Slashdot Mirror


Virgin Galactic Passengers May Just Miss Going into Space

DavidGilbert99 (2607235) writes "According to the customer contract those signing up for a $240,000 flight on Virgin Galactic's spaceship the company will bring you 'at least 50 miles' above sea level. The problem is that the internationally accepted boundary for outer space is 62 miles above sea level — known as the Karman Line. Virgin is trying to get around the issue by claiming it is using a definition of space used by NASA — in the 1960s."

144 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Does it really matter? by Orestesx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Presumably they are looking to see the curvature of the earth and the stars set against a black background. If I saw that, I'd feel like I went to space, even if technically I did not.

    1. Re:Does it really matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, for the amount of money paid, I would sure want the whole 62 miles, as well as being serviced orally by an angel.

    2. Re:Does it really matter? by IDreamInCode · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As long as I was weightless, I wouldn't care.

    3. Re: Does it really matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At $ 240K I might be a bit more concerned on the details

    4. Re:Does it really matter? by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, for the amount of money paid, I would sure want the whole 62 miles, as well as being serviced orally by an angel.

      For the amount of money paid, I would have read the fucking contract! This is less fuzzy than "unlimited" plans, and look how that turned out?

    5. Re:Does it really matter? by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If all you want is to be weightless, the Vomit Comet is a much cheaper alternative for about $5,000.

      If you are paying the $245,000 premium, I would think they would want to get the official astronaut status of 62 miles.

    6. Re:Does it really matter? by Junta · · Score: 1

      You can be 'weightless' at an altitude of 10 feet (for a very brief period of time). You don't have to be in space to be weightless, just in an environment that is accelerating at the same rate as you in the same direction.

      But I take the point that physiologically there would be much difference between 50 and 64 miles up inside a vessel.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    7. Re:Does it really matter? by deadweight · · Score: 1

      You can be weightless for about $150/hr for plane and pilot. Granted it won't be in more than about 20 second incriments, but my kid and his friends love it: "Daddy make the plane do the weightless thing again" alternates with 'are we there yet".

    8. Re:Does it really matter? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      For the amount of money paid, I would have read the fucking contract!

      People who can afford that kind of money for a joy flight won't really care about any scientific definitions of space. It's all just about having flown on the Virgin Galactic bragging rights. Like, being hauled up Mt. Everest by Sherpas, or a helicopter flight to Machu Picchu.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    9. Re:Does it really matter? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      For the amount of money paid, I would have read the fucking contract!

      People who can afford that kind of money for a joy flight won't really care about any scientific definitions of space. It's all just about having flown on the Virgin Galactic bragging rights. Like, being hauled up Mt. Everest by Sherpas, or a helicopter flight to Machu Picchu.

      Besides, look at the bright side - if you know any of the people who signed up, you can enjoy a bit of smug intellectual superiority as you correct them when they're droning on in the bar for the umpteenth time about their trip to "space."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Does it really matter? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      If you are paying the $245,000 premium, I would think they would want to get the official astronaut status of 62 miles.

      If I'm paying that much money, I expect to get laid in space and snort cocaine off the boobs of the flight attendants.

      For most people, that's the price of a house.

      So I fear most of us have little sympathy if these people are truly in space or not, and this purely boils down to "look at how much more money I have than you".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:Does it really matter? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can be weightless for about $150/hr for plane and pilot. Granted it won't be in more than about 20 second incriments, but my kid and his friends love it: "Daddy make the plane do the weightless thing again" alternates with 'are we there yet".

      The looks you get when filing a parabolic flight plan must be priceless.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:Does it really matter? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Presumably they are looking to see the curvature of the earth and the stars set against a black background. If I saw that, I'd feel like I went to space, even if technically I did not.

      So, you'd settle for a picture or a video? Well, I think I'm going to expect a bit more.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    13. Re:Does it really matter? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      As long as I was weightless, I wouldn't care.

      There are cheaper ways to do that, and I doubt that Virgin's "spacecraft" is going to allow you to unbuckle and float around... There is always the Vomit Comet flying a parabolic zero G arc. I got a feeling it would be cheaper and you would get to float around for 25 seconds at at time.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    14. Re:Does it really matter? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Skydive, it's cheaper... Who knows, it might be safer too..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    15. Re:Does it really matter? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I doubt that Virgin's "spacecraft" is going to allow you to unbuckle and float around...

