Virgin Galactic Successfully Reaches Space (bbc.com)

The latest test flight by Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic successfully rocketed to space and back. From a report: The firm's SpaceShipTwo passenger rocket ship reached a height of 82.7km, beyond the altitude at which space is said to begin. It marked the plane's fourth test flight and followed earlier setbacks in the firm's space programme. Sir Richard is in a race with Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to send the first fee-paying passengers into space. He founded the commercial spaceflight company in 2004, shortly after Mr Musk started SpaceX and Jeff Bezos established Blue Origin. In 2008, Virgin Galactic first promised sub-orbital spaceflight trips for tourists would be taking place "within 18 months". It has since regularly made similar promises to have space flights airborne in the near future.

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[bit trollent]

Alot of people see this as a silly vacation attraction for the super-rich, which it is, but that misses the most exciting element of this spaceflight system.

Virgin has already quietly announced plans for point to point suborbital flights, connecting cities in a fraction of the current travel time.

As Virgin Galactic flight hardware is proven and deployed around the world we are opening up humanity to the biggest increase in travel speed since the advent of jet powered aircraft.

Truly an exciting time to be alive!

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Anonymous Coward]

2 hours to Hong Kong also fits under the category of things "for the super rich".

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Anonymous Coward]

SpaceX has made similar plans, but they say the tickets would cost about the same as plane tickets.

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Anonymous Coward]

As a once in a lifetime trip, I could see spending $20,000 on a one-way ticket. Yes, it will take a few decades for the price to come down to that amount, but I think there is a demand at some price for people who want to get to the different continents a lot faster. And they seem to be the only company looking into this technology now.

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. I mean what do they have now? Basically an X15, technology that has been around since the 60s. So what is the commercial plan? Are you going to go New York to Tokyo 2 people at a time in a plane that has to be carried up to altitude by another plane? I don't see any commercial possibility at this point. Not saying it isn't cool, just that it isn't useful.

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Kjella]

Virgin has already quietly announced plans for point to point suborbital flights, connecting cities in a fraction of the current travel time. As Virgin Galactic flight hardware is proven and deployed around the world we are opening up humanity to the biggest increase in travel speed since the advent of jet powered aircraft. Truly an exciting time to be alive!

Because....? If I had a private jet I'd get a lot faster to where I was going too. Despite all the talk of making space "affordable", compared to the airplanes they're still gold plated. A sub-orbital rocket going half way across the Earth will require about 7.9 km/s delta-v, going to orbit is 9.3-10 km/s. Putting that into the rocket equation says you can bring about twice as much payload to fuel compared to LEO. So what's the cost to orbit today? $62 million / 22800 kg = ~$2700/kg for an F9, if you take half that a 75 kg person is still looking at $100k for a ticket if we ignore seats, life support systems and so on. Of course to just reach space you just need to go 1.4 km/s straight up - but then you're coming straight down.

You can look at this graphic to see how a SpaceX first stage goes on a suborbital trajectory, it'll go 7-800 kilometers in a ballistic path. This capture maybe gives you a better sense of scale, you can see stage one returning to earth on the left right off the coast. To actually go places like Europe or Asia it'd have to make a much, much bigger and more expensive arc. And when you consider that you can get anywhere in the world in less than a day, is that one day saved worth tens of thousands of dollars? Travel by rocket is not for the common man nor the middle class, it's for the 0.01% who'd rather have an extra day on their yacht.

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Solandri]

While I appreciate that's their long-term goal, 3.5 hours from New York to London/Paris was already tried with the Concorde. There's not enough demand to make it economically sustainable. So it'll be primarily rich people on vacation joyriding this, not people who need to get between New York and Hong Kong in 2 hours for business reasons (i.e. spending money to make money).

Of course if they can get their cost per mile below that of Concorde (New York to London cost about $10,000 without discounts), that will be a breakthrough.

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Shaitan]

There are factors here you aren't considering. Compared to the major cities in Asia, US cities are a major downgrade with "third world" infrastructure and amenities.

