Slashdot Mirror
Space Tourism Isn't Worth Dying For
rudy_wayne writes with this opinion piece at Wired published in the wake of the crash of SpaceShipTwo, which calls the project nothing more than a "millionaire boondoggle thrill ride." A selection:
SpaceShipTwo is not a Federation starship. It's not a vehicle for the exploration of frontiers. Virgin Galactic is building the world's most expensive roller coaster, the aerospace version of Beluga caviar. It's a thing for rich people to do. Testing new aircraft takes a level of courage and ability beyond most humans. Those engineers and pilots are at the peak of human achievement. What they're doing is amazing. Why Virgin is doing it is not. When various corporate representatives eulogize those two pilots as pioneers who were helping to cross the Final Frontier, that should make you angry. That pilot died not for space but for a luxury service provider. His death doesn't get us closer to Mars; it just keeps rich people further away from weightlessness and a beautiful view.
6 passengers per flight. That's six rich people and/or some really famous people.
It's definitely worth if it one millionaire comes down and is so awestruck he decides to invest in a spaceflight company .
It's worth it some A rated star comes down and says "this is our future" and spends the next 20 campaigning for more funding for NASA .
At one level, what is being said is true. However, at that same level, our space programs were not about space either, but about a dick waving contest with the Russians. Letting rich people experience weightlessness and have a beautiful view is noble by comparison. However, the real question is where does commercial space travel bring potentially bring us, and hopefully that does go far beyond mere tourism for the rich.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
[What] Virgin is doing it is not. When various corporate representatives eulogize those two pilots as pioneers who were helping to cross the Final Frontier, that should make you angry. That pilot died not for space but for a luxury service provider. His death doesn't get us closer to Mars; it just keeps rich people further away from weightlessness and a beautiful view.
"The cost of freedom is always high, but {humanity} have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission. - JFK"
Seriously? That's like condemning the Titanic sinking and cancelling all travel plans across the oceans. Is it dangerous? Yep. Are people going to die? Yep.
Keep pushing the envelope.
~ Note, changed Americans to humanity in the JFK quote.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
It's true that space tourism is no expansion of frontiers, and that the pilot's death was a waste. It's also true that the corporate representatives who try to this spin as such are being incredibly dishonest and callous about human life. BUT let's not forget that the pilots took on this job at their own risk. Whether they were properly informed of the true risks remains a matter of debate, but still, any sane person should have known that this is highly experimental aircraft and there is a significant risk of failure. This does not absolve Virgin Galactic of responsibility, of course. But it's is spaceflight. Shit happens. If we want to make any progress at all, we have to put aside the attitude that no risks are acceptable. If I were a pilot and wanted to ride in an experimental aircraft, I wouldn't want someone telling me that I can't do that. People die doing far less important things. More people die playing football or skiing.
Look at it this way. The challenger crew died while attempting to heroically... deliver a communications satellite into orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... Was it really that important to get a data relay satellite into orbit? Of course it wasn't. Any criticism you level at Virgin Galactic must also be directed at NASA for the space shuttle. I think that's fair, but at least be consistent in your criticism.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
That will sound bad only if you think that earning money is somehow anti-life.
Business is what makes our substenance and quality of life. We are all subsistance farmers without business and profits.
True that virgin is a space rollercoaster. The comparison is a bit off. You have to consider how many people died in building of actual rollercoasters to have a legit comparison.
Not everyone on the planet can afford a rollercoaster ride so it is too a toy for the rich.
Anyways the idea that taking a risk for money is not worth it unless there is some meaningless benefit to an abstract, non-existent, entity ( god, humanity...) is really evil.
A drive to work bears more risk then space flight.
Adam Rodgers (who wrote the article):
- Was probably a passenger on many planes in his life
- Drives a car
- Gets on the train and bus now and again
All of these daily functions he takes for granted had test pilots and drivers. All of which had people willing to the risk their lives in the hope of making our society evolve and benefit from new technology.
If these dedicated people didnt push the boundaries and take risks, our lives would be very different today.
Complete short sighted asshole article, written by a glorified twat.
Carry on Virgin, Private business or not, we could all benefit from your dedication to space travel in the future. Nothing else to see here.
You've managed to miss the point yet again, wired.
First off, test pilots take risks - they know the risks. They know them intimately. Death is always a real possibility with an experimental aircraft. Accidents happen, but I'm sure nobody there was saying "hey wouldn't it be cool if it crashed and everyone DIED?". This op-ed piece is written by a complete douche. Obviously commercial passenger space flight is going to start ridiculously expensive and be out of the reach of joe sixpack - but that's how everything starts. At one point, only the super rich could afford cars, now everyone's got one. We probably won't see affordable trips to space in our lifetime, but maybe my kid will. Or their kid after that. What I do know is that if nobody starts trying to do it, it will never happen.
Since you can't just buy a ticket to go to space at any price, it IS attempting to pushing boundaries - even if they're not the boundaries he'd like to be pushed.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
How many "rich boys" died testing initial aircrafts? or when very early cars were being bought and tested?
I mean those cars used to be expensive too, for that time? Death of Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier apparently did not get us a single step closer to commercial flights. I mean those guys died too trying to test a toy for the rich folks obviously? Damn them for not banning planes at that time itself. Imagine the problems it would have solved. No 9-11. No hijackings. Right? Damn them!
Oh wait. People making toys for the rich people, eventually ended up the technology being developed sufficiently enough to become affordable for not-millionaires to own cars and fly once in a while too. We mock the people who called for ban of useless technologies like fast cars(the first fatal car-accident reported the car as traveling at "reckless speed of 8miles/hour") and yet remain blind enough to fall for the same nonsense today.
Orbital flights mean even faster travel. Two-three hundred years ago, it was unthinkable for you to "walk" 20-30 kilometers every day to work(Hint. It took all day on a good horse). Today with cars, you don't think twice about it. Think of being able to reach Europe from America eventually within an hour, after say 30-50 years.
Of course if you are the type yearning for "simple times when world was not a small place" (and I don't say there is anything wrong with that either) you may not see this as being useful. Like the early humans hated the wheel for complicating the world. But on other hand, lots of us find it very useful to travel long distances in a short time. All technologies were initially affordable usually only by the rich however. And people did die during the course of perfecting a lot of it. The Wired article was written by an idiot.
I looks like the hybrid solid/liquid engine isn't going to push SS2 to 100km altitude. The original compound ran rough and it doesn't have a high enough specific impulse. The new compound explodes. Dick Rutan demonstrated a Long-EZ equipped with a liquid fueled engine in 2001. I think it is time to go back to XCOR and ask about a bigger engine.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
... That is for the pilots and space tourists to decide. Not you.
They know rockets blow up sometimes. We all know that. We've seen the challenger rocket go up in flames. We've seen many others go up as well.
It is always very sad. But despite that... when they say "we're going again" more people sign up to go then they have rockets to send.
Every
Single
Time
Is it the money? What money? Astronauts don't make much more money. Not enough to cover the risk. They go because they are going into space. They go because they BELIEVE it is important.
You say "space tourism" like it is unworthy or dirty. Its space. And every time we send something up there we get better at it. Every time we learn a little something. We get more comfortable doing it. And we think "what else might we do up there?"
It is as beautiful as it is vital.
And this writer is a disgrace to the publication for which he writes.
"wired"? This is what we can expect from a publication that presumes to be farseeing into technology and science?
Maybe you should just complete the fashion mag transition and slap some models in mascara on the cover and talk about which color is in fashion this year. If this is really how you feel then you're done.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Space planes will never be useful and there will only be 5 computers in the world.
Is this guy really so short sighted to believe that tourism is the only thing we could do in space? Or is this just click bait cashing in on the dead?
By going for a pleasurable drive, I will statistically kill something like a 10 millionth of a person. Should we therefore stop driving for pleasure? industrial accidents and shipping cause deaths. All for things that we can, in many cases, do without. Even constructing roller coasters, there's a risk of falling or being injured by faulty equipment. Do we want to put a stop to all of these?
It's tragic when people die but if we can't accept the risk of death at any price, we can't live.
SpaceShipTwo is not going to bring the human race into a new age. It's not a craft that can be used to reach space, no matter how much you test or develop it.
We already know how to reach space. This is not how. This is just for thrills.
