Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Richard Branson Says He's Going to Send People Into Space by Christmas (cnn.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the final-frontiers dept.

Would you pay $200,000 for a ride into space? I ask beause billionaire Richard Branson "really, really wants you to believe he's going to send people to space -- and soon," reports Gizmodo. "In a new interview with CNN, the Virgin Group founder now says he's "reasonably confident" his spaceflight company can beat out competitors like Blue Origin and SpaceX with crewed trips to space before Christmas."

An anonymous reader quotes CNN: "We have a brilliant group of astronauts who literally believe 100% in the project, and give it their everything," he said. The first few trips to space will be flown by test pilots without anyone else on board. Branson says he will be the first passenger. Eventually, paying tourists will also make the trip....

The design and flight control systems of SpaceShipTwo were overhauled following a 2014 test flight crash that killed a co-pilot. Branson has said the accident made him question whether to continue pursuing his riskiest business venture. But the company said it received an outpouring of support, including from customers who had reserved $200,000 to $250,000 tickets to one day ride in SpaceShipTwo. Hundreds of people are still lined up for a shot. The flight will offer tourists a few minutes of weightlessness and views of Earth's curved horizon....

Branson is known to set deadlines that aren't met. Virgin Galactic has been developing SpaceShipTwo since 2004, and Branson initially said commercial rides would begin in 2007. Eleven years later, the firm is still working on getting its 600 customers into space. "Space is difficult. Rocket science is rocket science," Branson said. "I obviously would love to prove our critics wrong, and I'm reasonably confident that before Christmas, we will do so."
"We'll see," writes Gizmodo.

89 comments

  1. Hey Richard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't put an arbitrary deadline on your people and yourself. Remember the school teacher in the challenger. They didn't want to stop the flight because it was symbolic and had regular people going up, so no one wanted to say anything, but they were outside their temperature change ranges and the O-ring expansion / contraction did it in. Don't let a deadline do that to you.

    1. Re:Hey Richard by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Don't put an arbitrary deadline on your people and yourself."

      He didn't. Before Christmas... which year?

  2. Can we crowdfund... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we crowdfund APK to be the first settler on Mercury? I'd like to see Richard Branson demonstrate his company's skills by making that happen.

  3. Re:POW/MIA: You are not forgotten. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "POW/MIA issues" Presumably still being missing is high on the list, but what else? Why in Montana of all places? POW's come from everywhere why would Montana be special. Why spam it here like this, clipping Monta?

    Are you nazi fakedicks fucking with stolen valor now for your spam material? Man you're dumb AF someone is going to handle you one of these days

  4. But people are already IN space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of us. Except those guys that Superman’s father banished to the Phantom Zone. Not sure if they’re in space or not, since it looked a lot like a plane. Except for them, and A. Square and his friends in Flatland, we’re all in space already.

    Know what’d be cool though... if Branson managed to retrieve Musk’s sedan and return it safely to Earth, and drove it passed his house. “Your move, bitch!” He could shout out to him.

    Now THAT would be a SPACE RACE... two eccentric rich guys alternately sending things into space that the other tries to recover. You could make a movie about THAT!

    Does anyone else wonder how much crap all these space launches and re-entries of dead satellites ends up dumping into our atmosphere, though?

    1. Re:But people are already IN space. by mermeid007 · · Score: 1

      Oh, man that would be kind of like shakespearean comedy chess. This is what we've ended up at? Well, they have toilets on these space ships so last minute explosive diarrhea is always handled. Wow! Those studies must go back a bit. Running isn't super popular these days - I guess its for Ben-Stiller-esque looking guys with headbands. You must have needed to get docs off a microfiche.

  5. Another day, another nonsense by Cyberax · · Score: 2

    He's promoting nothing more than an expensive joyride, his ship won't reach nowhere near the orbital speed. So you can just as well go up to "space" on a balloon.

