Richard Bransons' trip to space

[billdan (Bill)]

Bransons' Virgin Galactic had their first flight to the edge of space ABC News reports.

The space plane detached from the mother ship at an altitude of about 13 kilometres and fired its engine in a bid to reach the edge of space about 88 kilometres up.

At the apex of the climb with the rocket shut down, the crew experienced a few minutes of near zero gravity before the space plane shifted into re-entry mode and began a gliding descent to a runway back at the spaceport.

News and video here
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-...pace/100285398

I wonder if NASA will ask him to go and fix Hubble.

[Startrek (Martin)]

Alan Shepard’s Freedom 7 sub orbital hop in 1961 was far more was more exciting and important to humankind than this billionaires space toy for the rich
My 2 cents ......

[Hans Tucker (Hans)]

Originally Posted by billdan

....

I wonder if NASA will ask him to go and fix Hubble.

Virgin Galactic Flight maximum achievable altitude ... 88Kms ... Hubble Space Telescope Altitude 559Kms. Me thinks no.

Either way it was a good PR move for Branson beating Bezos. So well done Virgin Galactic.

[Peter Ward]

As Maxwell Smart was fond of saying "Missed it by that much"...seems 100km is the mark they need to reach.

In reality the only went on an expensive roll-a-coaster ride ending in free-fall back into thicker air....hardly going into orbit, but fun I'm sure.

Also reminded me of some radio chatter I was privy to many years ago: a Learjet pilot somewhere near Alice, and well past midnight, wanted to climb over a line of storms and requested flight level 490.

ATC came back that he'd be outside controlled airspace! Quick as a flash he came back with: OK... go ahead traffic.

ATC "Cleared FL490..."

[Constant (David)]

Interestingly, this forum, above most any forum Branson's atmospheric hop has generated so little interest.
My feeling is, we inherently recognise the hop and the vessel itself are diversions from exploration, not exploration itself.
My two cents worth....

[Stonius (Markus)]

Originally Posted by Constant

Interestingly, this forum, above most any forum Branson's atmospheric hop has generated so little interest.
My feeling is, we inherently recognise the hop and the vessel itself are diversions from exploration, not exploration itself.
My two cents worth....

Agree. There's an entire universe of difference between joyriging billionaires and science missions, in terms of benefit to humanity.


Markus

[billdan (Bill)]

Joy riding by the rich people maybe true, but there is no mention of that on the Virgin Galactic website.

I've cherry picked some of their mission statements.

Exposure to several minutes of high quality microgravity per flight and responsive flight access, allowing for ‘science of opportunity’ missions and series measurements taken on rapidly repeated flights

We believe this capability will enable scientific experiments as well as educational and research programs to be carried out by a broader range of individuals, organizations and institutions than ever before.

Ability to conduct upper atmosphere observations via window mounted experiments

Dramatically gentler g-loading than sounding rockets

Quick recovery of payloads, with pre-flight and post-flight access within hours of a launch

Virgin pledged to bring ordinary people into space — the price of $200,000 per seat.


Unless I win Lotto I could never afford to go into space. A University professor who wants to do an experiment could easily obtain a research grant and go to the edge of space with no training.

Entrepreneurs have to start somewhere, baby steps. Twenty years from now they may have larger aircraft that could carry heavier payloads and reach further into space.

[mura_gadi (Steve)]

Hello,

I was thinking this morning of the value of what has been done. Great that's its private enterprise, but the approach seems to be little more than skimming stones into low space with the current rockets used.

Would there be any value in a similar styled plane but with the cargo slung over the wing for "sky cranes" in the future? Sky cranes offer some real benefits over rocketry and we would actually need to see more experimental lift aircraft like Branson's to exploit possibilities later.



Steve
Ps. Rockets and planes - The X-15 had 13 flights exceeding 50miles (80+ks), 2 over 100k's and its was a under belly rocket back in the 1960's. So, its not really new, just has some extra seats and padding.

[AstroJunk (Jonathan)]

Stepping stones.

The brilliance of this mission is that it brings us closer to the holly grail of commercial suborbital intercontinental travel without being strapped onto a rocket.