Because to be a successful astronaut or F1 driver requires skills that 99.99% of humanity do not possess. Construction workers and loggers, not so much.
Basically what you're disgusted with is inequality of talent. If everyone had exact same amount of talent and money and success as the average median human, the world would be a fair place. It's what the modern liberal progressive person dreams about. We would also be all squatting in grass huts picking lice out of our hair, but that's another story.
The pilots knew the score. If the risk was worth it to the people who were actually taking it, then I don't see how it's anybody else's business.
Many things in life were not originally designed for the tasks they were later used for. SpaceShipTwo and any future revisions may still yield useful tech or information. Dismissing it all just because it's not designed for deep space is short-sighted.
Yes it's stupid.... but its no more stupid than all the stupid idiots who climb everest at significant expense.... a significant number of which never come back.
The entire argument is that Virgin Galactic doesn't push the boundaries so it's not worth doing and that is a huge steaming pile of BS. Why should astronauts be the only ones able to go to space? Wouldn't it be great if someday we could have safe and affordable suborbital flights available to ordinary people? Is there seriously really no value in achieving that goal? I'm actually thrilled a bunch of millionaires are ok with subsidizing this research and experiments.
The SpaceShipTwo is not a space plane. It can not get you into space and stay there. It can only go up, and then fall down immediately. Developing the SpaceShipTwo is not going to get you an actual space plane, because such a plane would have to be designed very, very differently from the SpaceShipTwo.
The adoption of Rail travel and Airline travel by the rich is exactly what pushed down the price. The more demand there was the more that was developed for it, and the more that was developed the cheaper it beame to produce and run; and the early "rich" adopters paid the bills.
The situation you're describing is certainly true for a variety of products, but none of them happen to include the transportation industry.
Wrong. Space planes were actually the preferred method of getting to space before the Apollo program. And the only reason we shifted to rockets was because we didn't have the time to screw with the planes.
Space planes are better if we can get them to work properly. It gets us to the upper atmosphere while spending a fraction of the fuel and getting us to a pretty good speed.
Obviously you need a form of propulsion that will work in vacuum... so the wings only take you so far. But it does effectively take care of the first stage of the rocket boost at a tiny fraction of the weight, fuel, etc. And it is reuseable which is HUGE if we're going to do a lot of launches.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
SpaceShipTwo is not going to bring the human race into a new age. It's not a craft that can be used to reach space, no matter how much you test or develop it.
We already know how to reach space. This is not how. This is just for thrills.
This is the sort of thing that leads to further understanding and optimizations of underlying technologies. These technologies are also integral to space travel. So, while these ships may not be directly leading to an advancement in reaching orbit, there's a definite possibility that they will be influential on new designs and technologies that do.
The underlying technologies of the SpaceCraftTwo are completely and woefully underdimensioned for actually reaching orbit. It's just not feasible to develop it into a craft that can do that. You need a completely different solution to do it.
This is the sort of thing that leads to further understanding and optimizations of underlying technologies.
We already have the understanding. We know how to make proper orbital rockets, so why not optimize those (like Space-X is doing), rather than going back 60 years in time with a design that is only leading to a dead end.
You think it's leading to a dead end. You may even be right. But you don't know that for sure. If they milk millionaires for funding to experiment with aerospace technologies, then as long as they're not being reckless in their risk-taking I see no problem.
You're missing the point. Pushing the possibilities of one type of craft can lead to design insights that can be used in other types of craft. Advancement of scientific knowledge can only help the understanding of related fields.
The Hierapolis sawmill is not an automobile. It can not drive you to work or be used to transport large amounts of commercial goods over highways. It can only sit in one place. Developing the Hierapolis sawmill is not going to get you an automobile, because such a vehicle would have to be designed very, very differently from the Hierapolis sawmill.
Citation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_internal_combustion_engine
I trust that makes the point rather well. If not, then a meaningful discussion with you will not be possible.
Fortunately, most of us are not as blind as you. And, you can fuck right the hell off. You don't get to decide what is valuable or not for the rest of us. If we're willing to take risks to move ahead, we will. You are welcome to go live in a cave and hide from it all.
So, space travel isn't worth dying over, huh?
Statistically speaking, one of the most dangerous things quite a lot of humans do every single day is step inside a car.
