Yep. Dreams do come at a stiff price sometimes, though.
Posted on 10/31/2014 12:10:31 PM PDT by BenLurkin
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL SAYS ONE PERSON KILLED, ONE INJURED IN CRASH OF VIRGIN GALACTIC SPACECRAFT IN MOJAVE DESERT -CNN, CNBC
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for further updates. CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., Oct 31 (Reuters) - A suborbital passenger spaceship being developed by Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic crashed during a test flight on Friday at the Mojave Air and Space Port in California, officials said. Two pilots were aboard the spaceship, which was undergoing its first powered test flight since January. It was not immediately known if they were able to parachute to safety.
More than 800 people have paid or put down deposits to fly aboard the spaceship, which is carried to an altitude of about 45,000 feet and released. The spaceship then fires its rocket motor to catapult it to about 62 miles (100 km) high, giving passengers a view of the planet set against the blackness of space and a few minutes of weightlessness.
The spaceship is based on a prototype, called SpaceShipOne, which 10 years ago won the $10 million Ansari X Prize for the first privately developed manned spacecraft to fly in space.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Nice try though.
You are saying that any crash that occurred during a test flight does not count?
The original commenter made no such claim, rather his statement was much broader than what you are saying.
So you are moving the goal posts.
Nice try, though...
It was a test, not a mission launch.
Some here cannot seem to distinguish between a test and an actual mission launch.
Your comment that “rockets are tough” is accurate and why they have what are referred to as, “tests”.
Forgive me for my ignorance, but...
If gravity is stronger on earth than in the stratosphere and if commercial airlines can reach 35k feet under normal power then why can’t a spaceship simply fly into space? The edge of space is only 65 or 70 miles up. Why not fly into space?
Someone on the thread, please educate me.
I am making the claim that Space X has not had one crash or failure of a mission launch...You deny this?
Come one.
Do you have any idea what a test is and why they test these vehicles prior to mission launches?
Gezzz...
Space is dangerous, but worth it. Especially with private funding.
There's a reason why we've set a category of difficulty in common language calling it 'rocket science.'
I think these guys are getting government contracts. At least some of them are, perhaps Virgin isn’t.
To be honest with you, this is what I would have hoped for, developing a robust private sector industry seeded with government funds in part until some money is being made.
What gripes me, is that this trend took place on Obama’s watch, so that you have to suspect everything.
If it had happened on a more business friendly president’s watch, we could have had more confidence in the overall effort, or at least the background support from the government end.
I think space is worth it too. As a species it is up to us to determine if our seed will spread across space, or be extinguished here.
I believe we should be in the business of colonizing space.
It seems like a dead end at times, but we learn something new when we have to tackle new objectives. We’ll develop new drives and the fundamental of extended space travel by taking these baby steps.
It is crucial for mankind. It is crucial that we be at the forefront of it. I can’t imagine a sound future with China or Russia leading the way on these matters.
We have given other nations 45 years to catch up. Good grief are our leaders dumb.
The post that triggered my response claimed:
I’ll say it again - SpaceX rockets haven’t crashed., which you quoted in your first post within this thread, commenting that "It seems there are a few here highly disappointment about that", to which I responded.
See? No qualifications about "mission" launches.
I responded by (correctly) pointing out a SpaceX rocket crash which directly contradicts his assertion.
Your further assertions about SpaceX not having had a failure of a mission launch came after that. So your "you deny this" statement is completely inapt. I have never made any such denial. It's not cool to try and put words into someone else's mouth that they have not spoken or written. Maybe you are thinking of something that you wrote to somebody else on a different thread.
Do you have any idea what a test is and why they test these vehicles prior to mission launches?
That question is completely unhinged from reality. You can not possibly have deduced that from anything that I wrote, rather you are conducting an imaginary argument with a strawman that you have constructed out of nothingness.
My direct experience with actual spacecraft is somewhat limited, having only worked on the construction of one satellite which was launched into low Earth orbit from Vandenburg AFB back in 1978, but with plenty of other engineering experience, I certainly have an idea of "what a test is and why they test these vehicles prior to mission launches". So your entire line of argument is seriously misplaced.
But I suppose that you could simply be arguing in your spare time.
If it’s worth doing, the private sector will get it done without government support. At least that’s the Party Line.
Yep. Dreams do come at a stiff price sometimes, though.
Gravity doesn’t drop off that fast as air does.
An Airplane at 35K feet isn’t hovering on engine power, It’s using differential air pressure on the wings to stay up... which takes a lot less energy than direct thrust.
Above 25K feet, there isn’t enough air to breathe. Above 60K ft there is barely enough air to generate lift... and you still have 50 more miles to get to lower “space”.
Airplanes need air to fly. Planes that fly above 80K feet need to go Mach 2 to hit enough air molecules to generate enough lift to stay up. To fly much above 100K ft in a steady state, the plane would likely need to go Mach 5 and its still a long way from space.
A rocket going straight up can go slower in the atmosphere (and not pay such a big drag penalty) and speed up outside of the atmosphere (where drag is much less).
This is the reason we don’t have “aerospace planes” yet. Rockets are much easier/cheaper.
OMG...The Antares vehicle from contractor Orbital Sciences Corp was a mission failure. It was a mission launch...
Not a test....lol. Test are conducted to see if things are right for actual missions...It's why they test them first, and it's still no guarantee, but it really helps to ensure successful missions. No?
Another wild guess, but I think that's what testing these vehicles are all about.
Are some of you folks working in call centers for Dial an Argument?
Let’s face it, space is a massive undertaking. The costs are high and the payoffs are low to begin with.
In time there will be a thriving industry. Industry will take to space and jobs with it. Costs will diminish, and it will become easier to make a profit.
When this happens, the government should be totally out of it except for the government space defense sector. That would come out of the military budget.
Strategically, space is vitally important to the health of our way of life. If we allow other nations to take the lead, our ability to take ownership and guide things along will be over.
It’s the high ground. We must occupy it, because at some point someone will. It has to be us.
This isn’t your typical free enterprise system at work at first. Later on it will be.
Right now we have a strategic need to accomplish certain goals, and I think it is reasoned to have to government involved. It gets us there faster, and I think that outweighs the normal Capitalist private sector concerns.
Others will disagree. I think there is a case to be made for government involvement as a vital national interest.
Escape velocity is only needed for orbital flights. Going straight up and coming straight back down (like Virgin Galactic) can be done at any speed... but when the motor stops, even if you make it halfway to the moon, you’ll be falling back to earth, Wylie Coyote style.
Why we can’t “fly” into space is because of a lack of air for lift.
Yeah, because you didn't have escape velocity. That's why the word "escape" is in there. Once you've escaped you don't fall back: "It is the speed needed to "break free" from the gravitational attraction of a massive body, without further propulsion".
The question asked was “Why not fly into space?”.
Spaceship 1 went into space 23,000 mph below “escape velocity”
“Escape velocity” has nothing to do with the question that was asked.
I’ve got better things to do than waste time with this conversation.
I assume the OP knows there is little air in space.
The question was couched in terms of gravity, not lift.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.