Author Topic: Virgin Galactic: $250 million program (Read 10143 times)

iamlucky13 · « **on:** 03/26/2008 01:02 am »

I'm not sure where to post sub-orbital stuff...

This was something of a surprise to me:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/25/222290/sales-are-rocketing-at-virgin-galactic.html

Virgin Galactic originally hoped to offer their first suborbital commercial flights by 2007, with development costs running about $100 million. They're currently claiming 2010 and a project cost of around $250 million, including ground infrastructure. The investment now stands at over $80 million.

The large numbers were something of a surprise to me, although they make more sense when you consider they're developing two new airframes and a new (presumably still pressure-fed, hybrid) rocket engine, building 2 aircraft and 5 spacecraft, building an operating facility in New Mexico, and seeking FAA approval for the whole deal.

I'm still very skeptical of the claims that the market will bear 1000 customers per year at $200,000 per flight. 250 have signed up so far and payed a deposit or full, and that's with the benefit of the initial hype. Those 250 represent 20% of the project development costs.

I'm also curious if either Virgin Galactic or Scaled Composites (now Northrup Grumman) has definite plans to offer commercial lift services with the White Knight 2. As far as I can think of, White Knight is the only current aircraft designed specifically with external payload lifting and aerial release in mind. WK1 has already done a little of this sort of work for the Air Force and NASA, most notably for the X-37 program.

Here's the most current news I'm aware of on the program status:
http://www.space.com/news/080123-virgingalactic-ss2-design.html

Lampyridae · « **Reply #1 on:** 03/26/2008 05:21 am »

Quote

iamlucky13 - 26/3/2008 12:02 PM
I'm still very skeptical of the claims that the market will bear 1000 customers per year at $200,000 per flight. 250 have signed up so far and payed a deposit or full, and that's with the benefit of the initial hype. Those 250 represent 20% of the project development costs.

Richard Branson strikes me as somebody who can make a buck or two. Having 20% of your development costs in your bank already is something few ventures can claim. However, if they are to be believed, they will make their development costs back in 3 or 4 years.

Anyway, there are hotels and housing estates that cost more than this. All this really amounts to is a flying theme park.

NUAETIUS · « **Reply #2 on:** 03/26/2008 04:35 pm »

I have a picture of my great grandfather standing in front a Curtiss JN-4 during the 20s. He took a ride and the next year invested several thousands from his lumber company with a small aircraft company called Boeing Airplane Company. The rest is history. Point being is that airplanes, helicopters, and dirigibles all started out as flying theme parks. Lets just hope this time it turns out like the plane and not the dirigibles.

PurduesUSAFguy · « **Reply #3 on:** 03/26/2008 04:35 pm »

$250 million is the size of some large conglomerates advertising budgets, I'm sure if nothing else the Branson can look at Virgin Galactic as the worlds most elaborate viral marketing plan for Virgin America and Virgin Atlantic.

iamlucky13 · « **Reply #4 on:** 03/26/2008 06:03 pm »

Hmm...very good points about the cost of theme parks and advertising budgets.

Nuaetius, I won't debate that spaceflight has vast potential. I'm a firm believer in that myself. It's merely the economics of suborbital tourism that have me doubtful. What Virgin Galactic proposes to do is equivalent to selling rides around the landing strip on the Wright Flyer at a time when there's JN-4s are already flying mail and passengers to destinations. However, in Virgin's case, there's at least an order of magnitude difference in the effective cost.

I can't say for sure that it will fail, but it seems barely credible to me that they expect as many as 1000 people per year to be able and willing to pay 4 times the US median household income for a 30 minute ride. I'd wager your great-grandfather paid less than a month's salary for his flight...probably much less.

Don't get me wrong. I think their plan is cool, moderately ambitious technically, and increases the enthusiasm for space flight, which is why I like to keep track of the project. I just think it's wildly over-optimistic economically.

William Barton · « **Reply #5 on:** 03/26/2008 06:14 pm »

It's probably worth noting that Luftschiff Zeppelin company started out as the retirement hobby of a wealth aristocrat. Kind of the SpaceX of 1900. One of the biggest dangers for space tourism is the same thing that put an end to passenger dirigibles: a spectacular accident. Let's hope Branson doesn't make a crater full of millionaires anytime soon.

jabe · « **Reply #6 on:** 03/26/2008 06:45 pm »

I wonder how much it really costs for a flight? (neglecting investment on Bransons part)
if he charges $10 000 to go on a quick rocket flight I'd be tempted to do it. I don't need to go weightless..just to feel the kick of the rocket engine firing for 30 s or so woud keep me happy

I won't need "training", just take my money, stuff me in and take me up..
Since we aren't floating they can add more seats and "stuff" more people in it so they can say they were launched in a rocket. Since final altitude isn't an issue..launch at a lower altitude..save on fuel of whiteknight 2..(not sure if spaceship2 can handle the stresses launching in denser atmosphere though)..but they could do a few launches a day this way. If they put 12 people in it that is $120 000 per flight and I'm sure there is a profit for that fee per flight.

maybe make an suborbital spaceship2 for the rich guy and a low altitude spaceship for guys like me.

my two cents worth
jb

Eerie · « **Reply #7 on:** 03/26/2008 06:47 pm »

iamlucky13;

Planes and rockets are vastly different things. You can`t apply this analogy here. (It`s better no to use any analogy, in fact, because they are always wrong).

Also, I think even SS2 will be safer than the Wright Flyer.

bad_astra · « **Reply #8 on:** 03/26/2008 08:28 pm »

If Xcor or RpK can put you in space for half the price, even if there isn't as much float time, Virgin Galactic has a big problem, especially if Xcor gets off the ground first, that's note even taking Blue Origin into account. Virgin Galactic has the prestige now because they have the design based around SS2, which was a success, but it will be old news if others finally follow up on the X prize flights.

Eerie · « **Reply #9 on:** 03/26/2008 08:57 pm »

Quote

bad_astra - 26/3/2008 4:28 PM

If Xcor or RpK can put you in space for half the price, even if there isn't as much float time, Virgin Galactic has a big problem, especially if Xcor gets off the ground first, that's note even taking Blue Origin into account. Virgin Galactic has the prestige now because they have the design based around SS2, which was a success, but it will be old news if others finally follow up on the X prize flights.

I think there is absolutely no chance in the world that someone will build tourist spaceplane before Scaled\Virgin.

Also, Virgin Galactic said the are going to lower the price for SS2 ride to $20,000 eventually.

docmordrid · « **Reply #10 on:** 03/27/2008 04:58 am »

Not to mention the operational differences between Lynx and the SS2; the Lynx is said to only fly to 61 km with 1 passenger while SS2 is supposed to go well over 100 km with a much larger payload and/or several times as many passengers.

iamlucky13 · « **Reply #11 on:** 03/27/2008 06:10 pm »

Quote

Eerie - 26/3/2008 12:47 PM

iamlucky13;

Planes and rockets are vastly different things. You can`t apply this analogy here. (It`s better no to use any analogy, in fact, because they are always wrong).

Also, I think even SS2 will be safer than the Wright Flyer.

Analogies aren't always wrong, although they do almost always suck. Mine really was an extension of the previous suggestion that because aviation had succeeded from starting as a curiosity, then private space flight ought to as well. I simply tried to point out that like aviation tourism was a tiny piece of the story of aviation success, space tourism will likely be a tiny part of space industry success.

But again, the real issue is not similarities to aviation, but economics. Can Branson attract that many paying customers? Granted, there is the fallback justification of publicity.

Also, I'm not contending that Branson won't follow through with the project. I hope he does. I have absolutely nothing to lose if he succeeds, and it will be cool to watch, even though I won't have the money to join in myself.