At present the US is still where you need to do business. Why expend all the money it would take to upgrade infrastructure enough to provide first class living in the dilapidated US. That is trillions of dollars. You can simply fly in on a quick jump from your home in ASIA when needed for a mere $100k.

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Anonymous Coward]

I could see spending $20,000 on a one-way ticket.

I saw what you did there. [*shudder*]

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Shotgun]

The original plan for the Concorde was Paris to Los Angeles. Boeing bought some regulations from the FAA in order to block them. The problem is that with the longer route blocked, there was no reason to continue to develop the Concorde to bring down cost, and it became an albatross.

In space, no one can hear your sonic boom. I would expect the rockets to eventually be assisted by hyper ram jets, cabin room to be expanded, and cheaper initial launch system designed. There are a lot of ways that an enterprising engineer can search for cost savings, but first you need a platform stood up that you can expand from.

Re: New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it need to be scaled acainst the price of existing orbital rockets? If you restarted from the required fuel and stated a minimum baseline cost from that, That would be a lot more useful.

Re: New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Anonymous Coward]

The Concorde was economically sustainable for a long time. What actually happened is that the fleet essentially aged out.

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Applehu Akbar]

Which is a totally good thing. When you are alpha-testing new tech, you want wealthy early adopters to take the early risks.

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[arth1]

Also keep in mind that the Concorde was still a plane, without passengers having to wait for launch control or go through free-fall training. The actual travel time isn't just the air time, and i can't see it go down to Concorde times for Virgin Galactic any time soon.

Re: New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Kjella]

Why would it need to be scaled acainst the price of existing orbital rockets? If you restarted from the required fuel and stated a minimum baseline cost from that, That would be a lot more useful.

Well replace $62 million with $200k and you get $3k/seat in fuel, but not even a fuel tank to keep it in. Everything has to be manufactured, inspected, maintained and eventually refurbished or replaced even if you can spread the cost over many launches. A long haul flight uses about 0.75 gallons of fuel per seat per 100 km and it costs about $1.75, so a 10000 km flight is around $130 in fuel. Typical total cost to the airliner with labor costs, maintenance cost and deprecation is around $6-700, so already you're thousands behind in the comparison. And even if Musk can get from 3x to 10x launches per booster it's still vastly dominated by rocket cost, not fuel costs. Even the BFR in his most optimistic reuse scenarios had a price tag about 10x the fuel costs, so that puts the seat price more at $30k than $3k.

Rockets are really, really fast. But like most things that go very fast they're not energy efficient at all. Gliding through the air in an airplane might not be impressively efficient compared to ground based travel but compared to a rocket the lift is a huge help. Plus subsonic airplanes don't go through the extreme stresses a rocket does with sonic booms, max-q, re-entry and so on. It seems highly improbable that it'll ever need less maintenance and last longer than an airplane.

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Shaitan]

What is the downmod for? Someone doesn't like to hear the truth?

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[110010001000]

Nah, just stupid. What major city in Asia would someone want to live in? They are all terrible.

Re: New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Anonymous Coward]

Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore?

Re:New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Anonymous Coward]

sub-orbital rocket going half way across the Earth will require about 7.9 km/s delta-v, going to orbit is 9.3-10 km/s. Putting that into the rocket equation says you can bring about twice as much payload to fuel compared to LEO.

Beware that if you're taking an ICBM trajectory, the passenger(s) won't survive the flight. I don't know how many G's, I had read it's too much.
That's why SpaceX is proposing a Fractional Orbital Bombing System trajectory for intercontinental passenger flight.
One of the reasons for ICBM is they're coming down so fast it's impossible to shoot them down.
I'm using these martial terms, because they might make it easier to know what we're talking about lol.

Re: New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Anonymous Coward]

Rockets donâ(TM)t generate lift, but, then again, the donâ(TM)t have to battle any meaningful air resistance once they get out of the atmosphere either.

Re: New York City to Hong Kong in 2 Hours

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious bait is obvious.

