New Space - In 20 Years Will Old Space Matter?

[mr. mark]

Just some examples of new space. Virgin Galactic will be starting to launch hundreds of people to suborbital space in less than 2 years. Spacex and Boeing will be launching private and government astronauts to multiple orbital space stations. After that, who knows? Bigelow has called for a moon base beyond LEO and we know all know about Elon Musk. Will government run space really matter in the 20 years?

[ugordan]

"old space" != government run space

[Chris Bergin]

Just some examples of new space. Virgin Galactic will be starting to launch hundreds of people to suborbital space in less than 2 years. Spacex and Boeing will be launching private and government astronauts to multiple orbital space stations. After that, who knows? Bigelow has called for a moon base beyond LEO and we know all know about Elon Musk. Will government run space really matter in the 20 years?

You sound like Bolden trying to defend the since-defeated FY2011. Didn't exactly help his career.

Posting a picture of a suborbital joyride for Paris Hilton and other overly rich Z list celebrities does not inspire me. Do not forget you need a ton of money to stand a chance of even that ride, and Branson - well known for talking utter bollocks over here - insulted Shuttle when he said SS2 would be "safer than the space shuttle" (comparing a scooter with an 18 wheeler), and then ignored the 30 years of Shuttle dominating space flight with his little picture logo on the side which stupidly placed SS2 in the same league as Apollo.

The real new space will be BEO, and guess who's going to be doing that.

SpaceX will be interesting, but NASA will always lead.

[neilh]

"old space" != government run space

An important point.

[mr. mark]

Chris, I would not take Branson for a fool. Anyone who can take a record company and spin it off into a corporate giant is no fool. He knows exactly what he's doing. Burt Rutan is no slouch either. He developed a feathering reentry system, not bad. Both Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic know where they are going. As announced last year, Virgin/Scaled will be developing a point to point suborbital vehicle that could revolutionize travel times here on Earh for average people. The vehicle that will do that will be called SS3. Going to the Moon and to Mars may be cool but turning spaceflight into a practical application is what most average people want. If they can fly suborbital point to point say from LA to Tokyo in several hours, that's a practical benefit, something NASA does not seem to want to be engaged in.

[Lars_J]

SpaceX will be interesting, but NASA will always lead.

I sincerely hope not. NASA has done great things, but if NASA is still in the lead of spaceflight - say 50 or 100 years from now - I will consider it a sad state of affairs. If only because there is only so much exploration that can be done within NASA's budget, and I would hope for much more than that. We will never become a true multi-planet species under the lead of NASA. One would hope by then NASA (or whatever it has evolved into by then) has evolved into an entity that can assist those goals instead of insisting on being in the lead.

[Jim]

something NASA does not seem to want to be engaged in.

Which it shouldn't be engage in either.  Point to point travel is not NASA's job, it is industries.

NASA/=US HSF.

[Chris Bergin]

Chris, I would not take Branson for a fool. Anyone who can take a record company and spin it off into a corporate giant is no fool. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Rutan is great, but on the above you need to read up on the history of what RB did to his companies (many of which no longer exist). Virgin Records was a bloodbath.

[brihath]

For private companies to be involved in space, there has to be either profits or massive government support.  If private companies can make money at it, they will play in that space.

As for BEO exploration, I believe that governments will have to carry that one for the foreseeable future.  It is too cost prohibitive for anything else.

[Nathan]

something NASA does not seem to want to be engaged in.

Which it shouldn't be engage in either.  Point to point travel is not NASA's job, it is industries.

NASA/=US HSF.

People do seem to forget this don't they?
NASA's role in the commercial sector should be to be a space business incubator and customer where appropriate. But NASA's main job is to push the frontier, to pave a trail for commercial enterprise to follow.
NASA won't ever be profitable but it does produce a strong return on investment that cannot be ignored.

[ugordan]

But NASA's main job is to push the frontier, to pave a trail for commercial enterprise to follow.

And in this role NASA will have the lead, as Chris said. It's not an either-or with NASA, "old" and "new" space.

[hop]

Just some examples of new space. Virgin Galactic will may be starting to launch hundreds of people to suborbital space in more or less than 2 years. Spacex and/or Boeing will may be launching private and /or government astronauts to multiple one or more orbital space stations.

I've made some adjustments to more closely align your examples with reality.

[SpacexULA]

Just some examples of new space. Virgin Galactic will may be starting to launch hundreds of people to suborbital space in more or less than 2 years. Spacex and/or Boeing will may be launching private and /or government astronauts to multiple one or more orbital space stations.

I've made some adjustments to more closely align your examples with reality.

But that is the nature of all things is it not?  SDHLV 1st stage MIGHT get completed some time in the next decade, and somewhere at or way above the current cost estimates.  NASA might still have it's 20 Billion dollar  budget, maybe a little more, maybe a lot less.

The only thing that can be said to be sure, in 20 years, if Virgin, Armadillo, SpaceX, Masten, etc survive, they will no longer be Newspace, they will be just other Aerospace firms offering services.

If SpaceX is successful at reducing costs, ULA will adjust their business model to compete (and likely take a few senior VP from SpaceX to emulate anything they need), if Virgin is successful, the space ship company can sell their vehicles to other buyers (Virgin only has a lot on the 1st less than a dozen airframes).  If Armadillo/Masten are successful the Up! and the like will adjust their business model to compete.

The market will adapt, our demands will grow, and evenatually all that is novel will be old hat.

[vt_hokie]

I sincerely hope not. NASA has done great things, but if NASA is still in the lead of spaceflight - say 50 or 100 years from now - I will consider it a sad state of affairs. If only because there is only so much exploration that can be done within NASA's budget, and I would hope for much more than that. We will never become a true multi-planet species under the lead of NASA. One would hope by then NASA (or whatever it has evolved into by then) has evolved into an entity that can assist those goals instead of insisting on being in the lead.

There will always be a need for a NASA-type agency for cutting edge research & development, and true exploration, imo.  When technology becomes proven, and we move from exploration to exploitation, that's where the commercial side comes in.  The two are complementary, not mutually exclusive, imo.

[docmordrid]

Chris, I would not take Branson for a fool. Anyone who can take a record company and spin it off into a corporate giant is no fool. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Rutan is great, but on the above you need to read up on the history of what RB did to his companies (many of which no longer exist). Virgin Records was a bloodbath.

ALL record companies were destined to be bloodbaths as soon as MP3 was invented, some sooner than others.  Just look at CD sales for proof.

Also, Branson sold it to Thorn EMI for a cool $1 billion, so from his standpoint it wasn't too bloody

[FinalFrontier]

Just some examples of new space. Virgin Galactic will be starting to launch hundreds of people to suborbital space in less than 2 years. Spacex and Boeing will be launching private and government astronauts to multiple orbital space stations. After that, who knows? Bigelow has called for a moon base beyond LEO and we know all know about Elon Musk. Will government run space really matter in the 20 years?

Yes I think it will. Regardless of the legacy of "old space" I think that if the new SLS program is executed properly one could consider just as new space as anything else (after all it would be THE most cost effective program NASA has ever run, and one of the most cost effective government programs around if not the most). Additionally it will open up space to us again. I think commercial will also become big, and ultimately will be a big explorer and driver for more wide-scale exploration (and eventually colonization) of space. But I think that government may always be there and will likely be the pioneers (i.e. the first to go to new destinations and new places) with commercial helping out tremendously in what "came before" (in the immediate future LEO), and in deep space exploration.

I believe that NASA will go there, and commercial will get us there Make sense? 

[Paul Adams]

Chris, I would not take Branson for a fool. Anyone who can take a record company and spin it off into a corporate giant is no fool. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Rutan is great, but on the above you need to read up on the history of what RB did to his companies (many of which no longer exist). Virgin Records was a bloodbath.

As someone who worked for Richard, I can say he threw amazing parties!

[hop]

But that is the nature of all things is it not?  SDHLV 1st stage MIGHT get completed some time in the next decade, and somewhere at or way above the current cost estimates.  NASA might still have it's 20 Billion dollar  budget, maybe a little more, maybe a lot less.

I agree completely. I'd rate SpaceX chance of succeeding as commercial crew provider is at least as likely as NASA flying an SDHLV, but that's a pretty low bar to meet.

My complaint was Mr. Mark taking the success of the new space ventures he mentions as a given.

[savuporo]

Posting a picture of a suborbital joyride for Paris Hilton and other overly rich Z list celebrities does not inspire me. Do not forget you need a ton of money to stand a chance of even that ride

Why this derogatory angle ?

Armadillo calculated their suborbital ticket prices in the range of low tens of thousands, which is NOT out of reach of any enthusiast, willing to sell their car.

[alexw]

Posting a picture of a suborbital joyride for Paris Hilton and other overly rich Z list celebrities does not inspire me. Do not forget you need a ton of money to stand a chance of even that ride

Why this derogatory angle ?
Armadillo calculated their suborbital ticket prices in the range of low tens of thousands, which is NOT out of reach of any enthusiast, willing to sell their car.

    Chris's choice of wording may be florid, but not inaccurate:

The CRuSR funding is a relative drop in the bucket, but that small investment is being held up as one example of how commercial space vehicles can serve national science interests and not just taxi wealthy tourists into space and back. A trip to suborbital space will cost a 100-kg tourist or science experiment between $100 000 and $200 000, says Armadillo Aerospace vice president Neil Milburn. “Our gut feeling tells us that the scientific-payload market is probably as large as, if not larger than, the market for space tourists.”

http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_63/iss_10/28_1.shtml    dated this month.
-Alex

[bad_astra]

In 20 years there won't be a "New Space" or "old space." The industry will be more robust, and the new cmopanies that have found their niche will either have integrated in while making money with the rest, or will fold. Regardless, government is going to be the biggest customer. Always will be.

[Lars_J]

"Always" is a rather long time span to make such definitive statements for.

I'm no futurologist, but I am an avid SF reader. Once humanity spreads across the solar system, nation-state ties and organizations that originate on earth will not be as relevant nor as influential as they are now. New ones may replace them, or they may fade away.

If space travel becomes a commodity, government(s) will no longer be the biggest customers - just like they are no longer for air-travel, cars, electronics, and other commodities.

[SpacexULA]

In 20 years there won't be a "New Space" or "old space." The industry will be more robust, and the new cmopanies that have found their niche will either have integrated in while making money with the rest, or will fold. Regardless, government is going to be the biggest customer. Always will be.

It's really way to early to say "Always will be" with that much certainty.  I would say for the next 10 years there is a near 100% change that government will be the largest customer.

But after that point I think all bets are off.

Bigelow said that they would need 20+ Launches a year to support their Bigelow stations, that in itself would mean that Bigelow would be a larger customer for ULA than the government.

For early adopters Virgin is asking $200,000 for a trip to 100km, which makes many people scoff at the cost, and their ability to fill the seats but remember that is only twice as much as a Mt. Everst climb, and you would be part of a much more exclusive club.

More so than any time I have seen in Space, we are in transition.  10 years now could be a lot like 10 years ago, or VASTLY different, and noone really knows what's down the road.  Only time will tell.

[savuporo]

In 20 years there won't be a "New Space" or "old space." The industry will be more robust, and the new cmopanies that have found their niche will either have integrated in while making money with the rest, or will fold. Regardless, government is going to be the biggest customer. Always will be.

It's really way to early to say "Always will be" with that much certainty.  I would say for the next 10 years there is a near 100% change that government will be the largest customer.

Soo .. looking at the tonnage lifted to LEO over last year, for how much was government a customer ? Im guessing, not that much.

[hop]

Soo .. looking at the tonnage lifted to LEO over last year, for how much was government a customer ? Im guessing, not that much.

Guess again ?

By my rough count, in 2009, govt launches outnumbered commercial by about 3:1. LEO is even more skewed, and by tonnage, there's no contest at all (*cough* STS)

[Norm Hartnett]

http://www.space.com/news/nasa-contracts-private-moon-data-101015.html

This is likely how OS will matter to NS. JMO.

[InvalidAttitude]

I think the question is not "or" but rather "and" as the private companies cannot evolve without some sort of gov. sponsorship, like the SpaceX or the Space Adventures still heavily rely on gov. assets.

The Virgin is a good shot and I gladly take a ride, but come on its still not a fully orbital experience... 

[vt_hokie]

The Virgin is a good shot and I gladly take a ride, but come on its still not a fully orbital experience... 

What bugs me is the amount of hype, and the widespread lack of understanding about what it really amounts to.  I think many people don't understand the difference between a suborbital hop and what's required for orbital spaceflight.  The media doesn't help when it misrepresents things. (That really cheesy episode of CSI Miami comes to mind, where they portrayed a Virgin Galactic-like outfit that flew a modified business jet to orbit for a week or something like that.  Then again, that's a pretty cheesy show anyway!)  I'm sure there are people out there who think who cares if we retire the shuttle, the commercial players like Virgin Galactic are about to replace it!

Don't get me wrong, it's neat stuff, I'm glad to see they're making progress even if it is really just an expensive amusement park ride! (I still think calling it a "manned spaceflight system" is a bit disingenuous, but I guess technically it is, albeit one that barely hits Mach 3 before coasting past the arbitrary official boundary of "space" for a couple of minutes and then falling back to Earth. Still, I'd love to take a ride on it!)

[savuporo]

I think many people don't understand the difference between a suborbital hop and what's required for orbital spaceflight.

Yes, and the topic has been debated on these boards multiple times. The difficulty of going from suborbital to orbital flight is likely often exaggerated.

History has some proof : Freedom 7 to Friendship 7 was not a long gap.

I always found this amusing :
"Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev criticized Freedom 7 as a mere "flea hop" compared to the flight of Vostok 1."

[butters]

There will be no BEO spaceflight in the next 20 years or more without public funding.  There is no profit motive for interplanetary science, and a commercial lunar hotel would be priced way beyond even the most elite private consumer markets.

The only medium-term source of funding for BEO spaceflight is taxpayers.  So in terms of financing, the public sector is the only real option for the time being.

But that only means that the taxpayers are buying.  This doesn't speak to whom we are buying from.  We can buy from NASA agencies which market products of their own design directly to Congress and contract their manufacture to commercial firms.  Or we can buy from commercial firms which market products to NASA under the auspices of congressional authorization.

So in terms of design and specification (as distinct from objectives and requirements, which are derived from NASA as the financier), we can choose between public and private solutions, and the new law chooses some of both.

None of this really matters with respect to "new space" vs. "old space", since both generations of aerospace firms theoretically have equal opportunity to secure publicly-funded contracts regardless of whether the designs are NASA specifications or their own commercial proposals.  One may argue that in practice new space might have a better shot if they are permitted to bid in-house designs.

Then there is a question of what is "new space" and what is old space"?  Is Boeing "new space" in the context of CST-100, or do we consider them to be clearly "old space" by virtue of absorbing all the firms that manufactured the Shuttle Orbiters, Apollo CSM, and Saturn V?

And does this distinction even matter?

If personally find it very hard to believe that Congress will let Boeing and Lockheed Martin be squeezed out of the civilian space program by the likes of SpaceX.  We also know that ATK has substantial political clout, and so does P&WR. 

I believe that SpaceX can potentially compete in the future with P&WR for third-party engine contracts.  But there is room for two American suppliers of liquid rocket engines, and SpaceX may end up displacing Russian engines more than P&WR.

SpaceX may also put a dent in the demand for ISS experiment racks.

As for the suborbital guys -- Virgin, Masten, Armadillo, and the like -- they don't really have any "old space" competition, and what they're trying to do (for the time being at least) is obviously a different ballgame than the orbital market.

In short: "old space" isn't going anywhere.  They'll have at least the Pentagon to keep them alive and launching.  "New space" may penetrate the civilian public space program and will likely surpass American "old space" in commercial services (where they haven't been competitive with Russia and Europe).

[hop]

The difficulty of going from suborbital to orbital flight is likely often exaggerated.

I disagree. It tends to be underestimated. Specifically, people tend to take things like SS1 / SS2, which are totally almost entirely irrelevant to orbital flight, and say "hey they are already in space, just a few more minor adjustments and they will be in orbit."

History has some proof : Freedom 7 to Friendship 7 was not a long gap.

That doesn't prove your claim. Mercury was always an orbital program, the vehicle was designed to be an orbital vehicle from the start. The fact that it happened to have some suborbital test flights first does not do anything to illustrate the relatively difficulty.

[mr. mark]

Just because you wish for SS3 to be an orbital vehicle does not make it so. Virgin Galactic/Scaled have stated that the next evolution for the vehicle will be suborbital point to point. So looking about another 10 years out, that's the market that they will be going for. Capsules are going to be around for LEO transport for a long time. And for good reason, you don't need wings beyond LEO and a capsule design can be scaled up for BEO. A wnged vehicle cannot due to BEO reentry speeds.

[savuporo]

Specifically, people tend to take things like SS1 / SS2, which are totally irrelevant to orbital flight

And then we have people like you come with absolute statements like "totally irrelevant". Come on ?
A manned rocket powered vehicle that goes up to vacuum, with attitude control system, with life support, does a reentry from low velocities .. is "totally irrelevant" ? I mean, come on ..

[hop]

And then we have people like you come with absolute statements like "totally irrelevant". Come on ?
A manned rocket powered vehicle that goes up to vacuum, with attitude control system, with life support, does a reentry from low velocities .. is "totally irrelevant" ? I mean, come on ..

It's not a viable starting point for an orbital, crew carrying vehicle. So yeah, it's irrelevant. "totally" was a bit of hyperbole, feel free to substitute "almost entirely"

[vt_hokie]

Just because you wish for SS3 to be an orbital vehicle does not make it so. Virgin Galactic/Scaled have stated that the next evolution for the vehicle will be suborbital point to point. So looking about another 10 years out, that's the market that they will be going for.

I actually find this potentially more exciting than suborbital joyrides, as this would be a practical application of technology that could transform the transportation landscape and make the world a little smaller - sort of the difference between a roller coaster and a practical rail transportation system!

[savuporo]

It's not a viable starting point for an orbital, crew carrying vehicle.

How can you claim that with absolute certainty ? Do you work for Rutan ? Are you privy to their engineering plans ? Do you know exactly which design elements from SS1 to SS2 got reused, and how much got  re-invented ? Do you know the exact details of SS3 plans ?
Nobody even knows yet the final flight configuration of SS2, or whether its going to work at all. Thats why they run an incremental flight test program.

Making such claims at this point is not much more than FUD. You could say "i dont see direct application of key SS2 technologies like its shuttlecock reentry method for orbital flights" but thats about it.

[hop]

How can you claim that with absolute certainty ?

The basic parameters are well known (like SS1 but a bit bigger). Don't need to be privy to engineering details to conclude that very little of the hardware is applicable to orbital flight. It's a high performance aircraft that happens to use a modest performance rocket for propulsion. If you think this is FUD, maybe you can explain what aspects of an SS1 type vehicle could be re-used on an orbital vehicle.

I don't know anything about "SS3" but I don't think Rutan has ever claimed that there would be a simple evolution form SS1/SS2 to an orbital vehicle.

FWIW, I'm talking about the hardware here. Having easy access to suborbital space might very useful in developing orbital vehicles, especially if they also use it as the first stage of an orbital micro-launcher. The experience gained developing and operating the suborbitals may also be very valuable.

[FinalFrontier]

How can you claim that with absolute certainty ?

The basic parameters are well known (like SS1 but a bit bigger). Don't need to be privy to engineering details to conclude that very little of the hardware is applicable to orbital flight. It's a high performance aircraft that happens to use a modest performance rocket for propulsion. If you think this is FUD, maybe you can explain what aspects of an SS1 type vehicle could be re-used on an orbital vehicle.

I don't know anything about "SS3" but I don't think Rutan has ever claimed that there would be a simple evolution form SS1/SS2 to an orbital vehicle.

FWIW, I'm talking about the hardware here. Having easy access to suborbital space might very useful in developing orbital vehicles, especially if they also use it as the first stage of an orbital micro-launcher. The experience gained developing and operating the suborbitals may also be very valuable.

Not exactly. Orbital VS Suborbital is a big difference. Namely it depends how high your going and how many orbits your planning on. Also I am not sure if they can use the same feathering system to re-enter if its orbital, and that entails big design changes to add the needed shielding.

Point to point makes much more sense from a technical and business perspective here. Seems like SS3 would be that.

Lets not forget the success or failure of SS2 will govern whether SS 3 ever happens.

[mr. mark]

I think that for SS3, Virgin and Scaled have looked at this and decided that near term suborbital point to point makes more sense from a business perspective. Both Rutan and Branson have stated that this is where they are going. In fact, they've stated it multiple times and they are right, from a business perspective, there is a lot more potential business for them from suborbital point to point.

[vt_hokie]

How can you claim that with absolute certainty ? Do you work for Rutan ? Are you privy to their engineering plans ? Do you know exactly which design elements from SS1 to SS2 got reused, and how much got  re-invented ? Do you know the exact details of SS3 plans ?
Nobody even knows yet the final flight configuration of SS2, or whether its going to work at all. Thats why they run an incremental flight test program.

Making such claims at this point is not much more than FUD. You could say "i dont see direct application of key SS2 technologies like its shuttlecock reentry method for orbital flights" but thats about it.

I'm pretty sure SS2 would melt if it even tried to stay at Mach 3 for any length of time - I remember a comment to that effect in the SS1 documentary anyway.  The vehicle gets nowhere near the hypersonic regime, and to design a vehicle for that would present much greater challenges.  Designing a vehicle that could achieve orbit, maneuver, keep a crew alive, handle re-entry from orbital velocity, etc. would be orders of magnitude more difficult still, no?   

[hop]

Also I am not sure if they can use the same feathering system to re-enter if its orbital

You can't. Some kind of variable geometry may be useful, but no matter what you do, it won't reduce the loads to the point where you can use ordinary materials with minimal TPS. That's one of the major reasons I believe SS1/SS2 are irrelevant to orbital vehicles.

Point to point makes much more sense from a technical and business perspective here. Seems like SS3 would be that.

I'm skeptical that something like SS1 can be extended to useful distances for point to point. Intercontinental suborbital is much closer to orbital than it is to 100km vertical hops.

[savuporo]

Who said they want to go Hypersonic?  Maybe they will do some neat orbital rendezvous with a propulsive module and do a big burn to decelerate? Maybe they will launch a skyhook/rotovator/momentum exchange tether to accelerate and decelerate to/from orbit?
Both are far fetched, but not out of the realm of possibility. We just don't know what the future orbital RLVs will be like, noone has yet built one.

[mr. mark]

ah...no. No tethers no anything except what they have stated with is point to point suborbital spaceflight. That's it and that's that. Rutan and officials from Virgin Galactic have already spoken on this issue. It is not a rumor. Now, of course, they will have to design SS3 to meet point to point suborbital travel and who knows what it will have in common with SS2.   One more thing for the 200,000th time NO ORBIT for SS3!

[savuporo]

We aren't having an argument over SS3. We are arguing over whether technologies developed for suborbital manned spaceflight will have applications for orbital versions.

IMO it's pretty naive to say that they wont..

[hop]

Who said they want to go Hypersonic?  Maybe they will do some neat orbital rendezvous with a propulsive module and do a big burn to decelerate? Maybe they will launch a skyhook/rotovator/momentum exchange tether to accelerate and decelerate to/from orbit?
Both are far fetched, but not out of the realm of possibility. We just don't know what the future orbital RLVs will be like, noone has yet built one.

Wow. I thought you were arguing that the technology of SS1 type vehicles was somehow relevant to building the kind of orbital vehicles we actually know how to build.

If the concepts you mention actually come about, then the problem is solved, but it is the existence of rotovators or miracle rockets (propulsive deceleration ? seriously ?  ) that solves it. In that situation, SS1 type vehicles would still be a footnote.

[Jorge]

Who said they want to go Hypersonic?  Maybe they will do some neat orbital rendezvous with a propulsive module and do a big burn to decelerate? Maybe they will launch a skyhook/rotovator/momentum exchange tether to accelerate and decelerate to/from orbit?
Both are far fetched, but not out of the realm of possibility. We just don't know what the future orbital RLVs will be like, noone has yet built one.

And maybe they will use a transporter to beam the crew down first.

Rutan's philosophy is to favor designs that can be incrementally flight-tested. An orbital RLV without the capability to survive entry on its own, and that relies on orbital rendezvous to survive the return trip, pretty much by definition can't be tested incrementally: it's all or nothing. I really don't seen him going for a design like that.

Even if Rutan were to get comfortable with the idea, I'd put the over/under on this type of re-entry at 25 years. That's almost certainly beyond Rutan's lifetime. You can wave this prediction in my face if I'm wrong, but it's probably beyond my lifetime as well.

[Hotdog]

I think the significance of the suborbital market, and Virgin in particular, is underestimated. Sure, in terms of the energy required and complexity, orbital flight is in a different league. The SS1/SS2 design is pretty amazing though. Orbital chemical rockets are evolutionary not revolutionary. When SpaceX developed their rockets, they specifically kept it simple and chose the simplest and most successful elements from previous rocket designs. A great strategy but Burt Rutan's design on the other hand is something completely new and innovative. Who knows what he can come up with when his focus is on orbital. Maybe they will fail if they ever attempt orbital flight but this guy certainly thinks out of the box.

