Comments on: Virgin Galactic lays off 40 workers

By: Royal Hiney

Royal Hiney — Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:00:56 +0000

It might be a better idea if he tried to fly over Antarctica. There is no proof that nobody ever crossed that continent. It could be a barrier that if crossed you’ll fall off.

By: Royal Hiney

Royal Hiney — Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:48:44 +0000

They can’t even get 67 miles up. Yet some people think they got 240000 miles up!

By: BSJ

BSJ — Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:41:40 +0000

pzatchok

A fire could happen on the ground, before they even take off…

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Sun, 27 Jan 2019 21:52:58 +0000

In reply to Robert Zimmerman. I should add that I have always told such corporations to jump in a lake. This is unethical, and it tells me a lot about them.

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Sun, 27 Jan 2019 21:52:11 +0000

In reply to Dick Eagleson.

Dick Eagleson wrote: ” Virgin Galactic has jumped on this modest bandwagon for obvious reasons but were not responsible for starting it rolling.”

I would not be so sure. In my time I have been approached a number of times by big space corporations trying to encourage me to write an op-ed for them, or even to put my name on an op-ed they have written. The timing of events here is therefore most intriguing.

By: Dick Eagleson

Dick Eagleson — Sun, 27 Jan 2019 20:24:02 +0000

SS2 was never intended to make it to “orbital space” just to space. The informal definition of space has been 100 km altitude (62 miles, not 67), but the U.S. used a lower altitude dividing line (50 mi.) in the 60’s and a recent paper by Johnathan McDowell argues that 80 km./50 mi. altitude is actually a more reasonable dividing line. This notion is now being given serious consideration by the FIA. Virgin Galactic has jumped on this modest bandwagon for obvious reasons but were not responsible for starting it rolling.

By: wodun

wodun — Sun, 27 Jan 2019 03:24:44 +0000

That is a large staff for not much progress.

By: Edward

Edward — Sun, 27 Jan 2019 01:49:43 +0000

pzatchok wrote: “If they have a fire on board I don’t think they will care about their clothing sticking to them.”

Not all fires need be catastrophic. The Mir space station had a dramatic fire on board, but the astronaut and cosmonauts survived nicely. Fortunately, none of their clothing melt onto them, and they did not have to abort the rest of the mission and abandon Mir. As with Mir, there is a possibility of extinguishing a fire on SpaceShipTwo before everyone is suffocated, in which case it would be nice that plastic clothing did not melt onto skin.

On the other hand, if their clothing has melted onto their skin, then they would be begging for the craft to explode in order to end the suffering, whether they are on Mir or SpaceShipTwo.

By: pzatchok

pzatchok — Sat, 26 Jan 2019 15:35:38 +0000

If they have a fire on board I don’t think they will care about their clothing sticking to them.

Its a 30 minute flight at least strapped into a space the size of a large van. By the time they land they will be begging for the craft to just explode already and end their suffering.

By: BSJ

BSJ — Sat, 26 Jan 2019 10:53:39 +0000

Under Armour, and similar clothing, is banned from being worn by military personnel while in combat. Due to its material fussing and melting into the skin while burning.

I sure hope they are going to use Nomex instead of their usual fabric…