Virgin Galactic has succeeded in sending Branson and his companion
passengers to space(*) and landed safely.

Great job Virgin Galactic.

(*) Not quite above the Karman line, but in space according to some
definitions.

Alain Fournier

On 2021-07-11 12:36, Alain Fournier wrote:
> Virgin Galactic has succeeded in sending Branson and his companion
> passengers to space(*) and landed safely.

The reality checks I got here means I have very little excitement for
this joy ride which does nothing to advance space travel as the "ship"
used has no upgrade potential.

Funny how media tout this as space flight instead of an amusement park
joy ride.

In article <9uHGI.11169$VU3.2612@fx46.iad>,
jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...
>
> On 2021-07-11 12:36, Alain Fournier wrote:
> > Virgin Galactic has succeeded in sending Branson and his companion
> > passengers to space(*) and landed safely.
>
>
> The reality checks I got here means I have very little excitement for
> this joy ride which does nothing to advance space travel as the "ship"
> used has no upgrade potential.
>
> Funny how media tout this as space flight instead of an amusement park
> joy ride.

It's both.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On 2021-07-11 17:09, Jeff Findley wrote:

>> Funny how media tout this as space flight instead of an amusement park
>> joy ride.
>
> It's both.

It isn't actually travelling in space. It just rises to touch "space"
and then falls back. So I say it is a flight, but not a space flight
as it doesn't actually travel in space.

I asked a while back and it was made clear to me that this
plane/technology has no potential to actually travel in space, as in
"not even close".

Sunday, Jeff Findley quipped:
> In article <9uHGI.11169$VU3.2612@fx46.iad>,
> jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...
>>
>> On 2021-07-11 12:36, Alain Fournier wrote:
>>> Virgin Galactic has succeeded in sending Branson and his companion
>>> passengers to space(*) and landed safely.
>>
>>
>> The reality checks I got here means I have very little excitement for
>> this joy ride which does nothing to advance space travel as the "ship"
>> used has no upgrade potential.
>>
>> Funny how media tout this as space flight instead of an amusement park
>> joy ride.
>
> It's both.

Mention was made on the NSF stream that VG had made rumblings about
building up to a hypersonic transport. SpaceX's path may be easier,
just speaking from the back of my envelope, but it's an interesting
idea.

/dps

--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)

On Jul/11/2021 at 15:18, JF Mezei wrote :
> On 2021-07-11 12:36, Alain Fournier wrote:
>> Virgin Galactic has succeeded in sending Branson and his companion
>> passengers to space(*) and landed safely.
>
>
> The reality checks I got here means I have very little excitement for
> this joy ride which does nothing to advance space travel as the "ship"
> used has no upgrade potential.

I agree that the upgrade potential for SpaceShip Two is very low. I
consider Blue Origin and SpaceX to be the important players for space
tourism.

Nonetheless, I might be wrong but I expect Virgin Galactic will have a
lower operation cost than Blue Origin and SpaceX. So I think that the
competition from Virgin Galactic will push them to make sure that their
offering is sufficiently superior to what Virgin Galactic is offering to
make up for the price difference. What I am saying is that competition
is good.

Alain Fournier

On 12-Jul-21 9:59 am, Alain Fournier wrote:
> On Jul/11/2021 at 15:18, JF Mezei wrote :
>> On 2021-07-11 12:36, Alain Fournier wrote:
>>> Virgin Galactic has succeeded in sending Branson and his companion
>>> passengers to space(*) and landed safely.
>>
>>
>> The reality checks I got here means I have very little excitement for
>> this joy ride which does nothing to advance space travel as the "ship"
>> used has no upgrade potential.
>
> I agree that the upgrade potential for SpaceShip Two is very low. I
> consider Blue Origin and SpaceX to be the important players for space
> tourism.
>
> Nonetheless, I might be wrong but I expect Virgin Galactic will have a
> lower operation cost than Blue Origin and SpaceX. So I think that the
> competition from Virgin Galactic will push them to make sure that their
> offering is sufficiently superior to what Virgin Galactic is offering to
> make up for the price difference. What I am saying is that competition
> is good.
>
>
> Alain Fournier

Not sure how you're comparing costs between Virgin Galactic and SpaceX
They're not in the same market. I don't doubt that SpaceX will provide
space tourism to those willing to pay, but it's not what SpaceX is
about, and they're not in competition with the space tourism companies.

Sylvia.

On 2021-07-11 19:59, Alain Fournier wrote:

> Nonetheless, I might be wrong but I expect Virgin Galactic will have a
> lower operation cost than Blue Origin and SpaceX.

Virgin's ship belongs at a 6 flags amusement park. not quite tourism,
just a thrill ride that lasts a few seconds in near 0 G.

SpaceX is able to get you to 25,000kmh in "space", while Virgin is at
near 0 when it reaches "space". SpaceX gets to stay in orbit, Virgin
falls back down.

SpaceX can get you to the Hilton at the ISS to stay a few days, and
makes Bell Systems video call back home. Virgin can only jump up and
down, can't stay up there.

Doesn't means there isn't any demand for a short joy ride. But the two
are very different.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:36:28 -0400, Alain Fournier
<alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>Virgin Galactic has succeeded in sending Branson and his companion
>passengers to space(*) and landed safely.
>
>Great job Virgin Galactic.
>
>
>(*) Not quite above the Karman line, but in space according to some
>definitions.
>
>
>Alain Fournier

Yes, space tourism enters the era of fancy flights .

Thus spake JF Mezei:
> On 2021-07-11 19:59, Alain Fournier wrote:
>
>> Nonetheless, I might be wrong but I expect Virgin Galactic will have a
>> lower operation cost than Blue Origin and SpaceX.
>
> Virgin's ship belongs at a 6 flags amusement park. not quite tourism,
> just a thrill ride that lasts a few seconds in near 0 G.
>
> SpaceX is able to get you to 25,000kmh in "space", while Virgin is at
> near 0 when it reaches "space". SpaceX gets to stay in orbit, Virgin
> falls back down.
>
> SpaceX can get you to the Hilton at the ISS to stay a few days, and
> makes Bell Systems video call back home. Virgin can only jump up and
> down, can't stay up there.
>
>
> Doesn't means there isn't any demand for a short joy ride. But the two
> are very different.

Well, yes. This was understood years ago. And the original schedule
for Virgin Galactic would have had this flight well before Crew Dragon.
At the moment, you still have a better chance of being able to buy a
flight on Unity with your own funds than buying a flight on Crew
Dragon.

And New Shepard benefits from short 0G experiments that NASA is buying
flights for, and I think Unity has had some of those experiments as
well.

/dps

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:36:28 -0400, Alain Fournier
<alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>Virgin Galactic has succeeded in sending Branson and his companion
>passengers to space(*) and landed safely.
>
>Great job Virgin Galactic.
>
>
>(*) Not quite above the Karman line, but in space according to some
>definitions.
>
>
>Alain Fournier

Yes, space tourism enters the era of fancy, totally useless flights .

In article <kkJGI.12126$r21.2893@fx38.iad>,
jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...
>
> On 2021-07-11 17:09, Jeff Findley wrote:
>
> >> Funny how media tout this as space flight instead of an amusement park
> >> joy ride.
> >
> > It's both.
>
> It isn't actually travelling in space. It just rises to touch "space"
> and then falls back. So I say it is a flight, but not a space flight
> as it doesn't actually travel in space.

It's suborbital space flight.

> I asked a while back and it was made clear to me that this
> plane/technology has no potential to actually travel in space, as in
> "not even close".

It has no chance of evolving into an *orbital* vehicle. Which I believe
is what you were asking at the time.

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:36:28 -0400, Alain Fournier
<alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:

>Virgin Galactic has succeeded in sending Branson and his companion
>passengers to space(*) and landed safely.
>
>Great job Virgin Galactic.
>
>
>(*) Not quite above the Karman line, but in space according to some
>definitions.
>
>
>Alain Fournier

Sincerely ROTFL

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/12/virgin-galactic-shares-rise-after-successful-branson-flight-paves-wave-for-space-tourism-industry.html

on 7/11/2021, Alain Fournier supposed :
> Virgin Galactic has succeeded in sending Branson and his companion passengers
> to space(*) and landed safely.
>
> Great job Virgin Galactic.
>
>
> (*) Not quite above the Karman line, but in space according to some
> definitions.

And some thoughts about it by a respected space reporter:

<URL:https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/heres-why-richard-bransons-flight-matters-and-yes-it-really-matters/>

/dps

--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)

In article <mn.62d47e575d9731ba.127094@snitoo>, snidely.too@gmail.com
says...
>
> on 7/11/2021, Alain Fournier supposed :
> > Virgin Galactic has succeeded in sending Branson and his companion passengers
> > to space(*) and landed safely.
> >
> > Great job Virgin Galactic.
> >
> >
> > (*) Not quite above the Karman line, but in space according to some
> > definitions.
>
> And some thoughts about it by a respected space reporter:
>
> <URL:https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/heres-why-richard-bransons-flight-matters-and-yes-it-really-matters/>

This is a solid article.

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On 2021-07-12 13:36, Jeff Findley wrote:

> It's suborbital space flight.

> It has no chance of evolving into an *orbital* vehicle. Which I believe
> is what you were asking at the time.