Re:Wow

[Locke2005]

Call us "Charmin", because in no time at all we'll be circling Uranus and wiping out Klingons!

not quite space

[dmoen]

Virgin Galactic's marketing department defines space as 80km. Most of the rest of us define it as the Karman line, which is 100km. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:not quite space

[Rei]

The Kármán line isn't just an arbitrary altitude, either. It's the point at which the atmosphere relatively abruptly starts transitioning from "well mixed, with a composition like at the surface" to "increasingly dominated by light and ionized species"

Of course, Kármán defined it as the rough point at which lift ceases being relevant for an aircraft moving at orbital velocities (which is also a meaningful definition).

Re:not quite space

[spire3661]

Its a pointless distinction. Orbital or sub-orbital are the only relevant terms. Sub-orbital point-to-point transport is super-interesting. Shooting tourists on a ballistic flight to some arbitrary zenith between the ground and 'space' is not.

Re:not quite space

[Snowgen]

Virgin Galactic's marketing department defines space as 80km. Most of the rest of us define it as the Karman line, which is 100km

80KM is the altitude at which the US military, FAA, and NASA grants the United States Astronaut Badge

Re:not quite space

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Which is not the same as "altitude at which space is said to begin".

Re:not quite space

[k6mfw]

or use 63,000 feet, the Armstrong Line, where the body needs a spacesuit.

Re:not quite space

[hackertourist]

Karman did some calculations on where lift becomes irrelevant (this depends on design parameters for the wing, so a different altitude for each design), arrived at an altitude of 85 km and rounded up to 100 km.

Branson has some precedent: the USAF defined 80 km as the boundary of space, in order to be able to call their X-15 pilots astronauts.

Re:not quite space

[Anonymous Coward]

You can fly a ballistic trajectory to the moon and never enter orbit.

Re:not quite space

[zmooc]

That is true and all but it is also wildly inconvenient. Some satellites sometimes dip below 100km during transfer to a higher orbit. Do they momentarily leave space? And what do we call that place were you can occasionally encounter a non-crashing satellite?

Also, unlike the KÃrmÃn line, the 80km line stays nicely put while the real KÃrmÃn line dances around all the time.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

Re:not quite space

[Solandri]

1) The X-15 flew over 100 km.

2) The reclassification of X-15 pilots as astronauts wasn't done until 2005, long after the X-15 program ended (and most of the pilots were dead). So no, it wasn't factor in the decision to classify space as beginning at 80 km.

The USAF used 80 km because that's 50 miles. And that sounded like a nice, round, easy-to-remember number to set as the boundary. Simple as that.

Re:not quite space

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron alert! Moron alert!

Re:not quite space

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'd hope to enter lunar orbit, at least!

Smacking into the moon isn't the most pleasant way to arrive.

Re:not quite space

[Anonymous Coward]

this is sad. X15 could do better from Aug 1963. 67mi/107.8km. this is not space either. Felix Baumgartner was in a balloon at about half this height. i bet these crap short low-def videos they are showing in microclips are hiding how utterly lame and overpriced the short, low flights are. sad.

Re:not quite space

[MDMurphy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:not quite space

[quizdog]

Yeah when the X Prize folks awarded the prize for first private vehcile into space they also used the Kaman line (100 km) which is why SpaceShipOne's talk number was 328KF (328 kilofeet which is almost 100 km! ) That's when Branson got involved so it's weird he's backed it down to 80 km

Re:not quite space

[quizdog]

oops - make that "Karmen" not "Kaman"!

Re: not quite space

[Anonymous Coward]

Iâ(TM)m alerted!!!!1 what do I shoot?

Re:not quite space

[thegarbz]

Depends on who is doing the saying.

Video from the flight

[Spy Handler]

nice looking views from space

https://twitter.com/virgingala...

Re:Video from the flight

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a video of the complete event? Just seem to only find small clips of it here and there.

Re:Video from the flight

[Anonymous Coward]

this is sad. X15 could do better from Aug 1963. 67mi/107.8km. this is not space either. Felix Baumgartner was in a balloon at about half this height. i bet these crap short low-def videos they are showing in microclips are hiding how utterly lame and overpriced the short, low flights are. sad. .

