Author Topic: Virgin Galactic: Your Opinion (Read 12229 times)

ShuttleDiscovery · « **on:** 02/16/2007 06:59 pm »

Hi there!

I wanted to know what all of you out there think of Richard Branson's new Virgin Galactic. Will it be a great success or will it end in total disaster?

YOU CHOOSE!

Registered users are very welcome to add their own options!

publiusr · « **Reply #1 on:** 02/18/2007 06:45 pm »

I think Branson and Paul Allen will starve Rutan out--plane and simple:)

ShuttleDiscovery · « **Reply #2 on:** 02/19/2007 05:29 pm »

Wow, I never thought there would be so many mixed opinions on this one! It's about 50/50 between the success and failure options

vt_hokie · « **Reply #3 on:** 02/20/2007 05:48 pm »

There will certainly be a fatal accident before long - not to sound pessimistic, but it's an eventuality they need to be prepared for. Of course, people get killed on roller coasters and in other thrill seeking activities, so it's a question of what failure rate they can tolerate. I don't claim to know the answer to that.

I believe I remember hearing something about a goal of matching the safety level of early 20th century commercial aviation...can anyone confirm that?

ShuttleDiscovery · « **Reply #4 on:** 02/20/2007 06:08 pm »

Quote

vt_hokie - 20/2/2007 6:48 PM

There will certainly be a fatal accident before long - not to sound pessimistic, but it's an eventuality they need to be prepared for. Of course, people get killed on roller coasters and in other thrill seeking activities, so it's a question of what failure rate they can tolerate. I don't claim to know the answer to that.

I believe I remember hearing something about a goal of matching the safety level of early 20th century commercial aviation...can anyone confirm that?

I agree with you. It's enevidable in any space program if you think about it. Let's just hope the first flight next year with Branson and family isn't one of those.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #5 on:** 02/20/2007 06:54 pm »

Indeed, and I hope they manage to have an extremely good safety record. But when you have a small fleet of high profile vehicles catering to a limited customer base, one accident can certainly threaten the business. Look at the Concorde tragedy in 2000 - despite the modifications made to the aircraft in the wake of the Concorde crash, the accident probably did hasten the the aircraft's retirement.

hop · « **Reply #6 on:** 02/21/2007 07:29 am »

Quote

ShuttleDiscovery - 19/2/2007 10:29 AM

Wow, I never thought there would be so many mixed opinions on this one! It's about 50/50 between the success and failure options

I voted for both. If it is successful, chances are it will last long enough for there to be a fatal accident.

mr.columbus · « **Reply #7 on:** 02/21/2007 08:31 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 20/2/2007 1:48 PM

There will certainly be a fatal accident before long - not to sound pessimistic, but it's an eventuality they need to be prepared for. Of course, people get killed on roller coasters and in other thrill seeking activities, so it's a question of what failure rate they can tolerate. I don't claim to know the answer to that.

Well, let's compare suborbital flights with roller coasters... Even if Virgin Galactic is able to fly one flight per day, the total numbers of passengers per year will be only about 2000. The average roller coaster has more passengers per day. So, if we are optimistic and think that a fatal accident for Virgin Galactic does occur on average only every 5 years, the comparison to a roller coaster ride becomes a bit problematic: Would you ride on a roller coaster, if you know that on average there is a fatal accident every 5 days? I guess not many people would take that risk...

Spiff · « **Reply #8 on:** 02/21/2007 08:36 am »

I voted for the first 3 options.
I think flights will be delayed until after 2009 after which it will be a commercial success but at some point in the program there WILL be a fatal accident. I cannot yet predict if an accident will spell the end of the venture. That all depends on when/where/cause/etc.

I also believe that the Virgin Galactic venture will NOT directly contribute to the development of manned spaceflight.

ShuttleDiscovery · « **Reply #9 on:** 02/21/2007 03:37 pm »

Quote

Spiff - 21/2/2007 9:36 AM

I also believe that the Virgin Galactic venture will NOT directly contribute to the development of manned spaceflight.

