LloydAtkinson t1_jeea9m1 wrote on March 31, 2023 at 11:56 AM

Reply to comment by Fox2_Fox2 in Virgin Orbit fails to secure funding, will cease operations and lay off nearly entire workforce by getBusyChild

WTF? Why does the dude need multiple space companies?

ArmsForPeace84 t1_jefiwfr wrote on March 31, 2023 at 5:13 PM

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 on March 31, 2023 at 6:43 PM

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 on March 31, 2023 at 7:27 PM

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.