Richard Branson launches for Space!

Hardly the first civilian billionaire in space though. Charles Simonyi (the brains behind Microsoft) has gone to the space station TWICE.
 
kgruber said:
Hardly the first civilian billionaire in space though. Charles Simonyi (the brains behind Microsoft) has gone to the space station TWICE.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but he's spent more time in space than some of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo astronauts.

Contrast that to the "stick a toe in the water, run back to mama, and declare yourself an astronaut" school we saw today.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Not only that, but he's spent more time in space than some of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo astronauts.

Contrast that to the "stick a toe in the water, run back to mama, and declare yourself an astronaut" school we saw today.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

How dare private enterprise get involved in the space industry.
 
wanttaja said:
SpaceX is private enterprise, and they're doing quite well.

Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin are re-creating a mission mode that NASA quit doing sixty years ago....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

It was also claimed back in the previous century that mass air travel would never be a viable business. A few entrepreneurs proved them wrong.
 
wanttaja said:
Not only that, but he's spent more time in space than some of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo astronauts.

Contrast that to the "stick a toe in the water, run back to mama, and declare yourself an astronaut" school we saw today.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I was thinking of the Alan Shepard/Gus Grissum flights with "stick a toe in the water". The Russians back then probably said something similar to your comment back then.
It seems a lot safer and low risk now to go to space now than back then. In all cases, it's impressive to get something that high and back in one piece.
 
Doc Holliday said:
It was also claimed back in the previous century that mass air travel would never be a viable business. A few entrepreneurs proved them wrong.
Click to expand...
Certainly. And how many OTHER future predictions were pooh-poohed...where the critics were proven right? A whole lot of "great advancements" have been kicked to the curb with nary a bump on the historical record. We laugh, then forget them.

“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet."

I mean, shoot, there are people who still believe in the Raptor....

Virgin Galactic/Blue Origin are the free balloons of the space age. They were really neat in 1784, and they were the aviation for nearly 125 years. But then better technology was invented, and the free balloon was kicked to the curb. Nothing ever grew from them, other than a milestone in the search for flight. Better solutions were found.

The problem here, though, is that the space tourism pogo sticks are late to the game. The French *had* to use balloons when the Prussians besieged Paris. Thaddeus Lowe brought aerial observation to the Union Army using balloons because no better technology was available. But in this case, the tourism pogo sticks are being "de-evolved"; they're using the existing space technology to develop vehicles that are solely useable for joyrides.

Literally, right now, I'm looking out my office window at hot air balloons on an evening flight. Haven't much improved since the Mongolfiers. Good recreational activity, not all that expensive to do. More power to 'em.
balloons2.jpg

Maybe the pogo stick space tourism systems will operate for a while, too. Right now, though, no one's really counting the dollars. Doubt they could keep going in a free market, but we've got billionaires underwriting them. ROI isn't a factor. They want to spend their billions on their toys, well, that's OK. Keeps space engineers employed, and that's a good thing. :)

Ron Wanttaja
 
I believe what Branson and others are doing will lead well beyond short tourism flights.

And I would not term what they’ve built as “toys”.
 
Doc Holliday said:
I believe what Branson and others are doing will lead well beyond short tourism flights.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that? I've not followed Virgin's activities particularly closely, but don't remember them having aspirations beyond what was demonstrated today. Are they working on a more capable follow-on?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I was thinking of the Alan Shepard/Gus Grissum flights with "stick a toe in the water". The Russians back then probably said something similar to your comment back then.
Click to expand...

One fundamental difference between VG and early Mercury: Mercury needed only a bigger launch vehicle to go orbital...the capsule was designed for it.

The VG vehicle, on the other hand, is an evolutionary dead end. The shuttlecock mode works well at lower speeds, but will be worthless at orbital velocity. The concept was developed to win the X-Prize, and it fit the mission.

The VG vehicle hit *six gs* on re-entry...that's with a max speed of 2,300 MPH (only a bit faster than an SR-71). Imagine what it would be ~17,500 mph faster.

Cap'n Jack said:
It seems a lot safer and low risk now to go to space now than back then. In all cases, it's impressive to get something that high and back in one piece.
Click to expand...

Sure. NASA, the Russians, the Chinese, ESA and other agencies have been doing it for 60 years. SpaceX has really managed it.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Did someone think that the very first commercially available space tourism would be cheap and accessible to the masses? Like there'd instantly be a fleet of hundreds of ships to take up everyone who's got a couple hundred bucks saved up?
 
Lindberg said:
Did someone think that the very first commercially available space tourism would be cheap and accessible to the masses? Like there'd instantly be a fleet of hundreds of ships to take up everyone who's got a couple hundred bucks saved up?
Click to expand...
Really going to depend on how profitable the current systems turn out to be...and whether Branson/Bezos *care*.

