MohawkWeekend wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Ridiculous undertaking for a ridiculous price but that's what our world has come to. Meanwhile the forests are burning and polar ice caps are melting but no let's go to "space" for 30 seconds because we can.

I agree - how is pumping that much exhaust into the upper atmosphere a good idea. It would be interesting to see how much CO2 the launch aircraft and whatever rubber based fuel and oxidizer the suborbital ship puts out.

Tim Dodd of the Everyday Astronaut site and YT channel did an in depth look comparing the two and emissions were mentioned, New Shepard at least is a lot cleaner.
Putting that to one side really had this flight happened some years ago, maybe around a decade say, it would be a bigger 'thing' than it is today.

Really? Half of the Western North America is currently baking in unbelievable heat, already cooked (as in dead mussels in Vancouver harbor) or on fire. And a billionaire goes up on a joy ride? Wonder if he flew commercial to Utah for his flight......

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Really? Half of the Western North America is currently baking in unbelievable heat, already cooked (as in dead mussels in Vancouver harbor) or on fire. And a billionaire goes up on a joy ride? Wonder if he flew commercial to Utah for his flight......

I don't disagree, it's not only the lack of having this tiny market to himself as Branson must have planned but for those long delays, also meaning the optics look a lot worse, not least with the examples you cite.
His engine IS dirty.

There is also the lack of use in any kind of actual spaceflight, of any kind.

Why so many nay sayers? How many carbon credit did the Wright Brothers consumed? How much money did the European Royalties spent to get the brief ride on the early hot air balloons?

Billionaire will spend their billions. At least these billionaire are contributing the the movement of the human race into space, just in case the time comes when earth is no longer habitable. It could be a race against time, but it is no time to stop running, even if you are one legged or on a wheel chair.

bt

after i wrote my reply I did re-consider the 'advancement of science" aspect. But it really doesn't met that my criteria for that vs it's impact on the environement. The other private programs are much more "for the betterment of humankind"

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I did re-consider the 'advancement of science" aspect.

You are exactly correct. Neither of these endeavors necessarily advance science, other than making cheap short duration microgravity environment experimentation possible. Who knows what those experiments may lead to.

The real benefit I see is the advancement of Engineering. The more profitable these joy rides are, the more development into manufacturing and design and more "space craft experienced" engineers they produce. These human resources need to reach some critical mass in order for near earth and far earth expeditions to be more common and affordable.


bt

bikerthai wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I did re-consider the 'advancement of science" aspect.

You are exactly correct. Neither of these endeavors necessarily advance science, other than making cheap short duration microgravity environment experimentation possible. Who knows what those experiments may lead to.

The real benefit I see is the advancement of Engineering. The more profitable these joy rides are, the more development into manufacturing and design and more "space craft experienced" engineers they produce. These human resources need to reach some critical mass in order for near earth and far earth expeditions to be more common and affordable.


bt

Engineering benefited. The White Knight is impressive, but at the end of the day, it was a trip to the edge of space that we have watched for the last 17 years since 2004 and the spaceship one Commercialization is great, but how much commercialization can we get from a 5 minute apogee through the edge space that is cost prohibitive to this day? A solar balloon flier would probably be more cost beneficial.

I see much more benefit coming from Spacex, and perhaps Blue Origin if they can ever get orbital.

casinterest wrote:

A solar balloon flier would probably be more cost beneficial.

True. But how long would it take a balloon to get to altitude?

Space X and Blue Origin will need more space engineers when they expand. They can always steal them away from Virgin Galactic, bankruptcy or not.

bt

Never forget that the X-15 first flew in 1959 and went to 107.8 km in 1963.

Blue Origin announced they remain on track for their first human spaceflight on Tuesday, which will carry founder Jeff Bezos and three other passengers on a suborbital hop 100 km above West Texas.

Long story short, Jeff Bezos will eventually make complete space flight ( not suborbital like Richard Branson did ) soon and become the first complete space tourist in the world. So keep monitoring this future event with Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin

bearnard123 wrote:

soon and become the first complete space tourist in the world.

Wasn't the first space tourist was that gent that went to the space station on the Russian rocket?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

bearnard123 wrote:

soon and become the first complete space tourist in the world.

Wasn't the first space tourist was that gent that went to the space station on the Russian rocket?

bt

There is one point that can make some issues.The only thing that bothers me is how Jeff Bezos prepared for this complete space flight. I do not think that he was trained like usual astronauts that are launched in space

bearnard123 wrote:

I do not think that he was trained like usual astronauts that are launched in space

If the spacecraft is simple, then the training would be simple right?

Would the flight attendance escape slide instruction be considered training for me to be an aeronaut? My plastic wings are lying around here somewhere.

Maybe there was a functional exam they had to pass, like quickly unbuckle the seat belts and escape through a hatch while the capsul is sitting on its side?

bt

Space Tourism is a nice buzz word, but I don't think it will last. It's like saying someone goes on an experience flight at an air show.

SpaceX's goal is to get out of Earth's orbit and settle the Moon and Mars.

Blue Origin's goal (per Bezos) seems more about space habitats and getting poeple up there and back.

Virgin Galactic if they can get some range may be more about...well I was about to say getting people from NY to London quickly. However it's not clear if Unity can actually traverse that far. Getting 6 minutes of (near) zero G may be something that someone does once to mark it off their bucket list, but it does not seem a sustainable business model.