How much ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... total carbon emission ?

Re: How much ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, what would their rich old passengers care?

Re: Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if by the end of the year they are literally stopping the clock at 11:59:59pm or is there a grace period for that? Or is it a hard stop?

Altitude at which one is in "space"?

[Freshly Exhumed]

There are competing definitions of the altitude at which one is actually in "space". Some organizations (i.e. USAF) say 80km, some (international records-keeping bodies) say 100km.

Re:Altitude at which one is in "space"?

[arth1]

Indeed. The US likes to hand out "astronaut" medals and ribbons like they were Special Olympics medals.

Truly an exciting time to be alive!

[Anonymous Coward]

And an equally exciting way to die!

Thanks

[SuperKendall]

Some may argue about where the line for space is.

But what really matters is, what do you *see* when you are up there? That unquestionably looks like you are in space.

Well, probably that and weightlessness. So two things, two things that make for authentic "space tourism".

Stuff like this makes it seem pretty likely I'll be able to afford a visit to space in my lifetime, something I would love...

Re:Thanks

[Guspaz]

That's a pretty questionable definition, since air-breathing aircraft like the SR-71 can sustain altitudes where the sky is black. That "looks" like space, but since you're still talking about atmospheric flight, it obviously isn't.

Here's a photo from 83k feet with a black sky: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
The aircraft's altitude record for sustained flight was roughly 2k feet higher than that, and it's reached higher in climbs. Baumgartner jumped from 128k feet from a balloon, where there an even sharper transition from the haze on the horizon to deep black in the sky.

Weasel words

[arth1]

The firm's SpaceShipTwo passenger rocket ship reached a height of 82.7km, beyond the altitude at which space is said to begin.

"Is said to" depends on who says it. The mesosphere extends to around 85 km.
The FAI considers anything below 100 km (the Karman line) to be aeronautics, not astronautics.

Re:Weasel words

[thegarbz]

Not weasel words, just something without a clear and universal definition.

The USAF and NASA will definitely consider anyone between 85km and 100km to be an astronaut.

Also Pluto is a planet.

Space ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I though the accepted altitude between atmosphere and space was the Kármán line.
But 82.7Km is still inside the Mesosphere so I don't know on what they base their claim.

Just remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember, you should use less fuel. For the environment and shit.

Space seeing is Space believing

[SuperKendall]

Yes but again, I don't care if there technically is a tiny bit of air out there.

Space is like Porn - I know it when I see it. This is what really matters in terms of viable tourism. There will always be some that argue you aren't technically in. space, but they'll be arguing on the ground while I am looking at the Earth as a whole from above, and stars unfiltered by atmosphere...

Now what I am wondering is, if there's still some small bit of atmosphere that implies some effect of gravity. So at that height would you feel weightless (a tiny pull would probably be imperceptible)? Space tourism would necessarily mean that your thirty minute (or however long) visit had you being weightless (and presumably with a lot of vomit bags on hand).

Re:Space seeing is Space believing

[Guspaz]

Even at the altitude of the international space station (408 kilometers), gravity is still around 88% as strong as it is on the ground. You feel weightless in orbit because you're in freefall towards the earth (only you keep missing it because you're moving forward really fast), not because of your altitude. A flight at 85k feet might look like space, but you'd be experiencing normal gravity (still less than a percent off sea level at that altitude) inside the aircraft.

Re:Space seeing is Space believing

[religionofpeas]

Space tourism would necessarily mean that your thirty minute (or however long) visit had you being weightless

It's a 2.5 hour flight, but the free fall portion is only 5 minutes.

Re:Space seeing is Space believing

[SuperKendall]

Even at the altitude of the international space station (408 kilometers), gravity is still around 88% as strong as it is on the ground. You feel weightless in orbit because you're in freefall towards the earth

Ok, that's a great point, but the end effect is again - you see space, you feel weightless. That's close enough to satisfy most people's definitions of "in space" for the purposes of tourism.

Re:Space seeing is Space believing

[Guspaz]

You can probably get the same effect with a normal reduced-gravity aircraft (AKA "vomit comet") and turning off the cabin lights ;)

That type of aircraft was used to shoot this OK Go music video, with the whole thing being done weightless (it's all one take, but they essentially fast-forward the 50% of the time spent at higher gravity): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Space seeing is Space believing

[SuperKendall]

The vomit comet doesn't give you near enough of a view to be considered space, and it's weightless periods are much more limited (20-30 seconds at a time), over multiple dips and climbs).

A sustained period of calm, non-screaming-dive weightlessness is probably a lot easier to sell and probably easier on most stomachs.

Re: Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Always time for some breakfast ICBMs

You'll never see space lol.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't allow INCELs in space, sorry Ken Doll. We're going to string your nazi trash ass up.

Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin: only SUB-orbital.

[Futurepower(R)]

My understanding is that neither Virgin Galactic nor Blue Origin are able to put anything into orbit. Their equipment is only able to be "sub-orbital".

Elon Musk's SpaceX is able to put satellites into orbit. That distinction should be made in every news story about those companies.

Well, minimal but something.

[SuperKendall]

It's a 2.5 hour flight, but the free fall portion is only 5 minutes.

That's sad to hear, but at least you'd get quite a view on the way up and down.

It's probably better to start with five minutes and have them judge how long the average person does in free fall. Like is 80% of the ship throwing up? I wonder what the plans are around that.

Imperial months

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, the phrase "within 18 months" referred to the Imperial months which are distinctly longer than a metric month. If I'm not mistaken an Imperial month are on the order of several magnitudes longer than the traditional "squint". Yet, I could be overlooking something here.

Re:Wow

[Scarletdown]

If they manage to shoot a rocket into Uranus (rocket will have to be painted red), will they need to change their name from Virgin Galactic to just Galactic?

(Just field testing adapting a Chuck Norris joke for this situation).

Re:Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin: only SUB-orbit

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Both Virgin and BO are working on orbital launchers. That also needs to be mentioned in every news story about those companies, as per your reasoning.

They won't be the first

[ClickOnThis]

Sir Richard is in a race with Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to send the first fee-paying passengers into space.

And it's a race they have lost already. Russia sent the first tourist into space, and it was an orbital flight at that.

Am I the only one to find this very unexciting?

[Ecuador]

Am I the only one to find this quite unexciting? And I am not just talking about a 20km difference. I mean, we are essentially talking about something that an aircraft from 1959 could do (nobody called it a spacecraft), without even having to be released from a significant height - and it's been in development for over a decade. And we can't even compare it to other private "space" ventures because as we know the hard part about getting into earth orbit which is what the others are doing is not the height, but the speed (required for the orbit), which is at least a magnitude higher than this Virgin craft does, hence so much harder.
I could see how an "edge of space" ride could be interesting tech, but it would have been "inspiring" if it had been delivered in the 00's. A 60 second powered flight in 2018 somehow seems "meh" to me. The "80km space" thing is just adding some insult ;)

Re:Am I the only one to find this very unexciting?

[Ecuador]

Oh, and before I get "yeah, but at least they are trying what are YOU doing you sofa critic" I am not saying that they should not be trying, but at this point I think this particular approach this company is pursuing is giving very little ROI (investment in time and money), so they are probably not doing the right approach.

Re:Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin: only SUB-orbit

[jnaujok]

Yeah, it'd be a great headline:

SpaceX Launches Crew Vehicle to Space Station in 1 Month, Crew in 6 months, and test Mars Rocket by end of 2019. Meanwhile VG and BO in "Hot Pursuit" with 3D Computer Simulations of Vaporware Rockets

Sorry, you can say what you want, but for all intents right now VG is flying an X-15, and BO is launching a souped up Redstone rocket, while SpaceX is actually flying a vehicle somewhere around the Saturn IB equivalent. Two of those get you to "space" in a purely academic sense of the word, but the other is a real spacecraft. In the first space race, those were over a decade apart, and that's about how far ahead SpaceX appears to be right now.

If you demand we should talk about BO and VG's orbital launchers, which, as of now, are little more than plans on a drawing board -- maybe (and we can't know since Jeff "Lex Luthor" Bezos is so ultra-secretive) an incomplete collection of parts (BE-4 engines, some fuel tanks) -- then you still have to give SpaceX the edge because they're building the Starship (nee 'BFR') now, with pictures promised by Elon in the next few weeks. (so, maybe by February).

Now, does that diminish what they accomplished today by creating a "passenger-safe" re-usable craft that can take you up to near the Karman line? No, not at all. But it does not "put SpaceX and Blue Origin to Shame" like some of the headline writers seem to be saying. Strangely, they forget to mention the billions of dollars over budget and years late Orion capsule, and Boeing Starliner in the same breath. Odd that.

Helpful parent comment. Mod up.

[Futurepower(R)]

Moderate parent UP! Seems correct to me.

Orion Spacecraft. Quote: "... is building...".

Boeing Starliner. Quote: "... is being developed...".

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

If they manage to shoot a rocket into Uranus (rocket will have to be painted red), will they need to change their name from Virgin Galactic to just Galactic?

(Just field testing adapting a Chuck Norris joke for this situation).

Yes, but then they would risk being in deep shit, before they ever got the chance to shoot a rocket into Uranus!
They would still be able to change the name to just Galactic at that point though.

They might also need to try several times before they get to fire the rocket. Afterall, it is no fun for Uranus if they shoot right away...
Depending on the conditions on and in Uranus, it all may or may not turn to shit.

If they end up in deep shit, then they risk that Galactic ends up as being shitty.

And EVEN if they manage to shoot the rocket in to Uranus, then they might also risk having to STICK around Uranus for a while.

Either way... Uranus is on the line!

Didn't this happen quite a while ago?

[Rhipf]

The firm's SpaceShipTwo passenger rocket ship reached a height of 82.7km, beyond the altitude at which space is said to begin. It marked the plane's fourth test flight and followed earlier setbacks in the firm's space programme. Sir Richard is in a race with Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to send the first fee-paying passengers into space . He founded the commercial spaceflight company in 2004, shortly after Mr Musk started SpaceX and Jeff Bezos established Blue Origin. In 2008, Virgin Galactic first promised sub-orbital spaceflight trips for tourists would be taking place "within 18 months". It has since regularly made similar promises to have space flights airborne in the near future.

Didn't this happen way back when NASA started paying the Russians to fly astronauts to the International Space Station?

Re: Didn't this happen quite a while ago?

[c6gunner]

Didn't this happen way back when NASA started paying the Russians to fly astronauts to the International Space Station?

No, I would think it first happened in 1983 when the ESA sent a German up on the space shuttle.

Or did they just bum a ride for free? Can't find much info on whether they paid or not.

100 km is "space"

[elrous0]

SpaceShipOne even recognized it.

Taking Far Too Long

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally, this project has been under way for almost 15 years. I know about the crash and all that; at some point it stops mattering "why" it took so long. It just took too long.

Remember when Scaled Composites was involved in this program? I'll bet you haven't heard from them in a while either (read: Years).

Now it seems like, a dream trip to space would need to involve a visit to the ISS (or something equivalent). Sure, there's a market for trips to "almost space", but there's a market for Disney rides too. Virgin Galactic seems to be far behind both SpaceX and Blue Origin, on every metric you can name. At this rate I'll bet that even Rocket Labs laps them.

In fact I'll lay odds (long odds to be sure, but odds just the same) that the science denying Nevada rocket guy, with his steam powered rockets, carries a paying passenger into space before Virgin Galactic does it!