      Why would you doubt that? It's exactly what they're planning on letting passengers do.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    16. Re:Does it really matter? by jcgam69 · · Score: 2

      If you go this route make sure the plane you rent doesn't use a gravity fed fuel system, otherwise you could have a short flight ending in a field.

    17. Re:Does it really matter? by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      20 seconds at a time is not really the same experience. You're basically on a roller coaster at that point.
      There is no comparison between that and actually being able to eat a meal, do acrobatics, or have sex
      in no gravity.

    18. Re:Does it really matter? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      Terminal velocity and ballistic freefall are mutually exclusive.

    19. Re:Does it really matter? by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      It's actually 250k for 5 people so $50k per person. Although this is ALOT of money it's not outside
      the possibility for the average software developer if they are willing to save for a few years.

      And 20 seconds at a time is not really the same experience. You're basically on a roller coaster at that point.
      There is no comparison between that and actually being able to eat a meal, do acrobatics, or have sex
      in no gravity.

    20. Re:Does it really matter? by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      I misread. It's 250k for 6 people so 41k per person. Still quite a bit more than an average vacation but
      less than some people spend on a car.

    21. Re:Does it really matter? by Ksevio · · Score: 3, Funny

      Flight plans don't typically list the altitude for every point in the flight. ATC might have some questions though seeing the altitude on the radar if he's not flying VFR.

    22. Re:Does it really matter? by Moike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The 62-mile internationally-accepted boundary is a completely arbitrary artifact of the metric system. It happens to be a nice, even 100 kilometers. There is nothing physically distinct about hitting 100 kilometers that makes it become "space". NASA previously defined it as 50 miles because they also wanted a nice even-sounding number and they were using imperial units to express it. I agree that if I got into a rocket, blasted off, saw the curvature of the earth and the blackness of space (and felt weightlessness for an appreciable period of time), I would say I have been to space, whether it meets the internationally-accepted definition or not.

    23. Re:Does it really matter? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      I figured as much (even went so far as to do a little research), but couldn't let a little thing like reality get in the way of a laugh.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    24. Re:Does it really matter? by turgid · · Score: 1

      In that case I'm going to paint "Jockanese Galactic" on my 10-year-old Vauxhal Vectra Diesel and sell rides up to the top of Shap Summit on the M6 for £200k.

      A couple of dozen of those, and I'll be able to retire in style.

    25. Re:Does it really matter? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Um... not to nitpick, but Junta's "brief period of time" is clearly a caveat to the first sentence, not the one you quoted. That (the second sentence) is a generalisation of the first example, which is clearly meant to refer to a situation such as jumping off a wall on Earth.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    26. Re:Does it really matter? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      I misread. It's 250k for 6 people so 41k per person.

      Hmmm ... so, why then does TFA say:

      So far more than 700 people have signed up for a trip on SpaceShipTwo, each paying $240,000 up front to reserve their seat.

      It sure doesn't read like they're paying $41K/person. It reads like they're paying $240K/person.

      I'm not sure where you're drawing your conclusion from.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    27. Re:Does it really matter? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      Even if it was 240 000$USD divided by 700 people (342.85$USD), I still wouldn't go. You can get a pretty decent mid-range GPU at that price!

    28. Re:Does it really matter? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I'm getting a weird feeling of Déjà lu.

    29. Re:Does it really matter? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1, Funny

      For a dollar and a 240K resistor, I wouldn't expect much.

    30. Re:Does it really matter? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was replying to the AC above your post.

    31. Re:Does it really matter? by ScudBee · · Score: 1

      You can experience weightlessnes at pretty low altitudes (5-6 miles) for about 2-3% of the cost Virgin charges. Google for "zero g aircraft".

    32. Re:Does it really matter? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Touche'

      But free fall can be a lot of fun too..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    33. Re:Does it really matter? by Eevee · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Karman line is only arbitrary in so far as they picked a nice even number in the metric system which is pretty damn close to the point where winged flight isn't possible without being at orbital speed. If it had been originally defined in the US customary units, it still would have been in the area of 62 miles up.

    34. Re:Does it really matter? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If I'm paying that much money, I expect to get laid in space and snort cocaine off the boobs of the flight attendants.

      The cocaine poweder wouldn't stay on the boobs - or any other surface - in zero gravity. You'd need some kind of special inhalation device.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    35. Re:Does it really matter? by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      Presumably they are looking to see the curvature of the earth and the stars set against a black background. If I saw that, I'd feel like I went to space, even if technically I did not.

      The airline could even capitalize on this by awarding certificates to passengers afterward proclaiming that they remain Official Space Virgins.

    36. Re:Does it really matter? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Dude, for the amount of money paid, I would sure want the whole 62 miles, as well as being serviced orally by an angel.

      Plus a guarantee that I was the first to "do it" on that particular Virgin Galactic ship.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    37. Re:Does it really matter? by Moike · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the reference, since it provides a reason for settling on a definition near 100km. Is airplane flight at the Karman Line actually achievable though? The current (official) flight altitude record for a fixed-wing aircraft is 123,520 ft (23.4 miles). That's a far cry from the Karman Line, and still less than half the 50 mile altitude that Virgin Galactic would reach.

    38. Re:Does it really matter? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      It's actually 250k for 5 people so $50k per person. Although this is ALOT of money it's not outside
      the possibility for the average software developer if they are willing to save for a few years.

      And 20 seconds at a time is not really the same experience. You're basically on a roller coaster at that point.
      There is no comparison between that and actually being able to eat a meal, do acrobatics, or have sex
      in no gravity.

      Ask your wife; she'll verify that I can too have sex in 20 seconds.

      Boy, was she mad...

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    39. Re:Does it really matter? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... until they counter with "well, how high have you been" and you have no answer better than 40,000 feet...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    40. Re:Does it really matter? by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      The thing with bragging rights however is "We went really high up!" isnt as impressive as "We went to space!"

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    41. Re:Does it really matter? by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      But in my mind, it's still not space or deep space as it is sometimes called. These terms should have been reserved for some place that is not still basically here, closer than the next biggest city on the ground.

      "Space" should be at least further away than the moon, and "deep space" should be out beyond the orbit of Mars. You know, actually far away from here.

      Arbitrary? No worse than Karman. And it's going to look damn ridiculous when we start claiming deep space is low Earth orbit when we all know from scifi deep space is really way way out there, where nobody can hear you scream. Deep Space Transport Craft Nixon of course will go no such place. It will taxi to the moon and back. Some kinda deep space. It's just going to sound silly.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    42. Re:Does it really matter? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      The cocaine poweder wouldn't stay on the boobs - or any other surface - in zero gravity. You'd need some kind of special inhalation device.

      I'm willing to be the person to test this. For science, of course.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    43. Re:Does it really matter? by dotancohen · · Score: 1
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    44. Re:Does it really matter? by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      Walker got the X-15 up above the Karman Line twice.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    45. Re:Does it really matter? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      But it would be possible. Lift is proportional to wing area (amongst other things). The Space shuttle is heavy with a small wing. A U2 is light with a large wing.

      So what is the assumption for wing area and lift coefficient?

    46. Re:Does it really matter? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Nah, the engine will normally start again once you're back at 1g. And 0g is not so bad anyway, as long as you don't get into the negative g range the engine will probably even keep running normally if it's just a few seconds. And you need a fairly high speed to get anywhere near 20 seconds, a gravity-fueled rental plane is more likely to give you 5 seconds or so. No problem for the fuel system.

      Slightly more annoying is the oil system: you often end up with oil all over the engine cowling and having to clean that up before anyone notices and gets really angry at you. Don't ask me how I know ;-)

    47. Re:Does it really matter? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I certainly wouldn't pay 250k to go into space without being able to leave my seat.

    48. Re:Does it really matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I could also counter with that. I could say, last time I ate Muffins, I was high as fuck. How can you measure that in kms? I bet I was more in space than you!.

    49. Re:Does it really matter? by galloog1 · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I am wrong but couldn't that have been inertia?

    50. Re:Does it really matter? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I am wrong but couldn't that have been inertia?

      No, not inertia:
      1/2 * m * v^2 = dH * m * g

      Simplified for this particular case:
      dH = v^2 / 2g

      Note that it doesn't really matter in which direction v is pointed, and if he is using wings to convert horizontal velocity to vertical velocity, he will also suffer a large friction penalty.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    51. Re:Does it really matter? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      ... until they counter with "well, how high have you been" and you have no answer better than 40,000 feet...

      Not since junior high school have I been in a pissing match about who had ever been higher, or drunker, or had a larger schlong.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    52. Re:Does it really matter? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      And you can counter with... "It's called mescaline, it's the only way to fly."

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    53. Re:Does it really matter? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      ... until they counter with "well, how high have you been" and you have no answer better than 40,000 feet...

      Unless, of course, the person correcting them happens to be Felix Baumgartner...