I think the Virgin Galactic operation is probably going to be more constrained. They're going to need additional carrier aircraft....can't just depend on one. There's enough carry capacity for a spacecraft with ~4 times the passengers, but I'm not sure if the spacecraft would get physically too large to carry. In any case, it'd probably be ~five years lead time if they decide to develop an enlarged vehicle.

Curiously, the Wikipedia pages on the VG operations seem really dated. Most of the information dates from ~2015 or so.

Ron Wanttaja
 
This is like supersonic transport. I never understand why it’s a big deal to shave 2-3 hours off a NYC - London trip to spend the same amount of time getting from LHR to central London as when you flew today and spend 5 times the money to do it. Fine for people with lots of surplus cash but hardly a viable business case.

Same with “space travel”. Leave NYC arrive Singapore in the middle of the night for megabucks. Why? Or LAX -SYD in hours rather than most of a day. The pandemic showed business doesn’t really “need” to travel and your average business or vacationers won’t see the expense as justified.

Freighters? How many companies needs gizmos to get from China to anywhere faster than a container ship at the difference in price?

The market for such stuff might support a mini market for billionaires but anything more than that is a pipe dream.

Great technology but hardly equal to the evolution of airplanes.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
I just don't get the excitement behind this event ... yes he's rich and built his own ride for a 3 minute claim ... big whoop.

For me, all it did was change my Sunday fun flight from TorC (cheap fuel) to Fabens TX (yes I could've deviated around it, but why bother). There are about 11 billion miles of restricted airspace to the east of T or C (where their field is as well), but they *HAD* to create a TFR as well. That return track (descent) could easily have been performed in the WSMR restricted area ...
 
X3 Skier said:
This is like supersonic transport. I never understand why it’s a big deal to shave 2-3 hours off a NYC - London trip to spend the same amount of time getting from LHR to central London as when you flew today and spend 5 times the money to do it. Fine for people with lots of surplus cash but hardly a viable business case.

Same with “space travel”. Leave NYC arrive Singapore in the middle of the night for megabucks. Why? Or LAX -SYD in hours rather than most of a day. The pandemic showed business doesn’t really “need” to travel and your average business or vacationers won’t see the expense as justified.
Click to expand...
The Earth-transportation model just doesn't work. One can get anywhere on Earth in 45 minutes or less... *from the time you launch*. The question is, how often are the flights? If it's even a daily flight, a Gulfstream leaving *now* may well beat a rocket launching the next day. Lot cheaper to keep a bizjet on standby than a rocket system.

Ted said:
I've figured it out.

People on here are complaining because he didn't fly up there in a Bonanza.
Click to expand...
Ha! Back when I gave that talk to the Oregon Pilot's Association, I used a Cessna 182 to illustrate what it would take, rocket-fuel-wise, to get into orbit. Should'a used a Bonanza.
upload_2021-7-12_7-47-39.png
(And no, this wasn't a serious attempt at configuration)

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I read something to the effect that the VG flight was only weightless for three minutes.
Click to expand...

What does weightless mean?

In this case it means that you are accelerating towards the Earth at 10 m/ss.

180 s at 10 m/ss means that after three mins you are travelling at 1800 m/s.

That is about 4,000 mph. Guess they don't want to go any faster?

Except that is not right, it assumes that they started from rest but I guess they started at quite a speed heading up. That will reduce the 'terminal' velocity, I imagine proportionally. If they split the weightless bit half and half, up and down then it would be about 2,000 mph.

During the weightless phase they would cover 40km up and then 40km down.

So, there is probably not enough altitude for a longer period of weightlessness.

Finally, just as well that it was not 180s down, that would cover 162km which would result in a one use only craft.
 
Spring Ford said:
What does weightless mean?
Click to expand...
Better term would have been "Free fall"; meaning that you're letting whatever gravitational forces there are have their wicked way with you. "Microgravity" is the twenty-dollar word.

Lot of folks don't understand it. They think microgravity is a product of altitude. They think it's like floating on water.

Nope on both counts. You're falling. Continuously.

Apropos of nothing, I have to re-post the music video shot in the Russian vomit comet....
Ron "Gravity's just a habit that you can't break" Wanttaja
 
I'm no fan of Bezos, but happy for Wally and the engineers and staff that made it happen. Still really cool to watch.
 
Yeah for Wally! Finally got her ride into space after all these years. Going to be wild then next EAA chapter meeting I see her at here in the DFW area.
 
I'm glad to hear that Bezos and friends are back safely.
 
