39 thoughts on “The Virgin Galactic Mess”

1. I’ve never been able to comprehend the Virgin Galactic biz model. (perhaps someone here could help?)

   Okay, their aim is to launch, once or twice a day, 6 customers for a very brief flight, which will include a few minutes of 0 G. Price? About a quarter mil per person.

   Just how large do they think the potential client list is? Unless someone is quite rich, they wouldn’t drop a quarter mill on a brief joyride, so that narrows down the list by a lot. Out of those that remain, how many are both healthy enough and adventurous enough to be interested?

   What I’m getting at is that IMHO it looks like they’d have initial customers, but would soon deplete the pool (in part because the novelty wears off fast).

   Frankly, if I had a quarter mill to drop on this sort of thing, I’d prefer to take a few rides on a commercial “vomit comet” cargo plane (5k, at places like http://www.gozerog.com/), where the 0G doesn’t last as long, but there’s a lot more room to have fun (plus several repeats per flight, yielding more total 0G time that a VG flight). I’d also go for a joyride in a private jet fighter, such as the MIGs for hire in New Mexico . I’d have to figure out some other way to spend the remaining 230k.

   Perhaps, if VG’s “flight training” includes things like fighter rides and vomit comet rides, I could see it being viable, at least for a bit… but I’ve seen no sign of it. I’m also very dubious as to what sort of training they can come up with for passengers who are essentially cargo.

   My point is that even if they solve the technical issues, how is their business plan long-term viable? The only way I can see is if it leads to a “space ship 3” with a bit better performance, which is launched and then goes on a longer suborbital flight to an actual destination. (“Fly from LA to Sydney in 1 hour!”) That, maybe, I can see a limited market for even at those prices, but just up and back? I don’t see SS2 being viable.

   1. I think the appeal is to be able to say that you’ve been in space (assuming they get the performance up to where SS2 can cross the Karman line), see the Earth from higher than anybody but orbital astronauts, get several minutes continuous free fall, experience the acceleration and the danger, and so forth.

      But I don’t have a clue how many people are really willing to put cash on the barrelhead and go, so I have no insight to give on the viability of their business plan.

      1. The Von Karman line is nothing more than a mileage marker.

         Asking where space begins is like asking where the ocean begins — is it the high-tide line, low-tide line, navigable depth? The answer depends on who’s talking and what they want to do. Similarly with space. At 100,000 feet, your survival time without a pressure suit is as short as it would be anywhere in the solar system. For some astronomical observations, on the other hand, even ISS is still within the Earth’s atmosphere. There’s nothing really special about 100 km.

         1. Captain Obvious to the rescue! You mean there’s not a signpost up there saying “Welcome to Space!” when you cross 100km?

            The point is that the Karman line is a fairly well known arbitrary definition of space, and was used by, for example, the Ansari X Prize. So your average SS2 passenger (assuming that “average” has a useful meaning n such a group) might be interested in “officially” getting into space. Even without a pressure suit.

            FYI, my aerospace engineering brethren who work primarily on satellites tell me that they consider “space” in one sense to be higher than about 500 km; that’s about the altitude at which they start mostly neglecting drag as a source of disturbance torques they need to deal with in satellite GNC.

2. There are no MiGs for hire in New Mexico, or anywhere else in the United States. “For hire” is a legal term for a class of operations that are deemed to be illegal.

   As for the rest — you mistake your personal likes and dislikes for the general opinion of mankind. There were many people who saw no reason why anyone would want a computer on their desk or desire to travel in an aeroplane which was *clearly* inferior to Count Zeppelin’s dirigibles. You may see no reason to go into space except to get to Sydney, but many other people do.

   As for the $250,000 which you find so outrageous, I’m reminded of a post a short while back where you wanted someone (presumably NASA) to spend many billions of dollars merely so you could see television pictures of an astronaut on Mars. It seems odd that you would value passive television watching much more highly than active exploration, but to each his own.

3. @ Edward Wright;

   Okay, when I said “for hire” I used the wrong term, I meant “rent some instructor and stick time and learn to fly a MIG fighter”.
   http://www.jetwarbird.com/
   And yup, that’s a MiG, and it’s in New Mexico. What’s illegal about it?

   I think you are mistaken regarding me wanting NASA, or anyone, to spend billions so I could see TV footage of an astronaut on Mars. I’m utterly opposed to the “flags and footprints for billions” concept.

