Nothing, other than some American billionaires are so rich they can afford to do what a government program did, 59 years ago:

Branson's flight reached: 282,000ft; 53 miles

On July 17, 1962, American test pilot Robert White took the X-15 to an altitude of 314,688 feet or 59 miles.

On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 21:50:36 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> Nothing, other than some American billionaires are so rich they can afford to do what a government program did, 59 years ago:
>
> Branson's flight reached: 282,000ft; 53 miles
>
> On July 17, 1962, American test pilot Robert White took the X-15 to an altitude of 314,688 feet or 59 miles.

Oops! Sorry; forgot he was a Brit, should have just said, "billionaires."

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:50:36 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> Nothing, other than some American billionaires are so rich they can afford to do what a government program did, 59 years ago:
>
> Branson's flight reached: 282,000ft; 53 miles
>
> On July 17, 1962, American test pilot Robert White took the X-15 to an altitude of 314,688 feet or 59 miles.

But the X-15 was lunched from a B-52, didn't take off on it's own power?
Russian pilot Alexandr Fedotov who holds the world altitude record, set on August 31, 1977, when his MiG E-266M reached a mere 123,523 feet.

On 12/07/2021 02:50, RichA wrote:
> Nothing, other than some American billionaires are so rich they can afford to do what a government program did, 59 years ago:
>
> Branson's flight reached: 282,000ft; 53 miles

Ahem.

Branson is a *British billionaire* who started Virgin records in the UK
effectively discovered Mike Oldfield to record Tubular Bells and then
later diversified into airlines and banking.

> On July 17, 1962, American test pilot Robert White took the X-15 to an altitude of 314,688 feet or 59 miles.

It is still quite an acheivement though.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 4:12:08 AM UTC-6, StarDust wrote:

> But the X-15 was lunched from a B-52, didn't take off on it's own power?

Branson's craft was launched from an airplane in that manner as well.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:bf9e3d52-f184-425b-a46f-bf294bc259b7n@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 4:12:08 AM UTC-6, StarDust wrote:
>
>> But the X-15 was lunched from a B-52, didn't take off on it's
>> own power?
>
> Branson's craft was launched from an airplane in that manner as
> well.

Indeed. A very apt comparison, in fact.

Is he still using a fuel that only has about 1/10th the amount of
energy needed to achieve orbit?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Prime Minister Justin Blackface Trudeau tweeted his condolences
https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/GretaMuralCapture.png?w=661&ssl=1
"Quadibloc" wrote in message
news:bf9e3d52-f184-425b-a46f-bf294bc259b7n@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 4:12:08 AM UTC-6, StarDust wrote:

> But the X-15 was lunched from a B-52, didn't take off on it's own power?

Branson's craft was launched from an airplane in that manner as well.

John Savard

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 9:50:36 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> Nothing, other than some American billionaires are so rich they can afford to do what a government program did, 59 years ago:
>
> Branson's flight reached: 282,000ft; 53 miles
>
> On July 17, 1962, American test pilot Robert White took the X-15 to an altitude of 314,688 feet or 59 miles.

It provides a somewhat cheaper alternative for spaceflight to the public.

On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 15:51:57 UTC-4, W wrote:
> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 9:50:36 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> > Nothing, other than some American billionaires are so rich they can afford to do what a government program did, 59 years ago:
> >
> > Branson's flight reached: 282,000ft; 53 miles
> >
> > On July 17, 1962, American test pilot Robert White took the X-15 to an altitude of 314,688 feet or 59 miles.
> It provides a somewhat cheaper alternative for spaceflight to the public.

"Space" flight. Doing a big loop, not achieving orbit, not venturing into real space.

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

> "Space" flight. Doing a big loop, not achieving orbit, not venturing into real space.

True, but you have to start somewhere.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:6a87a497-e74b-4974-9d74-515da904f534n@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>
>> "Space" flight. Doing a big loop, not achieving orbit, not
>> venturing into real space.
>
> True, but you have to start somewhere.
>
True. But that's not a reason to pretend it's more than it is. If he
were testing something capable, eventually, of orbital flight, it'd
be more impressive. But the technology he's using cannot, ever, under
any circumstances, be useful for anything other than a toy for rich
people, doing someting NASA and the Air Force did six decades ago.
Yawn.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:06:25 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 15:51:57 UTC-4, W wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 9:50:36 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> > > Nothing, other than some American billionaires are so rich they can afford to do what a government program did, 59 years ago:
> > >
> > > Branson's flight reached: 282,000ft; 53 miles
> > >
> > > On July 17, 1962, American test pilot Robert White took the X-15 to an altitude of 314,688 feet or 59 miles.
> > It provides a somewhat cheaper alternative for spaceflight to the public.
> "Space" flight. Doing a big loop, not achieving orbit, not venturing into real space.
The plane went into "real space." It just didn't have enough velocity to stay there.
Anyone buying a ticket on this thing would know that they would not be going into orbit.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 04:25:02 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>news:6a87a497-e74b-4974-9d74-515da904f534n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>>
>>> "Space" flight. Doing a big loop, not achieving orbit, not
>>> venturing into real space.
>>
>> True, but you have to start somewhere.
>>
>True. But that's not a reason to pretend it's more than it is. If he
>were testing something capable, eventually, of orbital flight, it'd
>be more impressive. But the technology he's using cannot, ever, under
>any circumstances, be useful for anything other than a toy for rich
>people, doing someting NASA and the Air Force did six decades ago.
>Yawn.

Toys for rich people can fund a lot of new technology.

Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
news:lp5reghf7gkt2f4s1immrqho82gchhckq8@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 04:25:02 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>news:6a87a497-e74b-4974-9d74-515da904f534n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Space" flight. Doing a big loop, not achieving orbit, not
>>>> venturing into real space.
>>>
>>> True, but you have to start somewhere.
>>>
>>True. But that's not a reason to pretend it's more than it is.
>>If he were testing something capable, eventually, of orbital
>>flight, it'd be more impressive. But the technology he's using
>>cannot, ever, under any circumstances, be useful for anything
>>other than a toy for rich people, doing someting NASA and the
>>Air Force did six decades ago. Yawn.
>
> Toys for rich people can fund a lot of new technology.
>
Indeed. but "new" doesn't necesarily mean "useful."

And there's nothing new about solid rubber rocket fuel.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:02:42 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
>news:lp5reghf7gkt2f4s1immrqho82gchhckq8@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 04:25:02 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>news:6a87a497-e74b-4974-9d74-515da904f534n@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Space" flight. Doing a big loop, not achieving orbit, not
>>>>> venturing into real space.
>>>>
>>>> True, but you have to start somewhere.
>>>>
>>>True. But that's not a reason to pretend it's more than it is.
>>>If he were testing something capable, eventually, of orbital
>>>flight, it'd be more impressive. But the technology he's using
>>>cannot, ever, under any circumstances, be useful for anything
>>>other than a toy for rich people, doing someting NASA and the
>>>Air Force did six decades ago. Yawn.
>>
>> Toys for rich people can fund a lot of new technology.
>>
>Indeed. but "new" doesn't necesarily mean "useful."
>
>And there's nothing new about solid rubber rocket fuel.

What's new (potentially) is inexpensive commercialization.

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 9:50:36 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> Nothing, other than some American billionaires are so rich they can afford to do what a government program did, 59 years ago:
>
> Branson's flight reached: 282,000ft; 53 miles
>
> On July 17, 1962, American test pilot Robert White took the X-15 to an altitude of 314,688 feet or 59 miles.

This plane carried two pilots and four passengers, the X-15 only had room for a pilot. There is enough room inside to float weightless. It also has more and larger windows than the X-15.

Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
news:ijasegpafl0l7l1rm391j2imci5jbcrg9k@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:02:42 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
>>news:lp5reghf7gkt2f4s1immrqho82gchhckq8@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 04:25:02 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>news:6a87a497-e74b-4974-9d74-515da904f534n@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Space" flight. Doing a big loop, not achieving orbit, not
>>>>>> venturing into real space.
>>>>>
>>>>> True, but you have to start somewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>True. But that's not a reason to pretend it's more than it is.
>>>>If he were testing something capable, eventually, of orbital
>>>>flight, it'd be more impressive. But the technology he's using
>>>>cannot, ever, under any circumstances, be useful for anything
>>>>other than a toy for rich people, doing someting NASA and the
>>>>Air Force did six decades ago. Yawn.
>>>
>>> Toys for rich people can fund a lot of new technology.
>>>
>>Indeed. but "new" doesn't necesarily mean "useful."
>>
>>And there's nothing new about solid rubber rocket fuel.
>
> What's new (potentially) is inexpensive commercialization.
>
It's not impressive to take something from "too expensive for
anyone" to "to oexpensive for anyone but rich people," especially
when the something in question is as pointless as a short
suborbital flight that didn't even match what was done 60 years
ago. In fact, it's the opposite of impressive: it's lame.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:46:19 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
>news:ijasegpafl0l7l1rm391j2imci5jbcrg9k@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:02:42 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
>>>news:lp5reghf7gkt2f4s1immrqho82gchhckq8@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 04:25:02 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>>>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>news:6a87a497-e74b-4974-9d74-515da904f534n@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Space" flight. Doing a big loop, not achieving orbit, not
>>>>>>> venturing into real space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but you have to start somewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>True. But that's not a reason to pretend it's more than it is.
>>>>>If he were testing something capable, eventually, of orbital
>>>>>flight, it'd be more impressive. But the technology he's using
>>>>>cannot, ever, under any circumstances, be useful for anything
>>>>>other than a toy for rich people, doing someting NASA and the
>>>>>Air Force did six decades ago. Yawn.
>>>>
>>>> Toys for rich people can fund a lot of new technology.
>>>>
>>>Indeed. but "new" doesn't necesarily mean "useful."
>>>
>>>And there's nothing new about solid rubber rocket fuel.
>>
>> What's new (potentially) is inexpensive commercialization.
>>
>It's not impressive to take something from "too expensive for
>anyone" to "to oexpensive for anyone but rich people," especially
>when the something in question is as pointless as a short
>suborbital flight that didn't even match what was done 60 years
>ago. In fact, it's the opposite of impressive: it's lame.

You're missing the point. There are many applications here besides
tourism. The fact that tourism exists provides funding for additional
development.

Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
news:ho4ueghg79bgt02i71d2897hq3bbsk5iro@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 08:46:19 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
>>news:ijasegpafl0l7l1rm391j2imci5jbcrg9k@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:02:42 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
>>>>news:lp5reghf7gkt2f4s1immrqho82gchhckq8@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 04:25:02 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>>>>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>news:6a87a497-e74b-4974-9d74-515da904f534n@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Space" flight. Doing a big loop, not achieving orbit,
>>>>>>>> not venturing into real space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True, but you have to start somewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>True. But that's not a reason to pretend it's more than it
>>>>>>is. If he were testing something capable, eventually, of
>>>>>>orbital flight, it'd be more impressive. But the technology
>>>>>>he's using cannot, ever, under any circumstances, be useful
>>>>>>for anything other than a toy for rich people, doing
>>>>>>someting NASA and the Air Force did six decades ago. Yawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Toys for rich people can fund a lot of new technology.
>>>>>
>>>>Indeed. but "new" doesn't necesarily mean "useful."
>>>>
>>>>And there's nothing new about solid rubber rocket fuel.
>>>
>>> What's new (potentially) is inexpensive commercialization.
>>>
>>It's not impressive to take something from "too expensive for
>>anyone" to "to oexpensive for anyone but rich people,"
>>especially when the something in question is as pointless as a
>>short suborbital flight that didn't even match what was done 60
>>years ago. In fact, it's the opposite of impressive: it's lame.
>
> You're missing the point. There are many applications here
> besides tourism. The fact that tourism exists provides funding
> for additional development.
>
Of technology that will never be more than a lame toy for rich
people, while actual space flight by private companies is
progressing quite nicely elsewhere.

Branson is a decade behind SpaceX. So far. And since Branson is
playing with technology that *can't* reach orbit, there's no reason
to believe he'll ever catch up.

Expensive toys for rich people.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:35:41 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You're missing the point. There are many applications here
>> besides tourism. The fact that tourism exists provides funding
>> for additional development.
>>
>Of technology that will never be more than a lame toy for rich
>people, while actual space flight by private companies is
>progressing quite nicely elsewhere.
>
>Branson is a decade behind SpaceX. So far. And since Branson is
>playing with technology that *can't* reach orbit, there's no reason
>to believe he'll ever catch up.
>
>Expensive toys for rich people.

Glad your crystal ball is so good at predicting where technology will
lead.

On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 00:11:39 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>
> > "Space" flight. Doing a big loop, not achieving orbit, not venturing into real space.
> True, but you have to start somewhere.
>
> John Savard

They're going back to the moon, after 50 years, Branson launches a ship to do what another ship did 50+ years ago. The only real progress in space has been through unmanned planetary probes and space telescopes. The rest of it is horribly expensive and next to worthless, especially the odious ISS which cost $200 billion and sucked the life out of the manned space program at NASA and produced almost NOTHING of scientific value or practical value..

Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
news:d8lueglm8lil81hors7qe57qjrsisj9j9m@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:35:41 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> You're missing the point. There are many applications here
>>> besides tourism. The fact that tourism exists provides funding
>>> for additional development.
>>>
>>Of technology that will never be more than a lame toy for rich
>>people, while actual space flight by private companies is
>>progressing quite nicely elsewhere.
>>
>>Branson is a decade behind SpaceX. So far. And since Branson is
>>playing with technology that *can't* reach orbit, there's no
>>reason to believe he'll ever catch up.
>>
>>Expensive toys for rich people.
>
> Glad your crystal ball is so good at predicting where technology
> will lead.
>
Deson't take much brains to understand "this fuel does not store
enough energy to launch the *fuel* into orbit by an order of
magnitude, much less a payload."

What's the point of developing technology that can't even duplicate
something done 60 years ago, when _others are at the cutting edge
*today*?

What, exactly, is this "additional development" going to do? Be
precise. What will come out of this "additional development? For
that matter, what *has* come out of this "additional development"
since Burt Rutan first used it 17 years ago? (And I doubt it was
new, then.) Looking at Virgin's history of switching back and forth
between HTPB and other fuel formulations, and that the keep coming
back to the one that *can't* achieve orbit by an order of
magnitude, I can't see that they've made *any* progress since
SpaceShipTwo first flew in 2010 (or, for that matter, really, since
SpaceShipOne first flew in 2005).

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 3:50:21 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> Deson't take much brains to understand "this fuel does not store
> enough energy to launch the *fuel* into orbit by an order of
> magnitude, much less a payload."

I thought they solved that problem when they invented the multi-stage rocket.

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 7:19:33 AM UTC-6, W wrote:

> This plane carried two pilots and four passengers, the X-15 only had room for a pilot.
> There is enough room inside to float weightless. It also has more and larger windows than the X-15.

Those are good points.

There is one other reason to defend Branson's flight that I see:

The X-15 that carried Chuck Yeager wasn't built by Virgin Aerospace, but by
another company. So by building and testing a craft with similar capabilities
themselves, they've acquired technical knowledge that you may not be able
to get from reading patents or textbooks that will help them as they build
more advanced craft.

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:46:23 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> It's not impressive to take something from "too expensive for
> anyone" to "to oexpensive for anyone but rich people,"

Not even when it's a decrease in the cost by several orders
of magnitude?

John Savard