a shooting war with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
The space race developed numerous technologies, and while this won't likely come close to what was done back then, your lack of imagination regarding what might come of it is simply astounding. Thankfully, we have people out there who aren't as insular as you.
People say that, but I am never sure what they are. Certainly, teflon or velcro were not from that race yet are too often-mentioned examples.
Re: (Score:2)
The tourist rocket space plane could be converted to a plane assisted rocket launch, and put satellites into LEO, similar to Starlink.
It could, but the reason it's senseless is right there in your comment: "similar to Starlink". If you want to launch one small satellite to LEO, it might be useful. But if you've just lost all your satellites and want to replace them, you're much better off with SpaceX launches, and multiple satellites in one launch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly good to have a nice space race going... but from an "ever onward" perspective, this seems like a dead end. It's a rollercoaster ride to the edge of space that is never going to go any further. At least Blue Origins have their eyes set on orbital flight (and moon landings, but let's not talk about that).
Well, they have the launch plane. Which shows some promise as a launch platform for orbital stuff.
I'm always reluctant to declare technological experimentation dead end. The response is similar to Faraday and Franklins response to questions about the usefulness of their discoveries - "Of what use is an infant?"
These rocketeers might just make important discoveries. As well, the fields of rocketry have a definite learning curve. Is it a bad thing to have more people understanding the launch and retrieval of these candles? I suspect it is not a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Airlaunch to orbit [Re:Who cares?] (Score:3)
That's fair. I was thinking more about manned spaceflight, but Virgin already did launch a small rocket with payload into orbit, and the market for such launches is becoming more interesting. Maybe they will be able to compete and drive down costs with more innovations.
It's not clear that the Virgin Orbit launcher can't evolve into one that could launch humans. Current capability is 400 kg to orbit, which is less than the Mercury spacecraft mass of 1350 kg... but not an order of magnitude less. It's possible that you could increase the launch capability of the Virgin Orbit launcher, and also that you could decrease the minimum mass of an orbital capsule.
Or if they shift from an off-the-shelf 747 to the Stratolaunch carrier aircraft, which was specifically designed for t
Re: (Score:2)
Virgin Orbit could be a big deal if the price is low enough. Micro sats are getting very capable now.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly good to have a nice space race going...
I'd rather have billionaires vying to provide more anti-malaria nets or water treatment plants. If it's got to be space then vying to launch satellites for climate research would be good.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you worrying about fixing this planet when long term survival of the species requires us to reach others?
Plus of course the economic benefits of investing in a space programme, leading to easier funding of 'anti-malaria nets'. As though we even need those, the world has enough population already. The countries with malaria problems can buy those if they really want them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you worrying about fixing this planet when long term survival of the species requires us to reach others?
Why do you think I care about the long time survival of the species rather than the well-being of people who will be born?
Plus of course the economic benefits of investing in a space programme
Is Virgin Galactic a space programme. SpaceX, is, Virgin Galactic?. There might be fringe benefits, but is this the most efficient way to spend the money in terms of economic benefits? Energy efficiency would seem to be a better target. Is Virgin Galactic sufficiently innovative to be a real stimulus?
leading to easier funding of 'anti-malaria nets'.
This is rather indirect. Funding anti-malaria nets also has economic benefits. Explain h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Branson is probably the least offensive of all the Billionaires in this race (Him, Bezos and Musk. Bezos is an atrocious leader of men whos built a fortune on the backs of workers so badly treated they have to piss in bottles, and Musk is pretty clearly in the throws of a perpetual midlife crisis and made staff return to work at the peak of the most uncontrolled part of the pandemic putting lives at risk. Needless to say I've got little time for either men. Branson. Ehh. he's ok.
But the sooner we stop think
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the sooner we stop thinking that only billionaires can save us and realise that every cent the billonaire owns was put in his pocket by the labour of working people...
Yeah, just because the SV billionaires made their money in competitive open markets and are running years ahead of NASA's cost-plus contractors in slashing the cost of access to space to a degree we once thought unimaginable, we wouldn't want to accord them any sort of respect, would we now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who cares? (Score:3)
Virgin and blue origin haven't made orbit yet. They go up and come immediately back down after crossing some random line.
Space x is offering trips to the ISS and actual flight times in orbit. Blue origin and virgin galactic still have yet to pop their orbital cherry.
