Virgin Galactic Delays Development of Ship Capable of Higher Flight Rate 26
An anonymous reader shares a report: Space tourism company Virgin Galactic released its third-quarter financial results on Thursday. As one might imagine of a spaceflight company that has not flown since June 2021, the financials are pretty disastrous. The company reported revenue of less than $1 million against losses of more than $146 million. After a long period of downtime, Virgin Galactic officials said the company is close to completing "modifications" of its VMS Eve carrier aircraft and VSS Unity spacecraft.
The company expects to complete a glide flight of Unity, which is released from Eve at altitude, in early 2023. After that point, the company will conduct a powered test flight, likely with its own employees on board, before a research flight for the Italian Air Force. And after that, Virgin Galactic CEO Michael Colglazier said, the company remains on track to begin flying commercial passengers -- people who bought their seats, some more than a decade ago -- in the second quarter of 2023. As with most schedules in spaceflight, that timeline seems pretty optimistic.
This is all well and good, but the return of VSS Unity will not bring Virgin Galactic close to profitability. At an optimal cadence, the company believes it can fly Eve and Unity once a month. This would still leave the company hundreds of millions of dollars in the red on an annual basis. For this reason, the company has always been betting its future on iterations of its spaceship capable of higher flight rates. The ultimate goal is a "Delta" class of spaceship with a turnaround time of one week. With a fleet of Delta ships, Colglazier has told investors, the company can meet a profitable flight rate of 400 missions a year. But the Delta ships are unlikely to be ready for test flights before at least 2025, and commercial service would not begin until a year after that.
The company expects to complete a glide flight of Unity, which is released from Eve at altitude, in early 2023. After that point, the company will conduct a powered test flight, likely with its own employees on board, before a research flight for the Italian Air Force. And after that, Virgin Galactic CEO Michael Colglazier said, the company remains on track to begin flying commercial passengers -- people who bought their seats, some more than a decade ago -- in the second quarter of 2023. As with most schedules in spaceflight, that timeline seems pretty optimistic.
This is all well and good, but the return of VSS Unity will not bring Virgin Galactic close to profitability. At an optimal cadence, the company believes it can fly Eve and Unity once a month. This would still leave the company hundreds of millions of dollars in the red on an annual basis. For this reason, the company has always been betting its future on iterations of its spaceship capable of higher flight rates. The ultimate goal is a "Delta" class of spaceship with a turnaround time of one week. With a fleet of Delta ships, Colglazier has told investors, the company can meet a profitable flight rate of 400 missions a year. But the Delta ships are unlikely to be ready for test flights before at least 2025, and commercial service would not begin until a year after that.
Vanity project? (Score:2)
I wonder if Virgin Galactic will be anything other than a doomed vanity project to compete with the likes of Blue Origin's tourist capsule?
Re: (Score:2)
will make nice addition next to spruce goose
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Vanity project? (Score:2)
Otherwise you show up to the rocket fight with an airplane.
Re: (Score:2)
Note: the delta-V to orbit is far higher than delta-v to 200 miles. The virgin galactic "spaceship" design doesn't have any way to deal with the very large fuel mass ratio required for orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, Virgin and Blue Origin (Score:2)
Because Engineers make the best bosses of Engineering companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Virgin actually did get something to orbit, but it was on their other side that was actually trying to launch things.
It is only Jeff Bozos who still hasn't reached orbit yet, and Below Orbit was founded before SpaceX!
Re: (Score:2)
So, I should indeed not be taunting "Virgin" but "Virgin Galactic".
( And to nitpick your nitpick, the side that is actually orbiting stuff is not "on the other side", it is another company. )
Yes, we discussed Bozos' rocket's inadequacies recently here. Old Space at work there, I fear.
400 flights per year? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where do these space-tourist companies think they're going to get enough passengers to justify 400 flights per year? So long as they keep the costs as high as they are, it's not happening. Especially right now when we're doing everything we can to tank the world economy for all but the top 1-5% or so. Sure, a few hundred people can afford it. But once you've taken them all up once per year, give or take, where's the rest of the passengers lining up? I'm sorry, Bob, Martha, John, Mary, and the rest of the block are concentrating on saving enough money to make it to death without leaving their family in debt up to their eyeballs. Most of us don't have the bank roll to jump partway up to space a few times before we get off the ride for good.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they plan to make up the difference in volume.
By the way, whatever happened to Jeff's phallic rocket after the last flight? That makes two of those lost. (What, you didn't hear about the one that crashed before their first passenger flight? It was hushed up very well.) I think they're going to have a hard time making a profit if they keep losing rockets all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're going to have a hard time making a profit if they keep losing rockets all the time.
The requirement of profitability applies to those who play by the rules.
In this case, "they" also happens to include an uber-billionaire who didn't get there playing by the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking this. Even the ultra super rich would see that there is no real value in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for what a one hour experience? Yes, it's cool, but is it $600k cool?
Re: (Score:2)
There are two million Americans who have an annual salary of at least $820k. So yeah, if it is even somewhat appealing to the 1%, I think they could fill 400 flights per year.
Re: (Score:2)
A few hundred people? There are 62,500,000 millionaires in the world. All of them can afford a $450,000 space flight (Virgin Galactic's price) if they want it badly enough to downgrade to a cheaper house. The real question is, how many people think several minutes about the karman line is the best use they have for $450,000?
Space is expensive (Score:2)
But in the case of Virgin Galactic, even not-space is expensive, because they're not carrying people past the von Karman.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes there is a big difference between 50 miles and 62 miles, there are certain clouds called noctilucent clouds that can exist below 60 miles altitude. You can't take a selfie up there after paying $600k. People would say "Dude, there's fucking clouds above your head, you can't be in space."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing about that is, you're talking a massive increase in energy costs in the form of dV, in order to shift from "technically got into space" and "got into something that could be called an orbit".
You need about 9.4 km/s to get into orbit as a minimum.
To get 100 km up, well, the slower you go the more it takes. But let's figure ~1G(so the people taking the trip experience 2G until the engines cut off), which I'll round to 10m/s^2. I'm also disregarding air friction. By keeping the two even, I simplify th
Re: (Score:2)
Virgin should buy seats from SpaceX (Score:1)
Sell a better product (Score:2)
They need to go back to selling a better product to billiionaires, such as gold-gilted chandeliers, for example.
Just shut it down (Score:2)
I'm happy for Branson that he finally got his pet project working, but the reality is that he was a decade late. The tech was outdated by the time they got it working.
You have companies like Space Perspective coming on-line that will provide a far better customer experience, no one wants to sit on the tarmac for an hour in an airplane for a few minutes of weightlessness. And with a projected optimal turnaround time of a week, they'll be quickly surpassed by reusable rockets within a decade - either by Spa
Re: (Score:2)
An airplane is not the first stage of a rocket. Not even remotely close. The first stage of a Falcon 9 provides the vast majority of the thrust used in the mission, while an airplane makes so little difference you need a microscope to spot it.
Nobody will ever launch a single stage rocket to orbit by carrying it on an airplane, and nobody is pretending they can. All the airplane does it is put a lot of constraints on the two stage rocket you have to attach to it... and the one plus is it allows you to launch