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

[mgb_phys]

The bearded one has unveiled (possibly) the first commercial spaceship.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic-unveils-spaceshiptwo-the-worlds-first-commercial-manned-spaceship/

Nasa is definitely my favorite for the government agency that needs a kick from the private sector, and if it goes wrong it blows up a few billionaires. Basically no downside!

They also think it could lead to very low launch prices for microsats

ps Do you get airmiles?

 

[turbo]

He named the craft Eve after his mother. She seemed thrilled in the news-spot earlier tonight. Good for him - I hope he has enough millionaires and billionaires to keep the craft's schedule booked solid.

 

[russ_watters]

Nasa is definitely my favorite for the government agency that needs a kick from the private sector

Agreed, but this isn't it.

They also think it could lead to very low launch prices for microsats

Who thinks that? This comes nowhere close to the energy required for achieving orbit.

ps Do you get airmiles?

Since it launches and lands at the same spot, I suppose they could award you zero...

 

[lisab]

ps Do you get airmiles?

Nope, no air in space. Maybe you can get vacuum miles.

 

[nickdk]

What's your estimates on the year it costs...$10,000 dollars to go into a low Earth orbit "vacation" versus the millions it costs today?

 

[mgb_phys]

Agreed, but this isn't it.

Still a good start.
I was trying to find the link to that famous article "how the west wasn't won" where it described how the US would have been colonized if Nasa had been doing it.

Who thinks that? This comes nowhere close to the energy required for achieving orbit.

I think their idea was to replace the manned part with a booster rather like the pegasus system and use the mothership/plane to carry it upto altitude before launching.

Since it launches and lands at the same spot, I suppose they could award you zero...

Yes they said that about the Kuiper Airborne Observatory - the operations were outsourced to United but you didn't get airmiles with your observing time because it landed at the same place.

 

[russ_watters]

What's your estimates on the year it costs...$10,000 dollars to go into a low Earth orbit "vacation" versus the millions it costs today?

Never.

 

[russ_watters]

Still a good start.

Like jumping on a trampoline is a good start to leaping over buildings like Superman?

No, it's really not a "good start" towards anything. I'm all for capitalism and I wish Branson all the best (and if I had the money, I'd book a flight), but this is just a self-contained joyride for the super-rich. It has no implications for orbital or even just trans-continental spaceflight.

I think their idea was to replace the manned part with a booster rather like the pegasus system and use the mothership/plane to carry it upto altitude before launching.

Oh, well, perhaps - but the way all the hype reads to me, this is supposed to be a step toward true commercial manned spaceflight. In any case, the mothership idea isn't really all that useful anyway - it doesn't go very high or very fast.

 

[DaveC426913]

As Russ points out, this is still the same old straight-up-straight-down trajectory. That puts them about (... let's see ... 0 - 25,000 = ...) 25,000mph too slow.

 

[waht]

Virgin Galactic has competition of course, the Spacex

www.spacex.com

which will specialize in commercial satellite launches, and eventually putting people in the low Earth orbit.

 

[FredGarvin]

Bronson is an idiot. Rutan is milking Bronson for what money he can to keep Scaled Composites running. In the end they are nowhere near a feat even noteworthy of anything NASA has done. Dump on them all you want but they are still the best game in town. Period.

 

[russ_watters]

Virgin Galactic has competition of course, the Spacex

www.spacex.com

which will specialize in commercial satellite launches, and eventually putting people in the low Earth orbit.

See, this is just what I'm talking about - the type of thing that annoys me. Virgin Galactic and SpaceX are not in competition with each other. Where did you get the idea that they were? SpaceX is a real commercial spaceflight venture, Virgin Galactic is not. What SpaceShip2 does is nowhere close to what the Falcon9 is intended to do. I honestly don't understand the hype behind Virgin Galactic. It's an expensive roller coaster, nothing more.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Dump on them all you want but they are still the best game in town. Period.

Not for the average millionaire. This is about space tourism, and Virgin is the only game in town... unless your town is Moscow.

I heard they already have 300 people signed up.