Eerie · « **Reply #12 on:** 03/27/2008 06:30 pm »

Quote

iamlucky13 - 27/3/2008 2:10 PM
Analogies aren't always wrong, although they do almost always suck. Mine really was an extension of the previous suggestion that because aviation had succeeded from starting as a curiosity, then private space flight ought to as well. I simply tried to point out that like aviation tourism was a tiny piece of the story of aviation success, space tourism will likely be a tiny part of space industry success.

Analogies are always wrong. Sorry, that`s just a kind of built-in axiom of the universe.

Problem is, there is no space industry right now, not to mention success. There might be in the future, of course.

Just umagine a situation where humanity is stuck with the Wright Flyer for seventy years. It is useless for anything but curiosity, so why not make some money driving people on it?

Quote

But again, the real issue is not similarities to aviation, but economics. Can Branson attract that many paying customers?

I hope that the price will keep falling with the time, and due to competition. If they start with $200k but are willing to lower to $20k, something tells me it can be a $1000 for a ticket...

William Barton · « **Reply #13 on:** 03/27/2008 06:59 pm »

At $1000 a ticket, it'd be shorn of all the training + vacation aspects. You'd go to the spaceport and go for the ride. Once it's established safe and viable, I could see that happening.

hop · « **Reply #14 on:** 03/27/2008 09:29 pm »

Quote

docmordrid - 26/3/2008 10:58 PM

Not to mention the operational differences between Lynx and the SS2; the Lynx is said to only fly to 61 km with 1 passenger while SS2 is supposed to go well over 100 km with a much larger payload and/or several times as many passengers.

From the promo video, Lynx looks to me like it's more aimed at the kind of people who buy high end private aircraft for themselves.

iamlucky13 · « **Reply #15 on:** 03/27/2008 11:34 pm »

I don't think it could realistically get down to $1000 per flight. The several tons of fuel per flight probably cost more than that. Plus you've got a pilot and copilot for the rocket, one for the carrier, and maintenance crews for each, and infrastructure maintenance/lease...and insurance. $10,000 maybe, and I'm sure there'd be a lot of demand for that....it's the cost of a fancy vacation.

Quote

Eerie - 27/3/2008 12:30 PM

Problem is, there is no space industry right now, not to mention success. There might be in the future, of course.

There certainly is. There's just not much in the way of a consumer space industry.

Big Al · « **Reply #16 on:** 03/28/2008 02:12 am »

These sub-orbital operators may find a steady source of income flying sounding rocket type payloads. They will be able to carry a good payload on repeat flights and will be able to carry a human operator as needed. Once the opertunity is there, I would bet the demand will be steady.

Rifleman · « **Reply #17 on:** 03/28/2008 05:13 pm »

I agree that these type of flights will not get as low as $1000 in the foreseeable future, but I think that the $10,000 is achievable, and would have a large market. Not may people can afford $200,000 for a flight, allot of people can afford 10K. I know at 10K, I would find a way to scrape the cash together for a ride.

bad_astra · « **Reply #18 on:** 03/28/2008 06:12 pm »

I could see a flight on something like Stabillo maybe hitting close to the $1000 mark, certainly below $3000. It's fist stage is bascially a giant black trash bag, and the vehicle itself is about as minimal as it gets.

hop · « **Reply #19 on:** 03/28/2008 09:04 pm »

Quote

bad_astra - 28/3/2008 12:12 PM

I could see a flight on something like Stabillo maybe hitting close to the $1000 mark, certainly below $3000. It's fist stage is bascially a giant black trash bag, and the vehicle itself is about as minimal as it gets.

It's hard to guess what they would pay for rocket grade H2O2 in Romania, but I suspect that is getting very close to consumable costs. For anyone doing hydrocarbon fuel from the ground, in a western country with a handful of staff, that sort of price strikes me as completely impossible.

It's worth mentioning that people sell jet fighter joyride packages for considerably more than that: http://www.flymig.com/packages/

I'd expect a suborbital flight to be very competitive with a 30 minute jet rid at a similar price, especially if it doesn't require traveling to a foreign country.

savuporo · « **Reply #20 on:** 03/31/2008 07:45 pm »

Armadillo has real data, from their current testing operations, to say that $10K a flight is realistic near term.
http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?catid=25&itemid=3532
Relevant parts of the quote:

Quote

A four module system should be capable of reaching 100km with a person, but there wouldn't be any redundancy in the system. We will probably use a second generation, nine module system for commercial tourism applications. The raw consumables for a fully loaded nine module flight would be about $5000. If we move to self-pressurized lox/methane and took bulk deliveries, the costs could drop to $1000.

Our flight insurance is per-year, not per-flight, so insurance costs won't be significant if we have a high flight rate. We don't know what the facility usage fees for Spaceport America are going to be yet, but I don't expect them to be too bad, because they really want to get rockets flying there.

If we have to rent equipment and trek the team out to New Mexico to make a single flight, labor and travel overhead will dominate the costs. When we get to the point of having permanent facilities at the spaceport and making several flights a day, I honestly think that the operating cost can get down under $10k / flight. Since we want to perform 100+ demonstration flights before taking random paying customers, this is important. If there is sufficient market demand to keep a vehicle flying continuously, building larger vehicles that carry more people each flight can probably get the actual ticket PRICE down to $10k.

I expect the market ticket price to stay at $200k for at least the first five hundred passengers,

meiza · « **Reply #21 on:** 03/31/2008 08:30 pm »

But it's unclear if that includes the volunteer labor... Once there are people hired to do it full-time, it gets expensive. But still might be cheap.

Comga · « **Reply #22 on:** 04/01/2008 04:56 am »

Quote

iamlucky13 - 26/3/2008 1:03 PM
....... I just think it's wildly over-optimistic economically.

When one of us has made several billion dollars, we will be invited to Branson's private island to share with him our opinions on what is and what is not a good business plan.

savuporo · « **Reply #23 on:** 04/01/2008 05:22 pm »

Quote

meiza - 31/3/2008 11:30 AM
But it's unclear if that includes the volunteer labor... Once there are people hired to do it full-time, it gets expensive. But still might be cheap.

do "it" and "it" gets expensive .. what exactly ? Obviously, the R&D that Armadillo has been doing throughout the last years would be expensive as hell .. paying one of the top 3D coders in the world to mess around with lathes and liquid oxygen would be a damn expensive if entirely unrealistic pitch. But they arent factoring this into ticket prices.

However, when they eventually get to the position to spin something off for operations, i see no reason why their hired labor for operations would be terribly expensive. They have designed and built for ease of operations from day one. Flying something like their nine module stack on routine suborbital flights on a daily basis would not need much ops crew at all.
From everything Carmack has said so far they are aiming for basically gas up and go ops, obviously with some periodic maintenance checks now and then.

Lampyridae · « **Reply #24 on:** 04/02/2008 03:05 am »

Quote

Comga - 1/4/2008 2:56 PM

Quote
iamlucky13 - 26/3/2008 1:03 PM
....... I just think it's wildly over-optimistic economically.
When one of us has made several billion dollars, we will be invited to Branson's private island to share with him our opinions on what is and what is not a good business plan.

Perhaps talking with Richard Branson's cryogenically preserved head on a private island on Mars if this is to be believed...

http://www.google.com/virgle/index.html

1st Mars Mission by 2014. ROTFLOL. But a few more years and $ billions from Richard Branson and I say yes. Going there to stay and quite possibly die in a decompression incident is much easier than getting back to Earth (several hundred mT IMTLEO different). Open source is quite fantastic sometimes, and the best spaceflight simulator is undeniably Orbiter, which is open source.

I may start up a thread on this one...

Comga · « **Reply #25 on:** 04/02/2008 04:52 am »

Quote

Lampyridae - 1/4/2008 9:05 PM

[.. a private island on Mars if this is to be believed...

http://www.google.com/virgle/index.html

1st Mars Mission by 2014. ROTFLOL. ..

That's what you get on this date. "Belief" is not applicable. ROFLMAO is.