      "Not only have I been to space, I've jumped off of it."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    54. Re:Does it really matter? by Junta · · Score: 1

      I meant if you were in some ball and the ball was dropped from 10 feet, the person inside would briefly experience 'weightlessness' because the ball (the environment) is accelerating at the same rate and things like air is shielded from the senses by the ball.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    55. Re:Does it really matter? by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      The X-15 was not relying on those stubby wings for lift during boost.
      I seem to recall attitude adjustment jets being added to the wings to try to give some control during the higher attempts.
      Those wings were useful during the steep glide/landing phase.
      That beast was developed prior to the whole 'lifting body' thing.
      Would have liked to see a DynaSoar http://www.thelivingmoon.com/4... actually fly.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    56. Re:Does it really matter? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Can you actually fly a parabolic flight in a light plane like that? Safely, I mean? I'm sure it's designed to have that within its tolerance, but is it really possible to do that without dramatically increasing risk of getting pushed outside the tolerances by the unexpected?

    57. Re:Does it really matter? by PensivePeter · · Score: 1

      Concorde offered such views (curvature of the Earth, sun and starts set against space in full "daylight" below) at a mere 60,000ft. That cost about $8,000 a ticket when I flew her in the early '80s

    58. Re:Does it really matter? by deadweight · · Score: 1

      First thing I did on my solo flights. It is actually quite easy.

    59. Re:Does it really matter? by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Virgin Galactic is not going to be much different. You are not eating meals or floating around that thing either.

    60. Re:Does it really matter? by Moike · · Score: 1

      I feel like I am just pointing out the obvious here, but the X-15 was powered by a rocket engine. It's altitude ceiling was not limited by wing lift, but by the available rocket fuel. Perhaps I should have said "the current (official) flight altitude record for a fixed-wing aircraft achieving lift using its wings..." The space shuttle had wings too, but you could hardly use it as an example of fixed-wing flight to the Karman Line.

    61. Re:Does it really matter? by Paul+server+guy · · Score: 1

      No he hasn't Only about a third of the way there.

      --
      Your Moon, Your Mission, Get involved! http://www.openluna.org
    62. Re:Does it really matter? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Okay. But that's a "perception" argument, not one of physics.

    63. Re:Does it really matter? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      That is a good point. The rocket engine isn't of concern (other than the fact that a conventional jet would have to oxygen), but the fact that the wings were not functional (i.e. providing lift) at the top is in fact the critical factor. Thanks.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    64. Re:Does it really matter? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      You could achieve that by climbing Everest in the evening. Or any of the other 8000m+ mountains, for appreciably lower risk of altitude sickness. You could even, briefly, experience weightlessness at the same time.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Well, that's.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Virgin is trying to get around the issue by claiming it is using a definition of space used by NASA — in the 1960s."

    Well, that's gay. Before you think I'm a homophobe, I'm using a definition used in the 1960s.

    1. Re:Well, that's.... by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      You think the statement is "happy"?

    2. Re:Well, that's.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Oh no, it still meant "homosexual" back then, but it wasn't considered derogatory.

      "Gay" == "happy" was more like 1930's slang.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Well, that's.... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      As long as you don't think it's an Harley Davidson rider, it's alright.

    4. Re:Well, that's.... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Virgin is trying to get around the issue by claiming it is using a definition of space used by NASA — in the 1960s."

      Ah yes, the 1960's "virgin". The dawn of such wicked concepts as free love. Those were very bad times. Before you think me prude, I'm using the definitions from the 1970's and 1980's. Quite groovy of me, if I do say so myself -- I'm using the 2000's definition, of "groovy" AKA "ribbed for her pleasure" -- the latter being a biblically ambiguous reference to gender, fitting for the 2010's.

  3. Pedantic at best by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If you know how far you are going above the earth, can't you decide for yourself before purchasing if that qualifies or not? Who cares what anyones definition is but your own if you are the one going? Is the problem if you step outside you may not die quite as quickly because you aren't over the imaginary line?

    It's not like they are going to miss out on "Official Space Certification".

    To me, as long as Virgin actually takes you 50 miles or higher, they have fulfilled what they said they would do.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Pedantic at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't advertise "We're going to take you into space" and then put "we're not actually going to take you into space" into the tiny print. Anyway, I wouldn't pay that kind of money for anything less than a couple of orbits, which makes altitude nitpicking moot.

    2. Re:Pedantic at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't advertise "We're going to take you into space" and then put "we're not actually going to take you into space" into the tiny print.

