This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Virgin Galactic: Hurry Up and Wait

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 5, 2014
Filed under

SpaceShipOne X Prize Milestone Marked With Tears … and Cake!, NBC
“Pioneers of the commercial space age celebrated the 10th anniversary of the SpaceShipOne rocket plane’s final flight to the final frontier on Saturday, shedding fresh tears over a decade-old drama, hugging it out — and then blowing out the candles on a cake. The festivities unfolded at the Mojave Air and Space Port, where the SpaceShipOne saga reached its climax with the winning of the $10 million Ansari X Prize on Oct. 4, 2004.”
Virgin Galactic ‘on the verge’ of private space launches, space.com via Yahoo
“A seat aboard the six-passenger SpaceShipTwo currently costs $250,000. So far, Virgin Galactic has sold more than 700 tickets. Initially in 2004, Branson expected that SpaceShipTwo would be flying customers by 2007. “It’s been a great voyage,” Branson said. “It has taken longer than we thought.”
Keith’s note: Interesting how XPrize and Virgin Galactic hand-picked the news media in attendance for this self-indulgent celebration of their 7th consecutive year of delays in beginning commercial service. Happy anniversary!

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

25 responses to “Virgin Galactic: Hurry Up and Wait”

  1. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Ticket sales show a decent business plan. Rutan’s variable-geometry aero design was ingenious compared to, say, the DC. But the outsourced reusable hybrid motor was a mistake from the word go. Virgin’s current investment in inhouse liquid propellant rockets suggests they have finally come to the same conclusion. And unfortunately, no one can replace Burt Rutan.

    • Matt Johnson says:
      0
      0

      Can’t compare a stunt plane that barely tops out at Mach 3 briefly to a hypersonic reentry vehicle.

    • Jafafa Hots says:
      0
      0

      Yeah… if you can sell expensive tickets and not deliver a product for a decade (if ever), you’re a hell of a businessman!

  2. Antilope7724 says:
    0
    0

    What’s the problem? Safety? I doubt they will ever make it safe enough to satisfy the insurance companies.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      As I understand it, the problem is motor under-performance. I also remember seeing somewhere that they may have hit a maximum limit where scaling up the motor further only increases weight, not performance. So, it may be necessary to completely redesign SS2 to work with a kerolox or metholox liquid bi-propellent motor instead.

      • SpaceMunkie says:
        0
        0

        I would go with bipropellant of a different kind, either hybrid augmented solid (solid with extra N2O to speed up burning and increase thrust) or full up biprop like N2O/Ethylene. Both are self pressurizing which would make for a compact design.

    • Odyssey2020 says:
      0
      0

      Safety is a HUGE issue–with the extremely dangerous fuel and oxidizer just a foot or two behind the seats–and the biggest reason why VG probably will never fly with paying passengers.

      And yes, as BR-G mentioned the hybrid rocket cannot be scaled up to lift the fully loaded spacecraft.

      Only a super rich, eccentric and reclusive billionaire would even think about insuring VG and/or its passengers. Unfortunately Dr. SR Hadden died on MIR over a decade ago.

      • Antilope7724 says:
        0
        0

        Like I’ve said before. Several museums will get some really nice, barely used Rutan Spaceplanes. If you can’t fly paying passengers, then either it’s research (maybe a NASA suborbital research platform) or donate to a museum for the tax writeoff.

        • Odyssey2020 says:
          0
          0

          Rutan wisely opted out. You just know Branson will keep on making excuse after excuse for the delays. He probably won’t canx VG, he’ll just let it slowly slowly slip away.

  3. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    I guess suborbital flight is much harder than expected.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Virgin’s first task was building White Knight II, TMK the longest-wingspan aircraft ever constructed. And the hybrid engine (and the compressed nitrous oxide) gave them unexpected problems.

      • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
        0
        0

        White Knight 2 is not the longest wingspan, the B-52 and 747s both have longer wingspans, as do a number of other aircraft. it was the largest aircraft that Scaled ever built, though.

  4. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    When you first look at them, hybrids appear to be the best of both worlds (liquids and solids). But, after actually trying to make a largish operational motor/engine, hybrids turn out to be the worst of both worlds. Virgin Galactic isn’t the first to fall into this trap, and I’m guessing they won’t be the last.

  5. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    The entire sub-orbital circus is confounding to say the least; US and Russian fighters have been doing it for decades and without the Rube-Goldberg contraption.

    Taking only the Ruskies (no slouches when it comes to fighter aircraft) as an example, in the 70’s the Foxbat Mig 25 flew to around 110,000 feet, and you can buy a ride today on the newer Fulcrum Mig 29 (not as high, but still see earth curvature and black space) for a lot less money. In fact the price of this jet is a hell of lot lower than SS2 (sez wikipedia, anyway, quoting around $30M a copy in 2009). The US kit has similar specs.

    So, what’s the magic of Rutan/Virgin? What is the earth-shattering new tech they are developing (well, aside from those ‘flutter wings’ which are pretty dang cool, and, yea, the plane is fiberglass).

    But we’ve been strapping on jet engines and getting the same or superior flight profile for many decades. One oft-quoted spec on Foxbat: in 1973, ground to 30,000 meters in about 3.6 minutes. Oh, mama!

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      And you can buy a similar ride with the Starfighters at KSC today. The NF-104 could reach 100,000 feet. But the Spaceship breaks 100 kilometers altitude (three times as high) and remains weightless for a full five minutes. You can unstrap and float around the cabin. You are not just near space. You are in space.

      • Odyssey2020 says:
        0
        0

        I’m thinking if you can float around in zero-g for five full minutes it’s good enough to be considered space.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      flying to “around 110,000 feet” is not the same as flying to 360,000 feet.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        True. I get that. I just wonder about the incremental experience. In some ways it diminishes the true ‘in-space’ experience; and will the public forever see ‘space’ branded as something for the rich?

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          History is replete with examples of things that would only be a plaything for the rich. Remember “The Brick” the first “mobile” phone? It cost $5,000 dollars and cost about six grand a month to operate. Automobiles, refridgerators, eyeglasses, telescopes, you name it. It is actually amazing how many products and services started out as only for the rich, or a plaything for the rich.

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      Probably the biggest draw is that SpaceShipTwo passengers will be able to say they have been in space. For what that’s worth, I realize 62 miles is not our idea of space but it is the international standard and for those with the money, being able to impress their friends, family, co-workers, the person sitting next to them at the bar, etc. will be worth the price.

      Also I think floating weightless for up to six continuous minutes while looking out big picture windows at the Earth from over sixty miles up will be quite memorable.

      The one disappointment I think will be the view of space. Their eyes will be adjusted to the lighted Earth so they won’t see very many stars, about what you would see from a brightly lit parking lot or at a nighttime sporting event. Even if they look through a window that is pointed only at space, with that much light in the cabin causing reflections on the window I doubt if they would see much. You would have a much better view of space from a high mountaintop on a clear night.

      You know it is a tough decision. New Bentley, five minutes in space. New Bentley, five minutes in space. I just can’t make up my mind.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        I just wonder if it will be long enough for the overview effect. http://www.youtube.com/watc

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Sorry to nitpick, but this is the 21st century.
        It’s not 62 miles. It’s 100 km.

        • Steve Pemberton says:
          0
          0

          I have always thought that the standard should be 120 km which is closer to entry interface. Von Karman’s rationale was based on orbital velocity vs. lift. Seems kind of odd that spacecraft slam into the atmosphere at about 120 km but they are still in space? Von Karman’s calculations were done in the 1950’s, very 20th century. I submit that we need a 21st century definition for the boundary of space.