Virgin Galactic
Discussion
IanMorewood said:
The thing is though most ground launched rockets use 80%+ of their fuel in the climb from earth phase and very little in the orbital or sub orbital burn. Taking your rocket 15km up in the sky using air breathing engines seems like a sensible idea if you ask me.
15km up does practically nothing when you look at the numbers. Not for orbital.Most of your fuel goes to gaining speed required for orbital/escape velocity. Not gaining height, that bit is actually relativly easy. A telegraph pole sized rocket would be enough to get a person into space. It would totally lack the angular momentum to stay there though.
ash73 said:
Try telling that to the people who designed Pegasus.
Pegasus that can launch 400kgs into LEO? Stratolaunch ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratolaunch_Systems ) is its much bigger brother (540 ton airplane in escence and that can only launch 6 tons.
This aproach does not scale.
The problem is that an airlifting launch vehicle would need to be absolutely HUGE to be able to launch a heavy spacecraft bound for orbital flight. Even the biggest aeroplane in the world, the Anotonov An 225 is way too small to be able to launch an orbital spacecraft containing even one human - let alone a bunch of passengers.
Orbit is all about speed, not altitude. To obtain that speed a huge amount of fuel has to be burned for around ten minutes. That is a huge amount of fuel and way to heavy for any existing aircraft to lift.
Air launching, at the moment, only works for very small payloads. That is why it has been used so rarely compared to normal ground launches.
Orbit is all about speed, not altitude. To obtain that speed a huge amount of fuel has to be burned for around ten minutes. That is a huge amount of fuel and way to heavy for any existing aircraft to lift.
Air launching, at the moment, only works for very small payloads. That is why it has been used so rarely compared to normal ground launches.
So what?
If wealthy people want to indulge themselves they are perfectly entitled to do so.
I live beside an airfield where there is a constant stream of high end business executive jets flitting in and out - every day carrying exactly the demographic who are in the market for a Virgin Galactic flight.
A Virgin Galactic flight is an "experience" event for those who are willing to pay for it. That is "reason" enough.
If wealthy people want to indulge themselves they are perfectly entitled to do so.
I live beside an airfield where there is a constant stream of high end business executive jets flitting in and out - every day carrying exactly the demographic who are in the market for a Virgin Galactic flight.
A Virgin Galactic flight is an "experience" event for those who are willing to pay for it. That is "reason" enough.
Again - so what?
Do you complain about those who kill or hurt themselves when engaged in extreme sports such base jumping or TT racing - often spending substantial sums of money to do so?
I am perfectly happy for others to take risks doing whatever they want to do provided they are aware of the risks involved and that outside third parties are caught up in any accident.
I am frankly bemused that so many people, on PH of all places, seem to be down on this project. It's their money and their necks on the line.
I suppose you think Andy Green is a bit of an idiot too. What's the point of the Bloodhound project?
Do you complain about those who kill or hurt themselves when engaged in extreme sports such base jumping or TT racing - often spending substantial sums of money to do so?
I am perfectly happy for others to take risks doing whatever they want to do provided they are aware of the risks involved and that outside third parties are caught up in any accident.
I am frankly bemused that so many people, on PH of all places, seem to be down on this project. It's their money and their necks on the line.
I suppose you think Andy Green is a bit of an idiot too. What's the point of the Bloodhound project?
Not really down on the project, but its talked about as if its somehow improving access to space, like they are pushing some boundaries. Its a distraction at best. At worst it will have a serious negative effect.
The x prize should have been structured far better to put in place a more solid set of competitors. It would have taken longer for someone to win but then we may have had their vision of dozens of companies competing for the market and actually pushing into LEO, rather than this quick and dirty shortcut that has nowhere else to go.
The x prize should have been structured far better to put in place a more solid set of competitors. It would have taken longer for someone to win but then we may have had their vision of dozens of companies competing for the market and actually pushing into LEO, rather than this quick and dirty shortcut that has nowhere else to go.
RobDickinson said:
Yep - 4 people dead to reach for the sky and the lofty dream of putting rich people into (almost) space.
You mean taking money off rich people and giving it to less rich people, who buy things providing other people with jobs. Sounds good to me. Sounds like the sort of thing it'd be worth building a whole industry around if it gets money out of their pockets.RobDickinson said:
Not really down on the project, but its talked about as if its somehow improving access to space, like they are pushing some boundaries. Its a distraction at best. At worst it will have a serious negative effect.
The x prize should have been structured far better to put in place a more solid set of competitors. It would have taken longer for someone to win but then we may have had their vision of dozens of companies competing for the market and actually pushing into LEO, rather than this quick and dirty shortcut that has nowhere else to go.
It's their ball and they can play with it how they like.The x prize should have been structured far better to put in place a more solid set of competitors. It would have taken longer for someone to win but then we may have had their vision of dozens of companies competing for the market and actually pushing into LEO, rather than this quick and dirty shortcut that has nowhere else to go.
And, as far as I was aware, the X Prize itself ended in 2004 so Virgin Galctic is not in response to a competition - although it has grown out of the winner of that original competition.
Someday maybe a different type of competition might emerge that fosters your perceived "better" path.
But until then, you go with what you've got.
My guess is that without this current project, we wouldn't have anything else.
RobDickinson said:
Yep - 4 people dead to reach for the sky and the lofty dream of putting rich people into (almost) space.
Er, 4 people die every second somewhere on this planet from things like drug abuse or being run over by a bus etc. I'd rather go out with a bang, having a lot of fun and pushing boundaries on some amazing once-in-a-lifetime project than those options thanks!qube_TA said:
apparently 700 people / year are killed by their toasters!
We should go back to the caves
We don't even live in caves. Yet we still kill more than one person a year in them.We should go back to the caves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_caving_fat...
Munter said:
We don't even live in caves. Yet we still kill more than one person a year in them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_caving_fat...
More dangerous than Space exploration!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_caving_fat...
The number of people killed on actual spaceflights is actually relatively small. I make it 18 in total. That is a lot less than 3% of the total number of people who have traveled into space.
If you start including everybody who has died in space related activities - which would include people died in factories, assembly plants, test flights or ground testing, the number obviously goes up.
However, if you were to include all such ancilliary deaths in other industries (which most statistics don't) then their death rates would shoot up too.
I am not saying space travel is safe. It's not as safe as many things - but why should that matter? As long as people are willing to accept the risks involved, that is their choice.
Are you guys proposing that certain activities should stop because people should not be allowed to make their own minds as to what risks to accept?
I would hate to live in a world like that as it would be exceedingly dull.
Already the "nannies" have severely restricted an awful lot of "dangerous" activities. I would hate to think that we had such killjoys inhabiting this particular forum.
If you start including everybody who has died in space related activities - which would include people died in factories, assembly plants, test flights or ground testing, the number obviously goes up.
However, if you were to include all such ancilliary deaths in other industries (which most statistics don't) then their death rates would shoot up too.
I am not saying space travel is safe. It's not as safe as many things - but why should that matter? As long as people are willing to accept the risks involved, that is their choice.
Are you guys proposing that certain activities should stop because people should not be allowed to make their own minds as to what risks to accept?
I would hate to live in a world like that as it would be exceedingly dull.
Already the "nannies" have severely restricted an awful lot of "dangerous" activities. I would hate to think that we had such killjoys inhabiting this particular forum.
Eric Mc said:
Are you guys proposing that certain activities should stop because people should not be allowed to make their own minds as to what risks to accept?
All I can see is people making a mockery of those suggesting it should be stopped because it's not safe.Personally by pointing out that almost anything that exists kills more people a year than space travel.
Stairs kill 300+ people a year for instance.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff