Is Virgin Galactic's SpaceshipTwo the Future of Space Travel?

[mgb_phys]

Why is space defined by a 100 km boundary?

It's a nice round number ? Blame the French Fédération Aéronautique Internationale
One reason for having the launch site in the US is that the USAF defines space as 50mi ;-)

It will inject money into space efforts, but how much? It's a 100 km high ballistic trajectory. You aren't in orbit;

It's a first step, as much in legal and regulatory terms as technical. It has created a precedent for who is allowed to build, operate and sell such flights and under whose jurisdiction.
The development of this and scaled-composites' re-entry vehicles have future applications.
It's not impossible to scale up an aircraft launched craft to low Earth orbit.

Once a few millionaire/billionaires have made the trip, the market dries up, since the trip really has nothing real to offer.

The big market is the next segment down.
Billionaires can already pay $20-50M to the Russians for a real space flight, and undergo all the training.
If the cost of this comes down to a few $10K, is safe and requires no preparation there are a lot of dentists, lawyers and company owners that might prefer it to a cruise or a week at the Bellagio.

 

[IMP]

I personally think Space Ship Two is a fantastic venture. I admit that it is a far cry from what they are offering vs going into orbit. However, I can see this as a step to providing an an alternative method of launching small satellites, i.e. Pegasus.

I could also see the next step being "almost one Earth orbit". Simply need to change the trajectory to a curve, add a bit more burn time, and don't mind gliding back the last couple of hours back to the original launch site.

There is a lot of innovation taking place here too: largest all-composite aircraft ever built (White Knight Two). First commercial use of a hybrid rocket engine. First commercial use of the "feathering" system. And many more I am sure.

Even if people criticize this effort, I still think that any innovation like this benefits us in many ways. I personally applaud them for this effort...

 

[DaveC426913]

Once a few millionaire/billionaires have made the trip, the market dries up, since the trip really has nothing real to offer.

If the cost of this comes down to a few $10K, is safe and requires no preparation there are a lot of dentists, lawyers and company owners that might prefer it to a cruise or a week at the Bellagio.

Yep. And once it comes down to under $10K, I'll be lining up myself.

 

[Hurkyl]

Even if people criticize this effort, I still think that any innovation like this benefits us in many ways. I personally applaud them for this effort...

Who's criticizing the effort? I thought all the criticism was directed at the hype.

 

[IMP]

Who's criticizing the effort? I thought all the criticism was directed at the hype.

With the hype comes publicity. With the publicity comes interest. With interest comes funds. With funds come even more innovation. Please don't criticize the hype!

I really do hope they can make this a profitable venture so the innovation can continue.P.S. I bet the view of the curve of the Earth is something that would stay with you for the rest of your life. The weightlessness part may not be all that, but the view...

 

[BobG]

Yep. And once it comes down to under $10K, I'll be lining up myself.

People pay over $50,000 for a trip up Mt Everest. That's a real experience, though. There's just not enough to the space trip to make it worth the money once the exclusiveness is gone. It's biggest appeal is status.

The 100km boundary is because the pilot's plane won't work any more, so it's a big deal to him.

Technically, a plane moving fast enough would still work, but the speed necessary to create the aerodynamics at that atmospheric density is higher than the speed necessary to maintain an orbit - if the Earth had no atmosphere. The atmosphere is still too dense at that altitude to maintain an orbit. It makes it kind of a silly boundary.

 

[turbo]

I still think it's a great project. Branson's got a lot of money, so it's not going to bankrupt him anyway, and it's probably a lot of fun for him. Some kids just have more expensive toys than others.

We've got to keep something else in perspective. The US did not jump right into manned orbital flight, and there were many manned rocket-powered flights that were launched from mother-ships (modified bombers) that carried the test-planes to altitude. Sound familiar?

 

[IMP]

I think Burt Rutan has many awesome ideas, but likely doesn't have the funds to bring many of them to creation. Teaming up with Branson may be the ticket for both of them...

