19 ms·

Virgin Galactic successfully reaches space

592 points by adzicg 8y ago

Latteland 8y ago
This should say "space". It's very impressive still. Space is usually defined to be defined as starting at 100k altitude, when the atmosphere peters out, also called the Kármán Line. This only went to 60k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line Update: 82k. Sorry, the article I looked at first said 60k, that was wrong.
- citilife 8y ago
  The first line in the article says: > The firm's SpaceShipTwo passenger rocket ship reached a height of 82.7km, beyond the altitude at which space is said to begin. Well above he 60km mentioned.
  - Latteland 8y ago
    sorry, you are correct, 60k was incorrectly listed in the article I looked at.
- philwelch 8y ago
  The US definition of "the point where space begins" is 50 miles (80 km) above sea level, though this was mostly to eliminate an inconsistency between the NASA definition (which was the Karman line) and the USAF definition (which was 50 miles). Either way, it a fairly arbitrary point in a continuous gradient of decreasing atmospheric pressure that makes an even base-10 number in the predominant unit of measurement, so I guess you can pin this on Americans not using the metric system.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- airstrike 8y ago
  km, not k
  - Groxx 8y ago
    they could've said "kj" and it still would've been clear from context.
    - airstrike 8y ago
      It would also still be incorrect...
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    My Australian relatives say "it's about 50 kay" to describe driving distances, for what it's worth.
    - crimsonalucard 8y ago
      50 kilomiles?
  - richardknop 8y ago
    I read it as 82k meaning 82 thousand meters (k used often to mean thousand and altitude is often measured in meters).
lisper 8y ago
For anyone looking wistfully at the $250k price tag of a VG sub-orbital flight I suggest checking out Zero-G: https://www.gozerog.com https://www.gozerog.com They fly short (~30sec) sub-orbital parabolas in a regular commercial jet (with a custom interior). It's not quite like going into "space" but it is quite literally only 2% of the cost for (IMHO) >80% of the value. The total amount of zero-G time is about the same as it will be on the VG sub-orbital flight (~5 mins). I've done it and it's an awesome experience.
- arthurcolle 8y ago
  What was your experience for training prior to this sub-orbital excursion? I feel like going to above 1G would give me a heart attack immediately
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    If you drive a car you can go above 1g when accelerating or breaking, especially with the latter. Rollercoasters can do over 6g which is about twice the g force for most manned launches iirc. In fact if you play any sort of ball sports you likely experience jerk movement well above 1g nearly all the time, and you don’t even want to get started with full contact sports like (American) Football. It’s not just how many g’s you pull but also the duration, the longer it is the more stress it puts on your body but nearly anyone without any major health conditions should be able to experience 2-3g for a fairly prolonged time without adverse effects and much much higher momentary g force than that as long as you are securely strapped.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      You don't even have to drive a car, you can ride in one too!
      - TomK32 8y ago
        That's what 224g look like when you stop going in circles with your car https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVpux5JxqEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVpux5JxqEk
danielvf 8y ago
The fun thing about Virgin Galatic is that they already have all their crew/human support tech working, and have been flying with humans for years. All they need to do to be the first private company to put a human in space is just choose to burn their rocket a little bit longer than they have already... SpaceX and Blue Origin totally have the theoretical capability to put a man in space anytime now - Blue Origin has flown dummies to space, and SpaceX could fly a suborbital flight with their current Dragon capsule even if it wasn’t up to NASA human standards. The biggest issue at this point is just cost vs bragging rights. SpaceX would have to pay so much more than the other two, that I would guess they will just wait to claim the first private orbital man in space crown.
- nabla9 8y ago
  > just choose to burn their rocket a little bit longer than they have already... Virgin Galactic would need roughly 10-15 times larger rocket to put human in the lowest orbit. They are not planning to do that and their system is not planned that in mind. Space is not far. Space is just one hour drive with a car if you drive directly up. Getting to orbit of the same altitude is 10 times harder and that's the business where SpaceX and Blue Origin are.
- mLuby 8y ago
  I'm confused, has Blue Origin demonstrated orbital capability and I missed it? I thought SpaceX and Rocket Lab were the only private orbit-capable launch providers.
  - danielvf 8y ago
    I’m talking “Alan Sheppard” man in space, not “John Glenn” man in space. Suborbital. Blue Origin can do that any time they want to risk it.
lolc 8y ago
Is the reached altitude a first for a private company? I mean, with humans on-board?
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > It did not breach the 100km Karman Line, where Earth's atmosphere ends. SpaceX, Blue Origin, and a few others have exceeded this. SpaceX regularly sends objects to the ICC, which is ~5-6x higher than what Virgin did. IMHO, they didn't reach space since they didn't break the Karman line... They just achieved "very high atmospheric flight". It's still quite an achievement, and more than they've done in the past IIRC, but they still have a long ways to go.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
    Didn't Scaled Composites do this with SpaceShip One about 15 years ago?
    - sungx105 8y ago
      This article is about SpaceShipTwo, the successor version that was supposed to actually be able to carry passengers
  - zone411 8y ago
    Sending objects vs humans is a completely different ballgame, so this comparison doesn't look valid. And Karman's line is not very well defined - see https://www.livescience.com/63166-outer-space-border-karman-line.html https://www.livescience.com/63166-outer-space-border-karman-....
- gardaani 8y ago
  This is the first time a space flight from U.S. takes humans to space after the Space Shuttles were retired.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
Then fell back down. Call me when it's orbital.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  It's an orbit. It's just that the perigee is located deep within the Earth. (Deceleration due to sharply increasing frictional resistance is very likely on this class or orbits. This is likely followed by rapid unplanned disassembly.)
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
    How likely is very likely? Can we quantify the chances of rapid unplanned disassembly causing deceleration?
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      It's very likely a real number.
      - bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
        I also imagine it to be real.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        It's also very likely in the set of complex numbers.
jayess 8y ago
Gotta love articles that consist of short-sentenced, one-sentence paragraphs.
xoa 8y ago
Articles like this feel awfully fuzzy when it comes to how they suggest VG is in some kind of "race" with actual orbital companies. I'm just not seeing the path from A to B for VG's current efforts there, and without that I'm also not seeing what their future is at all? >The company said the space ship's motor burned for 60 seconds, travelling at 2.9 times the speed of sound as it gained height. So they managed to briefly beat the Concorde (top speed a bit of Mach 2) and are still well under half the speed of the X-15? I mean, good for them I guess but it seems pretty ridiculous to put VG in even vaguely the same game as anybody doing actual orbital work (not just SpaceX or BO but smaller outfits even). Mach 2.9 isn't even 1 km/s, and LEO average orbital is more like 7.8 km/s (and required delta-v for that will likely be at least a good extra 1.5 km/s over that accounting for drag/grav). Yes "space" may start at 100 km as the atmosphere drops sufficiently, but I think what most people think about when it comes to "going to space" and doing something useful involves orbit, even for tourism purposes (orbital space hotels say). The challenges of every bit of it, from delta-v to heating to in-orbit survival is all on an entirely different plane. Meanwhile with the BFR it looks quite possibly that SpaceX may well drop below $500/kg to LEO, possibly by a lot. They claim to be aiming for $10m a flight which would be more like sub-$100/kg, but I take that as more a long term aspirational goal approaching the costs of fuel a minimal maintenance then anything in the immediately realizable future. But even a conservative guess of more like $40m would still mean being able to get people into real orbit for less money then VG's up-and-down. BO is pursuing similar cost economics, and both are fighting through the very hard R&D work in actually getting scalable long term cost reductions like methalox working right now. Can anyone explain what if anything about VG's current R&D would actually carry over to a real spacecraft, or what they use case for it would be if it can't reach that? For merely going very high and very fast on Earth low boom supersonic R&D seems more promising, and for actual space, well this isn't it. What am I missing here?
- ohitsdom 8y ago
  Virgin Galactic doesn't have any orbital aspirations, as far as I know (unlike Virgin Orbit). The biggest change I saw was they floated the possibility of actually traveling this way- e.g. London to New Mexico or somewhere. But that was awhile ago, I haven't seen any kind of that talk. I think especially since the accident, they've been focused on just doing these suborbital up and down trips and trying to make them a regular commercial activity. Anecdotally, people in the space industry don't seem too thrilled with VG. This type of ship was great for the X prize, but it remains to be seen how robust it is. Some of the test flight footage has looked almost unstable. Also their hybrid motor approach (solid & liquid fuel) was said to have gotten all the drawbacks of both approaches with little benefit.
maxdo 8y ago
I'm happy there is one more company, but, can anyone explain what's their mission apart from "sending dummies to space" ? Is there any potential practical value from that?
- adzicg 8y ago
  I guess testing with relevant weight? They said 2 pilots plus a dummy passenger. If the plan is to take a single person up at a time, then this would allow them to test their assumptions about fuel burn and engine performance with the same configuration.
aw1621107 8y ago
The Ars Technica article on this event [0] contains this interesting snippet: >Probably the closest thing to [an internationally agreed upon boundary for "space"] comes from the World Air Sports Federation, or FAI, which uses 100km (the Karman line) to delineate the boundary of space for the purposes of establishing world records. However, this organization says it is looking at lowering this boundary from 100km to 80km, due to "Recently published analyses (that) present a compelling scientific case for reduction in this altitude." >Much of the push for a lowering of the boundary has come because of work by Harvard University astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell, who has argued that orbiting objects can survive multiple perigees at altitudes around 80 to 90km and that this altitude range is consistent with the highest physical boundary of the atmosphere, the mesopause. Does anyone here know more about this? How recent is this work? How controversial is it, if it is at all? This is the first I've heard of work along these lines. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/virgin-galactic-just-flew-to-82-68-kilometers-is-this-space/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/virgin-galactic-just...
- xbryanx 8y ago
  The defined boundary of space always reminds me of Jeannette Piccard, the first woman in space (as defined in 1934). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Piccard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Piccard It's interesting where we define what is an isn't space, with its own cultural ramifications.
  - mr_toad 8y ago
    It’s hard to argue that you’ve left the atmosphere, when the craft you’re using is supported by it. Hence the Karman Line. Tereshkova has a much better claim to being the first woman in space.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      You can reach the surface of a lake in a craft that floats on water so you should be able to reach the end of the atmosphere in a craft that floats on it.
ChrisArchitect 8y ago
headline similar to recent "Nasa's Voyager 2 probe 'leaves the Solar System'" Similar but different...haha
skrause 8y ago
"Getting to space is easy. It's not, like, something you could do in your car, but it's not a huge challenge. You could get a person to space with a small sounding rocket the size of a telephone pole. The X-15 aircraft reached space just by going fast and then steering up. You will go to space today, and then you will quickly come back. But getting to space is easy. The problem is staying there." - https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
- JorgeGT 8y ago
  > You could get a person to space with a small sounding rocket the size of a telephone pole. This is in fact the goal of Copenhagen Suborbitals: https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/missions/spica/ https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/missions/spica/
ansible 8y ago
I'd love it if they started live-streaming all the launches.
Theodores 8y ago
Despite the front page on the BBC brandishing this story I feel underwhelmed and I am sure I am not alone. This may be Branson's biggest expedition to date but I don't think it sets the world alight in the way that his previous exploits have done so. In 1986 he captured the Blue Riband for fastest crossing of the Atlantic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/26/newsid_2519000/2519869.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/26/new... This was very good for the Virgin/Branson publicity machine and important for the image of his airline and other ventures. However, much like this new 'Galactic' effort, this was kind of done on the cheap. The Blue Riband had previously been contested in the days before the jet age by very large passenger ships carrying hundreds if not thousands of fare paying passengers. Branson's effort had just himself as a 'fare paying passenger'. Sadly for Branson the efforts of Musk/SpaceX have downsized the publicity potential for what has gone on here. That time that SpaceX landed two of the rocket boosters was one of the most exciting moments in space thus far, the Tesla 'Rocketman' was also quite crazy. This should have persuaded Branson to throw in the towel on his 'space' ambitions but we all have our pride. If you really want to see the edge of space then I am sure that if you ask the USAF nicely then they can oblige with a flight on a U2 plane. The view is pretty much the same on this tried and tested plane as what Branson offers with this 'Virgin Galactic' thing, which is far from Sagan's 'Pale Blue Dot' or Apollo's 'Earth Rise'. Top Gear presenters have had been to the edge of space (70 000 ft): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_May_at_the_Edge_of_Space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_May_at_the_Edge_of_Space I am sure the Russians could offer similar passage. you could even grease the palms of someone with a 50+ year old English Electric Lightning in private ownership to get you up to 70 000 ft. But nobody is beating a path to the door of those with planes capable of this, to come back to earth and demanding to go that bit higher. Consequently I very much doubt there is a market for Virgin Galactic. Maybe Virgin Galactic will have as much impact as the Virgin F1 team, canned after a few seasons lollygagging at the back of the grid. But Branson seems okay keeping these fun adventures going and good on him for that (even if a few test pilots die on the way or if he himself ends up free falling without a parachute). As billionaires go he isn't a bad chap but I ain't no fan-boy.
- isostatic 8y ago
  > Sadly for Branson the efforts of Musk/SpaceX have downsized the publicity potential for what has gone on here. That time that SpaceX landed two of the rocket boosters was one of the most exciting moments in space thus far, the Tesla 'Rocketman' was also quite crazy. This should have persuaded Branson to throw in the towel on his 'space' ambitions but we all have our pride. That was the same trip, and probably more exciting than anything since Apollo. Seeing those two rockets landing together before cutting to a dummy in a car blasting out of orbit, all choreographed to David Bowie, it looked like something from a movie. However back when spaceship-one went to space (not orbit obv) and back twice in 2003, it felt like space was just around the corner. It took over a decade before SpaceX successfully landed their rocket to surpass that feeling.
pastor_elm 8y ago
I'd save my money for a trip in the BFR
hnburnsy 8y ago
Question, do flights like this generate a sonic boom that can impact those in the area?
- devindotcom 8y ago
  The craft is taken to 45,000 feet by a more traditional aircraft at normal speeds and after detachment the rocket engine wouldn't bring it to boom-producing mach speeds until somewhat above that I think, and the atmosphere is much thinner so the effect would be greatly reduced. So no, I don't think so.
gregallan 8y ago
For context, the predecessor of SpaceShipTwo reached an altitude of over 100km in June 2004, becoming the first commercial venture to put a person in space [1]. A few months after that, Virgin got involved and it seemed like commercial passenger spaceflight was just a few years away. 14 years and two fatal accidents [2,3] later, the 80 km flight seems to pale in comparison to those expectations. In that time we’ve seen the rise of SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose aspirations and capabilities look set to far exceed those of Virgin Galactic. As impressive as this spaceplane is, its competitors are starting to make it look like the product of some (very expensive) backyard tinkering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne#Development_and_winning_the_X_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne#Development_and_w... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo#Related_test_program_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo#Related_test_pr... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash
- mLuby 8y ago
  Right now Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are in about the same place, with SpaceShipTwo ahead of New Shepard in terms of test flights (and presumably crew rating). Both will provide suborbital tourist flights. SpaceX isn't in that game; they're trying to get the Falcon 9 crew-rated for orbital flights. If Blue Origin's New Glenn ever gets off the ground, they may pursue an orbital crew rating as well.
  - tzfld 8y ago
    >If Blue Origin's New Glenn ever gets off the ground Are you having doubts?
    - mLuby 8y ago
      Few doubts given their benefactor's unlimited resources, but it's worth remembering how unexpected SpaceX's successes were. I'm mainly pointing that it's odd to compare aspirations with accomplishment. I've thought about climbing Everest, and even planned a route and bought some gear, but that doesn't put me in the same category as Norgay or Hillary.
treebro 8y ago
Found it ironic that Branson called space 'Virgin Territory'. There's a very good possibility that we'd be sending ourselves into the dark ages if space debris goes unmanaged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU&
SEJeff 8y ago
Great article, but I don't think that Virgin Galactic is really in the same market directly competing with the likes of SpaceX or Blue Origin. There is a place for all three, but Virgin Galactic is just about LEO space tourism. SpaceX's stated mission is to make humans a multi-planetary species and start a mars colony. Slightly different things.
- avmich 8y ago
  No, not quite right. VG is in suborbital tourism business - their current technology allows only short hops to Karman line or so. To get to LEO one has to have a substantially more capable system, here SpaceX with its crewed Dragon would be front runner. On the other hand, VG is much closer to starting offering suborbital rides than SpaceX is to starting offering interplanetary manned flights.
  - SEJeff 8y ago
    Aaaaaaaand you still proved my point, which is that they're not really competitors at all, unlike what the article says!
- vasili111 8y ago
  It is different but very important.
poorman 8y ago
A better title for this would have been "Virgin Galactic successfully penetrates space".
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't do this here.
purple_ducks 8y ago
Surely the increase of all rocket launches/ships must be having a somewhat substantial impact on Earth's environment?
- misterprime 8y ago
  Whether we ruin the Earth or not it won't last forever. We need to find additional space-fairing vessels capable of sustaining humanity at some point. For now, it looks like the Moon and Mars are the most achievable bets for getting some of our eggs out of this cozy basket. So...#worth.
Thibaut1 8y ago
Free fall. Like inside an elevator with a broken cable. Here the aeroplane starts the free fall with considerable upwards speed. That and the horisontal speed form an upward parabola path of free fall.
undershirt 8y ago
If I was an editor at BBC, I'd be like—"hey guys, this is VA reaching space, can we get a picture of that thing in space?"
hackwarenews 8y ago
Great JOB team @Virgin! Galactic!
ncmncm 8y ago
There is lots here about how far short this falls, vs. a real launch. I don't think anybody has mentioned that the rocket is basically full of powdered rubber and Oxy detergent. You would not be impressed by the odor when you get out. That, and the amount of pollution it dumps into the upper atmosphere is embarrassing. Not so bad, that way, as the old space shuttle with its strap-on boosters, though. Hydrogen-fueled rockets are the only non-embarrassing way to reach Earth orbit. (H2O2 is OK, but no one uses it for that.)
- mcguire 8y ago
  See also Ignition, by John D. Clark.
- userulluipeste 8y ago
  Arca Space advertised the use of hydrogen peroxide, at least for some of their launches a while ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCA_Space_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCA_Space_Corporation
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hackerbabz 8y ago
What are the big improvements they've made in the 14 years since SpaceShipOne?
frabbit 8y ago
I'll be interested when they start firing Branson, Musk, Clinton and Trump towards the nearest habitable system.
hyperpallium 8y ago
This is awesome, the ship looks awesome, especially the way it accelerates after dropping from the plane, but... Reaching space is one thing, staying there is something else. cue elon re orbital velocity https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669131093379956736?lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669131093379956736?lang=...
- zahreeley 8y ago
  U r saying u have a lot of money to waste. Donation is better.

592 points by adzicg 8y ago

This should say "space". It's very impressive still. Space is usually defined to be defined as starting at 100k altitude, when the atmosphere peters out, also called the Kármán Line. This only went to 60k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kármán_line Update: 82k. Sorry, the article I looked at first said 60k, that was wrong.

citilife 8y ago
The first line in the article says: > The firm's SpaceShipTwo passenger rocket ship reached a height of 82.7km, beyond the altitude at which space is said to begin. Well above he 60km mentioned.
- Latteland 8y ago
  sorry, you are correct, 60k was incorrectly listed in the article I looked at.
philwelch 8y ago
The US definition of "the point where space begins" is 50 miles (80 km) above sea level, though this was mostly to eliminate an inconsistency between the NASA definition (which was the Karman line) and the USAF definition (which was 50 miles). Either way, it a fairly arbitrary point in a continuous gradient of decreasing atmospheric pressure that makes an even base-10 number in the predominant unit of measurement, so I guess you can pin this on Americans not using the metric system.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
airstrike 8y ago
km, not k
- Groxx 8y ago
  they could've said "kj" and it still would've been clear from context.
  - airstrike 8y ago
    It would also still be incorrect...
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  My Australian relatives say "it's about 50 kay" to describe driving distances, for what it's worth.
  - crimsonalucard 8y ago
    50 kilomiles?
- richardknop 8y ago
  I read it as 82k meaning 82 thousand meters (k used often to mean thousand and altitude is often measured in meters).

lisper 8y ago

For anyone looking wistfully at the $250k price tag of a VG sub-orbital flight I suggest checking out Zero-G: https://www.gozerog.com https://www.gozerog.com They fly short (~30sec) sub-orbital parabolas in a regular commercial jet (with a custom interior). It's not quite like going into "space" but it is quite literally only 2% of the cost for (IMHO) >80% of the value. The total amount of zero-G time is about the same as it will be on the VG sub-orbital flight (~5 mins). I've done it and it's an awesome experience.

arthurcolle 8y ago
What was your experience for training prior to this sub-orbital excursion? I feel like going to above 1G would give me a heart attack immediately
- dogma1138 8y ago
  If you drive a car you can go above 1g when accelerating or breaking, especially with the latter. Rollercoasters can do over 6g which is about twice the g force for most manned launches iirc. In fact if you play any sort of ball sports you likely experience jerk movement well above 1g nearly all the time, and you don’t even want to get started with full contact sports like (American) Football. It’s not just how many g’s you pull but also the duration, the longer it is the more stress it puts on your body but nearly anyone without any major health conditions should be able to experience 2-3g for a fairly prolonged time without adverse effects and much much higher momentary g force than that as long as you are securely strapped.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    You don't even have to drive a car, you can ride in one too!
    - TomK32 8y ago
      That's what 224g look like when you stop going in circles with your car https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVpux5JxqEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVpux5JxqEk

danielvf 8y ago

The fun thing about Virgin Galatic is that they already have all their crew/human support tech working, and have been flying with humans for years. All they need to do to be the first private company to put a human in space is just choose to burn their rocket a little bit longer than they have already... SpaceX and Blue Origin totally have the theoretical capability to put a man in space anytime now - Blue Origin has flown dummies to space, and SpaceX could fly a suborbital flight with their current Dragon capsule even if it wasn’t up to NASA human standards. The biggest issue at this point is just cost vs bragging rights. SpaceX would have to pay so much more than the other two, that I would guess they will just wait to claim the first private orbital man in space crown.

nabla9 8y ago
> just choose to burn their rocket a little bit longer than they have already... Virgin Galactic would need roughly 10-15 times larger rocket to put human in the lowest orbit. They are not planning to do that and their system is not planned that in mind. Space is not far. Space is just one hour drive with a car if you drive directly up. Getting to orbit of the same altitude is 10 times harder and that's the business where SpaceX and Blue Origin are.
mLuby 8y ago
I'm confused, has Blue Origin demonstrated orbital capability and I missed it? I thought SpaceX and Rocket Lab were the only private orbit-capable launch providers.
- danielvf 8y ago
  I’m talking “Alan Sheppard” man in space, not “John Glenn” man in space. Suborbital. Blue Origin can do that any time they want to risk it.

lolc 8y ago

Is the reached altitude a first for a private company? I mean, with humans on-board?