      Why not? My cousin is a lawyer, and he says you can put anything you want in the fine print.

    3. Re:Pedantic at best by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You can't advertise "We're going to take you into space" and then put "we're not actually going to take you into space" into the tiny print.

      Why not? My cousin is a lawyer, and he says you can put anything you want in the fine print.

      Does your cousin's name happen to be Vinny?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Pedantic at best by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems you are confused. Anyway, good operating systems report file sizes correctly so there's no discrepancies to be concerned about.

  4. A long way up by Dzimas · · Score: 1

    50 km is 164,042 feet. That's a long way up. Only 543 people have reached an altitude of 50 km or higher.

    1. Re:A long way up by sosuke · · Score: 1

      50 miles is 80.4672km so even higher than you thought. https://www.google.com/search?...

  5. Space is more about energy than location by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

    A reasonable definition of space would be based on orbital velocity, not location. Virgin galactic is selling a few minutes of zero-g, similar to, but considerably longer (and much more expensive) than the commercial vomit-comet flights. You could do something similar by dropping a capsule from a high altitude balloon.

    Its true that they are in an area of very low air pressure, but that isn't particularly interesting to passenger .

    Its fine if people want to pay for this, and if calling it "space" will give them bragging rights, its OK with me. It isn't really space travel.

    The only reason I care is that this can confuse the general public into thinking that say Space-X and Virgin Galactic are doing anything remotely comparable, or thinking that an orbital virgin -galactic upgrade is a minor change, not a completely new and spectacularly more difficult problem.

    1. Re:Space is more about energy than location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if I'm somewhere between the Sun and Alpha Centauri, but I happen to have no velocity with respect to the Earth, then I'm not in space?

    2. Re:Space is more about energy than location by leonardluen · · Score: 2

      i don't know, but you are certainly breaking several laws of physics to do it.

    3. Re:Space is more about energy than location by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I'm happy to count kinetic and potential energy, and them by my definition you are in space.

      If you argue that then sitting on Mercury isn't "space", I'll point out that you will have to have been in "space" to have gotten there.

    4. Re:Space is more about energy than location by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      You're somewhere between the Sun and Alpha Centauri? Great! Can you make a little detour to the local planning department office of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council?

  6. What a complete waste of time and money by burisch_research · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is just insane. Going to 50 miles, or 62 miles, or even 200 miles straight up is utterly pointless. It does not advance us at all. It's a gimmick for people with too much money and not enough brain cells. Yes, it might be 'space' (for a few minutes) -- but so what?! This is really old tech. The USA did this in the 50s.

    Getting to orbit is a lot harder, yes; but that's an actual achievement, instead of a publicity stunt. You can actually do useful stuff once you're in orbit. You can't do that from a jumped-up fairground ride.

    I expect this whole fiasco will quietly fade from the public eye, once the backers realize that they've invested heavily in a pig in a poke. If they are smart, they won't plough (plow, for Americans) any more cash into this travesty.

    --
    char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    1. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      I agree that its nothing like going to orbit and doesn't really advance technology.

      Its just a stunt, but if people want to pay for it, I'm OK with them wasting their money. A few hours in a Mig 29 sounds like more fun though.

    2. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      A Mig29 ride would surely be a lot of fun!

      But I'm certain that going up in a Dragon would beat that by at least an order of magnitude.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    3. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by neilo_1701D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Back in the late '70s and early '80s, there were these expensive gimmicks called "personal computers". They didn't do much at all. Heck; some needed you to flip a whole bunch of switches before they could load a paper tape!

      Then there was this uber-expensing thing from some fruit company. Used a gadget called a "mouse", and you used the mouse to move boxes around on the screen. Cost $10,000 1983 dollars; back when the average income was just under $21,000.

      --

      Just because something is gimmicky today doesn't mean it won't become useful tomorrow. It does advance us, in terms of building an infrastructure that allows these flights to happen at all, in terms of learning to build space-rated hardware within a commercial cost basis. Then the price comes down, the $/lb comes down (over time) and we have a civilian launch system.

    4. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because something is gimmicky today doesn't mean it won't become useful tomorrow.

      Conversely, just because some gimmicky things in the past have become useful today doesn't mean that everything considered gimmicky today will become useful in the future. Two words for you on that: flying cars.

      Being open-minded to technology doesn't mean you have to accept EVERY technology or technological idea as practical.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    5. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      This is just insane. Going to 50 miles, or 62 miles, or even 200 miles straight up is utterly pointless.