    1. Re:Another day, another nonsense by mentil · · Score: 2

      Balloons don't usually give you a few minutes of weightlessness and let you survive the trip.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:Another day, another nonsense by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      But you can get that on a regular plane, and survive it (see: "Vomit Comet").

    3. Re:Another day, another nonsense by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No, but a balloon plus a parachute would.

    4. Re:Another day, another nonsense by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised just how high a balloon can go. 50km isn't unheard of, although rare, and manned ballons have broken 35km. Not quite space, but at those heights it starts looking like space

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    5. Re:Another day, another nonsense by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      It’s “only” a ballistic ride, but still... if he discusses the timeline in terms of “reasonable confident” one month before the deadline, then I am not at all confident in their management of the project, or their ability to deliver.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Another day, another nonsense by mentil · · Score: 1

      I thought of that, but suspect it's not usually done.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    7. Re: Another day, another nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not very high, and it's not space, and nobody is surprised that a balloon doesn't go high enough to reach space.

      So what was your point?

    8. Re:Another day, another nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter how high a balloon can go. You will never become weightless in a balloon. You need to be going orbital velocity for [sustained] weightlessness. Or you need to be in free-fall for temporary weightlessness (orbit is just a special case of free-fall).

    9. Re: Another day, another nonsense by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Neither is this, if you hadn't noticed.

    10. Re:Another day, another nonsense by quenda · · Score: 1

      Yep, SpaceShipTwo is a glorified Vomit Comet. Which is cool in itself. But it ain't no spaceship, more like a first-stage booster.
      A seat on the Comet will cost $5000, and is available right now.

      NASA only sent Alan Shepard into a 15 minute hop because of the huge pressure to respond to the Russians putting a man in orbit.

    11. Re:Another day, another nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's promoting exactly what he says he's promoting. He's not said you're going to visit Vulcan on the Enterprise ffs

  6. To find another race by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 1

    I believe Max Romeo has a candidate he would like to volunteer.

    1. Re:To find another race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's going to put on an ironed shirt.

  7. Something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I usually spend my Saturday afternoons shoving things up my ass and then set aside the evenings for pulling them out. Glad to see that at least half of my activities on Saturday match those of a billionaire. Gives me hope for my future!

    1. Re:Something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which half?

    2. Re: Something in common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Caffeinated bacon; please stop telling us what you are doing when you are not sucking Xi's knob.

  8. weightlessness by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Going into space would be extremely cool, but I have to say if you don't get the experience of floating around in weightlessness, it will be somewhat disappointing.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:weightlessness by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      The distinction is "going to space" vs. "going to orbit". His listed "competitors" - Blue Origin and SpaceX - aren't targeting "space", they're targeting orbit. It's an entirely different thing, and involves your craft gaining more than an order of magnitude more energy than simply crossing the Karman line. 100000m * 9,81 m/s = 0,981 MJ/kg. 1/2 * (7800m/s)^2 + 350000 * 9,81 = 33,8535 MJ/kg - that is to say, over 34 times more energy**.

      Reaching orbit is a little bit of "up" and a LOT of "across". Or, as XKCD put it: how the public thinks going to orbit works vs. how it actually works.

      ** In practice, the consumed energy distinction isn't as stark, as both vehicles have to deal with air resistance and gravity losses for the first part of the flight - but on the other hand, it's a far-more-than-linear increase in difficulty to add more delta-V, since you have to lift the fuel to lift your fuel, and lift the fuel to lift that fuel, and lift the fuel to lift that fuel...

      --
      You people make me envy the deaf and the blind!
    2. Re:weightlessness by Kjella · · Score: 2

      If SpaceX wanted to get into tourism the first stage usually cuts out at ~80 km and the second stage would have enough velocity to cross the 100 km line without further thrust. So they could just design a big passenger "stage" with a few engines and fuel just for the reentry/landing burn. The second stage is 3.6m in diameter, 16m long and the normal payload fairing 5.2m in diameter, 13.9m long so in total almost 30m long. If they can expand the diameter to 5.2 meters all the way - I don't really see why not - they have ~200 m^3 volume and a 116 ton weight budget.

