ApolloHoax.net

Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jeff Raven on July 11, 2021, 08:46:11 PM

Title: Richard Branson
Post by: Jeff Raven on July 11, 2021, 08:46:11 PM
So, what does everyone think of Richard Branson's flight today, as well as the 'controversy' of whether he (and others who take such a flight) should get credit for getting to space? I know that the line is somewhat arbitrary, and different groups (e.g.various U.S. organizations such as NASA, the FAA, Air Force vs. FAI) have different standards, and am curious what people's takes are on this?

Regardless of whether he "should" get credit, I think it's quite the accomplishment to have yet another private organization do what they have.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: molesworth on July 12, 2021, 06:35:28 AM
It was an impressive flight, and interesting technology, but I think it's fundamentally a dead end as far as spaceflight goes, and will never be more than a "tourist attraction".  (Not that there's anything wrong with encouraging tourism.)

Even with the announced future developments of the idea, they're not going to be able to reach orbit or launch payloads into LEO.  They might allow for an occasional science experiment in low or brief zero G, but that would need to be very well planned as it's such a brief opportunity per flight.

Overall, it's a fun idea, and as soon as I make my first million I'll think about buying a ticket  ;)
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Peter B on July 12, 2021, 11:05:03 AM
So, what does everyone think of Richard Branson's flight today, as well as the 'controversy' of whether he (and others who take such a flight) should get credit for getting to space? I know that the line is somewhat arbitrary, and different groups (e.g.various U.S. organizations such as NASA, the FAA, Air Force vs. FAI) have different standards, and am curious what people's takes are on this?

Regardless of whether he "should" get credit, I think it's quite the accomplishment to have yet another private organization do what they have.

Well, good for him. Private space travel is where aviation was a century ago. Eventually aviation developed to a point where it became available for everyone, and perhaps space travel might get there too.

I'm not as convinced as Molesworth that this technology is a dead end. I assume it'd be possible to sling a small unmanned rocket where the spacecraft hangs that could get into orbit. And the White Knight aircraft could be scaled up (isn't there that monster made of two 747 fuselages that's flown a couple of times?) to carry larger craft. Obviously, it's only going to happen if it's economical. It would be interesting to compare costs with SpaceX.

My concern is about the safety side of things. From what I've read other people in the industry were scathing of Branson after the accident a few years ago where a spacecraft was destroyed. I don't know whether the criticisms were valid or if the critics just didn't like their patch being invaded by a rich amateur; and if the former, whether the shortcomings have been addressed. I'll leave that to people in the know.

As for the altitude thing, that's a non-issue. As far as it matters to me, I prefer the 100km altitude. But if 50 miles is good enough for NASA, then fine, the crew get their astronaut wings.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: PDI-11 on July 12, 2021, 12:22:06 PM
Regarding the question of "reaching space" and receiving astronaut wings, I think the answer is yes. They exceeded the altitude at which other people receive the recognition.

But I also think we are near the moment in time when "being an astronaut" is entirely different than it was years ago. With hundreds of tourist potentially reaching space each year, the meaning and excitement of being an "astronaut" will change. Previously, the government issues the astronaut wings because it was government employees (or the vast majority were) who were on the missions. I am fine with tourist receiving astronaut wings; they can be handed out by the service provider (Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, or SpaceX).
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: jfb on July 12, 2021, 04:04:01 PM
It may not open up space travel in terms of getting to or beyond orbit, but it may open up practical (for suitably loose definitions of the word) commercial suborbital travel - NY to LA in under an hour, say.  I don't think WK/SS2 is the path forward on that for a number of reasons, but Stratolaunch may be with the right passenger vehicle. 

If they crossed the Karman line, they should get the wings.  I personally would not refer to them as astronauts, because to me the term means something more than having flown to a certain altitude.  But as far as qualifying for astronaut wings, they've met the standard that's been in place for half a century. 
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: apollo16uvc on July 12, 2021, 05:02:08 PM
The livestream was kinda shit...

Prefer the no-nosense streams of NASA and SpaceX that actually have interesting commentary and more than a few seconds of footage in "Space"
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: smartcooky on July 13, 2021, 02:43:19 AM
It was an impressive flight, and interesting technology, but I think it's fundamentally a dead end as far as spaceflight goes, and will never be more than a "tourist attraction".  (Not that there's anything wrong with encouraging tourism.)

Even with the announced future developments of the idea, they're not going to be able to reach orbit or launch payloads into LEO.  They might allow for an occasional science experiment in low or brief zero G, but that would need to be very well planned as it's such a brief opportunity per flight.

Overall, it's a fun idea, and as soon as I make my first million I'll think about buying a ticket  ;)

Branson has about 700 people (mostly the rich and celebrities) signed up to go.

Also, I don't believe its a dead technology, at least for satellite launches. Pegasus has had about 40 successful air-lauches of satellites into orbit over the last 30 years. Initially they were using a B-52, now they use a Lockheed L-1011 (Tri-Star).

While there are disadvantages in doing it this way such as mass limitations, the big advantage is that any orbital inclination is possible without a significant payload penalty or safety limitation you face in ground lauched - you literally point the mothership aircraft in the desired direction and launch the rocket.

Here is the Pegasus launch of the CYGNSS weather and hurricane research satellite back in 2016. It ended up in a 512 x 6908 km @ 35° (target orbit was 510 x 6888 km @ 35°)

Enjoy

Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Zakalwe on July 13, 2021, 04:25:47 AM
More power to him... shrouds don't have pockets and he's got to find a way of spending all those millions he's made of plundering the NHS.

So what about the altitude? It's all a game of rich men dick-waving after all. However, getting to space in a sub-orbital hop as a passenger doesn't make you an astronaut anymore than flying in an airline makes you a pilot.

Hopefully access to space (and Mars!) will increase and we'll move beyond such simplistic notions.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Peter B on July 13, 2021, 05:48:23 AM
The livestream was kinda shit...

Prefer the no-nosense streams of NASA and SpaceX that actually have interesting commentary and more than a few seconds of footage in "Space"

Actually a lot of the video was pretty poor, in terms of formatting. For examples: the numbers showing things like speed and altitude were invisible against light backgrounds; showing the altitude in feet was silly - 300,000 feet is meaningless to most people, but 56 miles is a number that people understand; and using variable width characters wasn't useful either, particularly with altitude - the characters changed rapidly, meaning the numbers flickered back and forth, making them a little harder to read.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: molesworth on July 13, 2021, 06:51:37 AM
I'm not as convinced as Molesworth that this technology is a dead end. I assume it'd be possible to sling a small unmanned rocket where the spacecraft hangs that could get into orbit. And the White Knight aircraft could be scaled up (isn't there that monster made of two 747 fuselages that's flown a couple of times?) to carry larger craft. Obviously, it's only going to happen if it's economical. It would be interesting to compare costs with SpaceX.

Also, I don't believe its a dead technology, at least for satellite launches. Pegasus has had about 40 successful air-lauches of satellites into orbit over the last 30 years. Initially they were using a B-52, now they use a Lockheed L-1011 (Tri-Star).

Just to clarify - I'm not saying air-launch systems are a dead end, and I agree they're a good way to launch small payloads cheaply.  However, I think that Virgin's SpaceShipTwo and successors are not heading in that direction.  The design is ingenious with the feathering wings and rubber/NO2 engine, but even scaled up it will, at best, be useable as a sub-orbital point-to-point transport system or just possibly a tourist ride to very low orbit.

I'd also agree about the very poor quality of the streaming, and I switched over to NASA Spaceflight who showed the release and ignition well before the Virgin stream.  Hopefully they'll sort out the technical glitches for future flights, and maybe have less of the ads and pundits, although they're likely catering for a different audience to us...
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Obviousman on July 13, 2021, 04:21:13 PM
More power to him... shrouds don't have pockets and he's got to find a way of spending all those millions...

I like that. I'll have to try and use that phrase some time!
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Obviousman on July 13, 2021, 04:26:09 PM
However, getting to space in a sub-orbital hop as a passenger doesn't make you an astronaut anymore than flying in an airline makes you a pilot.

Reminds me of when I was debating with a Twoofer on the Loose Change forums, such a long time ago. They were arguing that an aircraft could not do certain things, and they were blatently wrong. When I called them out on this, stating my qualifications as an air trafic controller, aircraft navigator and pilot, having worked in aviation most of my life, they counted with their over 10,000 flying hours. And yes, when pushed, it was 10,000 hours riding as a passanger in an airliner!
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: nikolai on July 14, 2021, 09:51:26 AM
It was an impressive flight, and interesting technology, but I think it's fundamentally a dead end as far as spaceflight goes, and will never be more than a "tourist attraction".  (Not that there's anything wrong with encouraging tourism.)

Even with the announced future developments of the idea, they're not going to be able to reach orbit or launch payloads into LEO.  They might allow for an occasional science experiment in low or brief zero G, but that would need to be very well planned as it's such a brief opportunity per flight.

Overall, it's a fun idea, and as soon as I make my first million I'll think about buying a ticket  ;)

I'm getting that the kinetic energy in an orbit at 100km altitude (which is a pretty low orbit) is more than 30 times as much as the energy needed to lift one up 100km.

I have ignored the initial kinetic energy you have if you use the earth's rotation, but that's not all that much.  Also, the kinetic energy requirement for the orbit is an underestimate, because you have to lift a lot more fuel up high.

So I think this is a whole different sport than going into orbit.  It's a bit like riding a horse versus driving a Ferrari.  But as someone else said, there are potential applications for suborbital, like fast air (or over the air) transport.  Or ICBMs; maybe those can be privatised too.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: molesworth on July 15, 2021, 06:05:36 AM
...  Or ICBMs; maybe those can be privatised too.

Well, if that's an option, I guess it's time to make a start on that secret island volcano super-villain base I've been planning ;D
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Obviousman on July 16, 2021, 01:59:46 AM
There will have to be a change to the definitions for the award of astronaut wings, most likely to do with some professional qualifications and crew duties whilst aboard. The pilots would qualify but the SLF* would not.







SLF - Self Loading Freight
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: smartcooky on July 16, 2021, 06:19:28 AM
There will have to be a change to the definitions for the award of astronaut wings, most likely to do with some professional qualifications and crew duties whilst aboard. The pilots would qualify but the SLF* would not.







SLF - Self Loading Freight

Maybe, in the best traditions of the military, they could get half wings. In most Air Forces, pilots get full wings

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0brfg5itzwezsd4/Wings.jpg?raw=1)

...but other aircrew get flight brevets like this...

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/d7b0g90ugtfwnpw/HalfBrevet.jpg?raw=1)

The letters on the middle designate what their aircrew specialty or qualification. This one is a Load Master. Other letters are

N - Navigator
AE - Air Electronics
AO - Air Ordinance
O = Observer

Maybe those who get to space in a sub-orbital flight get half wings with SO
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Obviousman on July 16, 2021, 07:23:03 PM
It could be as simple as the manifest; if you are listed as crew, you qualify. As for the brevet, it could be anything. Reminds me of today's Navy: every child wins a prize, everyone gets a set of wings.

The days of the Two Winged Master Race are gone.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: bknight on July 17, 2021, 12:07:25 PM
So, what does everyone think of Richard Branson's flight today, as well as the 'controversy' of whether he (and others who take such a flight) should get credit for getting to space? I know that the line is somewhat arbitrary, and different groups (e.g.various U.S. organizations such as NASA, the FAA, Air Force vs. FAI) have different standards, and am curious what people's takes are on this?

Regardless of whether he "should" get credit, I think it's quite the accomplishment to have yet another private organization do what they have.

It was a great step forward in civilian trips to near outer space.  NASA started awarding wings at that altitude years ago, probaly becusue the X-15 pilots were miffed.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Peter B on July 20, 2021, 10:06:40 AM
And I see now that Blue Origin has up-and-downed.

Well, congratulations to them too. At least BO's rockets are being developed with a longer trajectory in mind, compared with Virgin Galactic. New Glenn looks impressive.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Jeff Raven on July 20, 2021, 10:26:03 AM
And I see now that Blue Origin has up-and-downed.

Well, congratulations to them too. At least BO's rockets are being developed with a longer trajectory in mind, compared with Virgin Galactic. New Glenn looks impressive.

*edited*  Yup. The flight went pretty smoothly. (the broadcast I watched was another story) I thought on initial (and replay) watch that the thrusters didn't fire just before landing, but they did. I'm sure the chairs are designed to handle a 16mph landing speed instead of the slower one that the thrusters provide, but it's good to see that they didn't have to. 

Looking forward to seeing and hearing the in-capsule video and audio.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Glom on July 20, 2021, 04:49:00 PM
My concern is about the safety side of things. From what I've read other people in the industry were scathing of Branson after the accident a few years ago where a spacecraft was destroyed. I don't know whether the criticisms were valid or if the critics just didn't like their patch being invaded by a rich amateur; and if the former, whether the shortcomings have been addressed. I'll leave that to people in the know.

Don't worry. NASA, Virgin Galactic's operations are regulated by the FAA so... oh... right.

I saw a rant by Steve Shives about how he's salty about these flights and wants real astronauts back. It was a douchier echo of arguments I've heard before about how the age of the eccentric billionaire isn't inspiring the way the golden age of NASA was.

The thing is, I think this really is rose tinted nostalgia goggles. NASA was achieving the most (in human spaceflight; for the purposes of this argument, that's what I'm talking about) when it was running on unashamed willy waving. When that factor became less powerful, things got more stagnant. For the likes of Shives, NASA achieved enough for them to believe that its drive was the furthering of human endeavour, a true proto-Starfleet exploring strange new worlds, but the truth is it was never that ideal. Throughout the decades of stagnation they could hope that maybe it would be this year that the president and Congress would give NASA the support they needed to become proto-Starfleet, but this was always a forlorn hope.

That was what has Shives so miffed. The arrival of these market disruptors has forced him to face the reality that NASA was never what he wanted to believe it was.

But there is something else. Shives wants real astronauts back. He talks about how he regards them as heroes. But the age of hero astronaut was always going to be temporary. No-one thinks of the guy flying the A350 from Heathrow to JFK as a hero, even though their flight is far more of a feat than what Lindburgh did. Even an Airbus test pilot isn't regarded as a hero. Aviation is routine now, mundane. If we are to progress, that is what space is to become. Seeing Branson go to (almost) space is a kick in the teeth because it heralds the post-astronaut age. One where going to space is the realm of the ordinary guy, not the hero. Branson is an ordinary guy except for his wealth and all that wealth did was get him an earlier ticket. But the idea is that where the super rich go now, in a few years, the economically average will follow. What Shives really wants is to trap spaceflight in amber, fossilised in a state of perpetual novelty. Perpetual novelty is of course an oxymoron. And it is having to face this truth that upsets him.

Really, this is a very exciting time. Space travel is no longer at the whim of the government with a willy to wave or pork to pack in barrels. The richest men in the world aren't doing this because they want to make money. They already have it all and they didn't obtain it by crazy ventures like this. They're doing this because they think space travel is cool. The profit component is simply necessary to make it stick this time. In a way, they represent the ideal of space flight as a human endeavour more than NASA ever did. But it is not what the likes of Shives spent their childhoods imagining. Their journey to coming to terms with that has only just begun.

True, Bezos, Branson and Musk put a big share of their ego into this, but a Youtuber has no business criticising others for narcissism.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Zakalwe on July 21, 2021, 03:41:34 AM
New Glenn looks impressive.

Vapourware and CGI is easy.
BO are really struggling with developing the BE-4 and are already well behind plan. ULA are allegedly very pissed that BO has failed to deliver, but they are also protecting BO to an extent. Unless they move to another engine Vulcan will be delayed.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Count Zero on July 21, 2021, 05:28:20 PM
I saw a rant by Steve Shives about how he's salty about these flights and wants real astronauts back....

That is an absolutely brilliant analysis/summation.  May I share it (with attribution)?
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Glom on July 22, 2021, 03:23:28 AM
I saw a rant by Steve Shives about how he's salty about these flights and wants real astronauts back....

That is an absolutely brilliant analysis/summation.  May I share it (with attribution)?

Sure, I guess. Attribution to some guy.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Glom on July 23, 2021, 10:54:03 PM
Looks like the FAA have decided that the term "astronaut" refers to flight crew and not passengers.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: bknight on July 24, 2021, 11:48:00 AM
Looks like the FAA have decided that the term "astronaut" refers to flight crew and not passengers.

Bureaucrats  ::)
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Jeff Raven on July 24, 2021, 03:51:35 PM
Looks like the FAA have decided that the term "astronaut" refers to flight crew and not passengers.

Yup. And the timing was very pointed.  The passengers could still qualify for honorary wings, but not the full ones. From CNN:  The new order allows the agency to issue an honorary award to "individuals whose contribution to commercial human space flight merits special recognition." It's up to the sole discretion of FAA's associate administrator for commercial space transportation to determine who qualifies for the "honorary" astronaut wings.

The criteria for full wings are not very specific:  (In addition to the 50+ miles altitude) Commercial launch crew members must also demonstrate "activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety," an FAA spokesperson said, quoting the new order.   So, based on that, riding around on a joy ride wouldn't qualify, but what if they were also testing systems that were going to be used in the next generation of craft?  Would that be enough for the second criterion? Based on that one, how many of the mission specialists during the space shuttle years who were there for scientific research would still qualify? Same with ISS.  I don't even want to think about how they're going to decide the first one.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Obviousman on July 24, 2021, 09:41:23 PM
There will have to be a change to the definitions for the award of astronaut wings, most likely to do with some professional qualifications and crew duties whilst aboard. The pilots would qualify but the SLF* would not.







SLF - Self Loading Freight
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: nikolai on July 25, 2021, 12:04:24 PM
SLF - Self Loading Freight

For those who might not be familiar with the phrase, this is commonly used by snotty flight attendants with attitude problems to express their contempt for the people who are paying their salaries.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Obviousman on July 25, 2021, 04:24:08 PM
SLF - Self Loading Freight

For those who might not be familiar with the phrase, this is commonly used by snotty flight attendants with attitude problems to express their contempt for the people who are paying their salaries.


And aircrew various when refering to pax (passangers).
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: jfb on July 26, 2021, 10:06:44 AM
I will give Branson this - riding SS2 carries some real risk.  Between the whole "the human is the strong link in the chain" attitude towards design and operation, coupled with the fact that it's killed several people during development, it's not like getting on a 737 from Austin to Houston.  It may not be a high potential for mayhem, but it's not exactly low, either. 

I'd personally feel more confident riding NS. 
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Obviousman on July 26, 2021, 04:23:51 PM
I will give Branson this - riding SS2 carries some real risk.  Between the whole "the human is the strong link in the chain" attitude towards design and operation, coupled with the fact that it's killed several people during development, it's not like getting on a 737 from Austin to Houston.  It may not be a high potential for mayhem, but it's not exactly low, either. 

I'd personally feel more confident riding NS. 

That's interesting. I agree that both carry risk but I am not sure I'd choose NS over SS2; what factors make you favour the former?
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Glom on July 26, 2021, 05:39:10 PM
As a joy ride, SS2 is cooler because it draws out the experience. Having the whole thing over and done with in 10 minutes is a bit too to the point. For a once in a lifetime experience, dragging it out for a few hours is best.

Later on though, the joy equation may change.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: jfb on July 27, 2021, 08:43:43 AM
I will give Branson this - riding SS2 carries some real risk.  Between the whole "the human is the strong link in the chain" attitude towards design and operation, coupled with the fact that it's killed several people during development, it's not like getting on a 737 from Austin to Houston.  It may not be a high potential for mayhem, but it's not exactly low, either. 

I'd personally feel more confident riding NS. 

That's interesting. I agree that both carry risk but I am not sure I'd choose NS over SS2; what factors make you favour the former?

Like I said, SS2’s design and operation make the human the strong link in the chain, which is bad juju in this flight regime.  There’s relatively little automation and by the accounts I’ve read the pilots have a huge workload.  They have to unlock the tail boom at exactly the right moment - after they reach Mach 1.1 but before they commit to the climb uphill.  The first vehicle was lost because a pilot unlocked the tail boom too early, killing one pilot and severely injuring the other.  I’m sure they’ve added some kind of interlock since then, but God only knows what other, similar nasty surprises are lurking.  All it takes is for one of the pilots to have a less-than-absolutely-perfect day and you’re looking at LOV/LOC.

NS may look like a giant flying penis, but it can fly fully automated, and it hasn’t killed anyone yet.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Peter B on July 27, 2021, 10:25:47 AM
New Glenn looks impressive.

Vapourware and CGI is easy.
BO are really struggling with developing the BE-4 and are already well behind plan. ULA are allegedly very pissed that BO has failed to deliver, but they are also protecting BO to an extent. Unless they move to another engine Vulcan will be delayed.

Fair enough. What, then, do you make of Bezos's offer of $2 billion to NASA to make them take on BO's lunar lander?
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: jfb on July 27, 2021, 10:51:16 AM
New Glenn looks impressive.

Vapourware and CGI is easy.
BO are really struggling with developing the BE-4 and are already well behind plan. ULA are allegedly very pissed that BO has failed to deliver, but they are also protecting BO to an extent. Unless they move to another engine Vulcan will be delayed.

Fair enough. What, then, do you make of Bezos's offer of $2 billion to NASA to make them take on BO's lunar lander?

I think Eric Berger (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/bezos-says-he-is-now-willing-to-invest-in-a-moon-lander-heres-why/) sums it up pretty well:

Quote
The time to state how much skin you're willing to put into the game is during the bidding process, not after the winners have been named.

Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: apollo16uvc on July 27, 2021, 11:32:30 AM
They can do whatever they want with their own money.

They just shouldn't get it into their heads that they are in the same league as /actual/ astronauts who do important work.

You can argue that the first flight or two of these kind are important and daring. But even then, the occupants don't do anything... they are just passengers.

Except the pilots of Virgin Galactic craft(s), they are the real heroes of those flights. Not the occupants.


Also, its just 3-4 minutes. Wooweee.


But if it inspires young people, I guess this is a good thing...
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Glom on September 16, 2021, 03:11:16 AM
Well there goes the neighbourhood. Remember when the riff raff knew their place and it was on Earth?
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Zakalwe on September 16, 2021, 03:14:56 AM
Well there goes the neighbourhood. Remember when the riff raff knew their place and it was on Earth?

Inspiration4?
I do hope that your comment was tongue in cheek?
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Glom on September 16, 2021, 04:13:10 AM
Well there goes the neighbourhood. Remember when the riff raff knew their place and it was on Earth?

Inspiration4?
I do hope that your comment was tongue in cheek?

Yep. See my essay on the previous page to understand my facetiousness.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: smartcooky on September 21, 2021, 08:00:17 AM
Well there goes the neighbourhood. Remember when the riff raff knew their place and it was on Earth?

Inspiration4?
I do hope that your comment was tongue in cheek?

Yep. See my essay on the previous page to understand my facetiousness.

I was going to rip you a new one Glom. That was before I went back and read that essay. Much as I like many of Steve Shives' videos, I think he's dead wrong on that one.

IMO, the Inspiration 4 crew are well named. They were a damned fine crew with great objectives.

Jared Isaacman paid for the launch and mission (reportedly about US$200M), and on top of that, put up another US$100M to kick start a fundraising drive for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. As of September 20, the fundraiser had reached US$210 million including a $50M donation from Elon.

Isaacman took with him a customer of his business (Dr. Sian Proctor), a bone cancer survivor whose life as a child was saved by Doctors at St. Jude's and who now works there as a physician assistant with leukemia and lymphoma patients (Hayley Arceneaux), and an Aeropace engineer who had a childhood passion for rocketry (Chris Sembroski).

What's not to like about any of that?

For mine, this was is the first "true" civilian mission to space - they launched, they orbited for three days (about 40+ orbits) faced the challenges of re-entry and splashdown. These guys were the real thing 
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Zakalwe on September 22, 2021, 05:33:24 AM
Well there goes the neighbourhood. Remember when the riff raff knew their place and it was on Earth?

Inspiration4?
I do hope that your comment was tongue in cheek?

Yep. See my essay on the previous page to understand my facetiousness.

Ahhh, gotcha.

The Inspiration4 flight was a masterpiece. Issacman is a mover and shaker....I'd love to know how he got Netflix to spend large on a multi-part series with those production values.  I believe that SpaceX are now considering making more Dragon capsules to meet demand for more tourism. However, the real mass interest will kick off when (not "if") they get Starship up and running. The possibility of 100 tourists at one time might even make it possible for a mere mortal to fly in space!

Regarding Branson's endeavours? I really, really, REALLY dislike that contraption that they are flying. It's killed people so far and they way that they are going about it I think that it will kill more people if they press ahead with trying to fly tourists. Rutan's design has no computers and is very much a "seat of the pants" design. It looks to be very difficult to fly and it relies on the pilots being the very best. however, any design that relies on [ur=https://www.space.com/30073-virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-crash-pilot-error.htmll]humans to make mission-critical decisions and to time those decisions within a second[/url] is inherently neither a safe or reliable system. hell, even the very earliest NASA manned missions were heavily automated. Bad things happen far too quickly when flying into space to allow humans to be the only piloting system.