      Hey, guess what? Other people aren't you!

      It does not advance us at all.

      Why does it have to?

      It's a gimmick for people with too much money and not enough brain cells.

      Some people would say the same about watching football games, going to watch a funny movie, or posting on Slashdot.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1

      Just because something is gimmicky today doesn't mean it won't become useful tomorrow.

      Conversely, just because some gimmicky things in the past have become useful today doesn't mean that everything considered gimmicky today will become useful in the future. Two words for you on that: flying cars.

      Nice counter-example :)

    7. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      we have a civilian launch system

      Or at least a way to launch rich people and vapid celebrities to 50 miles above seal level. Unfortunately, we have no way to keep them from coming back (yet).

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    8. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      I suppose you say the same thing about roller coasters.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    9. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      It will not be useful, not ever, despite your most desperate wishful thinking. Your argument is invalid. 'Straight up' will never work (unless you have enough delta v to escape Earth's gravity, but that's not what we're talking about).

      Infrastructure? This is not a driver for infrastructure. Oh wait -- you count Disneyland as infrastructure. Nuff said.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    10. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      Fair point, I'll give you that. But this makes it still worse -- why on earth should we (as a species) be expending so much money (== resources) on such a futile endeavour? Personally, I'd be ashamed to take part in this.

      Well, ok, it's still really cool, even if it's totally useless!

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    11. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      This is just insane. Going to 50 miles, or 62 miles, or even 200 miles straight up is utterly pointless. It does not advance us at all.

      You realize that the original roller coasters were wood, didn't go very far or fast. Now we have death pendulums and vommit ridden corkscrews.
      Advancement into space is just like smart phones. Someone has to pave the road for that bleeding edge tech to do things we couldn't do before.
      Don't complain that these front runners get bragging rights to almost space, because soon you and I will be able to go all the way into actual space for far less.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
    12. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      Roller coaster tech has resulted in more roller coaster tech, nothing else.

      Did you have a point or were you just trolling?

      Virgin Galactic is like extended warrantee on your rotary dial phone. The future isn't that.

      "Don't complain that these front runners get bragging rights to almost space, because soon you and I will be able to go all the way into actual space for far less."

      Eh, they are so much welcome to it. What I'm saying is that almost-space is not space at all, rather some dumb Disney limbo where the victims are beguiled into thinking they are astronauts.

      And yes, space will soon be comparatively cheap; but it will always be expensive.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    13. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      "Getting to orbit is a lot harder, yes; but that's an actual achievement, instead of a publicity stunt. You can actually do useful stuff once you're in orbit. You can't do that from a jumped-up fairground ride."

      You mean useful like going in speedy circles around the planet for 50 years? Or useful like building a giant space station for 3 or 4 people to go around in speedy circles after the bus has left? What marvelous uses!
      Those newfangled aeroplanes were quite the jumped-up fairground ride in their early days as well.

    14. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      Even orbit is no big deal, really. If you lived in a house with a fenced in yard, orbit is like running around just inside the fence* all the way around the house. So you are at no point more than a few meters away from the house. Orbit is the same, just scaled up.

      What we need to be doing is running down to the corner or across the street or through the woods to grandmother's house. Running around inside a fence is what dogs do, mindlessly making a path in the grass.

      *why inside the fence and not outside? Because orbit means you are still in the grasp of gravity, you are just falling as fast as it's pulling. So things in orbit will eventually decay and fall down, just as the kid or dog running in the yard will eventually have to come inside. Things outside the fence could be equated to escape velocity and well, if it got that far, it's not coming back. Your kid has left for college and his/her own family. In Montana.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    15. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's a passenger vehicle operating in a commercial environment, carrying untrained members of the public. It is re-usable and hopefully reliable. That's a very different set of requirements to what the US was doing in the 50s.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by gsslay · · Score: 1

      The methods used by USA in the 50s were completely different. The costs in the 50s were different. The resources used in the 50s were largely "one-shot" disposable. The kind of people on board are completely different and have a completely different attitude to risk.

      You should go back a hundred years or so and mock the people in motorised carriages. After all, it was old tech. They did nothing a good horse couldn't already.

    17. Re:What a complete waste of time and money by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      For any new tech it cannot be known how far it's impact will be. Could you or I have guessed that the iPhone would have caused Microsoft to attempt to create Windows Metro?