      The Dragon crew capsule crams 7 people into 10 m^2 of pressurized space, if we say 150 m^2 is doable then ~100 passengers to space. That's $60 million for an F9 launch / 100 = ~$600k/head, but you wouldn't expend the second stage so it's really just refurb costs. Real cost would be no more than Virgin is charging. Do I think SpaceX is going to do it? Nope. Because there'll be no escape system, propulsive landing and 100 very wealthy, very dead people would kill SpaceX no matter how many disclaimers you make them sign.

      I also expect the novelty of it to wear off pretty soon, right now 561 people have been to space. Like ever, all the way back to Yuri Gagarin. If you start adding hundreds each year it's not that special anymore, it's >$100k for a ten minute joyride including a few minutes of weightlessness. I mean the value proposition is absurd, you either have to be a billionaire or a millionaire and space nut to waste so much money on something that'll be over so quick. Granted you don't need many passengers but I think it's a really shallow pool of customers that could run out, once it actually becomes possible.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:weightlessness by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

      My apologies. In the future, I'll do all of my own illustrations for no reason whatsoever.

      --
      You people make me envy the deaf and the blind!
    4. Re:weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you factor in the likelihood of those 100 passengers being the weight of the average American? That may take around 10 tons out of the overall weight budget, plus all the food they'd want probably another few tons.

    5. Re:weightlessness by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      he Dragon crew capsule crams 7 people into 10 m^2 of pressurized space

      Seven people crammed into 10 SQUARE meters??? Just how do they flatten the people down to two-dimensions? Very heavy weights? Or run over them with the boring machine?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love this answer to a total dickhead! (;

    7. Re:weightlessness by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Granted you don't need many passengers but I think it's a really shallow pool of customers that could run out, once it actually becomes possible."

      There are about 15 million people in US with at least one million in free assets (money to expend) or about 16 millions in the whole world with 30 millions or more. 16 million people around the world is too low a target for, say, a social network, but quite enough for a 100.000$ per-run business.

    8. Re:weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they did say that "I think it's a really shallow pool of customers". Two dimensional would make for a really shallow pool.

    9. Re:weightlessness by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I mean the value proposition is absurd, you either have to be a billionaire or a millionaire and space nut to waste so much money on something that'll be over so quick.

      I don't think you have to be a space nut. I think the novelty will be enough to drive it for a while once you don't have to do extensive training just to take the trip. But the pool is still small due to the very high costs, so it has to be a short-term plan with enough profit built into it to do something else interesting with the money.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:weightlessness by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      Just stick a Dragon on top and there's your escape system. Limits your passenger capacity, but there's not going to be that many people flying anyway. Launching a Dragon capsule above 100 km (or hey, 200 km, why not?) won't stress the stage anything like an actual launch, you'd likely launch with a fraction of a full propellant load and remove some engines, reducing the reflight costs.

      40% of the regular launch cost is in the expendable second stage and fairings. If they could find enough interest for 50 full flights (a long but very easy life for booster and capsule), it'd give them the same profit margin at a bit over $100k per person...but only 60% of the profit per flight, while competing with the real orbital flights (which there will be a lot of when they start putting Starlink up) for pad infrastructure and personnel. And are there actually 50 flights worth of customers for something that bears about the same relationship to real spaceflight as riding a bike into the waves has to an ocean cruise? (Though at least they'd be in an actual spacecraft.)

      So yeah, SpaceX could easily do this, it's just not worth their time.

    11. Re:weightlessness by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The distinction is "going to space" vs. "going to orbit"

      That's not the distinction. You don't need to go into orbit to experience weightlessness.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:weightlessness by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      Air resistance is basically negligible for orbital launch vehicles, especially for those with dense fuels...the Saturn V (a kerosene-burner like Falcon 9) only lost 40 m/s to aerodynamic drag. They're moving slowest when they're in the densest atmosphere, and get out of it very quickly. The only serious losses are gravity losses. And for orbital launch, those are about 2 km/s. For suborbital launch to 100 km, that's more like your total delta-v requirement, gravity loss being more like 0.6 km/s.

      Thinking in terms of energy actually understates the issue. The difficulty doesn't scale with the energy given to the final payload, it scales with the size of the launch vehicle which has to carry propellant along with that payload. That's not quadratic, it's exponential. That's why the ability to remove vehicle mass by staging is so important.

      And of course, you also need an actual spacecraft. If you somehow put "SpaceShipTwo" into orbit, it'd be helpless and the occupants would shortly die. It's not a spacecraft and is not built to operate in that environment.

      And then there's the little detail that SpaceShipTwo can't even reach 100 km...they're targeting 50 mi, 80 km.

    13. Re:weightlessness by Kjella · · Score: 1

      You expect SpaceX to make money with the F9 at <$1 million/launch income? I'd list all the ways that's nonsense, but I'd be here all day. For one, there's no "gentle" way to launch and land a rocket no matter the payload. You're still punching through the atmosphere, you're fighting gravity every step of the way so throttling down is almost never the answer - they do it a little bit around max-q to avoid the worst peak stress but otherwise it's pedal to the metal. Yes, you could redesign everything for a 100 km Dragon lift but you'd end with something like the Falcon 1. Except a single engine rocket can't land, so re-usability is out and thus the economics of the plan. No, they'd have to use the F9 and the first stage profile they have and then find something better than wasting 95% of the capacity by just lifting a Dragon. At the very least find a way to stack like five-six of them.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:weightlessness by AndrewFlagg · · Score: 1

      let's dream a little and see what AI and machine learning can come up with -- let's do the Fifth Element approach, get to 70,000 feet above the Earth, proceed to reach orbit, and then sling shot to the moon as quickly as possible; 48-96 hours later; take a few loops around the moon, then set down.. just make sure we hookup with the orbital viewing deck the size of the British Airways Platinum Lounge in London at Heathrow, pre-assembled in space and ready for travelers to board and dock with and come along in tow and enjoy the trip. Inertia of a large object in space at 30,000 feet per second or more..

    15. Re:weightlessness by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If it occupies time that you'd otherwise use for posting utter shite then I'd take that result.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:weightlessness by quenda · · Score: 1

      I also expect the novelty of it to wear off pretty soon, right now 561 people have been to space. Like ever, all the way back to Yuri Gagarin. If you start adding hundreds each year it's not that special anymore, it's >$100k for a ten minute joyride including a few minutes of weightlessness.

      For comparison, 4000 have scaled Everest now, and you can join a trip for $50,000 . Much better value, and bigger boasting rights, than the 10 minute joyride.
      And possibly similar chance of survival.

    17. Re:weightlessness by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      With an under-engined F9 first stage and a stripped down Dragon capsule, and sufficient number of flights? Sure.

      The first stage has the performance to push a second stage with full propellant load and a Dragon capsule on top to a couple km/s downrange velocity at ~70 km altitude, then return to its landing site. Drop the second stage and reduce engine count to account for the reduction in mass, and it'll have enough excess performance for a slower, higher altitude max-Q and a longer reentry burn that makes for a more benign reentry than even the standard RTLS burn.

      There's no need to redesign anything, and it's doubtful that there'd be enough business for you to break even doing so. The biggest risk to the above plan is probably the additional development needed to return to the original Dragon powered landing plans. It's only vaguely plausible because they already have a booster and spacecraft built to carry crew.

    18. Re:weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're pretty dumb. I've been lurking for a while, and the amount of morons who attack smart posters like rei is insane..

    19. Re:weightlessness by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      I mean the value proposition is absurd, you either have to be a billionaire or a millionaire and space nut

      There are plenty of people around the world that would meet all of these conditions.
      I think they are crazy, but they don't care what you or I think.