As usual for me, I am all over the map on this. I enjoy seeing people do new things. I believe that new achievements don't always have to have some clear future benefit. In this case I have trouble seeing the direct value of this achievement other than an amusement park ride on steroids. But, if it encourages kids to pursue engineering or simply teach them that difficult things can be done, that seems like a positive to me. And if it leads to something bigger and better, great!

Then there is the flip side for me, I don't give a crap about Bezos having a good time. He's not an astronaut, he's a passenger (and an incredibly successful businessman to put it mildly). Can we stop giving participation trophies? Why is this a big deal, didn't real astronauts orbit the earth and walk on the moon and get involved in the operation of the shuttle? Sure this is somewhat different but is it remarkable primarily because an unskilled person did it?
 
NoBShere said:
As usual for me, I am all over the map on this. I enjoy seeing people do new things. I believe that new achievements don't always have to have some clear future benefit. In this case I have trouble seeing the direct value of this achievement other than an amusement park ride on steroids. But, if it encourages kids to pursue engineering or simply teach them that difficult things can be done, that seems like a positive to me. And if it leads to something bigger and better, great!

Then there is the flip side for me, I don't give a crap about Bezos having a good time. He's not an astronaut, he's a passenger (and an incredibly successful businessman to put it mildly). Can we stop giving participation trophies? Why is this a big deal, didn't real astronauts orbit the earth and walk on the moon and get involved in the operation of the shuttle? Sure this is somewhat different but is it remarkable primarily because an unskilled person did it?
Click to expand...

Not sure what the "participation trophy" is. Being labeled an "astronaut"? The definition (at least according to the agencies that issue such labels) has been met. I'm not sure what the problem is, aside from people adding extra mystique to the term so as to restrict it to others they deem more worthy. Pretty much all of the prior astronauts were just "passengers" strapped to a rocket. Kind of sounds akin to not calling private pilots "real pilots" because they didn't have a Commercial/ATP rating.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Not sure what the "participation trophy" is. Being labeled an "astronaut"? The definition (at least according to the agencies that issue such labels) has been met. I'm not sure what the problem is, aside from people adding extra mystique to the term so as to restrict it to others they deem more worthy. Pretty much all of the prior astronauts were just "passengers" strapped to a rocket. Kind of sounds akin to not calling private pilots "real pilots" because they didn't have a Commercial/ATP rating.
Click to expand...

That's probably fair. I was under the impression that NASA Astronauts went through more training and equated that to acquiring skill and thus earning something. With that being said, I can't say I'm familiar with what level of training or aptitude Bezos had to demonstrate in order to qualify for this trip. Maybe I am adding criteria or its just a perception of mine that is simply wrong.
 
NoBShere said:
That's probably fair. I was under the impression that NASA Astronauts went through more training and equated that to acquiring skill and thus earning something. With that being said, I can't say I'm familiar with what level of training or aptitude Bezos had to demonstrate in order to qualify for this trip. Maybe I am adding criteria or its just a perception of mine that is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

I think there's a clear separation in the skillsets of NASA Astronauts (and Russian Cosmonauts), but the definition of the term astronaut doesn't include those skills as a requirement. Space Explorer/Space Pioneer/etc. are probably more apropos of the NASA folks. The crew with Branson would have been able to deal with an Apollo 13-type systems failure by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps a new term will need to be used/invented to apply to those who are highly trained in space endeavors more-so than just those who manage to hit arbitrary 50-mile or Karman-line thresholds in altitude.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Perhaps a new term will need to be used/invented to apply to those who are highly trained in space endeavors more-so than just those who manage to hit arbitrary 50-mile or Karman-line thresholds in altitude.
Click to expand...

I suggest 'Astronaut'.

I'm fine with 'space tourist' or 'suborbital space passenger' or something for the rest, recognizing that they still receive some level of training and some level of fitness is required. Just not at the 'right stuff' level of the Astronaut corp.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I think there's a clear separation in the skillsets of NASA Astronauts (and Russian Cosmonauts), but the definition of the term astronaut doesn't include those skills as a requirement. Space Explorer/Space Pioneer/etc. are probably more apropos of the NASA folks. The crew with Branson would have been able to deal with an Apollo 13-type systems failure by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps a new term will need to be used/invented to apply to those who are highly trained in space endeavors more-so than just those who manage to hit arbitrary 50-mile or Karman-line thresholds in altitude.
Click to expand...
Most of the people who went to space in the shuttle couldn't fly the shuttle. They're all astronauts, but they aren't all shuttle pilots or commanders.
 
US miltary and NASA define astronauts as those that have flown at 50 miles or higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top