Virgin Galactic: The Truth Behind Richard Branson's Claims of Space Flights

[~()]

sir Richard Brandson claims that his new Virgin galactic flights take passengers into outer space.

1. Entry interface into space is 121.92 Km (as recorded by American spaceflight engineers). However Virgin Galactic reaches altitudes of somewhat less that this height. According to the source [ http://www.space.com/news/050426_tourism.html ], the passenger has to fork out over $200,000 U.S and climb to an altitude of ony 100km.

2. If you closely look at the design of Galactic One (or whatever it is called) you will notice there is no TPS (Thermal Protection System).
If the vehicle breached the atmosphere and reached into the vacuum of space, the gravitational acceleration would cause it to reach a great enough velocity that when it re-entered it would require a TPS otherwise it would burn up. However, there is none installed and if one were it would be a complex and costly venture, one that not even (some of the smartest people in the world) at NASA have mastered.

How does he expect to get to the moon if he can't even theoretically get into space. Yes, there is some weightlessness at that altitude (of ~100km), a lower pressure atmosphere, however it is not space.

 

[FredGarvin]

Brandson is putting the cart before the horse, just like every other business person trying to dictate innovation. The space tourism "industry" does not have thechnical or safety footings to be viable yet. This is all a bunch of lip service for the wealthy. I wouldn't be surprised if you get idiots like John Travolta going on these flights and then going to NASA and demanding astronaut wings. Great...you've got me started on a rant. I had better stop.

 

[Francis M]

I thought the 121 km height was when there was no recordable atmospheric drag acting on the vehicle what so ever or is that the max height with consideration of the atmosphere expanding and contracting
From what I read Spaceship One didn't need a heat shield (at all?)because it didn't pick up any appreciable velocity to worry about atmospheric friction.
I tried looking around at what type of heat shields anyone was using for the X-prize contest on their vehicles (I was real curious about that) but couldn't find anything. Did any of them have to worry about heat shields or did that not need to be taken into consideration because of the flight dynamics

 

[DaveC426913]

1. "If the vehicle breached the atmosphere and reached into the vacuum of space, the gravitational acceleration would cause it to..."

Or, as we like to call it: "falling".

The Canadian 'edge of space' shot (for example) doesn't require any heat shielding because it doesn't acquire any lateral velocity. It goes straight up and straight down. Nobody said anything about orbital speeds. Let's not forget that the Shuttle is doing Mach 25 when it makes re-entry.

I'd like to see some numbers that demonstrate this heat build up due to "gravititational acceleration" is a real concern.

"Yes, there is some weightlessness at that altitude (of ~100km), a lower pressure atmosphere, however it is not space."

Weightlessness? Why would there be weightlessness? There's free fall, sure (you'll get that jumping off your garage), but you won't get any weightlessness - there's no orbital velocity.



2. You guys don't see any value in drumming up interest? Do you think the commercialisation of space travel is going to happen without first generating popular interest (read: private funding)?

 

[FredGarvin]

You guys don't see any value in drumming up interest? Do you think the commercialisation of space travel is going to happen without first generating popular interest (read: private funding)?

I see great value in interest and developing this area. What I have problems with are the business people who throw it into a package and market it before they fully understand what it is they are doing or have it perfected to a point that can be considered safe. I think you can have private funding without selling rides to people as the means to create that funding.

 

[DaveC426913]

...have it perfected to a point that can be considered safe...

I defy you to find any reasonable person who's under the impression it is either "safe" or "perfected".

 

[FredGarvin]

I defy you to find any reasonable person who's under the impression it is either "safe" or "perfected".

Anyone that has the money to spend on this endeavor right now, by default, is stupid. OK. I am taking great liberties with that. What I am really saying is that there is absolutely no correlation between a person's wealth and their intelligence. There are plenty of rich, stupid people out there. Brandson is marketing this like it's another ride at Disneyland. That is exactly the way most are going to view it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Anyone that has the money to spend on this endeavor right now, by default, is stupid. OK. I am taking great liberties with that. What I am really saying is that there is absolutely no correlation between a person's wealth and their intelligence. There are plenty of rich, stupid people out there. Brandson is marketing this like it's another ride at Disneyland. That is exactly the way most are going to view it.

That's a lot of rhetoric - but it doesn't explain why they're stupid.

As far as people being under the impression that it's safe or perfected, do you really think these people are deluded about that?

 

[FredGarvin]

I do indeed think that most people will be uninformed and somewhat mislead when making the decision to go on these early flights.

It's a good debate, but we're derailing the OP's question here. There is no proof either way in this so I'll be happy just to say that this is my opinion and nothing more.

Sorry for the diversion ~() (whatever that translates to).

 

[DaveC426913]

... but we're derailing the OP's question here...

OK, which I guess, is:
"How does he expect to get to the moon if he can't even theoretically get into space."

which seems like kind of a dumb question, unless one has never heard of "baby steps".

I wonder if the OP is under the impression that Virgin Galactic was meant to be profitable or viable in the short-term, as opposed to being the first in a long line of (perfectly valid and spectacular) publicity stunts to get the world interested in space travel again.

 

[Astronuc]

Basically, Branson's venture is offering suborbital rides. The first craft, Spaceship One, only got to 69.6 m (112 km), and only up to Mach 3.1 at that altitude. It's composite material are sufficient for those conditions.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/041004_spaceshipone_x-prize_flight_2.html

http://www.scaled.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne

Certainly there are many people with the money to indulge themselves with a ride at $200 K.

 

[DaveC426913]

I would. In a second.

One of my dreams to do before I shuffle off.

 

[Vast]

True these suborbital flights aren’t that impressive, but they are as Dave said the first steps to much more challenging plans. They probably will be beneficial to getting the public interested in space flight again, but more directly for those whose life long dream is to see the Earth from space, even if it’s only 100km above. And there’s no problem finding people to fill those seats, 200k is nothing to a lot rich people out there, so we should see Virgin make a lot of money from this.

 

[Shawnzyoo]

noteworthy observation

i got to stand next to spaceshipone and white knight this summer
and on the front of spaceshipone you can see appreciable burn marks
a good part of the nose didn't have any paint on it anymore
-shawn

 

[Wishbone]

Anyone that has the money to spend on this endeavor right now, by default, is stupid. OK. I am taking great liberties with that. What I am really saying is that there is absolutely no correlation between a person's wealth and their intelligence. There are plenty of rich, stupid people out there. Brandson is marketing this like it's another ride at Disneyland. That is exactly the way most are going to view it.

So now you dictate what is a smart and stupid way to spend money? These guys have 100 mil in the bank, if they want to do it, they do it. Do you really think its about money for them? Who are you to tell them how they should spend their money. If they are going to enjoy their time in space/stratosphere, let them. I bet they know a lot more their purchase than we do.

Also, how is he putting the cart before the horse? He's simply taking the first step into commercial space travel (for the first time). We can debate whether the ship actually reaches space, but who cares? If things go his way he will be one of the poineers in commerical space flight, whether it reaches space or not. Is it totally safe? No. But neither was the first flight, or the first space flight.

 

[FredGarvin]

So now you dictate what is a smart and stupid way to spend money? These guys have 100 mil in the bank, if they want to do it, they do it. Do you really think its about money for them? Who are you to tell them how they should spend their money. If they are going to enjoy their time in space/stratosphere, let them. I bet they know a lot more their purchase than we do.
Also, how is he putting the cart before the horse? He's simply taking the first step into commercial space travel (for the first time). We can debate whether the ship actually reaches space, but who cares? If things go his way he will be one of the poineers in commerical space flight, whether it reaches space or not. Is it totally safe? No. But neither was the first flight, or the first space flight.

I'm not dictating anything. Since it looks like you failed reading comprehension, I stated that it was an opinion. A somewhat educated opinion considering I work in an aviation industry directly involved with civilian transport and it's associated engineering responsibilities. Do I think it's about money for them? Hell yes it's about money for them. If you think Branson does anything like this out of the good of his heart you're delusional.

A recent space tourism industry study included a poll of affluent Americans. Results of the survey found that space tourism could generate more than $1 billion per year in revenues by 2021. The study also found that suborbital flights will constitute the biggest share of this emerging market, with the potential for 15,000 passengers and $700 million in revenues per year. Orbital flights were found to possibly include up to 60 passengers and generate $300 million per year.

http://www.faa.gov/news/news_story.cfm?type=fact_sheet&year=2005&date=092605a

Yeah, he's doing it for the love of space travel. Puh-lease.

For the record, I'm not against the aspect of civilian space travel/tourism. I think it's inevitable and I would love to go. I do think that Branson is going way too fast in his quest to commercialize the travel. He's putting space travel in a nice looking package and selling it before the bugs have been worked out. Again, I do not want to derail the OP with a separate debate.

 

[Wishbone]

I'm not dictating anything. Since it looks like you failed reading comprehension, I stated that it was an opinion. A somewhat educated opinion considering I work in an aviation industry directly involved with civilian transport and it's associated engineering responsibilities. Do I think it's about money for them? Hell yes it's about money for them. If you think Branson does anything like this out of the good of his heart you're delusional.

Well obviously you didn't read my post carefully enough, as it was a quite easy read.

I'm not dictating anything. Since it looks like you failed reading comprehension, I stated that it was an opinion

Although it is your opinion, as it is obviously not a fact, you presented it as if it were if a fact:

Anyone that has the money to spend on this endeavor right now, by default, is stupid.

I'm not sure what what way the person is defaulted is stupid but I'm not going to worry about it, as this is obviously wrong.

Do I think it's about money for them? Hell yes it's about money for them. If you think Branson does anything like this out of the good of his heart you're delusional.

Well if you read my post you could easily see I was talking about the CUSTOMERS. Most of them spend more money in one day then you do in a year, don't worry if they'll have enough for the holiday season. Its fun for them, and they are willing to take the risk. Just as if branson is taking a risk with virign galactic, he might be rewarded as being known as a pioneer in commercial space travel. I don't think its COMPLETLEY about money for him either, I'm sure he wants that pioneer title. I think when you become that rich, sucess comes in more ways than just money. Actually, I think that's the case no matter what income bracket you are in.

 

[Cyrus]

I thought the origional question was about the techinical difficulties of spaceflight: not how people choose to spend their money, .

 

[FredGarvin]

Well obviously you didn't read my post carefully enough, as it was a quite easy read.

Yes. It was very easy to read. Especially when you said

So now you dictate what is a smart and stupid way to spend money?

Although it is your opinion, as it is obviously not a fact, you presented it as if it were if a fact:

Again the whole reading comprehension thing eludes you.

It's a good debate, but we're derailing the OP's question here. There is no proof either way in this so I'll be happy just to say that this is my opinion and nothing more.

I'm not sure what what way the person is defaulted is stupid but I'm not going to worry about it, as this is obviously wrong.

Sarcasm is lost in the internet.

 

[Wishbone]

I displayed the quotes that my comments alluded to, you contradicted yourself. I'm not going to get into a semantic argument with you. Admit it, your jelous cause you aren't as wealthy as richard branson, that's why you went off on money != intellegence rant. No one cares, those people have tons of "play money" and they spend it like they wish. If they want to go into the upper atmosphere, let them, who cares.

 

[~()]

The problem is that Brandson claims to travel into outer space. He indeed actually, just as Astronuc pointed out, only travels into sub-orbit. If he dreams to go into space with a vehichle simalar to galactic one, then he is really dreaming. He is really using a budget vehicle and once anybody breaches the atmosphere and reaches LEO, then that vehicle will move with a velocity of several thousand meters per second. This is due to free-falling, as formulated by centripetal / gravitational expressions. The shuttle itself reaches about 7000-8000 m/s in orbit and on re-entry enourmous thermal forces begin to build up, thus this requiring a TPS.

If he indeed travels into space, where there is no drag, gravitaional forces will accelerate his vehicle to high enough velocities in orbit around the Earth and thus a TPS is required for re-entry. A vehicle which is fitted with either reusable Thermal tiles or some sort of a reusable ablative system (even though ablatic sys are generally non-resuable) will require a flat geometrical surface, similar to that of gemini or apollo capsules, or the flat under-belly of the shuttle. Galactic one is clearly very curvilinear (curved) in shape, especially on its underbelly.

The whole purpose of Galactic one is a commercial budget flight into outer-space, however, he cannot install a TPS on a budget. This system is complex and costly and as mentioned previously, not even NASA have successfully built a full-proof one for a reusable vehicle. - How does he expect to?

Furthermore, in his aspirations to travel to the moon, and beyond, he will face the same problems and delemas that most spaceflight engineers face with fuel concernns, mass and afordibility.
His so called commercial flights to space are no more than a fake fad and are misleading the public. It seems to me that this is another classic advertising stunt - or something. Furthermore the 'weightlessness' i was talking about is not true weightlessness like in deep - outer - outer space, more a 'apparent weightlessness' due to little action-reaction forces -or compression- taking place in the body.

Also, the entry interface of Earth is changing however only ever-so-slightly and is negligable for altitude calculations.

 

[SaturnV]

I may be wrong, but you seem to be discussing orbital space flight. Orbital space flight does require very high speed and altitude. However, that's not the only form of spaceflight. Sub-orbital spaceflight is also a valid form, resulting in lower altitudes and velocities, as you don't have to keep up with the Earth. This is the same method used by the original spacecraft , before NASA started using the now common rocket configuration. As to whether it quite makes space, I think it depends on where you claim space starts, and I suspect that will change from one place to another. With regard to the safety of passengers, I would assume that the British government will require several flight tests before they will let anyone, regardless of how rich and stupid they may be, fly.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK ~(), your whole argument seems to boil down to this (I paraphrase, which is a big sin, but we seem to be digressing a lot):

"What Brandon is doing is nothing like what is required for orbital trips, let alone getting to the Moon. His spaceship doesn't have any of the features required to achieve these targets, the FIRST of which is some sort of heat shield.

If he ever ramps up his project to include these features, he will face the same problems every other project does, and his spaceship would balloon to a NASA-scale project anyway. Therefore, what he is attempting is a complete waste of time, and anyone who invests in it is stupid."

(It's with this last sentence that you lose the rest of us.)

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry I missed this thread before - let's keep our eye on the ball and not make unwarranted assumptions about people's motives or goals (and keep it civil). Ie:

-Yes, of course it is reasonable to assume that because Branson is a businessman, his first priority here is making money. So what? There's nothing wrong with that.
-Burt Rutan was very specific in the article in saying it's just an expensive joyride - so it is unreasonable to assume people think there is anything more to it than that. It is also unreasonable to think that Branson is going to be marketing it as anything more than that.
-If people want to spend a lot of their money on a joyride, that's capitalism and there isn't anything wrong with it.
-Yes, orbital flight is a long shot, but the wording of the article implies to me that they know it - and that's a long way off anyway. The initial ride will just be a scaled-up version of SpaceShipOne.
-The article does not mention going to the moon, so it is unreasonable to make any statements about that.

If I had a few extra billion lying around, I'd fork over $200k for this in a heartbeat - nothing Disney World has even comes close.

 

[DM]

If I had a few extra billion lying around, I'd fork over $200k for this in a heartbeat - nothing Disney World has even comes close.

The problem with this view is that of course money cannot buy everything. Travelling to space is a very complex thing and requires masterful understanding from VERY experienced and skilled engineers. I support all of those who firmly believe that humans have not yet gained sufficient experience in this field. Let's deal with the fact that NASA remains an unreliable source of space travel. Accidents still happen and this should be serious enough to understand where our boundaries lie.

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem with this view is that of course money cannot buy everything. Travelling to space is a very complex thing and requires masterful understanding from VERY experienced and skilled engineers. I support all of those who firmly believe that humans have not yet gained sufficient experience in this field. Let's deal with the fact that NASA remains an unreliable source of space travel. Accidents still happen and this should be serious enough to understand where our boundaries lie.

Yes, whatever we do, let's ensure that we place all our eggs in one giant basket - afterall it's the only shaped basket that can possibly hold eggs. We don't want any privately-funded baskets gumming up the works...

 

[SaturnV]

What do you mean one basket? I read this as working towards designing one solution to the problem of space travel. Why should we only have one solution? Competition is one thing that helps advance technology the fastest. With multiple groups working on multiple solutions, maybe we will have a revolutionary breakthrough that will make access to space available for all.
You also mention not allowing private groups to 'gum up' the progress. What is this supposed to mean? That private enterprises don't know how to design a vehicle that works? The space shuttle is a joint effort by many private companies that is then operated by NASA.
Furthermore, these companies, for the most part, know what they are doing. Scaled composites, the company responsible for SpaceShip One, has decades of experience building specialty aircraft, so I would assume that they don't dive blindly into space flight.

Just my two cents.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem with this view is that of course money cannot buy everything. Travelling to space is a very complex thing and requires masterful understanding from VERY experienced and skilled engineers. I support all of those who firmly believe that humans have not yet gained sufficient experience in this field. Let's deal with the fact that NASA remains an unreliable source of space travel. Accidents still happen and this should be serious enough to understand where our boundaries lie.

In the short term, anyway, Virgin Galactic isn't proposing to do anything even remotely close to what NASA does - so those objections really don't apply.

 

[DaveC426913]

What do you mean one basket?

You also mention not allowing private groups to 'gum up' the progress. What is this supposed to mean?

(My comments were intended to be highly sarcastic.)

Perhaps I misinterpreted DM's. post. I read it to mean he thinks that "it's hard enough for a large company like NASA, with all their trained engineers, to go into space, so how could some tiny company hope to out-perform them".

 

[DM]

(My comments were intended to be highly sarcastic.)

Didn't know until now. The eggs have finally cracked .

Perhaps I misinterpreted DM's. post. I read it to mean he thinks that "it's hard enough for a large company like NASA, with all their trained engineers, to go into space, so how could some tiny company hope to out-perform them".

You partly understood it. What I fail to understand from you is how and why you think Brandson will acquire and unite a competent team to first of all build a pretty efficient and reliable shuttle aircraft. You're adamant on the fact that money does not buy everything and you further imply and give an interpretation that I think companies have to be colossal to compete well. It's truly not about that. Everything revolves around the team. I'm simply not convinced enough that Brandson has united an impressive team capable of dealing with space flights.

You may prove me wrong once that shuttle launches but so might I also prove you wrong if a cataclysmic event occurs. I'm 100% pessimistic on this one.

 

[DaveC426913]

What I fail to understand from you is how and why you think Brandson will acquire and unite a competent team to first of all build a pretty efficient and reliable shuttle aircraft.

Baby steps.

FIRST he generates interest, and thus backing (from the "stupids" who invest in it) then he builds it up. Teams will come

And: we need an alternative to NASA.

You may prove me wrong once that shuttle launches but so might I also prove you wrong if a cataclysmic event occurs. I'm 100% pessimistic on this one.

You're not one for the dark horse or the underdog I'm thinkin'.

It's trivially easy to say "the odds are agin 'im. Why is he bothering? He'll never succeed." Or "I knew he'd fail".

 

[plum]

This isn't going to be an alternative to NASA. It's going to be entertainment not science driven. And the money simply isn't forthcoming to make commercial trips into outer space on a regular basis. Perhaps not for another 20-30 years, anyway.

What this is is a scam. Can you even see the stars at sub-orbit? I doubt it. News will leak out fast that it's just a really high plane ride.

 

[DaveC426913]

This isn't going to be an alternative to NASA. It's going to be entertainment not science driven.

Depends on what you consider to be the goal! The goal is not "scientific study", the goal is "conquering the gravity well". If it's through commercialism, more power to them!

And the money simply isn't forthcoming to make commercial trips into outer space on a regular basis. Perhaps not for another 20-30 years, anyway.

See, this is what I don't get about that line of logic. What do you think will happen in those intervening decades to get that to happen? Do you think that on the anticipated day, a rocketship will just magically fly out of a birthday cake?

What this is is a scam. Can you even see the stars at sub-orbit? I doubt it. News will leak out fast that it's just a really high plane ride.

What scam?? What do you mean leak out?

Are you telling me that you think this is being touted as a trip to the ISS or something? No one thinks this is anything more than it is. No scam.


(Correction. I'm sure the daily media are touting this as space travel. Whatever. They also tout that we've achieved teleportation. That doesn't mean anyone who has the slightest bit of interest in the topic isn't well aware of the situation. It's only a scam if you get your news from the rags.)

 

[russ_watters]

What this is is a scam.

How so? They say up front that it's just a joyride, so what's the problem?

Can you even see the stars at sub-orbit? I doubt it.

Yes, you can.

News will leak out fast that it's just a really high plane ride.

No need - everyone already knows and they are quite forthcoming about it. So what's the problem?

