VK-machine wrote:

Griz_ wrote:They are advancing science and the motivation should be irrelevant

How are they advancing science?

Griz_ wrote:Others will no doubt put their discoveries to more "noble" pursuits.

What discoveries?

Chemistry of explosions and engineering to control them.

VK-machine wrote:

Griz_ wrote:They are advancing science and the motivation should be irrelevant

How are they advancing science?

By developing reusable space craft. This is not important?

VK-machine wrote:

Griz_ wrote:Others will no doubt put their discoveries to more "noble" pursuits.

What discoveries?

You don't think that developing new fuels and engines is important?

VK-machine wrote:

Griz_ wrote:They are advancing science and the motivation should be irrelevant

How are they advancing science?

Griz_ wrote:Others will no doubt put their discoveries to more "noble" pursuits.

What discoveries?

This really doesn't deserve a response, so I won't.

campermon wrote:

VK-machine wrote:

Griz_ wrote:They are advancing science and the motivation should be irrelevant

How are they advancing science?

By developing reusable space craft. This is not important?

By that standard developing a roller coaster is also advancing science. I don't see anything important about what they do.

campermon wrote:

VK-machine wrote:

Griz_ wrote:Others will no doubt put their discoveries to more "noble" pursuits.

What discoveries?

You don't think that developing new fuels and engines is important?

What use are their new engines? What new fuels have they developed?

VK-machine wrote:

campermon wrote:

VK-machine wrote:

Griz_ wrote:They are advancing science and the motivation should be irrelevant

How are they advancing science?

By developing reusable space craft. This is not important?

By that standard developing a roller coaster is also advancing science. I don't see anything important about what they do.

There are doubtless many technical challenges to overcome when building a roller coaster that have made their way into other more 'important' fields. For one, developing simulations so that one may ensure that a rollercaoster may develop the right amount of g's without ripping someone in half.

VK-machine wrote:

campermon wrote:

VK-machine wrote:

Griz_ wrote:Others will no doubt put their discoveries to more "noble" pursuits.

What discoveries?

You don't think that developing new fuels and engines is important?

What use are their new engines? What new fuels have they developed?

Dunno.

Faraday was asked the same question about his discoveries pertaining to electromagnetism.

"Applied" Science.

VK-machine wrote:

Or words to that effect. For crying out loud. Please proceed with all the answers. You appear to have them.

campermon wrote:Faraday was asked the same question about his discoveries pertaining to electromagnetism.

This'll blow your mind:
The first human spaceflight happened over 50 years ago, in 1961! For over a decade, a manned space station has been orbiting earth!

B.B.C. - Inquiry team lands in Mojave

VK-machine wrote:

campermon wrote:Faraday was asked the same question about his discoveries pertaining to electromagnetism.

This'll blow your mind:
The first human spaceflight happened over 50 years ago, in 1961! For over a decade, a manned space station has been orbiting earth!

Yes, it does blow my mind daily - especially when I wave to the ISS when it makes its appearance across the sky. And people have been orbiting in space stations for a much longer time.

But, I am constantly disappointed by the fact that space travel / work is still fairly limited. Yes, the guys at virgin are developing technology that will, at the current moment in history, allow rich dudes to travel into space. But, in order to do that they are having to solve many technical problems to make the whole business profitable. Such technology will eventually become commonplace - if it follows the path that other technologies have traced.

campermon wrote:But, I am constantly disappointed by the fact that space travel / work is still fairly limited. Yes, the guys at virgin are developing technology that will, at the current moment in history, allow rich dudes to travel into space. But, in order to do that they are having to solve many technical problems to make the whole business profitable. Such technology will eventually become commonplace - if it follows the path that other technologies have traced.

Profitable, commercial, civilian use of space is a reality. It's been for decades. Or do you think all those weather and communications satellites are government property?
There are well over one thousand satellites in orbit, thousands more were launched; no idea how many of them are commercial.
Virgin Galactic is like a company developing a go-cart while the streets are full of trucks.

They wanted to design a plane that could go over 100km high because that has been arbitrarily defined to be space. That is a far cry from being able to do anything useful. Useful means going into orbit and that takes a whole lot more effort. You can't just tune the engine a bit, you need a whole new system.
It's not like a spaceplane is a new idea. It's just that no one ever figured out how to make it more cost effective than a rocket. , Neither is launching from an airplane. It's been done for decades to get stuff into low orbits.

Europe's Arianespace has been doing commercial satellite launches for decades now. The Soviet space program was privatized in the 90ies and is also in the commercial market. Recently US-based SpaceX has entered the market. They managed to develop their system without burning lives in the process.

VG is not developing trail blazing technology. It is not advancing science. It is developing a thrill ride and it is doing it badly.



A bit of advice to some people here, not necessarily the person I'm replying to: It's possible to open your mouth so wide that your brain falls out. If that has happened to you, you should keep your mouth closed so that others won't notice your shameful deficiency.

VK, one learns by doing not by pondering.

That is why what Virgin is doing is important to scientific advancement.

And you learn most from the shit you never thought of till it goes bang.

VK-machine wrote:

campermon wrote:Faraday was asked the same question about his discoveries pertaining to electromagnetism.

This'll blow your mind:
The first human spaceflight happened over 50 years ago, in 1961! For over a decade, a manned space station has been orbiting earth!

And it still costs millions to get a single person into space. It will continue to do so as long as it's all government funded, because it's easier for the contractors to convince the government that it's inherently expensive than for the contractors actually to develop cheaper, more efficient ways to do things.

