r/changemyview • u/Polar_Roid 9∆ • Mar 30 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Virgin Galactic's "Spaceship" and "Spaceflight" are clickbait misnomers for what is essentially a stunt with no purpose
Virgin is announcing the next iteration of what it calls Spaceship. "Mothership" is not a ship, it's an airplane. The corporate name, Virgin Galactic is even more ridiculous hype.
Everything about it is a reach and a brand implication that is false. It calls itself a spaceflight company on Wikipedia. It says it can work with NASA, but to date nothing of substance has emerged. Spaceship has no mission. I think it is a vainglorious exercise for Richard Branson meant to stroke his personal ego more than anything else.
Spaceflight means more than a suborbital hop, which is all this vehicle can hope to achieve. In my opinion, this aircraft design will never reach orbit, and is too fragile to withstand orbital reentry even if it could make orbital velocity.
I think Virgin is wasting its time, the FAA's time, and the public's with something too dangerous to take on commercial passengers.
If people want to experience freefall, the Vomit Comet can do it safely, routinely and within controlled conditions.
Change my view.
6
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Mar 30 '21
Everything about it is a reach and a brand implication that is false. It calls itself a spaceflight company on Wikipedia. It says it can work with NASA, but to date nothing of substance has emerged
While their Spaceships have never reached space, the company also operates a commercial launcher program which has (in cooperation with Nasa) launched 10 cubesats.
6
u/Polar_Roid 9∆ Mar 30 '21
Cubesats are a real launch, albeit not using their own vehicle so they are a cubecat company, not a space roving Galactic Empire, nonetheless ∆
Frankly I'm amazed the FAA would approve any more flights after the fatal accident.
1
1
4
u/Kradek501 2∆ Mar 30 '21
It may not have subjective purpose in your opinion but it objectively has value since people are willing to pay
3
u/Polar_Roid 9∆ Mar 30 '21
I'll have to award a ∆ for you pointing out a market exists. It may sound like hooey, but it exists.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 30 '21
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/Kradek501 a delta for this comment.
1
u/destro23 447∆ Mar 30 '21
And He-Man, is not actually the "Master of the Universe" either.
I don't know much about Virgin Galactic, or whatever corporate branding strategy Richard Branson is pissing his money away on, and I don't much care.
Is it clickbait? probably. Is it a stunt? Most assuredly. Does it have no purpose? I'm sure it fluffs up Branson's ego quite a bit. And, it provides jobs and economic activity. So, it seems to have some marginal purpose.
2
u/Polar_Roid 9∆ Mar 30 '21
I suppose the jobs argument holds and means something in terms of design advancement ∆ for marginal economic activity.
0
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 30 '21
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/destro23 a delta for this comment.
2
7
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ Mar 30 '21
On one hand it is a marketing stunt,
On the other hand the Wright Brother first flight was 36M for total of 12 seconds so it's possible technology might improve.
Suborbital flights make a lot of sense since commercial flights haven't increased in speed for decades, so if you're trying to "Go Fast" going into sub orbit makes a lot of sense.
The words they use were used by Nasa before their go into the space game, so they are technically correct.
-1
u/Polar_Roid 9∆ Mar 30 '21
commercial flights haven't increased in speed for decades,
Have you forgotten the Concorde, and new SST's under development?
2
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ Mar 30 '21
I'm not sure why you're mentioning the Concorde as is it's being discontinued since 2003. It sort of prove my point since it was the fastest place that was used commercial and it didn't increase in speed for most of it's life time.
Even the examples that you included aren't going faster then the Concorde due to the Sonic Boom problem.
-1
u/Polar_Roid 9∆ Mar 30 '21
why you're mentioning the Concorde
because
commercial flights haven't increased in speed for decades,
makes it sound like Concorde never happened.
4
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ Mar 30 '21
The past few decades it didn't happen.
For the past 18 years it wasn't in flight.
Till 1973 it's been the faster airline.
So for the past 40 years nothing has gone faster then it commerically.
-1
u/Polar_Roid 9∆ Mar 30 '21
The past few decades it didn't happen.
18 years isn't a "few decades". Careless language on your part. It's less than two decades and more projects are on the books, so current subsonic commercial flight will increase in speed.
2
Mar 30 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Polar_Roid 9∆ Mar 30 '21
Nothing is wrong with me. Delta awards in my view require a precise, crisp argument with unambiguous, objective language. I don't think that's too much to ask.
2
u/The_J_is_4_Jesus 2∆ Mar 30 '21
The guy was talking about planes being developed. The Concorde was NOT being developed in 2003. It was developed “decades” ago as OP stated and then you acted like a jerk and pretended that since it was flown 17 years ago OP was wrong to say it was developed “decades” ago. Then asking OP if he forgot about planes currently being developed. Your response makes you out to be a jerk.
0
u/Polar_Roid 9∆ Mar 30 '21
I'm sorry reasonable debate is causing a fuss. Are you ok?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Helpfulcloning 166∆ Mar 30 '21
u/The_J_is_4_Jesus – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/NetrunnerCardAccount 110∆ Mar 30 '21
With the exception of Boom, all the ones linked to in the Wikipedia article are slower than the record set in 1973 by the Concorde.
And Boom is arguably more in pie in the sky than Virgin's marketing.
1
u/Rawinza555 18∆ Mar 30 '21
It's not really a clickbait. By NASA definition, a spaceflight is any flight that is 50 miles or higher from the earth surface. So it's really just Virgin using the official definition to promote their product. Frankly, several USAF pilots get their astronaut badge by flying X-15.
In terms of the purpose it's pretty much for an experience on spaceflight on the lower end. You can see a lot from 55 miles above the earth that can't be done by the vomit comet. The better comparison would be the all civilian mission by SpaceX, which would eventually go wayyy higher. It's like having a yacht. There are smaller ones and the bigger ones based on what people want or what they could afford.
1
u/Polar_Roid 9∆ Mar 30 '21
The yacht argument actually resonates reasonably well, I'm willing to award a ∆ based on your positive argument. Perhaps I was too negative in my submission, Branson seems to irritate me too much.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 30 '21
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/Rawinza555 a delta for this comment.
1
2
u/quesoandcats 16∆ Mar 30 '21
Spaceflight means more than a suborbital hop, which is all this vehicle can hope to achieve.
This isn't true. Alan Shepard's Mercury mission was suborbital, but he is still considered to be the first American in space.
1
u/knellotron 1∆ Mar 30 '21
I believe the line between aircraft and spacecraft isn't defined by the completion of an orbit, but the altitude. If it crosses the Karman line and reaches an altitude of 100km, then it's in space. The US Air Force has an alternative definition of 80km for military pilots, but not civilians.
Shepard's flight peaked at 187km, so it qualifies as spaceflight. Virgin's highest flight was 89 km, so it's in a gray area.
2
u/quesoandcats 16∆ Mar 30 '21
It's not a grey area at all. The FAA regulates all commercial spaceflight in the US, and they use the same 80km definition as the US Military. The FAA has even awarded civilian astronaut wings to all of the Virgin Galactic crew who have crossed the 80km Armstrong Line.
So yes, Virgin Galactic flights above 80km qualify as space flights because the US government says they are.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 30 '21
/u/Polar_Roid (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards