
Virgin Galactic successfully reaches space - adzicg
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46550862
======
gregallan
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_w...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne#Development_and_winning_the_X_Prize)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo#Related_test_pr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RocketMotorTwo#Related_test_program_accident)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash)

~~~
mLuby
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
>If Blue Origin's New Glenn ever gets off the ground

Are you having doubts?

~~~
mLuby
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.

------
aw1621107
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...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/virgin-galactic-just-flew-
to-82-68-kilometers-is-this-space/)

~~~
xbryanx
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
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
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.

~~~
antonvs
The surface of a lake is much more well-defined, though, and has high density.
You can't "float" on whatever you define as the "surface" of the atmosphere.

------
lisper
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.

~~~
40acres
How are you able to achieve 0G while still within the escape velocity of
earth, what's the science behind this?

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Any time you're not resting on a surface, hanging from something, or otherwise
being held up against gravity, you're in freefall.

("Zero G" is admittedly a bad term, since there's no such thing as "zero G"
literally anywhere in the universe. It's all freefall.)

~~~
crimsonalucard
Net G relative to your frame of motion is zero G is a better way to put it.

G is a unit. 9.81 Newtons. So 3G is 3*9.81 newtons.

~~~
jonsen
It’s “g”. “G” is the gravitanional constant.

------
xoa
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
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.

~~~
xoa
Thanks for the reply, that was my rough impression from eyeballing it but the
article certainly talks quite optimistically and I'm not at all an expert.

> _The biggest change I saw was they floated the possibility of actually
> traveling this way- e.g. London to New Mexico or somewhere_

Yeah, that definitely seems like a wild thing thrown out, particularly given
research like the X-59 QueSST NASA is doing [1]. I can't see them possibly
competing successfully with an air breathing supersonic aircraft capable of
legal overland flight in terrestrial transport, so there's a squeeze from the
bottom. And even from a joyride and "I've gone to space!" angle it doesn't
feel that compelling vs actually going into orbit for a similar price (or
less!). So it seems like a dead end, albeit a cool one, but also a significant
amount of money just for that given the context of the times.

\----

1:
[https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/lowboom/index.html](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/lowboom/index.html)

------
SEJeff
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
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
Aaaaaaaand you still proved my point, which is that they're not really
competitors at all, unlike what the article says!

------
ncmncm
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.)

~~~
userulluipeste
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)

------
Latteland
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.

~~~
airstrike
km, not k

~~~
ceejayoz
My Australian relatives say "it's about 50 kay" to describe driving distances,
for what it's worth.

~~~
crimsonalucard
50 kilomiles?

------
danielvf
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.

~~~
mLuby
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
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.

------
skrause
"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
> 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/)

------
maxdo
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
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.

------
hyperpallium
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=...](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669131093379956736?lang=en)

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

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

~~~
craftyguy
> 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
Didn't Scaled Composites do this with SpaceShip One about 15 years ago?

~~~
sungx105
This article is about SpaceShipTwo, the successor version that was supposed to
actually be able to carry passengers

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

------
undershirt
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?"

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

~~~
devindotcom
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.

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

------
Theodores
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/new...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/26/newsid_2519000/2519869.stm)

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
> 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.

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

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

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

~~~
stcredzero
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
How likely is very likely? Can we quantify the chances of rapid unplanned
disassembly causing deceleration?

~~~
stcredzero
It's very likely a real number.

~~~
bitxbitxbitcoin
I also imagine it to be real.

~~~
stcredzero
It's also very likely in the set of complex numbers.

------
ChrisArchitect
headline similar to recent "Nasa's Voyager 2 probe 'leaves the Solar System'"

Similar but different...haha

------
Thibaut1
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.

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

~~~
misterprime
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.

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

------
treebro
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&)