 

[Integral]

This isn't going to be an alternative to NASA. It's going to be entertainment not science driven. And the money simply isn't forthcoming to make commercial trips into outer space on a regular basis. Perhaps not for another 20-30 years, anyway.
What this is is a scam. Can you even see the stars at sub-orbit? I doubt it. News will leak out fast that it's just a really high plane ride.

As long as NASA is being politically pushed to Manned Mars and Lunar missions you cannot say that NASA is science driven. Any efforts at manned space mission should be driven by the commercial sector, since any man in space is a tourist.

It seems pretty clear that this venture does not claim to be a alternative to NASA so as others have already said, what's your point?

 

[DaveC426913]

It seems pretty clear that this venture does not claim to be a alternative to NASA so as others have already said, what's your point?

For the record, I actually used the phrase 'alternative to NASA', but what I mean is, an independent space effort. I make no bones about any goals beyond "making space more accessible."

 

[plum]

Well if they go high enough to see outer space and the stars during the daytime, I guess it will be worth it and it won't be a scam. That would also do a lot for reigniting public support for other space ventures.

As long as NASA is being politically pushed to Manned Mars and Lunar missions you cannot say that NASA is science driven. Any efforts at manned space mission should be driven by the commercial sector, since any man in space is a tourist.

The scientific justifications for Mars and Moon missions were already satisfied as early as the 1970's, as I see it. There is no commercial justification because there are no minerals there (other than helium3, pending at least another 20 years of cold fusion research) worth mining that can't already be found abundantly on Earth. I don't quite get your second sentence, especially since I think we can agree that we're a long way away from sending hordes of tourists to the moon.

The upcoming Mars and Moon missions are, I hope, philosophically driven- aimed at the long term goal of establishing exoplanetary colonies, should something dreadful happen to Earth. No commerce, politics, or science; just pure practical philosophy. I don't buy the argument that they are somehow a means to developing interstellar propulsion technologies.

 

[Integral]

Unfortunately, currently, Manned space flight is a boondoggle done at the expense of true planetary science. Man in space accomplishes nothing but increasing expense and reduction of the scientific payload. The preponderance of the mission is dedicated to keeping the men alive. Science takes a back seat.

It would be best if manned space flight were purely a commercial venture. The Virgin Galactic is a very good thing, this is way it should be done. NASA has shown that it can be done, it now time for the private sector to take over and continue the development. Let the scientist proceed with true space explorations using robotics and remote sensing.

 

[plum]

Actually, my interest in this stems from my viewing of it as being microcosmic of a paradigm shift. The SETI telescopic array funded by Paul Allen is one example of private sector funding not necessarily having commercial interests. As NASA keeps shovelling money into its giant holes like the ISS, what's to prevent people like Burt Rutan from using some of their profits to try and rival NASA missions? Private money tends to be spent in more efficient ways that emphasize credible results, whereas NASA seems to be constantly bogged down with rather superflous goals with vague outcomes.

 

[SaturnV]

Couple points to address:
-Someone earlier asked why we should suspect he would be able to come up with a workable launch vehicle: He already has it. He paid several (20ish i believe) million dollars to license Burt Rutan and Paul Allen's SpaceShip One.
-What is the benefit: Currently only 400ish people have been into space. If we can begin demonstrating spaceflight to people (specifically people w/ money and power), hopefully they will realize the benefits and get the process moving faster in both the public and private sectors.
-Space Flight vs. High altitude plane ride: Right now all we can accomplish is high altitude flight in the private sector. However, NASA moved from a similar program to manned moon landings in under 20 years. Rutan has already discussed the possibility of scaling SS1 up to meet the orbital criteria of Robert Bigalow's challenge to put a commercial space station up. There is the possibility of a rapid technology advancement if the interest in spaceflight does advance.
-Scam or not?: Sure you don't orbit the Earth, but you do experience weightlessness (look for pictures of the pilot of SpaceShip One tossing up M&M's), and the sky does appear black. Both of these occur for a minute or so if memory serves me correctly.

 

[DaveC426913]

-Scam or not?: Sure you don't orbit the Earth, but you do experience weightlessness (look for pictures of the pilot of SpaceShip One tossing up M&M's), and the sky does appear black. Both of these occur for a minute or so if memory serves me correctly.

True. Unfortunately, you can experience the same weightlessness without the need for altitude - the Vomit Comet does the same thing - you just don't get the view along with it.