   Think of Concorde. It was a magnificent experience; you got to see the word from the edge of space (11 miles up), seeing the curvature of the earth and the blackness of space (well, mostly), travel at mach 2, and be wined and dined as well as arriving hours sooner than you otherwise could. Even with all that, they still couldn’t make it pay, because they often couldn’t sell tickets for enough. The client base was just too thin.

   Virgin Galactic at a quarter mil a ride? I really don’t see it being fiscally viable in the long term. Like Concorde, there will be initial demand, but after that, the novelty wears off.

   Now, if we were talking actual earth orbit, that’s another story.

   I guess time will tell.

   1. Virgin Galactic at a quarter mil a ride? I really don’t see it being fiscally viable in the long term. Like Concorde, there will be initial demand, but after that, the novelty wears off.

      Are you unaware that they have hundreds already signed up?

      It’s very foolish to do a demand analysis based on your own personal preferences.

      1. Hundreds have signed up? Okay, it looks like over 700 have. I have to admit, I’m surprised. That’s quite a bit higher than I’d have guessed, so looks to me like initial demand is higher than I’d thought.

         And BTW, I’m not doing a demand analysis (that’d take pages of data I don’t have), I was just questioning the biz model on the demand side (Did I let my own preferences influence me? Yep… but I have a major interest in space and I’m a pilot, so I’m not exactly averse to this sort of adventure).

         When I look at someone’s business model, I always question it. If you think I’m bad on VG, you should see me when I’m nitpicking a business model professionally – I’m far worse.

         What’s foolish is not questioning things.

         1. I’ve re-read my own post, and I do see how I could come off as basing my opinion far too much on my own preferences. To a large degree, I was, via trying to put myself in the mindset of one of their average customers. This is a very poor methodology, but it’s often the least bad way of getting a feel for customer base dynamics. Usually though, this is leavened by market research data, which I don’t have, so I just winged it.

            I’m still quite dubious regarding their business model, but I am certainly open to the fact I may well be wrong. In fact, I rather hope I am; I’d love to see space tourism succeed and grow.

         2. According to the Wikipedia article on SS2, Virgin Galactic intends to procure five vehicles. At a guess, that sounds like they could sustain two, maybe three flights a week. Say they fly two a week 48 weeks of the year and each (again per Wikipedia) carries six passengers. That’s 576 passengers per year, so a 700 passenger backlog would last not much over a year. Steady state, of course, would require selling almost 50 tickets a month. I will be surprised and impressed if that happens, but perhaps we’ll see.

            1. According to the Wikipedia article on SS2, Virgin Galactic intends to procure five vehicles. At a guess, that sounds like they could sustain two, maybe three flights a week.

               That seems like a very low guess to me. Why wouldn’t they be able to do daily flights with each vehicle?

            2. Why wouldn’t they be able to do daily flights with each vehicle?

               The time required to change out the hybrid motor between flights. Burt Rutan said SpaceShip One was designed for one week. I’ve heard talk about 2x per week for SpaceShip Two, but it will presumably take time to work up to that level. (This limitation is perhaps one reason why SpaceShip Two is so large.)

            3. Oh, good Lord, that hybrid motor is just the gift that keeps on giving.

   2. That’s flight instruction. It’s not operation for hire or “joyrides.”

      Again, you may see no value in spaceflight beyond “novelty,” but that doesn’t mean no one does. I don’t think any of the researchers developing experiments have cited “novelty” as a justification.

      1. @ Edward Wright

         I never said I see no value in spaceflight aside from novelty, and my actual opinion is quite the opposite regarding many forms of spaceflight, including space tourism.

         I did pretty much say that about Virgin Galactic’s spaceflight, at least so much as novelty is a major component, so fair cop if that’s what you meant. I’ll stand by that; a big part of their allure is the novelty. That’s a business dynamic on the demand side that’s fairly common, such as climbing Everest on an escorted tour. I can see the allure of climbing Everest, though I’ve no interest in doing so personally. It might be a worthwhile (though admittedly flawed) demand analogy for the VG model; there’s a finite pool of people who have the prerequisite fiscal means, time, money, physical capacity, and interest, and the novelty aspect seems to be wearing off. The prices have dropped by almost 2/3 from a few years ago (It’s now around 10k, which makes it an option for vastly more people than 250K).