#

Course they won't. They just want the money

Danderman · « **Reply #10 on:** 02/21/2007 03:47 pm »

The question is whether the number of pre-paid tickets will generate enough cash to warrant full development of the initial vehicle(s). They say they have about 100 tickets pre-paid, which works out to $20,000,000 if everyone truly pays full fare. Since I don't believe that this assumption is actually true, they probably have some fraction of the $20 million, and so the question is if Burt can produce a vehicle for that amount, minus whatever burn rate VG is incurring for marketing.

Felonator · « **Reply #11 on:** 02/21/2007 04:29 pm »

Does anyone think Richard Branson would put his whole family on board something that he didnt have 100% trust in? Actually for the media attention he prob would. My point is if he is gonna take his mum, dad and children then i am pretty sure they would be extremely confident of zero accidents once they start taking passengers. Dont get me wrong, accidents happen but they also do in the airline industry and Virgin Atlantic hasnt had one fatality since starting operations back in 1984. Now thats either luck or the fact that they perform the proper checks and put safety first. IMO i think that he is a pretty clever bloke and think he wont have any problems with this. Last time i was looking up airline fatality rates was the day before Concorde did her blazing farewell @ CDG.

mr.columbus · « **Reply #12 on:** 02/21/2007 07:06 pm »

Quote

Felonator - 21/2/2007 12:29 PM
Dont get me wrong, accidents happen but they also do in the airline industry and Virgin Atlantic hasnt had one fatality since starting operations back in 1984.

Suborbital flights are different than the airline business:
1. they use a rocket motor
2. they reach supersonic speed
3. you can't compare airlines and suborbital flights at all, the latter is just a thrill seeking thing for rich people, the former is a mass way to transport people crucial for the world's economy.

Danderman · « **Reply #13 on:** 02/21/2007 08:25 pm »

Quote

Felonator - 21/2/2007 9:29 AM

Does anyone think Richard Branson would put his whole family on board something that he didnt have 100% trust in?

Has Richard Branson put his whole family in one of these yet?

Oh, you mean because he *says* he will do so, then it must be true.

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

kevin-rf · « **Reply #14 on:** 02/21/2007 08:46 pm »

I believe he is trying to take the safest route to a vehicle and doubt there will be a fatal accident. I do question if there will be enough customers to actually make this vehicle profitable in the long run. Unless there really is a large number people willing to pony up a couple of hundred K $ I fear the number of flights will be limited.

I don't think return on investment is what is driving this project... It has to be in the equation, but I'm sure there are lower risk higher return investments out there.

Here's to there actually being a huge untapped market with enough dollars to pay for turning the rings of Saturn into a vacation destination.

imcub · « **Reply #15 on:** 02/22/2007 12:15 am »

Quote

Danderman
- 21/2/2007 1:25 PM

Quote
Felonator - 21/2/2007 9:29 AM
Does anyone think Richard Branson would put his whole family on board something that he didnt have 100% trust in?

Has Richard Branson put his whole family in one of these yet?

Oh, you mean because he *says* he will do so, then it must be true.

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

I seem to remember someone asking Burt Rutan if or maybe when he was going to ride SS1 ... he answered something like "absolutely or maybe it was "as soon as possible".

Not everything that is said is done ...

I am hopeful that the whole space tourist thing will safely come of age ... but I'll believe it when I see it ...

MKremer · « **Reply #16 on:** 02/22/2007 06:01 am »

I don't "take to heart" Burt's pre-publicity comments about flying himself prior to the SS1's final flights at all - history (and the media) tend to overtake real accomplishments faster than the people who really made it happen can really keep up with. Once the "Prize" was won, further flights (for that purpose and/or for more PR) just weren't cost-effective, even overall for further publicity.

Felonator · « **Reply #17 on:** 02/22/2007 01:39 pm »

Quote

mr.columbus - 20/2/2007 8:06 PM

Quote
Felonator - 21/2/2007 12:29 PM
Dont get me wrong, accidents happen but they also do in the airline industry and Virgin Atlantic hasnt had one fatality since starting operations back in 1984.

