NationStates Jolt Archive

Burt Rutan, aerospace vehicle designer and owner of Scaled Composites (http://www.scaled.com/), and Paul Allen, a Microsoft millionaire, are behind a new leasing agreement for their SpaceShipOne design. SpaceShipOne (http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/) recently won the $10M ( US ) Ansari X-Prize (http://www.xprizefoundation.com/), which required two closely spaced trips into space by a privately developed and owned space vehicle.

Under the leasing agreement, Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com/en/) will license the technology to develop the world’s first privately funded spaceships dedicated to carrying commercial passengers on space flights. Virgin Galactic will utilize the technology to build new spaceships and derivatives thereof, for the purposes of carrying paying passengers on a journey to the stars - returning to earth as astronauts two hours later.

This, IMHO, is the next "Microsoft." Watch for their first public offering, then hock your house, car, watch and wife to get what you can to buy in. Your progeny for generations will bless you for it! :)

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/092704_scaled_paul_allen_virgin_galactic.htm

EDIT: Note that Virgin Galactic is owned by Virgin Group (http://www.virgin.com/), which may not spin Virgin Galactic off as a separate enterprise, in which case just buy in to Virgin Group itself. It is likely, given the way Virgin Group has managed its various businesses in the past, that Virgin Galactic, or at least its American affiliates, will be listed on the NYSE.

A spaceship on every desk? I don't see it myself?

Sounds like more like Zepplin's airline to me.

Woo! Zeppelin!!!!

( shrug ) Mock if you like, but these guys are amazing and trips into space by ordinary people will be a reality by the end of this decade.

A good friend of mine literally begged me to invest in a small software firm back in the early 80's. Trying to raise a family, I declined. Had I done so, even the few shares I could have bought in Microsoft would be worth millions today.

( shrug ) Mock if you like, but these guys are amazing and trips into space by ordinary people will be a reality by the end of this decade.

A good friend of mine literally begged me to invest in a small software firm back in the early 80's. Trying to raise a family, I declined. Had I done so, even the few shares I could have bought in Microsoft would be worth millions today.
...Man. I'd've been very bitter, had that happened to me. Curse you, hindsight! *Shakes fist*

I agree, I think it'd be a great investment. Wonder if I can convince some people to chip in money with me to get some stocks.

However, they damned well better not have their version of the Blue Screen of Death. lol

( shrug ) Mock if you like, but these guys are amazing and trips into space by ordinary people will be a reality by the end of this decade.

A good friend of mine literally begged me to invest in a small software firm back in the early 80's. Trying to raise a family, I declined. Had I done so, even the few shares I could have bought in Microsoft would be worth millions today.
Kinda like when I passed up buying Apple stock at the bottom of the .Com bust. That and not having the cash to buy stock in a few small companies that produce cable modems about 6 years ago. I could be living off just the interest of my earnings from those. :headbang:

Kinda like when I passed up buying Apple stock at the bottom of the .Com bust. That and not having the cash to buy stock in a few small companies that produce cable modems about 6 years ago. I could be living off just the interest of my earnings from those. :headbang:
Yup. That hindsight's a wonderful thing, ain't it! :(

...Man. I'd've been very bitter, had that happened to me. Curse you, hindsight! *Shakes fist*

I agree, I think it'd be a great investment. Wonder if I can convince some people to chip in money with me to get some stocks.

However, they damned well better not have their version of the Blue Screen of Death. lol
Heh! I don't think they have anything like that. :)

I've no reason to be bitter. I made my choice to invest in children rather than Microsoft or anything else, and now have five of the best people on the planet as grown children, not to mention the seven ( so far ) grandchildren. No amount of money could replace any one of them. I plan to die a happy man. :)

( shrug ) Mock if you like, but these guys are amazing and trips into space by ordinary people will be a reality by the end of this decade.

A good friend of mine literally begged me to invest in a small software firm back in the early 80's. Trying to raise a family, I declined. Had I done so, even the few shares I could have bought in Microsoft would be worth millions today.

I'm not mocking. I just don't see trips into space as a multi-million dollar industry as yet. What are they suggesting people do when they get up there? Why are people going into space in the first place. If the commercial airline industry was solely for people to take joyrides in planes, how big do you think it would be?

Plus, there are very good reasons not to invest in the first company to pioneer in a completely novel field. Why pay an equity premium to fund people in figuring out what to do with something, when you can wait a little bit and invest in the second or third company to come along and avoid funding all the mistakes made by the first one? It's a question whether or not you think your money would have been better invested in Toyota or Stanley motors.

It's also not really comparable to microsoft. Microsoft came along when computers were already established - though not as ubiquitous as today. People already needed computers at that point, and there were useful things to do with them. I am not convinced that there is any pressing demand for space tourism, or any pressing need for it. Essentially, this is a hugely capital intensive project to develop technology for a market that might not even exist. It's not an investment, its an out and out gamble.

A far more practical play would be to invest in companies that produce power silicon (for hybrid cars). At least there seems to be a market for them, with a lot of potential upside.

Heh! I don't think they have anything like that. :)

I've no reason to be bitter. I made my choice to invest in children rather than Microsoft or anything else, and now have five of the best people on the planet as grown children, not to mention the seven ( so far ) grandchildren. No amount of money could replace any one of them. I plan to die a happy man. :)

Pfftt...minor details! ;) Just hope they love you enough to take care of you when you get all senile. ;) *grins*

Well, I just told my 'rents about the company and am hoping they'll invest in it when possible. If not, I can probably convince some friends to put some cash aside and do that. I'd want to put that money towards my education..I'm not too interested in getting rich and buying a bunch of fancy toys.

Yeah I heard it's a 30-minute trip that's basically just a jump from ground level into space and then back down again. It never really flies.

( shrug ) Mock if you like, but these guys are amazing and trips into space by ordinary people will be a reality by the end of this decade.

A good friend of mine literally begged me to invest in a small software firm back in the early 80's. Trying to raise a family, I declined. Had I done so, even the few shares I could have bought in Microsoft would be worth millions today.
My dad did something similar, only it was a small biotech firm, and he actually had the stock for a while--it tanked at first, and he decided to get out when it recovered enough that he could handle the loss. It didn't do much until recently. The company? Genentech.

It's too bad, too, because they could use the money.

I've no reason to be bitter. I made my choice to invest in children rather than Microsoft or anything else, and now have five of the best people on the planet as grown children, not to mention the seven ( so far ) grandchildren. No amount of money could replace any one of them. I plan to die a happy man. :)

After reading the thread on universal health care and why so-and-so shouldn't have to help anybody but himself, you have restored my faith in humanity, sir.

However, they damned well better not have their version of the Blue Screen of Death. lol

It would not be a BSOD though. More likely it would be the flaming star in the sky carrying you on it in a plunge of doom. =p

Although if they could use the thing for actual flight to different locations around the globe......

Beijing to America in the space of an hour? If they could make it cost effective, you'd probably see Boeing either going bust or buying out.

After reading the thread on universal health care and why so-and-so shouldn't have to help anybody but himself, you have restored my faith in humanity, sir.
Because I love my children? Heh! I think I've probably saved you from becoming cynical, more than anything else! :D

Because I love my children? Heh! I think I've probably saved you from becoming cynical, more than anything else! :D

Because you recognise that people are more important than money. :)

It would not be a BSOD though. More likely it would be the flaming star in the sky carrying you on it in a plunge of doom. =p

Although if they could use the thing for actual flight to different locations around the globe......

Beijing to America in the space of an hour? If they could make it cost effective, you'd probably see Boeing either going bust or buying out.
Tourists in space is only the first paying commercial venture. You have to start somewhere. That's probably the main reason they linked up with the Virgin Group; they have a reputation for new ventures that eventually pay off big.

I watched a video of Burt Rutan talking with his staff and crew and telling them that he wanted the eventual commercial vehicles to be "a hundred times safer than the space shuttle." This guy not only thinks big, he does what he says.

It would not be a BSOD though. More likely it would be the flaming star in the sky carrying you on it in a plunge of doom. =p

Although if they could use the thing for actual flight to different locations around the globe......

Beijing to America in the space of an hour? If they could make it cost effective, you'd probably see Boeing either going bust or buying out.

There're plans, not sure if they're still being made, for a supersonic jet that would skim the upper atmosphere/go into low orbit, and do that.

There're plans, not sure if they're still being made, for a supersonic jet that would skim the upper atmosphere/go into low orbit, and do that.

Not too sure, but didn't they end the plans on that development? The only thing I can find on that are even close to the idea of that kind of jet was the scramjets being made. And those are for military craft.

Hmmm, if this project does work and they make it work on a big scale though, you can bet the final cost of the ISS would drop when they start subcontracting the work out to private firms. Not to mention how many more companies would try to start going out there for cheap minerals and whatnot.

I watched a video of Burt Rutan talking with his staff and crew and telling them that he wanted the eventual commercial vehicles to be "a hundred times safer than the space shuttle." This guy not only thinks big, he does what he says.

So that would mean an only one in two thousand chance of dying every time you flew in one.

Because you recognise that people are more important than money. :)
That should be a no-brainer, but unfortunately isn't in many cases. I well remember one of my more distant relatives talking about a local man who had to be one of the most unhappy people I have ever met. This relative stated, "But he's got a lot of money," as though that made everything ok. Consumerism has convinced a huge number of people that money, and the things it can buy, will make you happy. True, money can make you happy-er if you're already a relatively happy person, but ultimately happiness is a decision ... you can decide to be happy regardless of circumstances.

Incidently, do you think there might be a future in space garbage collection? Earth's upper atmosphere is a rather crowded place nowadays and there's tons of stuff up there whether they be dead satelites or discarded protective shrouds. If those materials are recyclable, it would seem reasonable to assume that there would be quite a hefty sum of money.

Not to mention the reactors you can salvage from discarded nuclear powered satelites.

Incidently, do you think there might be a future in space garbage collection? Earth's upper atmosphere is a rather crowded place nowadays and there's tons of stuff up there whether they be dead satelites or discarded protective shrouds. If those materials are recyclable, it would seem reasonable to assume that there would be quite a hefty sum of money.

Not to mention the reactors you can salvage from discarded nuclear powered satelites.
I've often wondered that myself. Perhaps when commercial space flight is cheap enough to justify the retrieval of "space junk" for profit? :)

Not too sure, but didn't they end the plans on that development? The only thing I can find on that are even close to the idea of that kind of jet was the scramjets being made. And those are for military craft.

Hmmm, if this project does work and they make it work on a big scale though, you can bet the final cost of the ISS would drop when they start subcontracting the work out to private firms. Not to mention how many more companies would try to start going out there for cheap minerals and whatnot.

Yeah, I think the plans were scrapped, but I think it was originally being designed by..Boeing, maybe? NASA had a similar design for a shuttle, m'thinks. It was a scramjet, if I recall properly.

If Virgin Galatic picked up on those designs, and incorporated them into their current ones, it could further revolutionize travel, especially commercial space travel.

Incidently, do you think there might be a future in space garbage collection? Earth's upper atmosphere is a rather crowded place nowadays and there's tons of stuff up there whether they be dead satelites or discarded protective shrouds. If those materials are recyclable, it would seem reasonable to assume that there would be quite a hefty sum of money.

Not to mention the reactors you can salvage from discarded nuclear powered satelites.

Possible, but the problem is meeting up with their respective orbits and slowing down the objects so they don't puncture holes into your craft and reduce it to more space debris, or shatter themselves into tiny unsalvageable pieces. You'd also have to dodge all the other space junk, at the same time. So it wouldn't be likely for the moment, I'd think.

Yeah, I think the plans were scrapped, but I think it was originally being designed by..Boeing, maybe? NASA had a similar design for a shuttle, m'thinks. It was a scramjet, if I recall properly.

If Virgin Galatic picked up on those designs, and incorporated them into their current ones, it could further revolutionize travel, especially commercial space travel.

Considering that the designs on their trans-atmospheric craft use nitrous oxide fueled rocket motors, I don't think they could combine that in with a scramjet. Using two sets of different propulsion systems (rocket and air breathing) on a single chassis might cause some serious issues. But if it gets them to space cheaper, faster, and safer, by all means.


Possible, but the problem is meeting up with their respective orbits and slowing down the objects so they don't puncture holes into your craft and reduce it to more space debris, or shatter themselves into tiny unsalvageable pieces. You'd also have to dodge all the other space junk, at the same time. So it wouldn't be likely for the moment, I'd think.

Current space operations when pairing up respective orbits is so that astronauts can usually work on a satelite or dock with a station. That means matching the velocities exactly. Catching space junk might be simpler if you use the equivalent of a trawler net with a pair of supporting booms. Of course you can't use the standard fiber net, but you'll probably want something stronger. A kevlar weave net?

You might not need to slow down that much although you would still have to worry about space junk ahead or behind if your velocity is slower than stuff behind you. A ram scoop maybe?

Considering that the designs on their trans-atmospheric craft use nitrous oxide fueled rocket motors, I don't think they could combine that in with a scramjet. Using two sets of different propulsion systems (rocket and air breathing) on a single chassis might cause some serious issues. But if it gets them to space cheaper, faster, and safer, by all means.

Whoops..didn't know what fuel they were using. In that case, I doubt they could combine it with a scramjet, too.

Current space operations when pairing up respective orbits is so that astronauts can usually work on a satelite or dock with a station. That means matching the velocities exactly. Catching space junk might be simpler if you use the equivalent of a trawler net with a pair of supporting booms. Of course you can't use the standard fiber net, but you'll probably want something stronger. A kevlar weave net?

You might not need to slow down that much although you would still have to worry about space junk ahead or behind if your velocity is slower than stuff behind you. A ram scoop maybe?

Yeah, but it's alot easier when you're dealing with something you have control over (like a satellite still functiong), compared to a chunk of some old hull whizzing about. A kevlar net, or some other strong material could work, but if it gets tangled up in something as you're dragging it along, you'd have a problem, so a ramscoop might be better.

If Virgin Galactic made used some similar design, or another company, it'd not just make space commercial, but truly industrial.

Pooh. I just went through with a friend of mine on this idea. He pointed out that it would be impractical to really scale this current system up to the point where it can compare to the space shuttle in payload capability.

Looks like it will be stuck as space tourism only if they don't come up with something radically new then.

Incidently, do you think there might be a future in space garbage collection? Earth's upper atmosphere is a rather crowded place nowadays and there's tons of stuff up there whether they be dead satelites or discarded protective shrouds. If those materials are recyclable, it would seem reasonable to assume that there would be quite a hefty sum of money.

Not to mention the reactors you can salvage from discarded nuclear powered satelites.

Are you familiar with the old TV show Salvage 1?

Pooh. I just went through with a friend of mine on this idea. He pointed out that it would be impractical to really scale this current system up to the point where it can compare to the space shuttle in payload capability.

Looks like it will be stuck as space tourism only if they don't come up with something radically new then.

Maybe they could set up an orbital refinery? Or just get paid to clear the junk out of orbit, and send it into the atmosphere, making it burn up?

If there were a breakthrough in energy production *Coughs*fusion*Coughs*, then it'd be more likely, I'd think.

Maybe they could set up an orbital refinery? Or just get paid to clear the junk out of orbit, and send it into the atmosphere, making it burn up?

If there were a breakthrough in energy production *Coughs*fusion*Coughs*, then it'd be more likely, I'd think.

The orbital refinery might work, but you would have to use the old fashioned space shuttle or conventional rockets to lift the loads used to build it into space. That means you are still blowing vans full of money on the liftoff alone rather than the facility.

I don't think there is enough junk in space to make it feasible for any corporation to fund.

Not too sure, but didn't they end the plans on that development? The only thing I can find on that are even close to the idea of that kind of jet was the scramjets being made. And those are for military craft.

Hmmm, if this project does work and they make it work on a big scale though, you can bet the final cost of the ISS would drop when they start subcontracting the work out to private firms. Not to mention how many more companies would try to start going out there for cheap minerals and whatnot.


I thought The Ansari X-Prize wineer was a Scramjet?

This is an amazing sory and incredible opportunity, unfolding before our very eyes. Think of the global paradigm shift that began way back in the 50's when intercontinental air travel was in its infancy. Unbelevable strides were made in the past 50 years. The same will hold true fro space and sub-space travel. If I had any money to spare, I would invest in this venture.

I've long admired Burt Rutan, ever since is non-stop circumnavigation of the globe in a funnly looking plane back in the 80's. Sir Richard Branson is someone else I respect and admire. He made a couple aqquintances of mine very rich indeed by beleiving in them giving them record deals way back when other big record companies wouldn't touch electronic music with a 10,000 foot pole. When he puts his backing behind something, IT WORKS and returns great dividends. Having either one of these two on board a project is fanastic. Having BOTH of them, PLUS Paul Allen, one the same project, is pretty amazing.

Good call Etrusca.

The orbital refinery might work, but you would have to use the old fashioned space shuttle or conventional rockets to lift the loads used to build it into space. That means you are still blowing vans full of money on the liftoff alone rather than the facility.

I don't think there is enough junk in space to make it feasible for any corporation to fund.

True, and since there's nothing else to mine in the immediate area (unless we somehow towed asteroids into orbit, but that's rather sci fi given our current level of technology), it would probably wind up being impractical.

Looks like technology has yet to yield a cheap way of lifting really heavy loads into space then doesn't it?

Heavy meaning industrial class goods. The kind you build space stations with.

I thought The Ansari X-Prize wineer was a Scramjet?

This is an amazing sory and incredible opportunity, unfolding before our very eyes. Think of the global paradigm shift that began way back in the 50's when intercontinental air travel was in its infancy. Unbelevable strides were made in the past 50 years. The same will hold true fro space and sub-space travel. If I had any money to spare, I would invest in this venture.

I've long admired Burt Rutan, ever since is non-stop circumnavigation of the globe in a funnly looking plane back in the 80's. Sir Richard Branson is someone else I respect and admire. He made a couple aqquintances of mine very rich indeed by beleiving in them giving them record deals way back when other big record companies wouldn't touch electronic music with a 10,000 foot pole. When he puts his backing behind something, IT WORKS and returns great dividends. Having either one of these two on board a project is fanastic. Having BOTH of them, PLUS Paul Allen, one the same project, is pretty amazing.

Good call Etrusca.

Not to be picky, but Branson has backed some losers too. Like virgin cola.

Looks like technology has yet to yield a cheap way of lifting really heavy loads into space then doesn't it?

Heavy meaning industrial class goods. The kind you build space stations with.

Yeah, boosting up whole parts of heavy machinery/buildings into space is a ways off, m'thinks, but who knows when the next breakthrough will occur? I just hope that with the commercialization of space, corporations will see the potentional of it, and start investing alot more into R&D of the required technologies to make it feasible to go beyond some experiments on a relatively small space station and a shuttle.

Looks like technology has yet to yield a cheap way of lifting really heavy loads into space then doesn't it?

Heavy meaning industrial class goods. The kind you build space stations with.

Uh-huh. And that's one of the problems with this as a business plan. At the moment it is just a venture to let people joyride in near earth orbit. There is basically bugger all reason to go up there otherwise.

There needs to be a paradigm shift in propulsion technology that allows large enough payloads to be actually useful (as opposed to allowing us to do fifth grade science projects in low earth orbit) before this kind of thing can be commercially viable.

Some physicist dudes have mumbled about science fiction stuff. linky (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2003AIPC..654..958M&db_key=AST)
that could really change ground to space operations. Unfortunately no-one, government or private wants to fund the research. I'd put money into this kind of thing before the joyride company if I had to choose though.

If it gets spun off separately, its not going to be a major cash machine for at least several decades, if it succeeds at all. So its a buy it and hold it for a LONG ass time stock, if it goes public and doesn't just get attached to something else.

Will it be the one? Try and remember, Microsoft wasn't the first. It wasn't an innovator. It wasn’t particularly better than anything else (worse even maybe). Virgin Galactic could easily get replaced by someone else.

However I will say this. Trying to find, bank or make money on 'the one', is not a healthy way to go about looking for investments.

( shrug ) Mock if you like, but these guys are amazing and trips into space by ordinary people will be a reality by the end of this decade.

A good friend of mine literally begged me to invest in a small software firm back in the early 80's. Trying to raise a family, I declined. Had I done so, even the few shares I could have bought in Microsoft would be worth millions today.
yeah same here :(
my dad was going to invest ten grand or so he'd saved up in MS back in 1985... then i was born and so he didn't..... DAMN ME TO HELL!! :headbang: :headbang:

but this whole thing could take off the ground (pun intended ;)) and if it does, definatley worth investing in cos it'll be huge. either mega-hit or mega-flop, no middle ground on this one, says yoda


Virgin Galactic could easily get replaced by someone else.

ah but the difference between MS and "Virgin Galactic" is that the Vigin group is an already established and wealthy conglomerate with enough dough to throw at R&D and enough experience & expertees to aggressively stay in the market. MS was nothing but a small upstart business in an already semi-established market, which happened to get very, very lucky... and then do all that innovation in 1995 which concreted its dominance of the market. but nonetheless, the starting points of VG and MS couldn't be more different.

plus there are First Mover advantages in a new market - MS wasn't actually, as you say, the first firm in a new market - VG is. if anything these two factors could make it more likely for VG to succeed than MS, cetimus paribus

and finally there's setting up costs/barriers to entry to the market. it costs sod all to buy a PC and develop some code/an OS for it if you know what you are doing. it costs millions upon millions to research spacerocket technology, and millions more to implement it on a commercial scale - not like just printing a few floppy diskettes or CDs as you do with software. the barriers to entry are much, much greater in the market VG will be carving out than it was for MS... yet another reason why VG will have significant first mover advantages and will be less likely to be overtaken than MS would have been


i just hope this isn't a hoax or a joke cos i'm already wondering how i can save enough to invest :p




and this brings the question: how the hell was MS so damn successful?! :p

Woo! Zeppelin!!!!

One of which has just flown over my flat...now see if you can figure out where i live...


yes its an actual zeppelin...