Richard Branson - Really?

NJROTC-CC

NJROTC-CC

5-Year Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
2,574
Does no one in the news media remember the X-15 project.? The Air Force did EXACTLY the same thing in the 1960's. A rocket plane, carried aloft by a mother ship, dropped, then rockets to space and glides back to earth.

All this guy did with his millions (billions?) is to create a toy-version of existing technology for his own amusement. Why don't these billionaires get together and do something useful, like address climate change. Or, least invest the warp-drive, or nuclear fusion, or something we actually need.
 
Sorry, I have an issue when people think they have the right to dictate how other people spend their money. They made their money fairly and they can blow it any way they want. More importantly, the future of space tourism, exploration, and commercialization will be in the hands of private companies and not NASA. NASA is an exceptional institution and has gotten to us a place that no one imagined in the 1950s. Having said that, they are still a government agency that has to deal with bureaucracy, politics, and the whims of Congress. Nasa opened up the door to space, but they won't the ones leading when the space race happens. I not even saying that Virgin and Amazon will even be a player 10 years down the line, but competition (and money) between the companies will be the spark that gets out into space.
 
He seemed pretty excited to go up only 52 miles on a sub-orbital flight. I think if the guy wants to spend his money that way, it's fine with me.

Alan Shepard went up 116 miles high in a similar sub-orbital flight, 60 years ago on top of a short-range ballistic missile.
Just to put things in perspective.
1626144831178.png
 
I am sure I am in the minority on this site ... I wouldn’t do either what Branson or Shepard did for any amount of money. My son would have loved to do that.
 
THParent said:
Alan Shepard went up 116 miles high in a similar sub-orbital flight, 60 years ago on top of a short-range ballistic missile.
Click to expand...

I noticed the creature comforts were slightly better for Branson's flight. It looked like the back of a private jet. I couldn't tell if they had a beverage and meal service.

I think space tourism is actually pretty spectacular, for those with the $$$.

I'm not really a fan of referring to them as "Astronaut" though. The two up front driving? Absolutely! The passengers riding in the back? ehh, maybe a different term is needed.

Astronaut derives from astro or astron meaning star, and naut meaning sailor. NASA Mission Specialists are absolutely Astronauts even though they aren't flying the shuttle, because they are trained and contributing to the operation and mission, just like everyone aboard a Navy ship - they are all sailors.

I don't think passengers are sailors, but "Space Traveler" or "Space Voyager"? Sure. The Greek word for voyager is taxidiotis. So, what do we call these people who spend $400,000 for 4 min in sub orbit in the back of a space cruiser?

Astro-taxidiotis, or Astroidiot , I like it!
 
It’s his money. He earned it by busting his rear end and going from selling Christmas trees, starting a magazine, opening his own record store, to owning a label and becoming an airline mogul. Not bad for a dyslexic kid who never attended college. I’d much rather have someone like him directing his money than a bureaucratic know it all in some far away “capital city”.
This was not meant to be a one time thing. I think his intent is to bring space travel initially to wealthy people, but eventually get it to the point where it is commercially viable for the common person. It’s not to say the X-15 wasn’t awesome and ahead of it’s time. Or that this isn’t getting people as high as the Mercury program. But just as such programs led to technology that people didn’t imagine, I’m sure scaling space flight to the point where it is affordable for more than just a few people. Heck, air travel was initially only for the very wealthy. The common person never traveled by air. Up until deregulation air travel was still for the wealthy and the businessman. People saved all their lives for a vacation by air. Now it’s very common. It’s now unusual to find someone who hasn’t traveled by air.
 
Let's not forget the point behind the whole exercise, which to produce commercially viable, quick turnaround, reusable spacecraft for a range of missions--including space tourism and passenger transport. Ultimately, this will lead to more frequent and cheaper launches.

Looking at these ventures as vanity projects is like scoffing at the first Teslas to roll down the streets of Santa Monica. I am old enough to remember watching smart men arguing about the usefulness of the Apollo program on our family's vacuum TV. As the youngest, it was my job to get up change the channel.
 
cb7893 said:
Let's not forget the point behind the whole exercise, which to produce commercially viable, quick turnaround, reusable spacecraft for a range of missions--including space tourism and passenger transport. Ultimately, this will lead to more frequent and cheaper launches.

Looking at these ventures as vanity projects is like scoffing at the first Teslas to roll down the streets of Santa Monica. I am old enough to remember watching smart men arguing about the usefulness of the Apollo program on our family's vacuum TV. As the youngest, it was my job to get up change the channel.
Click to expand...
I was also the “remote control” and remember the moon landing.
I’m now writing this while walking my dog on a device that resembles a Star Trek communicator and has some of the functions of a “trocorder”. Hooked to my “Dick Tracy” watch it measures my heart rate, VO2 Max, can give me an EKG, and will call 911 if I have a medical emergency to include a fall. All thanks to a college drop out.
 
cb7893 said:
Let's not forget the point behind the whole exercise, which to produce commercially viable, quick turnaround, reusable spacecraft for a range of missions--including space tourism and passenger transport. Ultimately, this will lead to more frequent and cheaper launches.

Looking at these ventures as vanity projects is like scoffing at the first Teslas to roll down the streets of Santa Monica. I am old enough to remember watching smart men arguing about the usefulness of the Apollo program on our family's vacuum TV. As the youngest, it was my job to get up change the channel.
Click to expand...
The infrastructure and supply chain that is behind this should not be ignored. Because of non-disclosure agreements, I won't mention company names or even a specific component but I can say that I worked at a company that was a provider to several of the current "billionaire backed" space ventures and what we supplied is very similar to some aerospace industry "stuff" that goes on fairly common platforms but absolutely NOT in the class of the Shuttle, Space Station or satellite devices. The difference in QA certifications, testing and documentation is indeed huge which translates to huge cost differentials.
.
I would compare it to taking an oil pump designed for a Ford F-150 and putting it into an Indycar or maybe a Deep diving submarine. THe part is inherently cheap but the application usually calls for a much more expensive and exotic part. Think about taking the pump that is designed for an olive oil dispenser and using it in an artificial heart.
.
Of course these sorts of things have risk so lots of care must be taken in the systems design and planning BUT, this is how you eventually evolve from a many millions of dollars per launch down to a more aircraft-like cost structure.
 
I think what people are forgetting when they say that most of what these people are doing now has been done in the past is that it's being accomplished cheaper, safer and with the ability to reuse the same ships more than once. Per the latest demonstration, any moron (with the right amount of money) can get on the Virgin ship and fly up into the edge of space. You can't say the same with the X-15.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top