So two spaceship companies plan to build suborbital tourist ships in the coming year. A Virgin Atlantic Airways offshoot, Virgin Galactic, and Oklahoma startup Rocketplane Ltd. both plan to offer tourist flights to space for about $200,000.
Okay, so I have 200 gs burning a hole in my pocket and I want to go to space. Who do I go with? Well, let me break it down with some info I’ve gathered in interviews with people from both companies:
Virgin Galatic
Ticket price: $200,000
Launch date: first tourist flights scheduled for 2008
Rocketplane
Ticket price: $192,000
Launch date: first tourist flights scheduled for 2007
At first glance, looks like Rocketplane will get me there sooner for less money. Cool. Maybe I should go with them. But let’s dig a little deeper.
Virgin Galactic
Personnel: executives, pilots, and other folks drawn from Virgin Atlantic Airways, a successful airline for 21 years
Technology: brand-new spaceships built by Scaled Composites, the company that sent the first (and so far the only) privately funded astronauts into space
Rocketplane
Personnel: head engineer is a 30-year veteran of Lockheed’s famous Skunk Works division, known for its innovative approach to aerospace design; chief test pilot is a just-retired NASA astronaut; other personnel drawn from various aerospace businesses
Technology: a used Learjet gutted and fitted with a rocket engine
[insert record scratch here]
Waitasec. A used Learjet? Well, actually just the fuselage and engines, according to that Skunk Works veteran, David Urie. Why? Because it’s cheaper than designing a new fuselage from scratch.
The design calls for flying the ship to 20,000 feet on the jets, then lighting the rocket to get to space. It’s theoretically possible, according to my contact at MIT’s Space Systems Laboratory, Dr. Raymond Sedwick. But it’s never been done.
And there’s the rub. These guys say they’ll fly paying passengers–and not just any paying passengers, but ones able to blow almost a quarter of a million dollars on a what amounts to a fabulously expensive roller coaster ride–in an experimental spacecraft built around a used business jet. Because its cheaper.
And there’s more, unfortunately. Turns out the rocket engine is going to be preowned as well, of the highly explosive liquid fuel variety. That’s because the built-from-scratch engine they were going to use blew up on the test stand. And something for me to follow up on: a tipster tells me that Rocketplane hasn’t approached the FAA about certifying their hot-rodded Learjet–surely a requirement for following through with their business plan.
Which leads me to wonder: just how serious is this company about following through with its business plan? Better find out before you give them any money.
At the very least, arrange for a tour of their hangar and see what they’re working with over there. And let me know what you find out; they wouldn’t send me any photographs of the work they say is in progress.
In the meantime, I’m putting my money on Virgin Galactic.
Update on 11/14/05
Be sure to hit these two posts for corrections and clarification:
How much money do you want to bet, Michael?
To the casual observer, one could imply that each ticket sold or deposit granted is a bet.
Branson announced last spring that VG had 350 deposits. Rocketplane last month announced that
it had 4 seats sold. Without any further information
once could imply this is a 100:1 bet
And Branson has committed how much cash to actually building something? $40 million in hardware vs?
Other things are not equal. One group had a Superbowl ad, a 60-minutes spot, etc. Tickets are refundable anyway.
Michael, will you take my money at 100-1? Anonymous?
It seems like you are trying to smear Rocketplane like BT smeared Virgin Atlantic. Isn’t it a little early for that?
Not trying to smear anyone, Sam, just to get at the truth. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong. And no, I won’t take your money, though I know you’re good for it! 🙂
Who’s BT?
Rocketplane will be a single stage to suborbit vehicle. SpaceShipOne (SS1) was a two stage to suborbit vehicle. SS1 left behind the jet engines, large wings and landing gear required for fully fueled takeoff at lower altitude (50,000 feet), while Rocketplane plans to carry them throughout the trajectory. The Learjet based Rocketplane also has a takeoff weight that is less than the combination of SS1 and White Knight. The highest altitude (120,800 feet) previously reached with a vehicle that used jet engines for takeoff and then switched to an onboard rocket engine was the Lockheed NF-104 Starfighter. Rocketplane has a greater technical challege to meet its payload and altitude goals than Scaled had to face with SS1 and WhiteKnight.
What I’ve never understood about
Rocketplane’s technical plan is that
they want to start with the Lear as
a baseline. They then intend to add
a new tail, new wings, new nose,
new windows. The fuselage is the
easiest part of an aircraft to design
and that’s the part they choose to
pin their design around? Used aircraft
fuselages are available for $15,000.
Is this going to save any money?
I’m actually very surprised at your claim that Rocketplane won’t send you any pictures? From my personal experience with them, I’ve seen that they have had wind tunnel tests open to the public, including many class tutorial. Rocketplane is very open because they want to support the industry as a whole, not necessarily create another competitive proprietary market such as the current business jet world.
With regards to Virgin and Burt Rutan, answer this question. If their vehicle was such a success; why do they not offer rides RIGHT NOW with their vehicle? No one here can tell me that 400,000+ a month in revenues wouldn’t make life a lot easier for them. My speculation is that their concept and approach is inherently unsafe, and they would not bet someone’s life on their design!
Another tid-bit, Virgin is NOT tied to Rutan. Virgin wants to provide a service and do not care who is actually providing the vehicle.
I myself am very impressed with the Virgin Business model, but to date, Rutan has not made a single vehicle that was a commercial success. He is a point designer and likes to be in the headlines.
Enough said…
Previous note was intended to read $400,000+ a WEEK in revenues!
Dude, please read this story about Rocketplane:
http://www.altweeklies.com/gyrobase/AltWeeklies/Story?oid=oid%3A148324
That article is outdated and misleading. Rocketplane received tax credits which is entirely different than receiving tax payer’s dollars. The way it works, for those of you not financially savvy, is that Rocketplane if they go into production do not have to pay up to a certain amount in taxes. They were not handed a fat $18 mil check from the state of OK. Very similar to Rutan’s winning of the X-Cup; he was only given the money AFTER he proved himself. If he would not have completed, he would not have received teh check. There are people that have a personal problem with Rocketplane and they constantly perpetual false information about Rocketplane. Rocketplane may be the media underdog, but my money is with them.
Found some great resources about Rocketplane, I’m not so lucky on finding information about Burt Rutan other than publicity stunts and NASA rants.
http://www.spacefellowship.com/News/?cat=22
Anonymous is wrong about the Rocketplane tax credits. Rocketplane was awarded these credits
which were then “Transferred” to a large bank
which had significant tax liabilities.
While these credits were worth $18 Million,
Rocketplane received about $13 Million in Cash
for them. These credits did reduce Oklahoma state
taxes by $18 Million dollars, a significant
amount of money for a poor state.
If anyone has any doubts merely read Oklahoma
State Statutes.