I suppose putting your life on the line for that shitty job you bitch about all the time is somehow totally worth it by comparison, right?
But hey, maybe I'm being too harsh. We should just be careful not not do a damn thing that might be dangerous. I mean, sitting around waiting for a random asteroid to wipe out all life on this little blue planet...what's the worst that could happen?
"...that to me is a bunch of crap trying to shoot guys up into damned space. What they're going to do is they're going to wipe out half a dozen (people) one of these days, and that will be the end of it."
So you are arguing that the best way to design an automobile is to start with a sawmill and hope you stumble upon something useful ?
The Hierapolis sawmill was already "something useful". Most technology is developed a step at a time, and the steps are not always in a straight line. SpaceShipTwo is not itself useful to reach orbit, but it is a test for new materials, aerodynamics, and perhaps most importantly, business models. Would you prefer that rich guys spend their money on bigger yachts?
No. What actually happens is that people design a sawmill and hope to get a good sawmill. In some cases, this process leads to other interesting discoveries, like an automobile. But spending your time and energy on constructing a sawmill, when you don't need a sawmill, but you do need an automobile is just stupid. That's why I like Space-X much better. Their goal is to take existing rocket technology that works, and make it better and cheaper. They are just as likely to stumble upon useful spin-off technology, but even in the event that fails, they are still on their way to complete their useful primary goal.
No. The subtext is he just doesn't like wealthy people. So anything wealthy people do is by definition wrong.
no death is acceptable pursuing leasure activities. We should ban mountain climbing, parachute jumping, diving, all non-commercial travel including driving, and need I go on?
(tagged: drivel)
First, anything the 1% wants to do that involves passing money around between them, rather than picking the pockets of everyone else, is their business. That's not to say we should let them externalize costs onto us -- if parts of it are falling on populated areas, that's not cool. If hydrazine is getting into the water table, or even poisoning an unmonitored (but still important) patch of ocean, that's not cool either. But billionaires spending money for a chance so see the edge of space? Fuck it, let them.
Also, what is acceptable risk to you, isn't to everyone else. Anyone who flies an "experimental craft" is at a substantially greater risk of dying than the average person. So long as the risk is theirs, again, let them. They know the risks, and do it anyhow. Some of them are old and have a bucket list, and don't think the risk is all that substantial in light of the fact that they're mortal regardless.
Lining Branson's pockets isn't my idea of a good time, but it's not my decision whether others want to.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
no, he's arguing that the tech from Virgin Galactic's space program is LIKE the sawmill and cars. The sawmill (if you had bothered to read the citation) was "the earliest evidence of a crank and connecting rod mechanism". Just like the "space plane" and "space tourism" is being called out as "nothing to do with space exploration", the Heirapolis sawmill contained the very first, basic demonstration of what would eventually be used by billions of people in billions of cars worldwide. Get it now? This Wired writer is very short-sited declaring that "not a vehicle for the exploration of frontiers". He's 100% wrong, VG has developed all sorts of interesting tech that will prove quite useful in the future. Just because, RIGHT NOW, it's being made for "rich people" in no way makes their system irrelevant.
I watched a three hour documentary about SpaceShipOne, White Knight, etc. Saying these guys are only trying to make a roller coaster for the rich "should make you angry". That is only the very beginning! Even though Branson is rich, even he knows he's not got enough $$$ to go all the way up on his own. He's trying to engage the other rich people who, together, MIGHT have the cash and capabilities. Eventually Virgin Galactic's space planes will deliver tourist's to Bigelow's habitats. They can't go that high YET, thus the testing of new engines...testing that lead to this tragedy.
Hearing this reporter say this really reminds me of when Buzz punched that conspiracy guy in the face. Just because he can't see the connections and comprehend the importance of VG doesn't give him a free pass to insult what these guys are trying to accomplish. Personally I'd like to punch Adam Rogers in the face and hope he wakes up. His previous space-based articles are nothing like this one.
People died building those Arabian whore palaces that are the tallest hotels in the world too. Kind of fucked up to die for that shit, no?
The sawmill was made a few thousand years ago, no one was building a sawmill trying to make a car. VG is trying to engage the people (the Rich) who can pay for space exploration since it's pretty obvious the USA can no longer afford to do it.