Interesting, but not overly impressive

[Dereck1701]

I'm not really sure I see the point in Virgins/Blue Origins suborbital hoppers. They can't really go very far, they don't give you much time in weightlessness (less than 6 minutes), they're not terribly reusable and they're wickedly expensive. For better or worse I think the BFR/Starship/Superheavy is really the only launcher with a chance of opening up access to space at this point, even their BFR/S/SH craft in its point to point transport roll would be a better ride than SS2/NS. Blue Origins New Glenn seems to be the next in line, but they're still years away from achieving what SpaceX did three years ago. It almost sounds like SpaceX will be conducting suborbital hops with its Starship before/around when the New Glenn flies for the first time. I hope that SpaceX gets competition to keep them honest/motivated, but I'm just not seeing it from any of the current/near future launch companies.

Re:Wow

[Scarletdown]

The above post will become invalid in 2620.

Arth1 = self-upmodding WEEZIL w/ proof

[Anonymous Coward]

2 things I'd like to know: #1 = how you got a +5 when you are wrong vs. https://linux.slashdot.org/com... & #2 = why you RAN vs. that?

* My post completely BURNED YOUR obviously SELF-UPMODDED by SOCKPUPPET +5 UPMODDED post w/ SOLID PROOF & TECH REASONS why ANY linux distro (a modern KUbuntu 18.04 LTS proves you wrong) would be STUPID ENOUGH to do DNS before file (hosts) in nsswitch as you said.

Especilally when I prove systemd (in most modern Linux) DEFAULTS to a more than potentially kaminsky flaw redirected ISP DNS!

(Which most will use by default unlike myself shifting to OpenDNS & most modems supplied by ISP's by default don't allow DNS change IN THE MODEM itself (which I just went thru getting 2 in a row that don't allow it - heck, 1 by technicolor from SPECTRUM (timewarner in my area formerly) DIDN'T EVEN ALLOW ME, or the remote TECHS mind you, INTO IT @ ALL (China supplied no less)).

APK

P.S.=> Answer that wannabe "sysadmin"... apk

Arth1 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" apk

[Anonymous Coward]

2 things I'd like to know: #1 = how you got a +5 when you are wrong vs. https://linux.slashdot.org/com... & #2 = why you RAN vs. that?

* My post completely BURNED YOUR obviously SELF-UPMODDED by SOCKPUPPET +5 UPMODDED post w/ SOLID PROOF & TECH REASONS why ANY linux distro (a modern KUbuntu 18.04 LTS proves you wrong) would be STUPID ENOUGH to do DNS before file (hosts) in nsswitch as you said.

Especilally when I prove systemd (in most modern Linux) DEFAULTS to a more than potentially kaminsky flaw redirected ISP DNS!

(Which most will use by default unlike myself shifting to OpenDNS & most modems supplied by ISP's by default don't allow DNS change IN THE MODEM itself (which I just went thru getting 2 in a row that don't allow it - heck, 1 by technicolor from SPECTRUM (timewarner in my area formerly) DIDN'T EVEN ALLOW ME, or the remote TECHS mind you, INTO IT @ ALL (China supplied no less)).

APK

P.S.=> Answer that wannabe "sysadmin"... apk

Arth1 EARNS his special Olympics medals... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Arth1 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. https://linux.slashdot.org/com... & I'd like to know how you got a +5 when you are wrong vs. that proof & why you RAN vs. that?

* My post completely BURNED YOUR obviously SELF-UPMODDED by SOCKPUPPET +5 UPMODDED post w/ SOLID PROOF & TECH REASONS why ANY linux distro (a modern KUbuntu 18.04 LTS proves you wrong) would be STUPID ENOUGH to do DNS before file (hosts) in nsswitch as you said.

Especilally when I prove systemd (in most modern Linux) DEFAULTS to a more than potentially kaminsky flaw redirected ISP DNS!

(Which most will use by default unlike myself shifting to OpenDNS & most modems supplied by ISP's by default don't allow DNS change IN THE MODEM itself (which I just went thru getting 2 in a row that don't allow it - heck, 1 by technicolor from SPECTRUM (timewarner in my area formerly) DIDN'T EVEN ALLOW ME, or the remote TECHS mind you, INTO IT @ ALL (China supplied no less)).

APK

P.S.=> Answer that wannabe "sysadmin"... apk