The big affect that SS2 and SS3 (if it materialises) will have is not in technology. It is in making the average guy on the street believe that space travel is possible for them in their lifetime. If Virgin even just clear their current orders it will have a massive effect on public perception. This public enthusiasm will feed into budget for governmental space and market for commercial orbital space.

Now Branson, love him or hate him, is good at PR. Maybe, as somebody stated above, half his companies have failed but that is not the impression that the average person gets. The perception is that he is a great forward-thinking businessman. Maybe it is all garbage but it works. Who better to be a PR man for popularising space than this guy? Maybe he is out of his depth technically and makes stupid statements comparing SS2 to the shuttle but I bet there will be a net benefit from his input into this industry.

Also I am not sure if they can use the same feathering system to re-enter if its orbital

You can't. Some kind of variable geometry may be useful, but no matter what you do, it won't reduce the loads to the point where you can use ordinary materials with minimal TPS. That's one of the major reasons I believe SS1/SS2 are irrelevant to orbital vehicles.

Point to point makes much more sense from a technical and business perspective here. Seems like SS3 would be that.

I'm skeptical that something like SS1 can be extended to useful distances for point to point. Intercontinental suborbital is much closer to orbital than it is to 100km vertical hops.

[Cinder]

I think someone said above that SS3 wouldn't be a simple evolution of SS1/2.  This is what I remember hearing or reading too, IIRC from Rutan.

[savuporo]

And maybe they will use a transporter to beam the crew down first.

Rutan's philosophy is to favor designs that can be incrementally flight-tested.

Look : the point is not to claim or guess what Rutan or any other current suborbital builder will end up building. We just dont know, its very early in the evolution.
I did not toss the examples up to claim that this is what he WILL be doing, just to show that there are OTHER ways of achieving things than is the current paradigm.

How hard is it to accept the fact that we just don't know all the solutions at present ? And hence, we also don't know the components of the potential solutions, or whether they will be borrowed from SS2 or a modified Coupe de Ville.

[mrmandias]

Let's hope Old Space matters.

An industry where there are behemoth established companies that write big checks to buy up successful start-ups is an industry where you get lots of start-ups and lots of innovation.

[beancounter]

Let's hope Old Space matters.

An industry where there are behemoth established companies that write big checks to buy up successful start-ups is an industry where you get lots of start-ups and lots of innovation.

Wrong.  Time and again the large established companies have bought out the smaller innovative ones simply to protect market share, profit and executive bonus.  Look at the political lobbying going on to protect the existing orbital interests and keep out the likes of SpaceX by maintaining the status quo.

[mrmandias]

Let's hope Old Space matters.

An industry where there are behemoth established companies that write big checks to buy up successful start-ups is an industry where you get lots of start-ups and lots of innovation.

Wrong.  Time and again the large established companies have bought out the smaller innovative ones simply to protect market share, profit and executive bonus.  Look at the political lobbying going on to protect the existing orbital interests and keep out the likes of SpaceX by maintaining the status quo.

Initial investors in the start-up don't care why the big companies will be writing the check.

[bad_astra]

Wrong.  Time and again the large established companies have bought out the smaller innovative ones simply to protect market share, profit and executive bonus.  Look at the political lobbying going on to protect the existing orbital interests and keep out the likes of SpaceX by maintaining the status quo.

NG bought Scaled. Have they shut it down to protect market share? The truth is, the big three aren't stupid, though due to inertia they may have been slow to react at times. They want the business, if they see there is a market. For instance, if SpaceShip 3, if it gets built, would put NG back in the launcher market again.

[Lars_J]

Let's hope Old Space matters.

An industry where there are behemoth established companies that write big checks to buy up successful start-ups is an industry where you get lots of start-ups and lots of innovation.

Wrong.  Time and again the large established companies have bought out the smaller innovative ones simply to protect market share, profit and executive bonus.

Indeed. Just look at the history of the aerospace industry in this country.  30-40 years ago, a myriad of aerospace companies existed. 30 years of merging have left essentially two giants - "McBoeing" and "Lockmart. Is the aerospace industry better off like this? I'd say not... Innovation is certainly hampered as the ever growing giants become more cautious, and if it doesn't happen due to shareholder fixation then organizational inertia takes care of the rest.

I certainly hope that newer upstarts like SpaceX and others do not get bought up by these giants. Because that will be the end of their rapid progress and innovation.