Fox2_Fox2 t1_jece1o7 wrote
I guess some of the laidoff employees will go to Virgin Galactic in Mojave or down the road to Tustin, where the VG facilities are.
SquizzOC t1_jecxxjf wrote
Had no clue they were based in Tustin, always wondered what was in those buildings they are in.
Fox2_Fox2 t1_jecyr1r wrote
VG opened the Tustin facility about a year ago or so. I guess they couldn’t attract enough people to go to Mojave so they had to open a place in civilization to attract talents. Just my guess. Nice facility in Tustin with some extra perks like some tech companies.
Hbirdee t1_jed9cfq wrote
No more Virgin in Mojave for the most part now, they have to work remote or go to Truth or Consequences, NM if they’ve been there for 2+ years. Just happened super recently. Some folks defected to other companies at the airport.
Fox2_Fox2 t1_jedanao wrote
Oh man…. Mojave was bad enough. TOC in NM is even worse. A friend of mine was offered a job in Mojave but was told before starting that he had to go to TOC. He quit instead.
gheebutersnaps87 t1_jeeuf7f wrote
They should head to the old REPCONN headquarters if they’re looking for work out in the Mojave
LloydAtkinson t1_jeea9m1 wrote
WTF? Why does the dude need multiple space companies?
ArmsForPeace84 t1_jefiwfr wrote
Well, they're each designed around very different payloads and capabilities. Very different risk profiles. With the space tourism side able to sell tickets FAR in advance due to facing little competition in the space tourism business, while the payload to orbit business is already competitive and growing more so.
The only benefit I saw in their even getting involved in orbital missions is to, if it worked and could turn a profit, help grow their experience with orbital flights in hopes of one day carrying passengers and not just satellites. Selling these costlier, but also far more enticing, excursions to future space tourists.
dangerbird2 t1_jefwkus wrote
The problem with virgin orbital is that they did exclusively air-launched rockets, which have a hard limit on the payload size that makes manned flight pretty much impossible (i.e. if it won't fit under a 747 wing, it won't fly). Moreover, air-launched rockets have been all but obsolete ever since Space-X and Rocket Lab have proved first-stage recovery to be reliable and extremely economical.
ArmsForPeace84 t1_jeg3b0z wrote
Agreed. Turning a profit from air-launched rockets is impossible with launch prices having fallen so dramatically with the arrival of Falcon 9, in particular.
There might yet be a market for soft-ride orbital spaceplanes that launch like this, or even from a runway. As opposed to "mere" hypersonic airliners.
But I wouldn't bet any of my own money on seeing these emerge by even 2050.
Art-Zuron t1_jega23u wrote
This whole comment chain, I thought it was a Fallout reference...
Last-Caterpillar-112 t1_jeggy9m wrote
Better to be a Galactic failure than an Orbital failure.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments