[warp_10]

I don't agree with folks are claiming to be wasting resources, money etc..

This is more of zero to one technology (like what Peter Thiel says). You need to commercialize it to make it viable (unless you are looking for government funding, which gets mucky)...This is just one way (not saying its the only way). Once you have more money in the ecosystem, you are bound to see more smarter minds work there trying to disrupt one after another..Space exploration dampened big time post the cold war period (when it was really funded by governments and when US pulled off the plug, you saw what really happened)..

So, it might look like a show off / stunt etc.. Quite possible, but this would definitely attract more funds to this segment, which is the need of the hour.

[JLohchab]

Its an amazing feet in many ways, be it the general acceptance in our minds that universe is far beyond our earth and needs many more to step out a bit or it being a private entity name on it along with others like SpaceX or blue origin, which indicates space exploration won't be a gameplay of governments only to demonstrate their supremacy.
In essence, its a springboard in my eyes and will accelerate the space exploration programmes.

Kudos, team Richard!!!

[The Brutailer]

Well, this is an ostentatious parade of money thrown on something which is not needed, more so during these tragic times.

But think of the time when Apple created the first ever competent PC or when Ford created the assembly line to manufacture cars or, closer home, Reliance created Jio to bring fast internet to the masses.

This has the potential to do the very same in the next decade or so. Maybe not by Virgin itself. Maybe by Blue Origin. Or SpaceX. Or even Boeing. That's not the point -- point is, Virgin kickstarted something which I, as a kid never thought was possible in my lifetime - going to space, without becoming a scientist and joining a space agency like NASA.

Virgin Galactic have pushed the mankind forward.

But more importantly, they have given me and countless other dreamers, hope.

And sometimes, hope is all that matters.

[whitewing]

While furthering science, pushing the boundaries of science is welcome. And due credit to Branson for backing the engineering even after a early failure leading to a death of a test pilot.

Some how I found this rather an obscene celebration of wealth and burning up of loads of energy for a few minutes of fun.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

....
Our media is also to blame with their Forbes list of billionaires, 40 under 40 and what not.

This meme tries to describes what you so eloquently put in words.

[the_real_slager]

Originally Posted by TrackDay

Attachment 2178669
At the age of 70, popping a champagne bottle after a space trip is not a bad idea

=====
To the next generation of dreamers: if we can do this, just imagine what you can do"-Richard Branson

I really second this. Dreams/Aspirations are individualistic, for me it could be owning and driving a performance car, for a millionaire it could be going on a space tour for leisure. I do not see how different this is than us petrol heads having cars which we might not 'need' but love to own and drive or upgrading a regular hotel room to a suite on a holiday just because we can and would love to have the luxury.

Kudos to the guy for showing us that dreams can come true.

Regards,
Kiron

[SnS_12]

Originally Posted by alpha1

The thread would be more detailed if we get to know what kind of fuel is being used here, what are the exhaust components, and how much this fuel is being consumed per flight.

Branson’s space flight company Virgin Galactic says it has a focus on “environmental sustainability”

Rocket launch emissions can include black carbon (aka soot) as well as CO2. The higher a spacecraft flies, the more fuel it requires. The Space Shuttle orbiter needed almost 720,000 kilograms of liquid fuel and 500,000 kilograms of solid rocket fuel to reach space.

The VSS Unity rocket plane that Branson travel on was air-launched and burns solid fuel for one minute to fly 50 or so miles above Earth.

Virgin Galactic likens the carbon footprint for passengers to a business class return ticket on a trans-Atlantic flight. Using data from the International Civil Aviation Organization, that means about 1238 kilograms of CO2 per passenger.

The journey lengths are not the same, however. A return trans-Atlantic flight covers about 11,100 kilometers. Virgin Galactic’s trip up and down adds up to about 100 miles (160km).

Per passenger, per kilometer, the CO2 emissions are 12 kilograms of CO2 for Virgin’s space trip versus 0.2 kilograms of CO2 for the commercial airline flight.