The materials (and the production systems needed) are most definitely useful. In fact, some of the carbon-fiber pieces where made here in Tulsa, OK. A friend of mine has a left-over roll of some of it; the rest of it went to Virgin Galactic. This was something the Tulsa company had never done before; carbon fiber for space travel. I'm hoping Branson comes back and hires them again to build the next ones.
If space planes made it easier to get into orbit, that is the way we'd be doing it now. No space plane has ever put cargo into orbit. Giant fireworks do it routinely (almost).
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
SpaceShipTwo is not going to bring the human race into a new age. It's not a craft that can be used to reach space, no matter how much you test or develop it.
True, but the Wright Flyer couldn't be used for a lot of things either nor could Goddard's rockets reach space; but they were important first steps. Aviation is built on incremental steps and who knows where SpaceShip Two will lead? I have no idea where it will go but that is no reason not to try and see.
We already know how to reach space. This is not how. This is just for thrills.
So? Many early flights were for thrills (and money) as well. By your logic, Lindbergh's flight was just for thrills since we already knew how to reach France by boat.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
But a lot of people died to bring aviation to the point where your flights were safe and cheap.
"It's a design that can't reach orbit, no matter how hard you try."
You went too far. I'm not a rocket scientist, but even I know that if you were able to lengthen the engine duration significantly, then it could easily get to orbit and past. Some breakthrough or another; who's to say? I understand that the limiting factor would then be air, and if they solved that, then it would be something else...
But to state what they can't do, no matter what, under any circumstances, is just silly.
Does this author believe nothing should ever be done unless it furthers mankind'd foray into the future as long as someone might die? Many people die in the cultivation of foods that are not necessary for survival, the manufacture of items that aren't earth-shattering, and the testing of new technologies that don't blow your mind. History is rife with examples of casualties. I'm not saying the deaths are deserves, but merely exist as an inescapable part of creating something new.
The underlying technologies of the SpaceCraftTwo are completely and woefully underdimensioned for actually reaching orbit. It's just not feasible to develop it into a craft that can do that. You need a completely different solution to do it.
And the Bell X1 was woefully underdimensioned and completely useless for commercial flight. SpaceShipTwo will never achieve the things that people seem to be implying it should nor is it intended to. It is intended to be a development platform for technologies and methods of manufacturing and business. SpaceShipWhatever on the other hand may be capable of these things and it will be thanks in part to SpaceShipTwo through whatever.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
SpaceShipTwo is not able to reach orbit. It is still useful for other things.
Yeah, sure, it makes nice fireworks.
Achille Talon
Hop!
You mean the USA no longer has the will to do it.
There are many paths to the future and not taking isn't really one of them.
While Virgin Galactic may be about rich space tourists, these people should be seen as early adopters, helping bring down the price for the rest of us. The research and development here also provides a different technology approach than the bigger space companies, which are still focusing on traditional launch vehicles.
The challenge in the space industry is getting new investments from beyond the government and communication satellite operators. Space tourism provides an alternative private form of funding, helping develop new technogies and techniques. These billionaires probably have no way of spending all their money and this provides a nice way of providing funding for space and a way for them to do something they might enjoy with their money.
As for the test pilots, well I would prefer to see an automated flight as the first test flight, followed by a manned mission, but it may be too hard to provide a good system to deal with the unknowns. Test pilots fly with a passion and accept that never returning is part of the risk. It doesn't mean they should be treated as expendible, since we are talking about lives and highly skilled people, but we should accept that there is a risk which we must accept.
For the engineers and business owners knowing that a life is at stake should be incentive to double checking everything, even the assumption that it couldn't possibly fail. Everything fails, so it is more about asking in what conditions could it fail.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
if you were able to lengthen the engine duration significantly, then it could easily get to orbit and past
There's nothing easy about getting in orbit. You need an order of magnitude more energy, and that takes fuel, and then you need energy to accelerate all that fuel, which takes more fuel. In the end you'll discover that fuel = C * exp(payload mass). So, it becomes import to reduce that 'C', which means switching to a different fuel/oxidizer mix, and a new engine design. It also means lowering the mass, which means getting rid of the wings, finding new materials for the hull, and a heatshield that can withstand reentry. And it means designing a much bigger mothership to carry it up. In other words, you have to completely redesign everything.
We have ridiculously expensive spaceships. SpacePlaneTwo is never going to go into orbit, true. But it is serving as a testbed for a spaceplane technology, something that right now we don't have - and something that, if refined, could make the cost of getting into orbit a lot lower. Lower cost in turn makes it possible to do all sorts of long-term things that right now are simply too expensive.
How many people died in the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge?
Eleven, although until February 17, 1937, there had been only one fatality, setting a new all-time record in a field where one man killed for every million dollars spent had been the norm. On February 17, ten more men lost their lives when a section of scaffold carrying twelve men fell through the safety net.
http://goldengatebridge.org/re...
In other Googling I found an average of 120 people commit suicide annually on that bridge.
Should the bridge go away now?
Now that's one way to look at the question of whether or not a space tourism endeavor is worthwhile. Personally I think the environmental impact, vs. For Who and For What Purpose is a major issue. To me those are just incredibly wealthy people looking for fun ways to spend their money. This isn't like trans-Atlantic air travel in the 20th Century, which actually had a clearly demonstrable economic and societal purpose.
On the other hand, I can well believe nothing would have stopped those gentlemen under similar conditions from trying again. This is what they did as a career for-life, and economically speaking, they had a good employer and seeming economic benefit to do what they did.
Full disclosure: I am only a software guy. I try to do backups, but am only so-so there.
Why don' t you just admit you don't know what you are talking about?
Achille Talon
Hop!
Not only that, he almost certainly loved doing it. Test pilot isn't one of those jobs you take just to put food on the table. There are precious few jobs flying experimental aircraft or spacecraft, and I'm sure the pilot was glad for the opportunity, whether or not the end result could have been anything more important than flying rich people to the edge of space.
If that roller-coaster ride can be made to start in LA or London and end in Melbourne or Beijing, I can think of a few interesting uses for it...sub-orbital global transportation, anyone?
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
No. I didn't say they were easier. I said they were better. Rockets are easier. Rockets were something we could do immediately. That is why we use rockets.
Space planes are HARD. Space planes are complicated. Space planes involved technology we still haven't figured out yet. Rockets we understood in the 1950s.
So no. We will use space planes because they are better but only after we've worked the bugs out.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And chinese fireworks won't get you to the moon either but you learn something in the process that helps you get there.
No one is saying that Virgin is building the USS Enterprise that will go battle the Klingons or something.
What I am saying is that the technology informs a familiarity and builds a facility to get into orbit with similar technology.
Lessons learned and mistakes made. Look at the plane the Wright brother's flew. It was crap but it did fly all be it terribly.
Imagine if the plane crashed and killed one of the brothers. Then some stupid journalist shows up and says "this stupid hobby you're working on isn't worth dying over because it will never amount to anything."
It is ignorant. Point blank.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Lets put the stated safety into perspective as well. The goal is not to achieve the level of safety offered by a modern jetliner, rather that of commercial aircraft of the 1920s.
... Don’t believe anyone that tells you that the safety will be the same as a modern airliner, which has been around for 70 years." -- Burt Rutan, 2008
"This vehicle is designed to go into the atmosphere in the worst case straight in or upside down and it'll correct. This is designed to be at least as safe as the early airliners in the 1920s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Is this guy really so short sighted as to employ reductio ad absurdam to make an argument?
If Slashdot contained a fallacy filter it would reduce posts by half.
Damn, and me without mod points. This physics M.Sc. remembers the orbital mechanics he studied, and the energy requirements to escape the gravity well, and you sum it up nicely.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
"Reaching orbital speed takes much more fuel than reaching orbital height."
In other words, you're completely wrong.
I seem to be arguing with a child. My mistake.
The demonstrated reliability, performance and cost of the Virgin's concept is a step back. I don't care how good it looks on paper, even though it really doesn't, in reality it's a poorly performing disaster. The biggest issue is that it was never meant to be used to reach orbital velocity. It's a ballistic taxi, made to skim the some cream in a currently unexploited pseudospace tourist segment. It's a commercial venture whose goals are not space R&D.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.