It may take some time to achieve, but it will be well funded by affluent space tourists in the mean time. Surely that has to be applauded

[gary]

One pays €25.90 to get to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

Many will go up to admire the 1887 engineering of Gustave Eiffel, but for
most folk it is not about the technology, it is about the view.

And the view is to die for :-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0_Panorama.jpg

So the operators collect €25.90 and they run a business selling the the thrill
of an experience and a breathtaking view.

In a similar vain, now and then operators charter Qantas 747's to fly
paying sightseers over the edge of Antarctica.

Though I am the type of person that always marvels over the technology
of flying every time I fly, I suspect most don't.

I've been lucky to be on one of those Antarctica flights. They are not
cheap and they are indeed an indulgence and they definitely don't
extend the technology of flying in any way.

But the view is to die for.

And the operator I suspect makes a profit along the way.

The Virgin Galactic enterprise is the same. It's run as a business like
going up the Eiffel Tower or on a flight to see Antarctica.
And unlike the X-15, you can sit in shirt sleeves in a pressurised cabin.

I can only imagine, but I bet the view is to die for.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by gary

......

So the operators collect €25.90 and they run a business selling the the thrill
of an experience and a breathtaking view.

In a similar vain, now and then operators charter Qantas 747's to fly
paying sightseers over the edge of Antarctica.

..........I can only imagine, but I bet the view is to die for.

I crewed the Croydon Travel B747 Charter over Antarctica for the 2003 Total solar eclipse....Dying for the view was not an option

But I take your point, while Branson's ride is expensive, it is also an indicator that Aerospace technologies are pushing new boundaries.

As a side note, both the B747-400 and A380-800 could reach orbit if they could maintain sea-level thrust at altitude.
Being air breathers sadly they cannot....then there is all that dynamic pressure, thermal stuff, hull pressure etc. that the lack of which you would die for....
none the less...a real space plane may be closer than we think.

[DavidTrap (David)]

US definition of space is beyond 50 miles (80km)

FAI definition of space is beyond 100km

DT

[mura_gadi (Steve)]

Hello,

I'm not arguing the esthetics or the joy of taking such a flight. I have had a long love of flying and I'm sure it would be a truly amazing flight. But a brief venture at best.

The rocket under the belly was done 60 years ago and very few companies seem to be reviving the idea. If you have a look at "HYPLANE" and "Paradoxal" etc, they all seem to rely on a single vehicle and multi-stage engines.

With RAM jets and or liquid oxygen fed into the jets etc, they seem like a more sound way to travel than to have 8 JATO's kick in and burn out in 90secs of screaming fun!

I'll back the newer engines and RAM jets over a lift assisted rocketry as the way forward. If NASA sonic boom reduction technology can be transferred over to the multi-edge wings deigns, then I can see a huge boost again for sub-orbital travel.


Steve

[multiweb (Marc)]

Big toy for the insanely rich kids and there are many in California. I doubt very much it'll ever be main stream. Cool ride if you can afford it though.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by gary

One pays €25.90 to get to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

There was a time you could go up the stairs as public access. No check, no fee.

[redbeard (Damien)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

There was a time you could go up the stairs as public access. No check, no fee.

Yep, did it when I was 6!

Go Branson and many more to follow.

[xelasnave]

I think this sort of thing is going to be good for the world economy in time if it takes off.

A market economy needs a way to create jobs but at the same time destroy accumulated wealth and if all the rich folk get into these space flights we get jobs and depletion of accumulated wealth...or at least a dint in their take home pay..but I am sure Mr B had such in mind all along.
I have thought of going but I just have a fear of flying and an aversion to wasting money on fun , these days at least.

Alex

[AdamJL]

Maybe I'm the only greenie here, but I will be curious to see the carbon emissions of these rockets as they come online and take off (pun intended) with the general public.

Time to build that graphene space elevator? Oh right, graphene's the most overpromised and underdelivered technology in decades.... Rockets it is.

[xelasnave]

It is only the carbon footprint of ordinary folk that counts...else we would need to frown on fancy cars, boats and planes...no nothing to worry about and if there is he will have his people buy assets that off set any carbon footprint ...
Alex

[RB (Andrew)]

Subscribed