They get press because it sounds good. Not because they achieved something.
Elon will be building a lunar hotel and casino long before either of them make it to Leo.
Re: (Score:2)
Although Spacex fans think they are the only game in town, it's good to have others in the mix, like NASA, ULA, Boeing,
And Rocket Labs, Virgin Orbit ... But Virgin Galactic and Bezos's BO are jokes in comparison.
A bit like Alan Shepard vs Yuri Gagarin. When Bezon does a Glenn, it can be taken seriously. But over 20 years and still not so much as a rock into orbit?
If you want a few minutes of zero-G at altitude, we have long had the Vomit Comet.
Update: successful (Score:2)
"The Virgin Galactic space plane Unity landed safely in New Mexico on Sunday morning after a trip meant to make human spaceflight seem unexceptional."
-- https://www.nytimes.com/live/2... [nytimes.com]
(apologies for the paywall link: doesn't seem to be available on other media yet, but wait a minute or two and it will be)
Re: (Score:2)
If their goal was to seem unexceptional, they certainly succeeded.
I mean, it was a nice firing of a sounding rocket with people in it.
Re: (Score:2)
So how does this shit get through?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I try to quote someone with a row of four dots ( . . . . ) where I have cut out a less relevant part, SD auto-rejects it as "ASCII art". So how does this shit get through?
After long trial and error attempts they know to put spaces between the dots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
shepards prayer.
oh god.
dont let me fuck up today
Re: (Score:2)
It really wasn't that impressive. I mean nice bit of engineering but I wouldn't pay £250k for it.
They had an issue with the steamed video so maybe when we see that it was like onboard it will be better, but.. meh.
Re: (Score:2)
FAI criteria is 100km, which this didn't reach. This only hit the USA 50 mile limit that NASA and Space Force use.
Re: (Score:2)
For space nerds, who are always desperate for anything rocket-related, this is fine, even if it is something that's already been done, with the same rocket. It's a perfectly appropriate story for Slashdot.
As for the the rest of the media, you underestimate their desperation for stories. They struggle each day to manufacture enough "news" to fill 24 hours, while getting paid little or nothing for it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Indeed. This sort of tech was around in the 50s, they're just re-inventing the wheel and making a big deal out of it. While the worlds starts to burn due to climate change all these clowns can do is spend billions to shoot themselves into space. Pity they don't stay there.
Re:Different tech [Re:Nothing Historic About It... (Score:4)
Oh excuse me for being 2 years out, however the X15 first flew in 1959 so the tech WAS there in the 50s, ok?
"and other than the fact that it was an air-launched winged rocket, it was not at all the same tech"
So apart from the most important aspect it was different. Got it. Any other nuggets of irrelevance you have on offer or is that it?
Re: (Score:2)
If the wright brothers flyer could take 500 passengers at 35K feet and 500mph for 12 hours then there wouldn't be a lot of difference would there?
But I'm generous so here's your chance to amaze us with your genius insight into the significant differences between these 2 rocket planes. Take your time...
Re: (Score:2)
If the wright brothers flyer could take 500 passengers at 35K feet and 500mph for 12 hours then there wouldn't be a lot of difference would there?
The X-15 can't carry five people. You seem to think scaling it up is "Nuggets of irrelevance."
It's different tech because it's different tech.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I think we've established there's a smell of cows backside coming from your direction. Back under your bridge.
Re: (Score:2)
You write as if you know what the X-15 could do, and compare it with the SS2. Then you fail to recognize some important differences:
1) The X-15 was extremely difficult to fly, barely controllable in any of its various flight envelopes (airdrop, under power, max alt, return to atmosphere, glide, final approach, landing).
2) X-15 carried one pilot requiring a spacesuit for life support
3) X-15 cockpit was *very* tight for that pilot, much less having room for passengers to exit their seats for microgravity at a
Re: (Score:2)
Just a billionaire drumming up publicity for his new enterprise of dubious merit. Not discounting the hard work on the technology. It doesn't seem to be doing anything useful other then ferrying multimillion dollar tourists high up in the sky.
But that's how things progress. Look at the technology in your car, things like ABS braking, EBS etc, the power modern engines produce and the fuel economy they get and it's derived from Formula 1, first being designed for and put into cars which were nothing more than playthings for multi-millionaires.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And hybrid power units were in use on ordinary cars long before racecars.
Re: (Score:2)