Suborbital flights are different than the airline business:
1. they use a rocket motor
2. they reach supersonic speed
3. you can't compare airlines and suborbital flights at all, the latter is just a thrill seeking thing for rich people, the former is a mass way to transport people crucial for the world's economy.

Ok the rocket motor is a fair point but as i said i am sure they will test it to almost perfection, Reaching supersonic speeds is NOT a valid point as Concorde did this every flight she made without 1 death or serious accident. Pretty mush the safest commercial aircraft that flew. They made sure thru proper testing and proved it worked!

Concorde was a step towards suborbital flights and proved pushing things into a new direction does always have to mean accidents. Test flying is much more safer now than it used to be, because they put safety high on the agenda.

And this is exactly RB's point. he wants to make suborbital flights as common as airline flying eventually. Concorde was NOT a mass transport system, she was never meant to be! It was to prove that 1, it could be done and 2, to show that the british aircraft industry along with help from the french was the best in the world!

Felonator · « **Reply #18 on:** 02/22/2007 01:48 pm »

Quote

Danderman - 20/2/2007 9:25 PM

Quote
Felonator - 21/2/2007 9:29 AM

Does anyone think Richard Branson would put his whole family on board something that he didnt have 100% trust in?

Has Richard Branson put his whole family in one of these yet?

Oh, you mean because he *says* he will do so, then it must be true.

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

Yeah thats exactly what i mean! If he says he is gonna do something he will do it! He aint a Bullsh**er, he said he would be the fastest across the atlantic in a Boat, he did that, He said he would be the first to cross the atlantic in a ballon! Guess what! He did that too!

People of his calibre dont come around that much! I will place my hard earned cash on the table to bet on the fact that he will do it, as he said he would. He will have family on the first commercial suborbital flight.

as for lying, Ur not from the States are you?? I dont think he has anything on someone like Bush for his lying!

Spiff · « **Reply #19 on:** 02/22/2007 01:53 pm »

Quote

ShuttleDiscovery - 21/2/2007 5:37 PM

Quote
Spiff - 21/2/2007 9:36 AM

I also believe that the Virgin Galactic venture will NOT directly contribute to the development of manned spaceflight.
#

Course they won't. They just want the money

Exactly my point. Branson is a businessman. A very daring one that is not afraid to explore unexplored markets. But a businessman nonetheless.

Felonator · « **Reply #20 on:** 02/22/2007 01:53 pm »

Quote

imcub - 21/2/2007 1:15 AM

Quote
Danderman
- 21/2/2007 1:25 PM

Quote
Felonator - 21/2/2007 9:29 AM
Does anyone think Richard Branson would put his whole family on board something that he didnt have 100% trust in?

Has Richard Branson put his whole family in one of these yet?

Oh, you mean because he *says* he will do so, then it must be true.

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

I seem to remember someone asking Burt Rutan if or maybe when he was going to ride SS1 ... he answered something like "absolutely or maybe it was "as soon as possible".

Not everything that is said is done ...

I am hopeful that the whole space tourist thing will safely come of age ... but I'll believe it when I see it ...

How can u compare them two people?? Totally different people, For a start it seems that Burt isnt into the test flying side of it anymore. He put his brother on Voyager, HE is a DESIGNER now not a test pilot in the same sense that the other people are!

Felonator · « **Reply #21 on:** 02/22/2007 02:01 pm »

Quote

Spiff - 21/2/2007 2:53 PM

Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 21/2/2007 5:37 PM

Quote
Spiff - 21/2/2007 9:36 AM

I also believe that the Virgin Galactic venture will NOT directly contribute to the development of manned spaceflight.
#

Course they won't. They just want the money

Exactly my point. Branson is a businessman. A very daring one that is not afraid to explore unexplored markets. But a businessman nonetheless.

Whats wrong with being a Businessman??? NOTHING!! He see's a gap in the market and moves in! He started his business in a shop with few records! Looks where he is now!! What kind of idiot would throw his hard earned cash into somethin that had no benifit for him?? NO-ONE! not in these day and ages anyway!

EVERYTHING is this day and age is about money! It has to be in someway! thats life!

The technology that may be created by them might in someway contribute to the development of manned spaceflight. How can that not make a difference if they are gonna be doing something day in day out!

MartianBase · « **Reply #22 on:** 02/22/2007 02:55 pm »

It will operate well for a while, good for tourism and advertising for the corporate fat cats but sooner or later their will be a problem, and unlike NASA there won't be a comeback once they have lost people.

MKremer · « **Reply #23 on:** 02/22/2007 03:37 pm »

Quote

MartianBase - 22/2/2007 9:55 AM

It will operate well for a while, good for tourism and advertising for the corporate fat cats but sooner or later their will be a problem, and unlike NASA there won't be a comeback once they have lost people.

Depends on profit/loss ratio - lots of corporations have had industrial accidents with employee/customer/innocent bystander deaths (including motel/hotel corp's).
If there's money to be made for their investors/stockholders, they'll stay the course.

mr.columbus · « **Reply #24 on:** 02/22/2007 04:00 pm »

Quote

Felonator - 22/2/2007 10:01 AM

Quote
Spiff - 21/2/2007 2:53 PM

Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 21/2/2007 5:37 PM

Quote
Spiff - 21/2/2007 9:36 AM

I also believe that the Virgin Galactic venture will NOT directly contribute to the development of manned spaceflight.
#

Course they won't. They just want the money

Exactly my point. Branson is a businessman. A very daring one that is not afraid to explore unexplored markets. But a businessman nonetheless.

Whats wrong with being a Businessman??? NOTHING!! He see's a gap in the market and moves in! He started his business in a shop with few records! Looks where he is now!! What kind of idiot would throw his hard earned cash into somethin that had no benifit for him?? NO-ONE! not in these day and ages anyway!

EVERYTHING is this day and age is about money! It has to be in someway! thats life!

The technology that may be created by them might in someway contribute to the development of manned spaceflight. How can that not make a difference if they are gonna be doing something day in day out!

There are direct and indirect ways of making money. Suborbital flights may very well not be a way to directly make money, however it is the perfect promotional thing for the rest of the Virgin group. If Virgin Galactic does not operate profitable, it might cost Branson 100 million maybe more dollars during the next 5 to 10 years. This is a very small amount of money, compared to the marketing budget large companies like the Virgin group use for their other products.

PurduesUSAFguy · « **Reply #25 on:** 02/22/2007 09:43 pm »

I guess my problem with the Rutan/Virgin program is I really don't see how it provides an evolutionary path to orbital flight. I mean if they can make money doing sub-orbital tourism, great, I could even see this system evolving to have a launch aircraft on both sides of the Atlantic and offer a 45 minute trans-oceanic flight, but given the fact that orbit is requires an order of magnitude greater velocities and thermal loads I have a hard time seeing it happen. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I see it based on what is avalible now.

Then again, who would have thought that 12 people and under $1million could build a plane to fly around the world unrefueled?

imcub · « **Reply #26 on:** 02/23/2007 04:10 am »

Quote

Felonator
- 22/2/2007 6:53 AM
Quote
imcub - 21/2/2007 1:15 AM
Quote
Danderman
- 21/2/2007 1:25 PM
Quote
Felonator - 21/2/2007 9:29 AM
Does anyone think Richard Branson would put his whole family on board something that he didnt have 100% trust in?
Has Richard Branson put his whole family in one of these yet?

Oh, you mean because he *says* he will do so, then it must be true.

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

I seem to remember someone asking Burt Rutan if or maybe when he was going to ride SS1 ... he answered something like "absolutely or maybe it was "as soon as possible".

Not everything that is said is done ...

I am hopeful that the whole space tourist thing will safely come of age... but I'll believe it when I see it ...

How can u compare them two people?? Totally different people, For a start it seems that Burt isnt into the test flying side of it anymore. He put his brother on Voyager, HE is a DESIGNER now not a test pilot in the same sense that the other people are!

Crikey ... we can be a touchy bunch!

I wasn't really trying to compare the two men ... I was trying to point out that flying to space is hard and we don't always meet our expectations.

Even though it was reported that Burt Rutan had a spare rocket engine on hand (for a contingency 3rd xprize flight), the DESIGNER of the SS1 chose not to use it (at least not that I heard of). So in spite of SS1's success, maybe it was tougher, more difficult, and more dangerous than it looked.

I remember back in the 70's we were all promised we'd be driving electric cars, the Shuttles would be making a flight every 2 weeks, we would all have access to comercial supersonic flights, and the Red Sox were going to win the World Series ... well , 1 out of 4 ain't bad.

Technological development can be hard, expensive, dangerous, and much slower to than the visionaries and business men would like it to be.

But yes, RB does have huge cahones.

Spiff · « **Reply #27 on:** 02/23/2007 08:31 am »

Quote

mr.columbus - 22/2/2007 6:00 PM

Quote
Felonator - 22/2/2007 10:01 AM

Quote
Spiff - 21/2/2007 2:53 PM

Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 21/2/2007 5:37 PM

Quote
Spiff - 21/2/2007 9:36 AM

I also believe that the Virgin Galactic venture will NOT directly contribute to the development of manned spaceflight.
#

Course they won't. They just want the money

Exactly my point. Branson is a businessman. A very daring one that is not afraid to explore unexplored markets. But a businessman nonetheless.

Whats wrong with being a Businessman??? NOTHING!! He see's a gap in the market and moves in! He started his business in a shop with few records! Looks where he is now!! What kind of idiot would throw his hard earned cash into somethin that had no benifit for him?? NO-ONE! not in these day and ages anyway!

EVERYTHING is this day and age is about money! It has to be in someway! thats life!

The technology that may be created by them might in someway contribute to the development of manned spaceflight. How can that not make a difference if they are gonna be doing something day in day out!

There are direct and indirect ways of making money. Suborbital flights may very well not be a way to directly make money, however it is the perfect promotional thing for the rest of the Virgin group. If Virgin Galactic does not operate profitable, it might cost Branson 100 million maybe more dollars during the next 5 to 10 years. This is a very small amount of money, compared to the marketing budget large companies like the Virgin group use for their other products.

Hey Felonator, don't worry mate!
I didn't say anything is wrong with being a businessman. He has to be in order to succeed, and I admire him (and other businessmen) for it. And, in your last sentence, you put it well. 'The technology that may be created by them might in someway contribute to the development of manned spaceflight. ' That's a lot of mays and buts, and is exactly the reason why I do not believe the VG venture will DIRECTLY lead to an increase in manned spaceflight. This is an opinion. You may or may not agree with it.

Mr. Columbus. You make a good point! I had not thought about it that way. Branson is a marketing genius. In marketing you want exposure. Sponsoring some huge sports event for 100mln or building a spaceship. It is the same as long as you get the same exposure.

GF3 · « **Reply #28 on:** 02/23/2007 04:33 pm »

I feel Branson is using this as a marketing ploy for his Virgin Brand. He will develope a vehicle but won't go much further then what he can get out of brand sucess

ShuttleDiscovery · « **Reply #29 on:** 02/23/2007 05:40 pm »

I think I agree with you guys, there will be a fatal accident. But do you think it would be the sub-orbital SS2 or the planned orbital SS3 that recieves this fate?

Thanks

GF3 · « **Reply #30 on:** 02/23/2007 06:22 pm »

Quote

ShuttleDiscovery - 23/2/2007 12:40 PM

I think I agree with you guys, there will be a fatal accident. But do you think it would be the sub-orbital SS2 or the planned orbital SS3 that recieves this fate?

Thanks

That will all depend on which one they "rush" to complete. If they "rush" the ss2 just to be the first to get to market they may accidentally overlook a minor flaw. We all know what minor flaws can do.

ShuttleDiscovery · « **Reply #31 on:** 02/24/2007 07:48 am »

Quote

GF3 - 23/2/2007 7:22 PM

Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 23/2/2007 12:40 PM

I think I agree with you guys, there will be a fatal accident. But do you think it would be the sub-orbital SS2 or the planned orbital SS3 that recieves this fate?

Thanks

That will all depend on which one they "rush" to complete. If they "rush" the ss2 just to be the first to get to market they may accidentally overlook a minor flaw. We all know what minor flaws can do.

I was thinking about that too. I think rushing the project will almost certainly be the cause of failure.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #32 on:** 02/24/2007 12:38 pm »

Quote

Felonator - 21/2/2007 12:29 PM

Dont get me wrong, accidents happen but they also do in the airline industry and Virgin Atlantic hasnt had one fatality since starting operations back in 1984. Now thats either luck or the fact that they perform the proper checks and put safety first.

Accidents will always happen. Sadly, Virgin just had a fatality yesterday...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/24/train.crash.reut/index.html

ShuttleDiscovery · « **Reply #33 on:** 02/24/2007 02:07 pm »

Yeah, they're saying it's a faulty track. It's the cause of most train crashes here in England unfortunately.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #34 on:** 02/26/2007 10:47 pm »

Well if you believe this: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/27/212308/nasa-plans-to-hitch-a-lift-on-spaceshiptwo.html
NASA is thinking they will fly and that $9m will buy 45 seats at commercial rates. Just the thing to keep our astronaut corp flying while waiting around for the Stick to get unstuck. If it happens it will be interesting to see how many of those seats go to astronauts and how many to bureaucrats.
I like the rumors of a SS3 (orbital passenger) and SS4 (orbital cargo/sat launch) too.

Jim · « **Reply #35 on:** 02/26/2007 11:04 pm »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 26/2/2007 6:47 PM

Well if you believe this: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/27/212308/nasa-plans-to-hitch-a-lift-on-spaceshiptwo.html
NASA is thinking they will fly and that $9m will buy 45 seats at commercial rates. Just the thing to keep our astronaut corp flying while waiting around for the Stick to get unstuck. If it happens it will be interesting to see how many of those seats go to astronauts and how many to bureaucrats.
I like the rumors of a SS3 (orbital passenger) and SS4 (orbital cargo/sat launch) too.

NASA did not buy rides

"NASA officials signed a memorandum of understanding Tuesday with a U.S. company, Virgin Galactic, LLC, to explore the potential for collaborations on the development of space suits, heat shields for spaceships, hybrid rocket motors and hypersonic vehicles capable of traveling five or more times the speed of sound. The memorandum is only a framework to explore potential collaborations. It does not include training of NASA astronauts, an agreement to buy seats on a Virgin Galactic flight, or provision of technical advice by NASA to Virgin Galactic."

MKremer · « **Reply #36 on:** 02/26/2007 11:17 pm »

Quote

Jim - 26/2/2007 6:04 PM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 26/2/2007 6:47 PM
Just the thing to keep our astronaut corp flying while waiting around for the Stick to get unstuck. If it happens it will be interesting to see how many of those seats go to astronauts and how many to bureaucrats.
I like the rumors of a SS3 (orbital passenger) and SS4 (orbital cargo/sat launch) too.

NASA did not buy rides

No, NASA didn't "buy rides". All they did is sign an 'agreement of understanding' to share information, if appropriate, about what each is doing for future spaceflight/suborbital technology.
This "agreement" has nothing to do with sharing people/flight testing - if that were the case they'd be negotiating/signing something much more substanstial, not to mention large amounts of money/budget agreements passed back and forth between NASA and VG.

Comga · « **Reply #37 on:** 02/28/2007 02:46 am »

Rutan was not the only one with real plans to fly in SS1. It was not "cost effectiveness" that shut it down by Paul Allen's desire to see SS1 hanging in the Smithsonian Museum. He paid for it, for he got to make the decision. So it never even flew with more than one of its three seats occupied. A little "loophole" in the X Prize rules that allowed the prize for three seat vehicles to be awarded with only two people getting above 100 km (albeit one of them twice.)