craftyguy 8y ago
> It did not breach the 100km Karman Line, where Earth's atmosphere ends. SpaceX, Blue Origin, and a few others have exceeded this. SpaceX regularly sends objects to the ICC, which is ~5-6x higher than what Virgin did. IMHO, they didn't reach space since they didn't break the Karman line... They just achieved "very high atmospheric flight". It's still quite an achievement, and more than they've done in the past IIRC, but they still have a long ways to go.
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
  Didn't Scaled Composites do this with SpaceShip One about 15 years ago?
  - sungx105 8y ago
    This article is about SpaceShipTwo, the successor version that was supposed to actually be able to carry passengers
- zone411 8y ago
  Sending objects vs humans is a completely different ballgame, so this comparison doesn't look valid. And Karman's line is not very well defined - see https://www.livescience.com/63166-outer-space-border-karman-line.html https://www.livescience.com/63166-outer-space-border-karman-....
gardaani 8y ago
This is the first time a space flight from U.S. takes humans to space after the Space Shuttles were retired.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

Then fell back down. Call me when it's orbital.

stcredzero 8y ago
It's an orbit. It's just that the perigee is located deep within the Earth. (Deceleration due to sharply increasing frictional resistance is very likely on this class or orbits. This is likely followed by rapid unplanned disassembly.)
- bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
  How likely is very likely? Can we quantify the chances of rapid unplanned disassembly causing deceleration?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    It's very likely a real number.
    - bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
      I also imagine it to be real.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        It's also very likely in the set of complex numbers.

jayess 8y ago

Gotta love articles that consist of short-sentenced, one-sentence paragraphs.

xoa 8y ago

Articles like this feel awfully fuzzy when it comes to how they suggest VG is in some kind of "race" with actual orbital companies. I'm just not seeing the path from A to B for VG's current efforts there, and without that I'm also not seeing what their future is at all? >The company said the space ship's motor burned for 60 seconds, travelling at 2.9 times the speed of sound as it gained height. So they managed to briefly beat the Concorde (top speed a bit of Mach 2) and are still well under half the speed of the X-15? I mean, good for them I guess but it seems pretty ridiculous to put VG in even vaguely the same game as anybody doing actual orbital work (not just SpaceX or BO but smaller outfits even). Mach 2.9 isn't even 1 km/s, and LEO average orbital is more like 7.8 km/s (and required delta-v for that will likely be at least a good extra 1.5 km/s over that accounting for drag/grav). Yes "space" may start at 100 km as the atmosphere drops sufficiently, but I think what most people think about when it comes to "going to space" and doing something useful involves orbit, even for tourism purposes (orbital space hotels say). The challenges of every bit of it, from delta-v to heating to in-orbit survival is all on an entirely different plane. Meanwhile with the BFR it looks quite possibly that SpaceX may well drop below $500/kg to LEO, possibly by a lot. They claim to be aiming for $10m a flight which would be more like sub-$100/kg, but I take that as more a long term aspirational goal approaching the costs of fuel a minimal maintenance then anything in the immediately realizable future. But even a conservative guess of more like $40m would still mean being able to get people into real orbit for less money then VG's up-and-down. BO is pursuing similar cost economics, and both are fighting through the very hard R&D work in actually getting scalable long term cost reductions like methalox working right now. Can anyone explain what if anything about VG's current R&D would actually carry over to a real spacecraft, or what they use case for it would be if it can't reach that? For merely going very high and very fast on Earth low boom supersonic R&D seems more promising, and for actual space, well this isn't it. What am I missing here?

ohitsdom 8y ago
Virgin Galactic doesn't have any orbital aspirations, as far as I know (unlike Virgin Orbit). The biggest change I saw was they floated the possibility of actually traveling this way- e.g. London to New Mexico or somewhere. But that was awhile ago, I haven't seen any kind of that talk. I think especially since the accident, they've been focused on just doing these suborbital up and down trips and trying to make them a regular commercial activity. Anecdotally, people in the space industry don't seem too thrilled with VG. This type of ship was great for the X prize, but it remains to be seen how robust it is. Some of the test flight footage has looked almost unstable. Also their hybrid motor approach (solid & liquid fuel) was said to have gotten all the drawbacks of both approaches with little benefit.

maxdo 8y ago

I'm happy there is one more company, but, can anyone explain what's their mission apart from "sending dummies to space" ? Is there any potential practical value from that?

adzicg 8y ago
I guess testing with relevant weight? They said 2 pilots plus a dummy passenger. If the plan is to take a single person up at a time, then this would allow them to test their assumptions about fuel burn and engine performance with the same configuration.

aw1621107 8y ago

The Ars Technica article on this event [0] contains this interesting snippet: >Probably the closest thing to [an internationally agreed upon boundary for "space"] comes from the World Air Sports Federation, or FAI, which uses 100km (the Karman line) to delineate the boundary of space for the purposes of establishing world records. However, this organization says it is looking at lowering this boundary from 100km to 80km, due to "Recently published analyses (that) present a compelling scientific case for reduction in this altitude." >Much of the push for a lowering of the boundary has come because of work by Harvard University astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell, who has argued that orbiting objects can survive multiple perigees at altitudes around 80 to 90km and that this altitude range is consistent with the highest physical boundary of the atmosphere, the mesopause. Does anyone here know more about this? How recent is this work? How controversial is it, if it is at all? This is the first I've heard of work along these lines. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/virgin-galactic-just-flew-to-82-68-kilometers-is-this-space/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/virgin-galactic-just...

