Virgin Galactic space launch today with Richard Branson on board

[greenmark]

Yay, a few more thousand tons of shit dumped into the atmosphere to satisfy the egos of a few billionaires. Space trips for science have a cost/benefit but this is just some sort of sick joke.

I'd argue that the more people you put in space, the more people will look down and out to the emptiness and realise just how special the earth is.

I agree wiith those views. I don't understand what the benefit of these billionaires wafting at 300,000 ft rather than 40,000ft. Is it a future mode of high-speed travel?
But, yes every view of the earth from space is breathtaking. The jewel of the solar system.

[Derek27]

But, yes every view of the earth from space is breathtaking. The jewel of the solar system.

Not when the guy sitting next to you chucks up - it has happened before.

[Kai]

Looks a bit underwhelming overall but it's another big milestone, at this point only a new perspective can steer things in the right directions. Surely a bit of billionaire vanity is more than worth the potential reward, far better to spend billions on space than on things like sportswashing

How Space Changes Your Perspective On Life : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie-UZ5MR7F4

[Euler]

Here is my general view, if humanity didn't do things like this, we would never progress.

I'm sure there was some caveman being critical of the guy that cut some flint. I'm mean what's the point. We have sticks, they work perfectly well.

You can't really specify what was a good idea or not, you only learn that in reverse. Some of the best discoveries or outcomes have been completely accidental.

[firlandsfarm]

I would define success as employing good customer service staff at his Virgin Media HQ, he should have done that first.

We are all frustrated by cCS (contemptuous Customer Services) but that doesn't mean progress has to stop until a download bug is corrected. Should Mercedes stop developing their F1 car because my Merc has faults?

I'm also a bit irritated that so many people are complaining about the amount of CO2 thrown into the air by aircrafts (which serve an essential purpose) yet 700 planned entertainment rockets are celebrated.

Come on Derek, you know that it's only other people's CO2 that's needs reducing not their own! I read the other day that we (the UK) demolish 60,000 buildings a year and the replacement buildings create 10% of our CO2 emissions. The Goverment encourage such a business plan by zero VAT rating new builds but conversions pay the regular 20% but find me a climate conscious politician that says we should exert more control over demolition and replacement. (But if you total all the claimed % ages caused by various activities I'm sure it would make a bookie's over-round look generous!

As far as I know the 50 mile boundary was defined in the sixties and quite arbitrary. The 62 mile boundary is based on the fact that the atmosphere's so thin a winged aircraft would need to reach orbital speeds to generate enough lift to stay up on lift alone. I know it's not a perfect definition of space but it strikes me as better.

Yes, it sounds scientifically based so it is probably better (until a better definition comes along). But let's just say "Well done" you are the first when someone pushes the boundaries.

I agree wiith those views. I don't understand what the benefit of these billionaires wafting at 300,000 ft rather than 40,000ft. Is it a future mode of high-speed travel?
But, yes every view of the earth from space is breathtaking. The jewel of the solar system.

Maybe high speed travel around the globe but more so they (and Musk) are exploring alternative space travel. All new forms of transport from the horse to the plane start for the wealthy but evolve for the masses.

[Derek27]

Yay, a few more thousand tons of shit dumped into the atmosphere to satisfy the egos of a few billionaires. Space trips for science have a cost/benefit but this is just some sort of sick joke.

I'd argue that the more people you put in space, the more people will look down and out to the emptiness and realise just how special the earth is.

I agree wiith those views. I don't understand what the benefit of these billionaires wafting at 300,000 ft rather than 40,000ft. Is it a future mode of high-speed travel?
But, yes every view of the earth from space is breathtaking. The jewel of the solar system.

It's like ballistic missiles. If you can get well above the atmosphere you can travel faster and further. Ronald Regan gave a speech talking about getting people from US to Japan in 2 hours. A bit premature but it's probably on its way.

[firlandsfarm]

It's like ballistic missiles. If you can get well above the atmosphere you can travel faster and further. Ronald Regan gave a speech talking about getting people from US to Japan in 2 hours. A bit premature but it's probably on its way.

Regan was right but very premature.

For travel above the Earth's surface nothing can really compete with jet engines and rocket engines. Both require oxygen to enable their fuel to burn and provide power. The main difference between them is a jet engine uses the oxygen in the atmosphere and is therefore restricted in altitude while a rocket engine carries it's oxygen in supplementary tanks and is mixed with it's fuel which increases weight.

Hypersonic travel is broadly defined as being in excess of Mach 5 (Concorde maxed out at just over Mach 2). There are many initiatives developing on the theme.

The problem with the rocket approach is the power required to lift the craft into sub-orbital altitudes. Branson's craft does it but only for a small number of people at a time and is given a piggy-back to save on the fuel weight required to lift it through the thicker atmosphere at lower altitudes ... but it's a start.

The problem with the jet approach is the higher you go to reduce the drag on the plane the less oxygen is available to allow the fuel to burn. It is a big problem that is proving very difficult to overcome. "The greatest speed ever reached by a manned aircraft that is not a spacecraft [i.e. atmosphere breathing] is 7,270 km/h (4,520 mph) (Mach 6.7) by USAF Major William J. Knight in the experimental North American Aviation X-15A-2 on 3 October 1967 over the Mojave Desert, California, USA." (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wo ... t-aircraft) Yes 1967! After more than 50 years that record still stands!

They have a jet engine able to hit very high speed (Scramjet). The NASA X-43, reached a speed of Mach 9.68 at 109,440 ft (33,357 m), which works out to an airspeed of around 10,800 km/h (6,700 mph), on 16 November 2004. The problem with a scramjet is at such high speeds the combustion chamber gets hot enough to melt itself! A British company, Reaction Engines, based in Oxfordshire, has successfully tested a pre-cooler to counter this but not yet at full operating spec. However there is a second problem with the scramjet, it needs to be flying faster than Mach 4 before you turn it on! So presently a vehicle with such an engine would need a secondary power supply to get it to that speed so the scramjet can take it faster ... more weight, more problems!

We will get there, it will be slow and probably not in my lifetime and not in that of many of you but it will happen, one day.