I was specificlly asking about suborbital potential, such as London
Sydney. And it was explicitely eplained to me that to stay up in
low-atmosphere long enough to do this distance, you need to approach
orbital speeds, otherwise you need constant thrust which Virgin's joy
ride is not able to do.

BTW, I find that Tito, Shuttleworth and Guy Laliberté's COMMERCIAL
flights to ISS were far more significant than this small joyride to
nowhere.

Ironically made possible by Shuttle creating spare capacity on Soyuz,
and I would assume that this may restart now that Crew Dragon is a reality.

But tourism to ISS also depends on need to rotate ships. In the past
you had a visiting crew with new ship and returning on old after staying
a few days at the ISS Hilton. But if ships now stay with the crews,
there there are no longer short duration trips posisble with crews just
switching the ships and coming back.

JF Mezei speculated:
> BTW, I find that Tito, Shuttleworth and Guy Laliberté's COMMERCIAL
> flights to ISS were far more significant than this small joyride to
> nowhere.

Nope, limited to billionaires and corporately sponsored special
choices, and with much more training requirements.

> Ironically made possible by Shuttle creating spare capacity on Soyuz,
> and I would assume that this may restart now that Crew Dragon is a reality.

Crew Dragon already has commercial passengers scheduled, but still out
of reach without big bucks or corporate sponsorship. The number of
movies shot at the space station is still limited by theatrical release
schedules, not storage on your iPhone.

> But tourism to ISS also depends on need to rotate ships. In the past
> you had a visiting crew with new ship and returning on old after staying
> a few days at the ISS Hilton. But if ships now stay with the crews,
> there there are no longer short duration trips posisble with crews just
> switching the ships and coming back.

I don't see any problem with a short duration trip if you're paying for
the Crew Dragon flight. Docking ports may be a limitation, though.

/dps

--
As a colleague once told me about an incoming manager,
"He does very well in a suck-up, kick-down culture."
Bill in Vancouver

"Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.64387e5726c543c3.127094@snitoo...
>
>JF Mezei speculated:
>> BTW, I find that Tito, Shuttleworth and Guy Laliberté's COMMERCIAL
>> flights to ISS were far more significant than this small joyride to
>> nowhere.
>
>Nope, limited to billionaires and corporately sponsored special choices,
>and with much more training requirements.
>
>> Ironically made possible by Shuttle creating spare capacity on Soyuz,
>> and I would assume that this may restart now that Crew Dragon is a
>> reality.
>
>Crew Dragon already has commercial passengers scheduled, but still out of
>reach without big bucks or corporate sponsorship. The number of movies
>shot at the space station is still limited by theatrical release schedules,
>not storage on your iPhone.
>
>> But tourism to ISS also depends on need to rotate ships. In the past
>> you had a visiting crew with new ship and returning on old after staying
>> a few days at the ISS Hilton. But if ships now stay with the crews,
>> there there are no longer short duration trips posisble with crews just
>> switching the ships and coming back.
>
>I don't see any problem with a short duration trip if you're paying for the
>Crew Dragon flight. Docking ports may be a limitation, though.
>

Actually it's already scheduled:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_Mission_1

>/dps
>

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/

With a quizzical look, Greg (Strider) Moore observed:
> "Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.64387e5726c543c3.127094@snitoo...
>>
>>JF Mezei speculated:
>>> BTW, I find that Tito, Shuttleworth and Guy Laliberté's COMMERCIAL
>>> flights to ISS were far more significant than this small joyride to
>>> nowhere.
>>
>>Nope, limited to billionaires and corporately sponsored special choices, and
>> with much more training requirements.
>>
>>> Ironically made possible by Shuttle creating spare capacity on Soyuz,
>>> and I would assume that this may restart now that Crew Dragon is a
>>> reality.
>>
>>Crew Dragon already has commercial passengers scheduled, but still out of
>> reach without big bucks or corporate sponsorship. The number of movies
>> shot at the space station is still limited by theatrical release schedules,
>> not storage on your iPhone.
>>
>>> But tourism to ISS also depends on need to rotate ships. In the past
>>> you had a visiting crew with new ship and returning on old after staying
>>> a few days at the ISS Hilton. But if ships now stay with the crews,
>>> there there are no longer short duration trips posisble with crews just
>>> switching the ships and coming back.
>>
>>I don't see any problem with a short duration trip if you're paying for the
>> Crew Dragon flight. Docking ports may be a limitation, though.
>>
>
> Actually it's already scheduled:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_Mission_1

There are a few windows where there is a docking port available, but
always having a Crew Dragon for the Expediton teams, and with
additional cargo vessels, makes for some challenges.

/dps

--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm