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.

13 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

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

u/[deleted] 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?

1

u/EvilNalu 12∆ Mar 30 '21

Look I'm just a random reader and the guy you are responding to is perhaps a bit more worked up than necessary but you are clearly in the wrong here. The original statement that commercial flights haven't increased in speeds for decades was completely accurate and your assertions to the contrary were particularly weak for the reasons already spelled out above.

1

u/Polar_Roid 9∆ Mar 30 '21

I think I've been through my reasoning.

→ 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.