Why so pessimistic? They got into space with a very safe design in a much shorter time than NASA or any other space agency, and for a lot less money. It takes innovation to make advancements, and NASA hasn't being doing much of that lately. If I had the money I'd sign up for a flight right now.
100 registered people spending $200,000 with approximately 65,000 others looking to pay $20,000. Obviously the tech could go wrong as Branson has experienced previously, but its safer than the shuttle and is going to have alot more investment and safety checks than his periodic balloon rides.
@Juaquin What? Are you kidding me? These two organizations have two totally different goals. Pretty sure these guys here are here to make money.
I suggest you go to the NASA website to see what they are up to.
Can't believe you said "They got into space with a very safe design in a much shorter time than NASA". That's fucking upsetting. You might want to look at the years NASA first went into space.
For instance, how much do you think one Maine sized asteroid is worth? How many billion for mining one, if we drag it into earth's orbit? There are many more example of this, resources in space that can be used to benefit man kind, and all we have to do is get the abilities to go up there and get it!
Making money from going to space is not a bad thing. The money made benefits people, and everyone on the whole earth in the long run. Besides that, what about the technological advances?
@Irwin What's so fucking upsetting? They do have a very safe design. And they did do it faster than NASA (of course, they had years of research done by others to draw upon). I never said they had the same purpose as NASA. I was just refuting the idea that SpaceShipTwo was in any way unsafe or that this project was a bad idea.
And you can't deny that NASA's innovation nowadays is basically nill. It's so bad that some NASA engineers are moonlighting on competing rocket designs to the Aries. I love NASA and everything they've done, but they need to get back to their roots and keep moving forward.
What do you mean deny? There is nothing to deny. You should, like I said, look at their website to see what they are doing. They aren't just sitting their on their asses all day not doing anything.
I don't know everything that they are doing but from the top of my head I can think of the Ion Propulsion(Deep Space 1 which uses it set the fastest speed by a spaceship) drives that they are improving, the probe that only recently landed on mars, probe that landed on Saturn's moon Titan, the probe that intercepted a comet and brought back grains of dust, a probe that is propelled solely by the power of light(not solar power), tons of research in weather prediction. Wow what else?
You know guys there's a HUGE difference between getting a small thingy just above the atmosphere and getting into deep space. Even the shuttle can only get to low orbit incidentally, but it can carry a self-propelling device that gets itself deeper into space, if it's not too large or heavy that is. In short this won't lead to 'mining asteroids', that's apart from the usual issues of our inability to alter the path of asteroids and inability to get freight through such distances at a cost that would even get close to being thinkable.
@Juaquin: It's a little stupid to compare flying to 100 km to actually getting into orbit (requires less than 1/60th the energy).
As noted by Wikipedia, the accomplishments of SSO are more comparable to the X-15 project than to the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle was first launched 27 years before SSO, and does a hell of a lot more than it – orbits, reenters, keeps several astronauts alive for days on end, ferries materials & personnel to the ISS, launches satellites, conducts repair operations, etc. Yes, two have been destroyed (in 31 years), but they've conducted 121 launches... compare that to SSO's handful.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
This entire project is going to tank in a very public, embarrassing and very likely tragic way.
Why so pessimistic? They got into space with a very safe design in a much shorter time than NASA or any other space agency, and for a lot less money. It takes innovation to make advancements, and NASA hasn't being doing much of that lately. If I had the money I'd sign up for a flight right now.
100 registered people spending $200,000 with approximately 65,000 others looking to pay $20,000. Obviously the tech could go wrong as Branson has experienced previously, but its safer than the shuttle and is going to have alot more investment and safety checks than his periodic balloon rides.
@Juaquin
What? Are you kidding me? These two organizations have two totally different goals. Pretty sure these guys here are here to make money.
I suggest you go to the NASA website to see what they are up to.
Can't believe you said "They got into space with a very safe design in a much shorter time than NASA". That's fucking upsetting. You might want to look at the years NASA first went into space.
One thing about space: It's big.
For instance, how much do you think one Maine sized asteroid is worth? How many billion for mining one, if we drag it into earth's orbit? There are many more example of this, resources in space that can be used to benefit man kind, and all we have to do is get the abilities to go up there and get it!
Making money from going to space is not a bad thing. The money made benefits people, and everyone on the whole earth in the long run. Besides that, what about the technological advances?
@Irwin
What's so fucking upsetting? They do have a very safe design. And they did do it faster than NASA (of course, they had years of research done by others to draw upon). I never said they had the same purpose as NASA. I was just refuting the idea that SpaceShipTwo was in any way unsafe or that this project was a bad idea.
And you can't deny that NASA's innovation nowadays is basically nill. It's so bad that some NASA engineers are moonlighting on competing rocket designs to the Aries. I love NASA and everything they've done, but they need to get back to their roots and keep moving forward.
@ Juaquin
That's the Robinson way!
another thing about space: it's very empty. Finding a Maine sized asteroid isn't as easy as it sounds, and it doesn't sound very easy.
What do you mean deny? There is nothing to deny. You should, like I said, look at their website to see what they are doing. They aren't just sitting their on their asses all day not doing anything.
I don't know everything that they are doing but from the top of my head I can think of the Ion Propulsion(Deep Space 1 which uses it set the fastest speed by a spaceship) drives that they are improving, the probe that only recently landed on mars, probe that landed on Saturn's moon Titan, the probe that intercepted a comet and brought back grains of dust, a probe that is propelled solely by the power of light(not solar power), tons of research in weather prediction. Wow what else?
They've already had deaths due to accidents while testing and building.
That's the risk when you're a pioneer.
You know guys there's a HUGE difference between getting a small thingy just above the atmosphere and getting into deep space.
Even the shuttle can only get to low orbit incidentally, but it can carry a self-propelling device that gets itself deeper into space, if it's not too large or heavy that is.
In short this won't lead to 'mining asteroids', that's apart from the usual issues of our inability to alter the path of asteroids and inability to get freight through such distances at a cost that would even get close to being thinkable.
@Jinto
So how's pulling in a Maine sized asteroid into earth's orbit a good thing?
@Juaquin: It's a little stupid to compare flying to 100 km to actually getting into orbit (requires less than 1/60th the energy).
As noted by Wikipedia, the accomplishments of SSO are more comparable to the X-15 project than to the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle was first launched 27 years before SSO, and does a hell of a lot more than it – orbits, reenters, keeps several astronauts alive for days on end, ferries materials & personnel to the ISS, launches satellites, conducts repair operations, etc. Yes, two have been destroyed (in 31 years), but they've conducted 121 launches... compare that to SSO's handful.
Jason - "That's the risk when you're a pioneer."
Yeah. It's like playing Oregon Trail. I'd want someone with a lot of money on my team.