    20. Re:weightlessness by hiphophits_sa · · Score: 1

      Check out HipHopHits Entertainment for the latest in South African Music, South African Music Videos, South African Music Allbums, and South African Entertainment Gist.

    21. Re:weightlessness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich people tend to be healthier than average, though there are exceptions. And don't forget that there are rich people outside of the USA as well.

  9. Honeymooners by mentil · · Score: 1

    When Mr. Branson says "bang! zoom! straight to the moon!" you better do whatever he says... or else!

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  10. Its easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sending people into space is easy... having them return is tricky and surviving is even harder.. I didn't see any mention of the last two...

  11. Mars VS LEO for 200K by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 1

    SpaceX is targeting 200K for a trip to Mars - I'd rather wait for that thanks...

    --
    Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
    1. Re:Mars VS LEO for 200K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much is it to come back?

    2. Re:Mars VS LEO for 200K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 MEELLION dollars!

  12. Pumping his share price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably just saying crap to pump his share price. When it doesn't happen, he'll make an excuse, and push the deadline, and his share price will mostly stay pumped.

    If I had the money, I'd wait for SpaceX. Branson the just a british equivilent of Steve Jobs really.. Talks a load of garbage

  13. Which year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until the Muslims take over, Christmas is every year.

  14. Training on his island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The future astronauts have been training hard on his private island:

    http://www.tmz.com/2018/11/28/genie-bouchard-tennis-bikini-necker-island/

    http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_2zoxriex/

    Space is difficult.

  15. Vomit Comet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a space flight alright, albeit a slow one. Basically, it has all the bad parts of space flight: Take-off, 0 G nausea and landing. The problem is that there is not enough time to get used to the 0 G part. So, it is super roller coaster.

  16. The world's most expensive ... by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    Theme Park ride. This owns more to 'ride in a Ferrari with a race driver experience or attraction than Ferrari's Formula 1 racing team.

    This is not really space travel, it is riding the shirt tails of the real innovators in this space.

    1. Re:The world's most expensive ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody has their own favorite activity, whether its a kiddie-ride or Formula 1

  17. How about... by gtall · · Score: 1

    ...we send Richard Branson to space on his magical rocket. "Let us know how it goes Richard, take your time, take a few trips, show us it's safe and then we'll think about it. Write soon!"

    1. Re:How about... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      How about you read the summary and see that's almost exactly what he has planned. "Branson says he will be the first passenger."

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what they are doing, yes. Their own test crews will be on the first several flights. Branson himself will be the first passenger.

      Your sarcasm falls flat.

  18. Did he specify which Christmas? by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    Did he specify which Christmas? I mean I can promise you anything to happen "by Christmas" if I don't specify the year... And so far their track record has been disappointing. No, they are not competing with SpaceX et al, they are trying to do something much simpler (reaching orbit is a couple of magnitudes harder) and they still haven't made it.
    I mean, yeah, it is great that they are trying, and I'd love to see more companies compete in this new sort of "space race", but Virgin Galactic is definitely not one of the most impressive entries in that space.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  19. Re:Anti-climax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    until he caught his reproductive organs on a cactus.

    Pics or it didn't happen.

  20. Richard Branson Says ... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    Richard Branson Says He's Going to Send People Into Space by Christmas

    And THAT's why he's a billionaire -- normal people just wouldn't think this way. Think of the opportunities! Sell many, many cheap tickets each with a non-disclosure clause. Send them into space just like he says, no problem. What a wonderful view? Floating is fun! Wheee!

    Oh, now you want to come down again? That's extra. What's that? You won't pay? Fine. Oh, that green O2 bottle is $1K per bottle, each lasts 30 minutes, give or take -- Visa, Discover, or MasterCard accepted. And if you wish to leave, well there's the capsule door.

    Oh, you're finally back and going to sue? Fine. See that NDA on the ticket? You'll be responsible for all lost income from the exposure. I'll be awaiting to be served with baited breath. Be sure and make an appointment beforehand. I'll be there -- will you?

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    1. Re:Richard Branson Says ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That scenario sounds more like Ryan Space.

    2. Re:Richard Branson Says ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      baited breath

      That's bated breath.

  21. Wasn't this the plot of 'Airplane 2' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What could possibly go wrong? The ONLY thing Branson worries aboput is croaking before he gets his customers 'up'. Down again is something Branson is too close to death to worry about.

    Anyway don't 'real' men strap themselves to an uncontrolled balloon and then 'halo' jump when it reaches the edge of outer space?

  22. What is Winter Sunlight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
    Working of Error

  23. I'd really like to know what's taking so long... by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 1

    They had a 99% working prototype. Testing exposed a user-interface flaw (pilot could prematurely disengage safety lock on the feathering mechanism in a single motion without an override step), destroying the test article and killing half the crew, which rightfully led to a review looking for other potential avoidable PEBKAC scenarios. This is not unusual in aerospace and is why "test pilot" is generally regarded as a high-risk profession. Historically the majority of high-performance aircraft development has resulted in crashes of test articles, and a fair number of those have resulted in fatalities due to ejection accidents. Ejection seats are pretty good now but they're still far from failsafe (early ejection seats killed as many people as they saved -- the F-106 ejection seats started off with a 100% failure rate and killed the first *12* people who used them).

    What's not normal is taking 4+ years to return to the same level of testing. That seems indicative of a funding problem.

  24. Yes, by Christmas - only... by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 1

    The only question is WHICH Christmas

  25. Oh good by sootman · · Score: 1

    Because that's what you want in a space program -- rushing to hit a date.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  26. Funny by Luthair · · Score: 1

    what the difference a name makes .Branson leaves Gizmodo skeptical, but if Musk announced it they'd be running around like cheerleaders.

    1. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, funny that. You think that might be because one of them consistently launches reusable rockets in to space on a regular basis, and the other has come nowhere near.

  27. It's not.... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    ....going to happen before Christmas. Richard and Elon both have WAY to high expectations. I love their drive but they need to be way more realistic.

  28. I'd pay to send by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd pay to send my ex-wife but if he brings her back, the deal is off!

  29. Re: Anti-climax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't believe it either but he was actually telling the truth. If you search "Richard Branson" "cactus" there are hundreds of legit news articles from around the world talking about how Richard Branson ran naked into a cactus at 4am.

  30. Re: Branson v Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, what? This is a Musk article, right?

    Space, bad testing, unproven technology, over reach, PR for ego boost, endless missed self declared deadlines.

    Which one are we talking about?

  31. What the US got instead of success in NASA... by MobSwatter · · Score: 0

    An ineffective government since 1833, and slavery. Ya just don't get to have successful aerospace:

    http://imgur.com/gallery/02NgX

    On the plus side, ROSCOSMOS is still functional unlike NASA. As far as an effective government, it still remains to be seen but I'll be shipping out pretty quick here.

  32. PEDO Lies About Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elon told meBranson is a PEDO.

  33. Yes. about time! in my lifetime by AndrewFlagg · · Score: 1

    I was tweeting to Walt Mossberg about the trip to Mars and said in our lifetime we should be living on the Moon; a journey to the Moon, stay for a weekend and enjoy it..and then return home... now that would be worth my Marriott Rewards points!

  34. What Year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, what year?

    Surely not this year, or next. But 'before Christmas'... OK, maybe Christmas 2025.

    Maybe.

  35. News for the 1% by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Since the majority of folks don't have $200k just laying around to burn on such things, this is only news for the very wealthy.

    I doubt there will be much of a waiting list to get a seat after the first year. Interest will drop off and / or the remaining super rich folks aren't going to risk their lives ( and fortune ) for a simple joyride.

  36. Get people in space is easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is getting them back is hard.. especially in alive state...