Virgin's Branson unveils first commercial spaceship

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,111
Likes
10,940
Points
113
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091207/tts-uk-space-business-ca02f96.html

Virgin's Branson unveils first commercial spaceship
Monday, December 7 10:17 pm

Billionaire Richard Branson Monday unveiled the first commercial passenger spaceship, a sleek black-and-white vessel that represents an expensive gamble on creating a commercial space tourism industry. Skip related content

Virgin Galactic, an offshoot of Branson's Virgin Atlantic Airways, hopes the winged, minivan-sized SpaceShipTwo will rocket tourists into zero gravity beginning in two or three years.

"This will be the start of commercial space travel," Branson said at the launch in California's Mojave Desert. "You become an astronaut."

The project, with a $450 million (274 million pounds) budget, would see the construction of six commercial spaceships that would take passengers high enough to achieve weightlessness and see the curvature of Earth set against the backdrop of space.

A twin-hulled aircraft named Eve would carry SpaceShipTwo to an altitude of about 60,000 feet (18,288 meters) before releasing it. The spaceship would then fire its onboard rocket engines, climbing to about 65 miles (104 km) above Earth.

The trip would take about 2-1/2 hours, with passengers experiencing about five minutes of weightlessness.

Some 300 aspiring astronauts have put down deposits for the $200,000 ride, which includes three days of training.

Eventually, Virgin Galactic may offer suborbital travel that could dramatically cut the length of flights.

"Subject to American government permission, we may well start developing a program to try to take people from continent to continent, you know, two hours from Los Angeles to Australia," Branson said in an interview with Reuters TV.

"Can't promise that we're going to be able to do it, but if you don't try things you don't succeed, so we'll definitely give it a go."

BRANSON SAYS SAFER THAN NASA

Other potential business ventures include flying scientists and experiments and launching small payloads into space.

Branson hired aircraft designer Burt Rutan and his team at Scaled Composites to build the commercial spaceship fleet after a Rutan prototype named SpaceShipOne won the $10 million Ansari X Prize in 2004 for the first private piloted spaceflight.

Commercial space flight has been a dream for decades, but the 2004 flight was the first proof that industry might be able to achieve it without the help of government, which historically has dominated space travel.

A lethal 2007 explosion during a rocket engine test by Scaled Composites, however, illustrated the danger and risk to creating a safe and profitable venture.

Branson, in the Reuters Television interview, said that the flights would be safer than NASA's space shuttle.

"I think because it's so much younger, it's just that much safer than what NASA has done using old technology which is 50, 60 years old," he said.

The environmental impact would be minimal, Branson said.

"It's almost zero carbon output. We can put people into space for less carbon output than say, a flight from New York to L.A. and back, and that's for your particular seat on the flight from New York to L.A. and back," he said. "And I think in time, we will almost definitely be able to get to zero carbon output."

SpaceShipOne, which is on display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington, made three suborbital flights.

A 10-month atmospheric test flight program is expected to begin Tuesday and would be followed by extensive test flights into space before passenger travel in 2011 or 2012.

(Additional reporting by Dan Whitcomb in Los Angeles; Editing by Chris Wilson)
 
Too rich for my blood at $200K for a ride.

The article talks about how they plan to bring the space craft to 60,000 feet with an airplane and then let the space craft take off from there, using rockets to go to 65 miles up.

NASA has a pretty amazing high altitude balloon program (see http://astrophysics.gsfc.nasa.gov/balloon/)

From what I've seen, those balloons can lift something the size/weight of a school bus to altitudes of 120,000 feet (23 miles). I always wondered why they don't take advantage of balloons to get the rockets partway up. The balloons might drift with the winds, but fairly lightweight engines like those on blimps might provide enough control.

Sure seems a lot safer and cheaper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace
 
From what I've seen, those balloons can lift something the size/weight of a school bus to altitudes of 120,000 feet (23 miles).

Somewhere in Colorado right now, a guy is attaching a balloon to a school bus full of kids...

barfo
 
This reminds me of the episode of 30 Rock where Tracy demands to become an astronaut, so they higher a bunch of actors and they create a space set.
 
$450M for 6 craft is $75M each, which is the cost of a Soyuz flight. A shuttle flight costs about $500M. A private person going on a Soyuz pays $20-30M of the $75M cost. So the $200,000 cost for a 2 hour flight is 1% of what you'll pay for a weeklong Soyuz flight to the space station.

For this new spacecraft, you get 2 things--5 minutes of weightlessness and a view from 65 miles high. You can get many more minutes of weightlessness by paying for a tour in the Vomit Comet, which sells tickets now. I would first go on several of those cheaper flights, then the expensive 65 mile high flight. That way, I'd get the cheaper fun of floating out of my system so that I could later concentrate on the view alone and get my $200K money's worth.

As for using a balloon instead of the first stage, a balloon takes hours to get to 23 miles high. They want something faster. And newer technology is not safer than old, in fact, it's usually less safe because it's less proven.
 
$450M for 6 craft is $75M each, which is the cost of a Soyuz flight. A shuttle flight costs about $500M. A private person going on a Soyuz pays $20-30M of the $75M cost. So the $200,000 cost for a 2 hour flight is 1% of what you'll pay for a weeklong Soyuz flight to the space station.

For this new spacecraft, you get 2 things--5 minutes of weightlessness and a view from 65 miles high. You can get many more minutes of weightlessness by paying for a tour in the Vomit Comet, which sells tickets now. I would first go on several of those cheaper flights, then the expensive 65 mile high flight. That way, I'd get the cheaper fun of floating out of my system so that I could later concentrate on the view alone and get my $200K money's worth.

As for using a balloon instead of the first stage, a balloon takes hours to get to 23 miles high. They want something faster. And newer technology is not safer than old, in fact, it's usually less safe because it's less proven.

Balloons are older than airplanes. The NASA balloon program has been around since the 1950s. The first aircraft (that I know of, off the top of my head) was a rocket plane dropped from another airplane that used a rocket to boost itself to space.

It sure seems like it would be less expensive to use a balloon to get the payload most of the way to space.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top