         Will Virgin Galactic face similar issues? The root basics of a business model are looking at the industry, market (including demand), and competitors. Doing that with VG is nearly impossible; there are no competitors, and no soundly analogous businesses. That leaves demand. The fact that 700 people have signed up (that’s about 100 flights) shows that demand, initially at least, is more than I’d thought, so obviously I may be wrong. However, when it comes to long term demand as they up flight rates, that remains to be seen.

         1. I’m with you, man, on the concept of a more cost-effective package of thrills.

            But then again, maybe, for some people, the high cost is a feature and not a bug? That the high price of the experience excludes those beneath one’s particular station?

            1. Yes, for many, like a Cartier watch, it’s a positional good.

         2. I did pretty much say that about Virgin Galactic’s spaceflight, at least so much as novelty is a major component… I’ll stand by that; a big part of their allure is the novelty.

            Merely reiterating a statement without data proves nothing. Your statement is still based on a single datum: *You* think novelty is a big component.

            That’s a business dynamic on the demand side that’s fairly common, such as climbing Everest on an escorted tour.

            Prices for *every* form of transportation drop over time. I’m not surprised that climbing has followed suit. Why do you assume space travel won’t drop in price also, or that that’s a bad thing?

            Also, the two activities are not equivalent. Climbing is primarily a recreational activity, with a small amount of science thrown in. Space appears to be about 50/50.

            Doing that with VG is nearly impossible; there are no competitors,

            Correction: you are not aware of the competitors. You ought to do more research before drawing bold conclusions.

         3. You want the first player to make absolutely insane profits, nothing brings in more capital faster. You do not seem to include XCOR and Blue Origin in your suborbital market.

            You should compare it more to a Roller Coaster. Over a century of thrill rides to nowhere and look at the evolution.

            America is a Nation of keeping up with the Jones’es and a quarter of a million is chump change to about 20,000 Americans and that is just one market.

            You have to remember that there is a paradigm shift taking place. This is the first time in history that the size of your checkbook actually determines who goes to suborbit-orbital space.

   3. AFAIK the Concorde was profitable for the airlines (e.g. British Airlines). It wasn’t profitable for the airplane manufacturing company though. They never sold enough airplanes to recoup the R&D costs. Once the manufacturer stopped maintenance and parts they had to stop the flights.

      I think one of the major issues was that the Concorde was optimized for Mach 2 flight and the engines are uneconomic at subsonic speeds. Since you could only go supersonic over the sea this restricted them to shore to shore transatlantic routes only. I don’t think it ever had enough range to do transpacific flights.

      If they made engines which are efficient at different velocities (e.g. ADVENT) I think a SST would have a good chance of becoming viable mass-market again. There are also a lot of people working on how to mitigate the sonic boom issue and that could also turn the market possibilities around.

4. I have to agree with the A CJ, I just don’t see it.
   IMHO the clients have purchased a ride to space thinking it will be the serene overview weightless experience we see from orbital video. . I think the reality will be more like a 10 min terrifying rough and violent roller coaster.
   Once the initial novelty is gone I just don’t see an on-going business to support the level of investment.

5. Proof is in the doing. I would not invest in it, but I applaud those willing to take the risk. You can’t have success w/o risking lots of failures.

   1. I want to run by everyone my adventure-seeker business plan.

      In the spirit of the Bear Grylls man-vs-wild, I would like to run a Man-vs-House-and-Auto camp.

      With little in the way of training and prior experience, participants will have to

      1) Change a faucet cartridge,
      2) Replace a set of spark plugs (to make it interesting, on a front-drive car with a V-6 engine),
      3) Repair a toilet leaking from underneath,
      4) Bleed a set of brake lines,
      5) Repair a freeze-burst section of copper pipe,
      6) Pass a smog inspection after getting an EGR trouble code,
      7) Trap the squirrel living in the attic.

      1. A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

         -Robert A. Heinlein

      2. 1) Change a faucet cartridge,
         2) Replace a set of spark plugs (to make it interesting, on a front-drive car with a V-6 engine),
         3) Repair a toilet leaking from underneath,
         4) Bleed a set of brake lines,
         5) Repair a freeze-burst section of copper pipe,
         6) Pass a smog inspection after getting an EGR trouble code,
         7) Trap the squirrel living in the attic.
         
         Paul, that’s an interesting business model! Quite challenging for the participant, and this would have great novelty value for many.

         I assume you have begun the required paperwork to begin the lengthy process of obtaining the necessary permits, waivers, environmental impact reports, etc?

