World View Enterprises - General Discussion and Updates thread

[QuantumG]

It's not spaceflight.. I agree.. but it is space tourism. So is visiting an observatory.

[Garrett]

it's a spacecraft in the sense of having an ECLSS and rated for a vacuum environment (10 mbar)
similar tech could be useful for Mars & Moon
of course, the same could be said of some nuclear submarine tech.

In practice, it might get closer to space than proposals such as Skylon or Excalibur Almaz.

[ChrisWilson68]

it's a spacecraft in the sense of having an ECLSS and rated for a vacuum environment (10 mbar)
similar tech could be useful for Mars & Moon
of course, the same could be said of some nuclear submarine tech.

If I put something in a vacuum chamber, it's not in space.  Vacuum is a property of space, but it is not the definition of space.

In practice, it might get closer to space than proposals such as Skylon or Excalibur Almaz.

So might jumping up and down on a trampoline. :-)

[Moe Grills]

  May I make this humble suggestion?
Instead of the arbitrary claim that a vehicle/craft has to attain an altitude over 100km to become a "spacecraft", let's re-evaluate and re-edit Mr. Karman's declaration and demarcation of that altitude boundary.

Example: Not one of you would dare say that the first successful V2(A4) rocket launch was the official start of the "Space Age" after it peaked above the Karman Line in October, 1942, so why not list different categories
of "space" with different prefixes (hyphenated or not) based on more complete atmospheric and aerodynamic properties?
For example: an ideal sounding balloon can only attain a maximum altitude of about 50 km more or less. Anything above that up to an altitude of 100 km can be declared to be NEARSPACE.
And then anything above 100km altitude to an altitude where micrometeorites start to burn up (120-150 km?)
can be declared to be QUASISPACE.

[catdlr]

Competition??
Super Pressure Balloon launch

Published on Mar 16, 2015
NASA's Wallops Flight Facility
A NASA super pressure balloon lift-offs for a technology test from Sweden in September 2012. NASA’s scientific balloons offer low-cost, near-space access for scientific payloads weighing up to 8,000 pounds for conducting scientific investigations in fields such as astrophysics, heliophysics and atmospheric research.

[meekGee]

  May I make this humble suggestion?
Instead of the arbitrary claim that a vehicle/craft has to attain an altitude over 100km to become a "spacecraft", let's re-evaluate and re-edit Mr. Karman's declaration and demarcation of that altitude boundary.

Example: Not one of you would dare say that the first successful V2(A4) rocket launch was the official start of the "Space Age" after it peaked above the Karman Line in October, 1942, ...

Absolutely it was, IMO.

There was a war going on, but the rocketeers were thinking space even back then.

And "space" should simply be defined as being orbital.  All the rest is missing the point.

[CameronD]

And "space" should simply be defined as being orbital.  All the rest is missing the point.

It'd be nice if it were that simple.. but you could 'go orbital' in an airliner (admittedly at a somewhat lower altitude than the Karman Line and with infinitely large fuel reserves) and I'm not sure that's what you had in mind. 

[meekGee]

And "space" should simply be defined as being orbital.  All the rest is missing the point.

It'd be nice if it were that simple.. but you could 'go orbital' in an airliner (admittedly at a somewhat lower altitude than the Karman Line and with infinitely large fuel reserves) and I'm not sure that's what you had in mind. 

Of course not, but that's not the accepted definition of orbital.  Ballistically orbital.  It's very easy to define what counts and what doesn't, and there's barely any gray zone.

If you want a legal test, ask for a closed planar trajectory around the center of the earth, with no net propulsive input.

[QuantumG]

Of course not, but that's not the accepted definition of orbital.  Ballistically orbital.  It's very easy to define what counts and what doesn't, and there's barely any gray zone.

Then the ISS isn't in orbit as it requires constant reboost.

If you're there to see the blackness of space, it's space tourism. That counts if you're strapped to a rocket, hanging under a balloon, visiting a mountain top observatory or even freezing your butt off in a dark field.. looking up.

The real argument is whether free fall has anything to do with space. After all, that's what skydivers and drop tower ride patrons are chasing. What's that got to do with space? That experience seems incidental to staring at the cosmos or the curvature of the Earth.

[meekGee]

Of course not, but that's not the accepted definition of orbital.  Ballistically orbital.  It's very easy to define what counts and what doesn't, and there's barely any gray zone.

Then the ISS isn't in orbit as it requires constant reboost.

If you're there to see the blackness of space, it's space tourism. That counts if you're strapped to a rocket, hanging under a balloon, visiting a mountain top observatory or even freezing your butt off in a dark field.. looking up.

The real argument is whether free fall has anything to do with space. After all, that's what skydivers and drop tower ride patrons are chasing. What's that got to do with space? That experience seems incidental to staring at the cosmos or the curvature of the Earth.

The ISS can complete an orbit without reboost, so passes as "orbital"....  (yay!)

If you want to come up with definitions that allow people to say they were in space and even better get astronaut wings and a certificate of astronauticity, there's always criteria that will work for you.  Thus WorldView. 

But the whole Karman line thing was dug up by VG because they needed such a criterion, and so from that point of view, it works, and why change it.

It is still meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

[CameronD]

Of course not, but that's not the accepted definition of orbital.  Ballistically orbital.  It's very easy to define what counts and what doesn't, and there's barely any gray zone.

Then the ISS isn't in orbit as it requires constant reboost.

If you're there to see the blackness of space, it's space tourism. That counts if you're strapped to a rocket, hanging under a balloon, visiting a mountain top observatory or even freezing your butt off in a dark field.. looking up.

The real argument is whether free fall has anything to do with space. After all, that's what skydivers and drop tower ride patrons are chasing. What's that got to do with space? That experience seems incidental to staring at the cosmos or the curvature of the Earth.

The ISS can complete an orbit without reboost, so passes as "orbital"....  (yay!)

That's only because, being outside the atmosphere, it's in essentially a friction-less environment.... (boo!)

.....
It is still meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

True enough.

[Vultur]

The thing that really interests me about WorldView is the chance for Paragon to get experience with ECLSS in a real flight situation.