 

[DaveC426913]

People pay over $50,000 for a trip up Mt Everest. That's a real experience, though. There's just not enough to the space trip to make it worth the money once the exclusiveness is gone.

Y'know Bob, I really think you need to leave that judgment to the individuals with the money.

 

[waht]

Once the market becomes saturated it's time for a new product.

VG is pretty fascinating. Most airlines fly at 30,000 ft, U2 spyplane at 75,000 ft, and VG above 350,000 ft,

and you are allowed to experience 6 minutes of weightlessness. That's longer than can be achieved on Boeing going up and down until your get dizzy, and marvel at a nice view of Earth suspended in the blackness of space.

If I had a house I would sell it asap and sign up for this.

 

[russ_watters]

By analogy:

"Green" technology is now very much in the public eye - it has been popularized. And now money is raining from the sky. Everyone in the environmental engineering industry can fill their pockets.


To be more explicit: once the public "likes" space again, money will flow fairly indiscriminately (in a good way).

So to summarize, you think excitement over Virgin Galactic will result in an increase in NASA funding? I'm really not getting it.

But a shot to the edge of space and suborbital intercontinental flight are not nearly so far apart. I would grant that the one is not an unreasonable first step to the other. Are you saying this cannot be?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Yes, of course an intercontinental space plane is less performance than orbital flight. But the SpaceShipOne concept doesn't really have much in common with a space plane either. It's goal is strictly achieving altitude and it flies at a about the same speed as the SR-71, which is a relatively small step above the Concorde. Sustained flight at high speed and altitude is a lot different from a quick boost and ballistic fall.

Adding to that, whether we ever see a space plane is more of an economics question than a technological one. If you can't make the Concorde economically viable, there is no hope for a space plane. And as pointed out, once the 100 or so billionaires get their turn at $200,000 apiece, the market for SpaceShipTwo dries up.

 

[russ_watters]

People are constantly exposed to false hope. From the words of every politician, to the plot of every sci-fi movie. Nothing is concrete - but an entertainment nonetheless.

This isn't a work of fiction, it is a news article. If the newspapers are just reprinting the press release without checking with experts to see if it makes sense, they are failing at the job of being reporters. The article should include, at the very least, a 3 sentence blurb from an expert, discussing the implications.

But once Virgin Galactic starts earning cash, wouldn't they expand their business and design and build bigger and better models?

Who would they sell tickets to and for how much? There are only so many billionaires in the world willing to shell out $200k for a 30 min joyride.

Perhaps a shot to space with a 30 min cruise, and then coast down would be the next step - another intermediate link in the long chain of gradual progression.

They've proven there is a market for joyrides for the super-rich. When you turn it into a form of transportation, the economics become completely different. Again, if the Concorde couldn't be viable, a space plane wouldn't either.

 

[waht]

Who would they sell tickets to and for how much? There are only so many billionaires in the world willing to shell out $200k for a 30 min joyride. They've proven there is a market for joyrides for the super-rich.

I think you underestimate the pool of potential customers.

$200,000 is nothing - any decent hard working citizen can easily accumulate this much wealth

and I'm willing to bet there is millions of people in the world that can spare this much money without feeling burden.

Furthermore, according to wiki, another source of revenue will come from science contracts, and satellite launches.

In addition to the suborbital passenger business, Virgin Galactic will market SpaceShipTwo for suborbital space science missions and market WhiteKnightTwo for "small satellite" launch services. They plan to initiate RFPs for the satellite business in early 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic#cite_note-Fg20091027ww2-3

although this could be speculative but the potential is there.

When you turn it into a form of transportation, the economics become completely different. Again, if the Concorde couldn't be viable, a space plane wouldn't either.

Concorde was 30 years old, however, once the scram jet is perfected this could become a reality.

 

[russ_watters]

We've got to keep something else in perspective. The US did not jump right into manned orbital flight, and there were many manned rocket-powered flights that were launched from mother-ships (modified bombers) that carried the test-planes to altitude. Sound familiar?

Yes, this is an achievement somewhat related to but a fair bit short of what the X-15 did.