The idea of using a suborbital to go from city to city is an interesting concept, but it would need to be something that was cheap enough, and could be done frequently enough, to be a viable business model.

Can Unity achieve higher altitude or there are limitations?

I am guessing Virgin Galactic launch cost is much cheaper compared to Blue Origin.

Unity's feathering, New Shepard's slow hovering and Falcon's massive payload capability, all three are notable achievements on their own.

Daetrin wrote:

Space Tourism is a nice buzz word, but I don't think it will last.

Of course in it's current form, it will not last. How long did the Barn Storming business model last?

Any guess on how many of those passenger who got to ride on those WWI bi-planes or a small fee later contribute to the aviation industry? Probably not many. But if it can spark the fire under a future Douglass or Hughes, it will have made it's mark.

bt

So... we are still a long way away before space travel is more commercialized like airplanes are. That is, commercialized space travel being at a somewhat comparable frequency and the market as commercial airlines. However, I am not a big fan of space tourism. I guess there is more important stuff to be made than launching tourists in space.

bearnard123 wrote:

I guess there is more important stuff to be made than launching tourists in space.

Of course there are. But those other stuff would have to be funded by public money. Space Tourism is being funded by tourists.

If a tourist want to do something "good", they can do eco-tourism, or volunteer for habitat for humanity in some foreign land. But to each his own.

bt

As for Vigin, even though their technology is not yet up to par with Blue Origin or Space X, I don't see reentry vehicle that land via parachute is a long term solution. Perhaps what Virgin is developing may have application in the future.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

bearnard123 wrote:

I guess there is more important stuff to be made than launching tourists in space.

Of course there are. But those other stuff would have to be funded by public money. Space Tourism is being funded by tourists.

If a tourist want to do something "good", they can do eco-tourism, or volunteer for habitat for humanity in some foreign land. But to each his own.

bt

I am a big fan of it and I share the idea that space is the future. But we should not forget about the things that must be paid attention to. I assume space agencies like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic should be concerned with real space missions and space exploration. However, this hustle around this space tourism campaign works as pr campaign for these two space companies.

However, I need to confess that space tourism campaign can boost economy of these companies and they can advance their spacecrafts. So it might be a good plan in advancing toward real space business.

Space tourism only gets you so far financially. Especially since both companies are trying to push the price as low as they can, eventually.

Virgin is saying $250k per seat. BO is allegedly in the $200-300k per seat range, with Bezos claiming they’ve already got $100 million in sales.

That’s a nice sum, $100 million is nothing to laugh at. But to put it into perspective…that’s just about 2 Falcon 9 orbital launches, on reused boosters. Excluding all developmental costs etc, just the sticker price to send it into space.

If aviation is a game of millions, space is played with billions.

That’s why I think Blue Origin is better prepared. For one thing, Bezos is more willing to dump his money into it, and he has a lot more of it than Branson. But they’re also diversified, they’re building engines, they’ve got an orbital launcher coming, they’re moving slow but still moving. I don’t think they’ll catch up to SpaceX anytime soon, but I also don’t think they’re really trying to. They’ll get there when they get there and that’s that.

Virgin supposedly has Spaceship 3 coming down the line in the near-ish future. It’s designed to do…basically the same thing as 1 and 2.

And the biggest obstacle is the one right in front of both of them. The jump from suborbital to orbital is a massive one.

BO yesterday maxed out at about Mach 3, and stayed up there for a few minutes.

An orbital dragon reenters the atmosphere at Mach 25, and can stay in orbit with the ISS for 200+ days.

I think they can do it, but it’s a vastly different type of flying

We need to take into consideration one fact that Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, and SpaceX are *roughly* contemporary, and began with roughly similar dreams and funding. But one of them is a major aerospace company worth $74 billion, while the other two are niche companies worth at best one-tenth as much.
Space could be a great way to boost the economy of a space company. But suborbital space tourism so far seems a pretty inefficient way to building a "real space business."

bearnard123 wrote:

But suborbital space tourism so far seems a pretty inefficient way to building a "real space business."

You don't get to efficiency until you go at it for a while and learn a lot as you go a long. If you wait for a cost effective efficient way to do space tourism, then someone will have beat you to it with their own tech and would have corner the market for a decade or two.

Who knows if any of the current tech will make it in the long run. They are however the proving ground for better systems to come. And you might as well recuperate some of the cost along the way.

bt

Virgin Galactic has been grounded by the FAA until further notice as they busted their ATC clearance during their July 11th flight:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/02/faa-gro ... ation.html

The Federal Aviation Administration grounded Virgin Galactic on Thursday, as the federal regulator investigates the company's previous spaceflight that carried founder Sir Richard Branson.

"Virgin Galactic may not return the SpaceShipTwo vehicle to flight until the FAA approves the final mishap investigation report or determines the issues related to the mishap do not affect public safety," the FAA said in a statement to CNBC.

"The FAA is responsible for protecting the public during commercial space transportation launch and reentry operations. The FAA is overseeing the Virgin Galactic investigation of its July 11 SpaceShipTwo mishap that occurred over Spaceport America, New Mexico. SpaceShipTwo deviated from its Air Traffic Control clearance as it returned to Spaceport America," the regulator added.

This after a report in the New Yorker which reported on the flight had significantly deviated from its flight plan, which resulted in a red warning light to abort and return to base was published:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... ace-flight