The culture in VG also appears to be totally wrong. The sacking of Stucky, the decision-making of the pilots on Bransons flight (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-red-warning-light-on-richard-bransons-space-flight) all point to an enterprise run on autocracy. Again, hubris, "go-fever", and decision-making based on not displeasing the Boss all have no place in spacelight. Space is hard and mistakes are mercilessly punished. I hope that the FAA grounds the thing before others are killed.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: smartcooky on September 22, 2021, 05:16:18 PM
The culture in VG also appears to be totally wrong. The sacking of Stucky, the decision-making of the pilots on Bransons flight (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-red-warning-light-on-richard-bransons-space-flight) all point to an enterprise run on autocracy. Again, hubris, "go-fever", and decision-making based on not displeasing the Boss all have no place in spaceflight. Space is hard and mistakes are mercilessly punished. I hope that the FAA grounds the thing before others are killed.

Indeed. It was in part, that kind of attitude and culture that got 14 NASA astronauts killed (the other part was "normalisation of deviance").

You would have to drag me kicking and screaming into that Virgin Galactic thing for a spaceflight, but you could strap me into a Dragon capsule in a heartbeat.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Zakalwe on September 23, 2021, 03:42:42 AM
The culture in VG also appears to be totally wrong. The sacking of Stucky, the decision-making of the pilots on Bransons flight (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-red-warning-light-on-richard-bransons-space-flight) all point to an enterprise run on autocracy. Again, hubris, "go-fever", and decision-making based on not displeasing the Boss all have no place in spaceflight. Space is hard and mistakes are mercilessly punished. I hope that the FAA grounds the thing before others are killed.

Indeed. It was in part, that kind of attitude and culture that got 14 NASA astronauts killed (the other part was "normalisation of deviance").

You would have to drag me kicking and screaming into that Virgin Galactic thing for a spaceflight, but you could strap me into a Dragon capsule in a heartbeat.

Absolutely agreed.
However, in my particular case, I seem to be somewhat short of the $100million+ needed for the ticket. I've looked down the back of the sofa and still am short.  :( >:(
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Glom on September 23, 2021, 05:19:59 PM
It is telling that of the three competitors under discussion, Branson, Musk and Bezos, only Branson is not developing capability to support ongoing progress like the other two. It is much more about thrill seeking. It kind of parallels the way the early Soviet efforts focused a bit too heavily on space stunts with the likes of Voskhod.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: smartcooky on September 24, 2021, 12:44:00 AM
It is telling that of the three competitors under discussion, Branson, Musk and Bezos, only Branson is not developing capability to support ongoing progress like the other two. It is much more about thrill seeking. It kind of parallels the way the early Soviet efforts focused a bit too heavily on space stunts with the likes of Voskhod.

As far as Blue Origin goes, I am disappointed they have yet put a anything into orbit, despite having more than a two year head start over SpaceX. At least Virgin Orbit has managed this, albeit just a few cubesats launched from a missile dropped by a 747.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Zakalwe on September 24, 2021, 04:16:30 AM
How pissed would Tory Bruno be if BO put something into orbit whilst the engines that he's waiting for are over 4 years late?

(https://i.redd.it/dc0annwxdn671.jpg)
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: jfb on September 27, 2021, 09:11:44 AM
IINM (not a safe bet), BO has delivered a set of engines to ULA, but they haven’t been fully tested.  However, it allows ULA to move forward with Vulcan assembly (they can do fit tests, hook up the plumbing, do some integration tests, etc.).  A second set of engines is almost ready and will go through the full round of testing before delivery, and I think those will be the first flight engines.

Or not.  Honestly, some of the reporting around this is a little confusing, and as always the jfb filter must be taken into account (turns signal into noise). 
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Zakalwe on September 28, 2021, 05:17:54 AM
IINM (not a safe bet), BO has delivered a set of engines to ULA, but they haven’t been fully tested.  However, it allows ULA to move forward with Vulcan assembly (they can do fit tests, hook up the plumbing, do some integration tests, etc.).  A second set of engines is almost ready and will go through the full round of testing before delivery, and I think those will be the first flight engines.

Or not.  Honestly, some of the reporting around this is a little confusing, and as always the jfb filter must be taken into account (turns signal into noise).

"Pathfinder" engines were delivered in July 2020, but no flight ready engines have been delivered. https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-delivers-the-first-be-4-engine-to-united-launch-alliance/

In May this year Eric Berger reported that BO's "aspiration" was to deliver two engines by the end of this calendar year. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/blue-origins-powerful-be-4-engine-is-more-than-four-years-late-heres-why/
"According to these sources, the flight engines to be delivered to ULA, no. 1 and no. 2, are not yet fully assembled. But most of the components are built. The good news is that Blue Origin believes it has retired all of the significant technical risks. Engineers have already tested the BE-4 engine in a configuration close to that of the flight engines, and it has performed well during hot firings that approximate the duty cycle of a Vulcan first stage launch.
Blue Origin's current plan involves testing two more development engines at its facility near Van Horn, Texas, this fall. These are close to, but not the, final version of the BE-4 engine.
After these tests, a fully assembled flight engine no. 1 will be shipped to Texas to undergo a fairly brief round of tests, known as acceptance testing. If this engine passes, as expected, it will be shipped to ULA. Then a virtually identical BE-4 engine will be sent from Kent to Texas. This "qual" engine will undergo a much more rigorous series of tests, known as qualification testing. The idea is to push the engine through its paces to find any flaws. Then a similar process will follow with flight engine no. 2, followed by a second "qual" engine."



In July, Eric wrote that BO had not yet delivered any engines https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/increasingly-the-ula-blue-origin-marriage-is-an-unhappy-one/
In August he again wrote that the preliminary engines are still at BO. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/rocket-report-virgin-galactic-ups-ticket-prices-starship-surge-in-texas/


Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: jfb on September 28, 2021, 11:14:08 AM
jfb filter strikes again.  I had read those stories, but it all went sideways in my head. 

I wonder how many times a day Tory just locks the door and just screams unintelligibly. 
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Zakalwe on October 01, 2021, 03:56:29 AM
Looks like the FAA have cleared VG to fly again.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210929005972/en/Virgin-Galactic-Cleared-to-Fly-Following-Conclusion-of-FAA-Inquiry


My fear is that they'll be back on the FAA's radar all too soon though.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Glom on October 04, 2021, 12:23:26 PM
Shatner is going to space.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58792761
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: molesworth on October 04, 2021, 01:54:47 PM
Shatner is going back to space.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58792761

FTFY  ;D
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Peter B on October 04, 2021, 06:23:38 PM
Shatner is going to space.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58792761

I note that story links to this one:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58760764

Quote
The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has said it will review safety concerns raised by whistleblowers at Blue Origin, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' space company.

The announcement comes after 21 current and former employees claimed the company had ignored safety concerns to gain an advantage in the space race.

Staff also complained of a culture of sexism within the company.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Glom on October 13, 2021, 04:22:19 PM
Relax. He survived.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: JayUtah on October 13, 2021, 09:21:43 PM
Relax. He survived.

Yeah, but I would have been a lot happier about it if the ground crew had put on fake goatees (a la "Mirror, Mirror") for when he got back.  Or Planet of the Apes masks.  You can see where I'm going with this, I don't need to fill in the details.
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: molesworth on October 14, 2021, 06:27:57 AM
Relax. He survived.

Yeah, but I would have been a lot happier about it if the ground crew had put on fake goatees (a la "Mirror, Mirror") for when he got back.  Or Planet of the Apes masks.  You can see where I'm going with this, I don't need to fill in the details.

There were a lot of fun images / memes posted before launch, e.g.

Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: jfb on October 14, 2021, 10:17:08 AM
Dude's 90 and he looks like someone in their late '60s.  He's going to live to be like 110 years old or something. 

I saw the short video BO released - after a couple of genuine "wow"s, he stayed glued to the window while everyone else was bouncing around. 

No, it's not orbit, but it's not nothing, either. 
Title: Re: Richard Branson
Post by: Zakalwe on October 14, 2021, 12:25:47 PM
Dude's 90 and he looks like someone in their late '60s.  He's going to live to be like 110 years old or something. 

I saw the short video BO released - after a couple of genuine "wow"s, he stayed glued to the window while everyone else was bouncing around. 

No, it's not orbit, but it's not nothing, either.

The conversation that he had with Bezos afterwards was very touching. You could see that he was moved to tears by the experience.