The overall CO2 footprint of space flights appears modest, mostly because rocket flights are still rare. But if space tourism takes off, expect more focus on the environmental impact of this new hobby for the wealthy.

Source: https://www.afr.com/technology/why-s...0210711-p588oy

Since only the top wealthy people will be able to afford this, wonder how will the Life Insurance companies handle and rate the risk accumulation (8 Billionaire's) on these flights.

[giri1.8]

Originally Posted by whitewing

Some how I found this rather an obscene celebration of wealth and burning up of loads of energy for a few minutes of fun.

Sounds like something we all Bhpians do! By this logic, we all should be riding around on bicycles or 100cc motorbikes.

In a world full of hungry people starving to death, we choose to follow our dreams and ride cars/bikes and spend time to talk about our passion. We in the eyes of the poor look the same way Richard looks to ours.

[no_fear]

To add fuel to the fire,

I feel that space exploration vs a billionaire having a joyride in his own shuttle are being conflated here.

I am all for progress and development. But I fail to see how a few minutes of sub orbital flight is really going to help in the growth and progress of mankind. If this was ramjet / scramjet technology that would usher in interstellar travel, I am all for it.

But so far its just an old dude in a spaceship that flew around just to prove a point and steal the thunder from another obnoxious bald dude.

CNN summed it best

"For all Branson's enthusing over imagination, his trip into space was effectively a much-diluted, far posher version of a feat already achieved more than 60 years ago by Yuri Gagarin's groundbreaking flight in Vostok 1. Gagarin, a Soviet carpenter's son who survived the Nazi occupation of Russia, actually accomplished something far greater, by orbiting for 108 minutes before returning to Earth. With reserved tickets for future Virgin Galactic flights priced between $200,000 and $250,000, the only barrier Branson has broken is that between the super-rich and their ability to spend a few minutes floating just within the sub-orbital zone which allows passengers to experience weightlessness."

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/12/o...mas/index.html

[The Brutailer]

Originally Posted by no_fear

To add fuel to the fire,

I feel that space exploration vs a billionaire having a joyride in his own shuttle are being conflated here.

I am all for progress and development. But I fail to see how a few minutes of sub orbital flight is really going to help in the growth and progress of mankind. If this was ramjet / scramjet technology that would usher in interstellar travel, I am all for it.

But so far its just an old dude in a spaceship that flew around just to prove a point and steal the thunder from another obnoxious bald dude.

Umm, what this flight represents is the fact that now space is open to anyone. Yes, right now it may be limited to affluent few but in a decade or two, going to space will be as mainstream as going to a fancy vacation to New York.

Think about what it can lead to, not what it is today. That old dude has every right to do whatever he wants with his money or the company he heads. Why devalue his childhood dream? Hypothetically, would you not splurge on a Ferrari or a beach-house if you always wanted to and could do so today? Not every action should be pushed against the moral wall.

[no_fear]

Originally Posted by The Brutailer

Why devalue his childhood dream? Hypothetically, would you not splurge on a Ferrari or a beach-house if you always wanted to and could do so today? Not every action should be pushed against the moral wall.

+1. I agree with your statements and I am not devaluing his childhood dream. Everyone has dreams, but the differentiating factor here is he is not doing it for his own sake or for the common goodwill. I have a different view on this matter, as I believe what he is promoting is something that will remain out of the reach of the majority of us. And my argument is about what he is promoting as space travel. It is just glorified sub orbital flights. Look up Virgin Galactic mission statement and what shareholders think of SPCE, the listed entity. 600 people have signed up for sub orbital flights, and majority of it are millionaires, which is contrary to space being open to anyone. It maybe open to everyone 100 years later, similar to the airline industry, but its not what the Virgin group or Branson is aiming for.

[Gokuljayaraj]

I’m always perplexed when people complain about other people and their spending habits. While I agree that this flight might do nothing to further human space exploration interests, I don’t understand why it has to. It is a waste of money but it’s his money. He’s not doing it on taxpayer money as far as I know. By the logic that one must not lavishly spend on what they might want, shouldn’t we all be buying the cheapest car which can house the most passengers? Why are people buying cars with high horsepower and torque that only guzzle fuel and are a detriment to the environment? Because they like it and it’s their money. The same applies to this guy, just that the money involved is certain orders of magnitude higher.