xbryanx 8y ago
The defined boundary of space always reminds me of Jeannette Piccard, the first woman in space (as defined in 1934). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Piccard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Piccard It's interesting where we define what is an isn't space, with its own cultural ramifications.
- mr_toad 8y ago
  It’s hard to argue that you’ve left the atmosphere, when the craft you’re using is supported by it. Hence the Karman Line. Tereshkova has a much better claim to being the first woman in space.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    You can reach the surface of a lake in a craft that floats on water so you should be able to reach the end of the atmosphere in a craft that floats on it.

ChrisArchitect 8y ago

headline similar to recent "Nasa's Voyager 2 probe 'leaves the Solar System'" Similar but different...haha

skrause 8y ago

"Getting to space is easy. It's not, like, something you could do in your car, but it's not a huge challenge. You could get a person to space with a small sounding rocket the size of a telephone pole. The X-15 aircraft reached space just by going fast and then steering up. You will go to space today, and then you will quickly come back. But getting to space is easy. The problem is staying there." - https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

JorgeGT 8y ago
> You could get a person to space with a small sounding rocket the size of a telephone pole. This is in fact the goal of Copenhagen Suborbitals: https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/missions/spica/ https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/missions/spica/

ansible 8y ago

I'd love it if they started live-streaming all the launches.

Theodores 8y ago

Despite the front page on the BBC brandishing this story I feel underwhelmed and I am sure I am not alone. This may be Branson's biggest expedition to date but I don't think it sets the world alight in the way that his previous exploits have done so. In 1986 he captured the Blue Riband for fastest crossing of the Atlantic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/26/newsid_2519000/2519869.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/26/new... This was very good for the Virgin/Branson publicity machine and important for the image of his airline and other ventures. However, much like this new 'Galactic' effort, this was kind of done on the cheap. The Blue Riband had previously been contested in the days before the jet age by very large passenger ships carrying hundreds if not thousands of fare paying passengers. Branson's effort had just himself as a 'fare paying passenger'. Sadly for Branson the efforts of Musk/SpaceX have downsized the publicity potential for what has gone on here. That time that SpaceX landed two of the rocket boosters was one of the most exciting moments in space thus far, the Tesla 'Rocketman' was also quite crazy. This should have persuaded Branson to throw in the towel on his 'space' ambitions but we all have our pride. If you really want to see the edge of space then I am sure that if you ask the USAF nicely then they can oblige with a flight on a U2 plane. The view is pretty much the same on this tried and tested plane as what Branson offers with this 'Virgin Galactic' thing, which is far from Sagan's 'Pale Blue Dot' or Apollo's 'Earth Rise'. Top Gear presenters have had been to the edge of space (70 000 ft): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_May_at_the_Edge_of_Space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_May_at_the_Edge_of_Space I am sure the Russians could offer similar passage. you could even grease the palms of someone with a 50+ year old English Electric Lightning in private ownership to get you up to 70 000 ft. But nobody is beating a path to the door of those with planes capable of this, to come back to earth and demanding to go that bit higher. Consequently I very much doubt there is a market for Virgin Galactic. Maybe Virgin Galactic will have as much impact as the Virgin F1 team, canned after a few seasons lollygagging at the back of the grid. But Branson seems okay keeping these fun adventures going and good on him for that (even if a few test pilots die on the way or if he himself ends up free falling without a parachute). As billionaires go he isn't a bad chap but I ain't no fan-boy.

isostatic 8y ago
> Sadly for Branson the efforts of Musk/SpaceX have downsized the publicity potential for what has gone on here. That time that SpaceX landed two of the rocket boosters was one of the most exciting moments in space thus far, the Tesla 'Rocketman' was also quite crazy. This should have persuaded Branson to throw in the towel on his 'space' ambitions but we all have our pride. That was the same trip, and probably more exciting than anything since Apollo. Seeing those two rockets landing together before cutting to a dummy in a car blasting out of orbit, all choreographed to David Bowie, it looked like something from a movie. However back when spaceship-one went to space (not orbit obv) and back twice in 2003, it felt like space was just around the corner. It took over a decade before SpaceX successfully landed their rocket to surpass that feeling.

pastor_elm 8y ago

I'd save my money for a trip in the BFR

hnburnsy 8y ago

Question, do flights like this generate a sonic boom that can impact those in the area?

devindotcom 8y ago
The craft is taken to 45,000 feet by a more traditional aircraft at normal speeds and after detachment the rocket engine wouldn't bring it to boom-producing mach speeds until somewhat above that I think, and the atmosphere is much thinner so the effect would be greatly reduced. So no, I don't think so.