SpaceShipTwo will bring that cost down by an order of magnitude. More critically, SpaceShipTwo provides key advances regarding reduction of the structural coefficient to the point where single stage to orbit becomes possible. That's key for manned space exploration and colonization in the long term.

VK-machine wrote:VG is not developing trail blazing technology. It is not advancing science.

If you read the thread, you'll discover that the flight that went bang was trialling a new fuel.

VK-machine wrote:A bit of advice to some people here, not necessarily the person I'm replying to: It's possible to open your mouth so wide that your brain falls out. If that has happened to you, you should keep your mouth closed so that others won't notice your shameful deficiency.

I suggest following your own advice.

B.B.C. - Virgin Galactic crash: SpaceShipTwo probe 'may take year'

Warren Dew wrote:

VK-machine wrote:

campermon wrote:Faraday was asked the same question about his discoveries pertaining to electromagnetism.

This'll blow your mind:
The first human spaceflight happened over 50 years ago, in 1961! For over a decade, a manned space station has been orbiting earth!

And it still costs millions to get a single person into space. It will continue to do so as long as it's all government funded, because it's easier for the contractors to convince the government that it's inherently expensive than for the contractors actually to develop cheaper, more efficient ways to do things.

Hmm. I'm not sure why that logic wouldn't also apply to the CEO of a private company. Spaceship two is years behind schedule and I don't know how many times over budget but that's a different cause. If VG was about profit, they'd give up now.
You have a point though. The space shuttle was extremely expensive. It couldn't compete with the commercial offers from Europe, neither Arianespace nor ILS.
SpaceX is bringing prices down further. You'd like that company. It's lead by a charismatic billionaire entrepreneur (formerly paypal). Take note of the fact that they are already operating commercially and didn't get anyone killed in the process.
Even with lower prices I have doubts if there's a market for a space hotel. Are there really enough people willing to pay a few millions just to spend a few days in a tiny, flimsy tin can?

SpaceShipTwo will bring that cost down by an order of magnitude. More critically, SpaceShipTwo provides key advances regarding reduction of the structural coefficient to the point where single stage to orbit becomes possible. That's key for manned space exploration and colonization in the long term.

I don't see how SS2 could bring down the cost of anything. It is not supposed to reach orbit.

Made of Stars wrote:

VK-machine wrote:VG is not developing trail blazing technology. It is not advancing science.

If you read the thread, you'll discover that the flight that went bang was trialling a new fuel.

If you read a bit more than the thread you will discover that the fuel was new in that they hadn't used it before. As a rocket fuel it dates back to the space race or so.

VK-machine wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

VK-machine wrote:

campermon wrote:Faraday was asked the same question about his discoveries pertaining to electromagnetism.

This'll blow your mind:
The first human spaceflight happened over 50 years ago, in 1961! For over a decade, a manned space station has been orbiting earth!

And it still costs millions to get a single person into space. It will continue to do so as long as it's all government funded, because it's easier for the contractors to convince the government that it's inherently expensive than for the contractors actually to develop cheaper, more efficient ways to do things.

Hmm. I'm not sure why that logic wouldn't also apply to the CEO of a private company. Spaceship two is years behind schedule and I don't know how many times over budget but that's a different cause. If VG was about profit, they'd give up now.

Maybe, maybe not. Virgin Galactic is tiny compared to the whole of the Virgin empire. The expenditure on Virgin Galactic is probably justifiable based just on the advertising value - provided they can continue to make progress.

But the key thing about private enterprise is that there's competition. Xcor is pretty much a direct competitor to Virgin Galactic. Maybe if Virgin can't do it, Xcor can, or vice versa.

SpaceX is bringing prices down further. You'd like that company.

I do like SpaceX. However, they are focused on cargo, not people. I'd like to see progress on moving people into space as well.

Even with lower prices I have doubts if there's a market for a space hotel. Are there really enough people willing to pay a few millions just to spend a few days in a tiny, flimsy tin can?

The technology should be able to drive the costs down to a small multiple of energy costs. Ultimately that ought to bring the price down to $10k per person or less. Given how many people spring for that kind of money for fancy cruises, yes, I think there's a significant market.

SpaceShipTwo will bring that cost down by an order of magnitude. More critically, SpaceShipTwo provides key advances regarding reduction of the structural coefficient to the point where single stage to orbit becomes possible. That's key for manned space exploration and colonization in the long term.

I don't see how SS2 could bring down the cost of anything. It is not supposed to reach orbit.

The problem with reaching orbit at present is that too much of the weight we push up is just structural weight for holding the fuel and such. SpaceShipTwo tremendously reduces that structural weight. That's technology that can be applied to orbital missions.

VK-machine wrote:

Made of Stars wrote:

VK-machine wrote:VG is not developing trail blazing technology. It is not advancing science.

If you read the thread, you'll discover that the flight that went bang was trialling a new fuel.

If you read a bit more than the thread you will discover that the fuel was new in that they hadn't used it before. As a rocket fuel it dates back to the space race or so.

So we're splitting hairs now? The mandate of commercial space flight is not to 'develop trail blazing technology' or to 'advance science'. It's to commercialise space flight. If they build on and scale up existing technology, that's fine by me. If they make space more accessible, other benefits will follow. Organisations like NASA can work on the research stuff (which they're better at), and leave the commercialisation to others (which others are better at).