At the end of the day, it’s just rich people doing rich people things. I’m all for it if it piques more interest in the general public towards space in general.

[AtheK]

His Money His Wish, It's not that he has taken anyone else money. Imagine point of me having two bikes and a car when the domestic help I have is walking down to my place, what am I to her.

If people (the rich and famous) do line up to take this ride, he might make some money for the company too. Imagine how many jobs can be created if this does take off.

Social media has opened a new avenue where it is so easy to judge now, all it takes is few strokes of your fingers. If someone has earned his money in legal way, he has all the rights to burn it the way he wants. As The Brutailer said above, we should first let go off our aspirational vehicles and materialistic lifestyle and move to bare minimum before being in a position to comment on some one else decides to spend his hard earned money. I think we still don't have the right even if we did that, as it would still have been my personal choice to let go off things.

Sometimes I think life was so much better, for good or bad, without this Social media!! I would rather have this conversation on a beer table with few friends, and trade some blows by the end of the night to settle it. The good old days!!

I am as guilty as anyone else though.

[V.Narayan]

My soft issues views on this event are in post number #15. Won't repeat them. This is to just share a data based perspective of how high {or low} is the 86 kms that Branson went up to. To call it a flight into space is a big stretch of imagination but yes it could be called a low altitude sub-orbital.

In terms of aircraft altitudes - till about 20 kms up a pilot can go in his normal flight suit. Above that space suits are the norm. The MiG-25 and SR-71 of the Russians and Americans could fly at a sustained altitude of 24 to 27 kms. We still do not know how high they went but we do know that as part of a record setting event the Russians once flew a MiG-25 to 35 kms up with a payload of 1000 kgs. The SR-71 was a more capable aircraft in this department and it may not be incorrect to assume that both machines could zoom climb to 40 kms or so. In fact a MiG-25 once did zoom climb to almost 38 kms in a test. So 86 kms is about twice as high as what very capable squadron pilots have done 35 to 50 years ago.

In terms of the atmosphere - its 2nd layer the stratosphere runs from roughly 10 to 15 kms to ~50 kms up. And the mesosphere lies next from ~50 kms to ~300 kms up. The mesosphere is the highest layer that is a full atmosphere in the sense that it has enough water vapour to form super high altitude clouds called noctilucent clouds. early in the morning as the sun rises these are visible to the eye trained to recognize them.

In terms of a real low orbit flight - that would be the Vostok 1 of Yuri Gagarin in 1961 where he flew one whole orbit at altitudes between 327 kms and 181 kms above the earth. Virgin Galactic got to 1/2 or 1/4th of that. Space flight it is not. But you can position it thus to an audience usually short on facts.

I'm glad he fulfilled his childhood dream and his adulthood dream of beating Bezos to it but the greatest achievement here is the PR exercise behind it.

[RedTerrano]

Wow! Quite an interesting and spirited discussion.
To spice it even further, perhaps mods should add a poll.

If the ticket becomes affordable, would you fly to space?
Y
N

PS. Almost a century ago, a reporter asked George Mallory why he wanted to climb Mt. Everest. His epic reply? "Because it's there"

I suspect in the coming years, the question, Why did Richard go to space, will be as famous as Why did the chicken cross the road

[am1m]

The main drive (and more importantly funding!) to reach any milestone in space has historically always been about pride, competition, and with the initial foundations based on war-time tech (Wernher von Braun's rockets). National pride during the cold war in that era and now as a way for the emerging superpowers to show that they've arrived (China and us). So now it's become about corporate and individual pride.

But the side-effects (so to speak) have been reaped by science, an increase in humanity's knowledge of the universe and our origins, and in the wide-eyed wonder of thousands of children who might once again look up at the stars and start thinking about them.

Hopefully those same side-effects will be seen with this, however materialistic or shallow the original goal may have be. And if a private entity is using their own money and their investor's money instead of public money for this, even better!