 

[DaveC426913]

See, this is just what I'm talking about - the type of thing that annoys me. Virgin Galactic and SpaceX are not in competition with each other. Where did you get the idea that they were? SpaceX is a real commercial spaceflight venture, Virgin Galactic is not. What SpaceShip2 does is nowhere close to what the Falcon9 is intended to do. I honestly don't understand the hype behind Virgin Galactic. It's an expensive roller coaster, nothing more.

What Virgin Galactic will (hopefully) do is popularize spaceflight by putting the idea of it within arm's reach of citizens. It doesn't matter whether this one is real orbital spaceflight, as long as people like the idea and approve money going into commerical spaceflight.

 

[mgb_phys]

SpaceX is a real commercial spaceflight venture,

But not much of a breakthrough.
SpaceX buys rocket motors from an aerospace company and launches them from cape Canaveral under a guaranteed contract from Nasa .
Is this any different from Nasa buying rockets from an aerospace company and launching them - other than an accounting trick?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What Virgin Galactic will (hopefully) do is popularize spaceflight by putting the idea of it within arm's reach of citizens. It doesn't matter whether this one is real orbital spaceflight, as long as people like the idea and approve money going into commerical spaceflight.

The 65-mile high club. Zero-G babies. What more need be said?

 

[DaveC426913]

The 65-mile high club. Zero-G babies. What more need be said?

Not sure if you're being facetious.

Popularizing = funding.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not sure if you're being facetious.

I was serious about the notion of popular fads. I have no doubt that going to space will be a symbol of social status.

I also have no doubt that some folks would gladly pay 200K to join the 65-mile high club, in the Biblical sense.

 

[leroyjenkens]

They should wait for the space elevator to be built before taking people to space. That would probably be a lot safer and cheaper. And if you had some extra cash, they can take you from there to the moon for a couple of hours.

 

[FredGarvin]

Not for the average millionaire. This is about space tourism, and Virgin is the only game in town... unless your town is Moscow.

I heard they already have 300 people signed up.

I meant in terms of actually reaching space. Not this idiotic space tourism crud.

 

[waht]

See, this is just what I'm talking about - the type of thing that annoys me. Virgin Galactic and SpaceX are not in competition with each other. Where did you get the idea that they were? SpaceX is a real commercial spaceflight venture, Virgin Galactic is not. What SpaceShip2 does is nowhere close to what the Falcon9 is intended to do. I honestly don't understand the hype behind Virgin Galactic. It's an expensive roller coaster, nothing more.

What trip to space isn't a roller coaster ride?

I never said the companies were rivals. They are the first commercial entitles that deal with going into space as defined by a 100 km boundary above the Earth - even for a few minutes. Hence I don't see any hype about their advertisements.

The hype is rather more philosophical - the marking of a space fairing civilization. This is the kind of thing the publics needs, a spark of imagination.

 

[DaveC426913]

They should wait for the space elevator to be built before taking people to space.

Unfortunately, you've got cause and effect reversed.

The space elevator will not be built until people have a renewed belief that space is within their reach.

 

[russ_watters]

But not much of a breakthrough.
SpaceX buys rocket motors from an aerospace company and launches them from cape Canaveral under a guaranteed contract from Nasa .

I was under the impression that SpaceX is an aerospace company that has designed and built the Falcon9 from the ground-up.

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure if you're being facetious.

Popularizing = funding.

Not sure if you are being facetious: funding for whom?

 

[russ_watters]

I never said the companies were rivals.

I never said you said they were rivals. You said they are in competition with each other, I said they are not in competition with each other. I'll say it again: they are not in competition with each other. They do different things and have different target markets for their services.

They are the first commercial entitles that deal with going into space as defined by a 100 km boundary above the Earth - even for a few minutes. Hence I don't see any hype about their advertisements.

The hype is in the descriptions of the implications of the project. Ie:

He said he hopes the technology will lead to a new form of Earth travel, jetting people across oceans and continents faster through suborbital routes.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/12/07/branson.spaceship/index.html
As I said before, this is a stand-alone roller coaster ride with no ability to "lead to a new form of Earth travel."

The hype is rather more philosophical - the marking of a space fairing civilization. This is the kind of thing the publics needs, a spark of imagination.

I do like things that spark interest. I don't like false hope.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not sure if you are being facetious: funding for whom?