gregallan 8y ago

For context, the predecessor of SpaceShipTwo reached an altitude of over 100km in June 2004, becoming the first commercial venture to put a person in space [1]. A few months after that, Virgin got involved and it seemed like commercial passenger spaceflight was just a few years away. 14 years and two fatal accidents [2,3] later, the 80 km flight seems to pale in comparison to those expectations. In that time we’ve seen the rise of SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose aspirations and capabilities look set to far exceed those of Virgin Galactic. As impressive as this spaceplane is, its competitors are starting to make it look like the product of some (very expensive) backyard tinkering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne#Development_and_winning_the_X_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne#Development_and_w... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo#Related_test_program_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo#Related_test_pr... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash

mLuby 8y ago
Right now Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are in about the same place, with SpaceShipTwo ahead of New Shepard in terms of test flights (and presumably crew rating). Both will provide suborbital tourist flights. SpaceX isn't in that game; they're trying to get the Falcon 9 crew-rated for orbital flights. If Blue Origin's New Glenn ever gets off the ground, they may pursue an orbital crew rating as well.
- tzfld 8y ago
  >If Blue Origin's New Glenn ever gets off the ground Are you having doubts?
  - mLuby 8y ago
    Few doubts given their benefactor's unlimited resources, but it's worth remembering how unexpected SpaceX's successes were. I'm mainly pointing that it's odd to compare aspirations with accomplishment. I've thought about climbing Everest, and even planned a route and bought some gear, but that doesn't put me in the same category as Norgay or Hillary.

treebro 8y ago

Found it ironic that Branson called space 'Virgin Territory'. There's a very good possibility that we'd be sending ourselves into the dark ages if space debris goes unmanaged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU&

SEJeff 8y ago

Great article, but I don't think that Virgin Galactic is really in the same market directly competing with the likes of SpaceX or Blue Origin. There is a place for all three, but Virgin Galactic is just about LEO space tourism. SpaceX's stated mission is to make humans a multi-planetary species and start a mars colony. Slightly different things.

avmich 8y ago
No, not quite right. VG is in suborbital tourism business - their current technology allows only short hops to Karman line or so. To get to LEO one has to have a substantially more capable system, here SpaceX with its crewed Dragon would be front runner. On the other hand, VG is much closer to starting offering suborbital rides than SpaceX is to starting offering interplanetary manned flights.
- SEJeff 8y ago
  Aaaaaaaand you still proved my point, which is that they're not really competitors at all, unlike what the article says!
vasili111 8y ago
It is different but very important.

poorman 8y ago

A better title for this would have been "Virgin Galactic successfully penetrates space".

dang 8y ago
Please don't do this here.

purple_ducks 8y ago

Surely the increase of all rocket launches/ships must be having a somewhat substantial impact on Earth's environment?

misterprime 8y ago
Whether we ruin the Earth or not it won't last forever. We need to find additional space-fairing vessels capable of sustaining humanity at some point. For now, it looks like the Moon and Mars are the most achievable bets for getting some of our eggs out of this cozy basket. So...#worth.

Thibaut1 8y ago

Free fall. Like inside an elevator with a broken cable. Here the aeroplane starts the free fall with considerable upwards speed. That and the horisontal speed form an upward parabola path of free fall.

undershirt 8y ago

If I was an editor at BBC, I'd be like—"hey guys, this is VA reaching space, can we get a picture of that thing in space?"

hackwarenews 8y ago

Great JOB team @Virgin! Galactic!

ncmncm 8y ago

There is lots here about how far short this falls, vs. a real launch. I don't think anybody has mentioned that the rocket is basically full of powdered rubber and Oxy detergent. You would not be impressed by the odor when you get out. That, and the amount of pollution it dumps into the upper atmosphere is embarrassing. Not so bad, that way, as the old space shuttle with its strap-on boosters, though. Hydrogen-fueled rockets are the only non-embarrassing way to reach Earth orbit. (H2O2 is OK, but no one uses it for that.)

mcguire 8y ago
See also Ignition, by John D. Clark.
userulluipeste 8y ago
Arca Space advertised the use of hydrogen peroxide, at least for some of their launches a while ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCA_Space_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCA_Space_Corporation

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hackerbabz 8y ago

What are the big improvements they've made in the 14 years since SpaceShipOne?

frabbit 8y ago

I'll be interested when they start firing Branson, Musk, Clinton and Trump towards the nearest habitable system.

hyperpallium 8y ago

This is awesome, the ship looks awesome, especially the way it accelerates after dropping from the plane, but... Reaching space is one thing, staying there is something else. cue elon re orbital velocity https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669131093379956736?lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669131093379956736?lang=...

zahreeley 8y ago
U r saying u have a lot of money to waste. Donation is better.