      Anything they do to make "space" (or almost space) cooler is good. Virgin Galactic's current iteration does seem to cap at some place "less than geosyncronous orbit", but there aren't any other companies trying to exist in that space, so they don't have a business plan to copy.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
  7. People paid for their astronaut wings by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    At 50 miles, passengers will not qualify for a NASA astronaut badge.

    1. Re:People paid for their astronaut wings by Scutter · · Score: 1

      If they're not a NASA astronaut, why would they?

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:People paid for their astronaut wings by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      One to many Axe commercials "Nothing beats an astronaut"...

    3. Re:People paid for their astronaut wings by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      The Virgin Galactic pilots did. Actually, I just noticed that Virgin Galactic's own site claims that you will get them! lol! whoooops!

      "Later that evening, sitting with your astronaut wings, you know that life will never quite be the same again."

      http://www.virgingalactic.com/...

      "On return to Earth these pioneering individuals will receive their Virgin Galactic astronaut wings and plenty of images and videos of their experience."

      http://www.ulixtravel.com/virg...

      Although, according to Space Law: A Treatise it says:

      In the US, any person going higher than 50 miles is awarded 'astronaut wings'

      So maybe there is still a chance?

    4. Re:People paid for their astronaut wings by Njovich · · Score: 1

      Note the 'Virgin Galactic astronaut wings', not Nasa or US. Nothing is stopping you from handing out Mobydisk Astronaut Wings for playing Kerbal.

    5. Re:People paid for their astronaut wings by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they changed that recently, in response. Up until now, everyone who flew on SpaceShipOne got US government astronaut wings. I bet a lot of people will be miffed if they don't get this.

    6. Re:People paid for their astronaut wings by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 1

      First, they are pilots.
      Second, they all reached 100km.

    7. Re:People paid for their astronaut wings by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Also thirdly, the wings are awarded from FAA.

    8. Re:People paid for their astronaut wings by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      First, they are pilots

      Being a pilot is not a requirement.

      Second, they all reached 100km.

      Exactly. That is what I said in the original post, and the entire point of this thread. These passengers possibly won't get their wings since they won't reach 100km. They might be frustrated by that fact.

  8. Cue Maxwell Smart... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 2
    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  9. We know... by Virtucon · · Score: 2

    We know you have a choice in Space Tourist Travel services and it looks like you picked the wrong one.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:We know... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      We are currently awaiting the loading of our complement of small lemon-soaked paper napkins for your comfort, refreshment and hygiene during the journey. Meanwhile we thank you for your patience. The cabin crew will shortly be serving coffee and biscuits again.

  10. Not a big deal by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    I'll now wait until they hit the 62 mile mark before signing up.

  11. Retro-space! by NickDanger3rdEye · · Score: 1

    The hipsters will love it.

  12. whoops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ha at first glance, I read this headline as "Virgin Galactic Passengers May Just Go Missing in Space". Glad that's not the case!

  13. eee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Exercise.

  14. That line is "space"... by joh · · Score: 1

    ... like a bathtub full of saltwater is "the ocean".

    1. Re:That line is "space"... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Sure, because a bathtub full of water is totally like 80% as deep as an ocean.

      I doubt any of the passengers could tell the difference between 50 miles up and 62 miles up.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  15. Yet another Virgin product... by apc512599 · · Score: 1

    that doesn't go the whole way.....

    1. Re:Yet another Virgin product... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there.

  16. good enough by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Hey, the sky is completely black while at the top of everest. If there's little to no gravity and you can see black stuff and look down and there's Earth, I don't think anyone will be complaining.

  17. Not 62 miles by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    100km you imperial-unit-morons!

    1. Re:Not 62 miles by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      100 km, you missing-space moron!

    2. Re:Not 62 miles by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Well, "missing space" is definitely on-topic at least.

  18. Different Lines for different purposes. by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    You use location if your selling tourism. You use orbital velocity if you view it as a sport. The 50 mile point describes the line between the mesosphere and the thermosphere. The 100km point is a height that can't be reached using air as lift. This point is based on orbital velocity. There is also a 150km point where air no longer drags things out of orbit.
    Virgin Galactic is not claiming suborbatal flight.. So I think it is unfair to use the second two measures.

    1. Re:Different Lines for different purposes. by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      Sorry they are claiming suborbital. They are not claiming orbital.

  19. at 50 miles up.... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    At 50 miles up, open the hatch.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  20. I too can play definition games by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I've been to space, MySpace.

  21. Miles... There is your problem by ASDFnz · · Score: 1

    Miles is an archaic form of measurement. If you want to get into space you need to use something a bit more modern.