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).

 

[DaveC426913]

He said he hopes the technology will lead to a new form of Earth travel, jetting people across oceans and continents faster through suborbital routes.

As I said before, this is a stand-alone roller coaster ride with no ability to "lead to a new form of Earth travel."
I do like things that spark interest. I don't like false hope.

Now hang on, we were originally being skeptical about the gulf between a shot to the edge of space and Earth orbit - two very different things, we all agree.

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?

 

[leroyjenkens]

Unfortunately, you've got cause and effect reversed.

The space elevator will not be built until people have a renewed belief that space is within their reach.

Why wait for commercial space trips before building the space elevator? It would be useful right now for NASA to use.

Besides, my cause and effect isn't necessarily reversed. Why would people believe space is within their reach until there's a method for them to get there?

That's like trying to get people to believe they can fly before the airplane was built. They'll believe it when they see it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why wait for commercial space trips before building the space elevator? It would be useful right now for NASA to use.

Besides, my cause and effect isn't necessarily reversed. Why would people believe space is within their reach until there's a method for them to get there?

That's like trying to get people to believe they can fly before the airplane was built. They'll believe it when they see it.

Because the money must come first. The money comes from the public.

 

[tmyer2107]

Why wait for commercial space trips before building the space elevator? It would be useful right now for NASA to use.

Besides, my cause and effect isn't necessarily reversed. Why would people believe space is within their reach until there's a method for them to get there?

That's like trying to get people to believe they can fly before the airplane was built. They'll believe it when they see it.

The technology necessary for a space elevator is not available yet. The cable for a space elevator would have to withstand 60-100 gigapascals of tension. Steel breaks at about 2 gpa. However, carbon nanotube technology is putting us closer to being able to make this cable. Carbon nanotube fiber can withstand roughly 120 gpa of pressure. Currently, scientists can only make these fibers a few mm in length. And even if they were able to build a carbon nanotube cable to space, a single atomic scale defect could reduce the overall strength by 70% dropping it below the 100 gpa of tension.

Until new technology becomes available or the carbon nanotube cables become a reality, we won't be seeing a space elevator.

 

[DaveC426913]

Also, the comparison to building an airplane is fallacious in terms of scale. An airplane was built by two brothers in their garage.

It is generally-accepted that a space elevator is a feat too large for an entire nation. It will require the combined resources of several nations worldwide.

and there are no baby-steps in space elevators.

"You can't cross a canyon in two leaps."

 

[tmyer2107]

Once the techonology is there and they figure out a way to divert mircometeorites around the cable and whatever other problems there are I think many nations will contribute to its construction. In the long run, it would save them tons of money.

 

[waht]

I'll say it again: they are not in competition with each other. They do different things and have different target markets for their services.

I see your point.

The hype is in the descriptions of the implications of the project.

I do like things that spark interest. I don't like false hope.

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.

But once Virgin Galactic starts earning cash, wouldn't they expand their business and design and build bigger and better models? 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. Perhaps many bright engineers working on the project will launch their own spinoff companies.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Also, the comparison to building an airplane is fallacious in terms of scale. An airplane was built by two brothers in their garage.

It's not fallacious since I wasn't comparing the cost. I didn't know you were talking about funding.

 

[BobG]

What trip to space isn't a roller coaster ride?

I never said the companies were rivals. They are the first commercial entitles that deal with going into space as defined by a 100 km boundary above the Earth - even for a few minutes. Hence I don't see any hype about their advertisements.

The hype is rather more philosophical - the marking of a space fairing civilization. This is the kind of thing the publics needs, a spark of imagination.

Why is space defined by a 100 km boundary? That boundary means something to pilots, but it has nothing to do with actually orbiting the Earth.

None the less, the average person probably won't understand that. If the boundary's good enough for pilots, it will be good enough for a billionaire. It will inject money into space efforts, but how much? It's a 100 km high ballistic trajectory. You aren't in orbit; you don't get to watch the Earth underneath you; you don't get to call your family and friends from space; etc. It's only attraction lasts only as long as its rarity. Once a few millionaire/billionaires have made the trip, the market dries up, since the trip really has nothing real to offer.

 

[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.