         If so, I see a few issues remaining. I’ll address them in sequence;
         #1 and #3 requires union membership for the participant. This could perhaps be obtained by offering the union a blanket fee. Item 2 and 4, the car, likewise, with of course OSHA filings included.

         Item 5, the burst pipe. I’d suggest mandating that it be replaced by PEX line or similar to avoid future freezing. Physically, this is incredibly easy to do, but will of course require all sorts of permits, fees, waivers, union and county approval, etc. I estimate 15 minutes for the physical part of the job, and 150 hours for the paperwork side.

         Item #7 is the real show stopper. Is the squirrel a willing participant? If so, can you prove you’re paying the squirrel at least $15 per hour? What is the purpose of the trapping? If it’s removal from his current abode, have you filed the needed paperwork under the applicable landlord-tenant act in your state? Have you provided the squirrel with an eviction notice in a language he can read? Have you attempted to remeadiate the issue via counseling and.or binding arbitration? Is the reason for the eviction discriminatory, such as the landlord objecting to the squirrel’s race or cultural practices? You’re on very dangerous grounds with this one; I’d suggest attending sensitivity training in order to overcome your objections to the squirrel rather than pursue this unjust cause.

         1. Yeah, that’s the point. Each of those items is at least as difficult as the thing Bear Grylls does on TV . . .

6. Edward,

   I think I recall you being in the business. That and a recent Mythbuster episode (that seemed little to do with myth busting as much as an excuse) makes me wonder. Has anyone considered replicating a U-2 vehicle just to provide the view? It just doesn’t seem all that difficult to design and build the aircraft. Perhaps you can’t get to the USAF performance levels, but 60,0000 to 70,000 would be quite impressive a view and could last hours without the free fall sickness. As noted during the flight, the only people at a higher altitude where stationed on ISS, which is some bragging rights for those who pay.

   Just seeking your thoughts.

   1. Getting it certified would probably render it unaffordable.

   2. Leland,

      From what I’ve ready, the speed window between stalling and overspeeding in a U-2 was really narrow. Took some serious skills to fly that thing way up high.

      1. That was also true of the Ford Trimotor. But I’ve seen some old footage of a Trimotor performing multiple loops at an airshow. I don’t know the name of the pilot, but whoever it was had awesome skills.

   3. Has anyone considered replicating a U-2 vehicle

      Scaled Composites did it with Proteus, and the Airbus Perlan II project is attempting to do it with a sailplane.

      1. To others as well, but since I asked you directly… Thank you Edward for the response.

         I was thinking Scaled Composites when I asked, because I would have thought White Knight 2 would have such altitude capabilities (which according to Wikipedia, it does have a 70,000′ Service Ceiling). Both Proteus and White Knight 2 don’t really have a passenger capability, unless you include the carry aboard Spaceship 2. An extra seat or two I think would sell, but that’s just me.

         Same goes for Perlan II, but that’s a very interesting concept. For instance, a balloon can provide the same view (better really in terms of altitude), but the way back to Earth is a problem for most passengers. A glider would give very long loiter times and a safe trip down. 90,000 feet ought to be a view worth tens of thousands to obtain.

         There is another issue that just hit me. If Scaled Composite provided a high altitude passenger service, that would certainly compete for the business of SpaceShip 2. And I think one aspect would be, as Rand suggests, certification. A high altitude airplane or glider providing passenger service is a different animal than a spacecraft launch in terms of certification. I suspect the same is true of the MiGs as experimental aircraft, which is why they are not for hire but for rent.

         Again, thanks for the responses. I was aware of unmanned high altitude research aircraft, but not the manned aircraft.

   4. There was a video on the ‘Net about a journalist getting a ride in the 2nd seat of a U-2 variant. The Air Force pilot was this no-nonsense techno-geek kind of guy rather than the stereotypical fighter pilot with swagger — when the space suited journalist whined “what do you do when your nose starts to itch” the Air Force guy instructed “just don’t think about it.”

7. VG’s problem isn’t their business model.. it’s their failure to launch it.

   1. Yes, it’s a design/management problem, not a market issue.

   2. I agree with you there.

8. About business models:

   http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-bransons-virgin-galactic-space-tourism-bad-business-model-2015-7

   1. Another Poli Sci professor claiming to be an “expert” in space business models? Isn’t that John Logsdon’s territory?

      This is like “pediatricians against nuclear power” back in the 1980’s.

9. The “journalist” in the U2 was Top Gear’s “Captain Slow” James May on a show made in 2009 for the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11.

Comments are closed.