  22. Re:Does it really matter?http://www.virgingalactic by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

    Their website (http://www.virgingalactic.com/booking/) says: "An exclusive spaceflight for you and up to 5 friends"
    but on second read that might be a different package that costs more. The website doesn't really say.

  23. Reading comprehension problems??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That only means that six people can go at a time. It's $250,000 PER PERSON. Hell, it's the second line on the booking page.

    "All seats to fly to space are US$250,000"

    1. Re:Reading comprehension problems??? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      That only means that six people can go at a time. It's $250,000 PER PERSON. Hell, it's the second line on the booking page.

      "All seats to fly to space are US$250,000"

      So its US$250,000 for all of the seats. Great, what a bargain!

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  24. Re:Is 62 miles really space? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    They are advertising suborbital spacflight. As in not getting into orbit. If they could make orbit then it would be a much bigger deal.

  25. Bryan's Law of Minimums by holophrastic · · Score: 2

    Mr. Hertz is "credited" with once-per-second. A great discovery.
    Mr. Karman is "credited" with 100km above sea level. Another innovation.
    Mr. Celsius is "credited" with a scale based on 0 to 100 for ice to steam. Yup, that's some mighty hard thinking.
    Mr. Farenheit is "credited" with a scale based on 0 to 100 for cold to hot, but he screwed up and got a scale based on 0 to 97.6 -- what a retard.

    With all of these super-smart inventions, I'd better claim mine now.

    Bryan's Law of Minimums: there is a minimum countable quantity of any possessable item; it is typically one (1).
    For example, it is impossible to *have* fewer than 1 passport office, without having nothing at all. You also cannot *have* fewer than 1 friend, 1 piece of apple, or 1 desk.

    That's mine. No one else may have it. From now on, every time any scientist counts to 1 as the "necessary first" of a quantity, they must use my unit of measure -- "that given city must have a Bryan passport office", "only the Bryan apple a day keeps the doctor away" (since the second apple does absolutely nothing more), and "my BFF is my Bryan Friend Forever".

    There. I can invent the number 1 too you know -- and my invented "1" has a philosophical level to it, so there!

    1. Re:Bryan's Law of Minimums by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You also cannot *have* fewer than 1 friend, 1 piece of apple, or 1 desk.

      You could share a desk, thus having half of it for your own use.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Bryan's Law of Minimums by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Technically, if you share a desk, you either both possess all of it, and simply share the ownership, or you each possess an entire desk, and the two are attached by the proverbial massless string.

      You cannot posses half a desk, if a desk is defined funtionally.

    3. Re:Bryan's Law of Minimums by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "Have" does not imply ownership or possession. "I have a headache" or "I have [the use of] half a desk".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Bryan's Law of Minimums by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      Bryan's Law of Minimums doesn't say anything about "have". It describes only the "counting of possessalbe items".

      It has 15 words; read it again. This time, don't add any of your own.

    5. Re:Bryan's Law of Minimums by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Brazil?

  26. What did everyone expect? by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 2

    That the first space tourism would be an orbital hotel? The first steps were always going to be something like this.

    As to not advancing anything, well, lets see. A 100% re-usable sub orbital, relatively spacious passenger craft with the ability to be refueled and re-launched (in theory, at least) in hours. A totally unique liftoff system. A totally unique re-entry (yes, I know, NOT from orbital speed but a pretty damn fine piece of tech). As I understand the rocket is the first solid fuel rocket made to be shut down and re-started.

    Why are we so negative about the very first steps to the commercialization of space? Something most of us dreamed of all our lives while reading the sci-fi that was so dear to us? Is it just because it's a rich playboy showman doing it?

    We didn't get flying cars, and yeah, it ain't a space hotel, but why all the hate?

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  27. Been there done that by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

    If you've taken a long distance commercial airline flight, you've flown as high as 40,000 feet and 72 percent of the atmosphere was below you. Transatlantic concord passengers flew as high as 60,000 feet above 90 percent of the atmosphere. Virgin Galactic's flights are perfect for those who demand Seenheiser headphones gold-plated monster cables for listing to talk radio. For the rest of us, a commercial airline flight is "close enough."

  28. People in orbit aren't 'weightless' then either by Junta · · Score: 1

    The ISS (and anything in orbit) is under constant acceleration due to gravity.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  29. If you're not going to orbit by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    You're just goofing off.

  30. Re:Jockanese Galactic by turgid · · Score: 1

    Och aye, and a complimentary dram of Glenmorangie!