Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Virgin Galactic Passengers May Just Miss Going into Space

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the close-but-no-cigar dept.

Space 203

DavidGilbert99 (2607235) writes "According to the customer contract those signing up for a $240,000 flight on Virgin Galactic's spaceship the company will bring you 'at least 50 miles' above sea level. The problem is that the internationally accepted boundary for outer space is 62 miles above sea level — known as the Karman Line. Virgin is trying to get around the issue by claiming it is using a definition of space used by NASA — in the 1960s."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Does it really matter? (4, Insightful)

Orestesx (629343) | about 5 months ago | (#46981213)

Presumably they are looking to see the curvature of the earth and the stars set against a black background. If I saw that, I'd feel like I went to space, even if technically I did not.

Re:Does it really matter? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981249)

Dude, for the amount of money paid, I would sure want the whole 62 miles, as well as being serviced orally by an angel.

Re:Does it really matter? (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 5 months ago | (#46981323)

Dude, for the amount of money paid, I would sure want the whole 62 miles, as well as being serviced orally by an angel.

For the amount of money paid, I would have read the fucking contract! This is less fuzzy than "unlimited" plans, and look how that turned out?

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 5 months ago | (#46981639)

For the amount of money paid, I would have read the fucking contract!

People who can afford that kind of money for a joy flight won't really care about any scientific definitions of space. It's all just about having flown on the Virgin Galactic bragging rights. Like, being hauled up Mt. Everest by Sherpas, or a helicopter flight to Machu Picchu.

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46981745)

For the amount of money paid, I would have read the fucking contract!

People who can afford that kind of money for a joy flight won't really care about any scientific definitions of space. It's all just about having flown on the Virgin Galactic bragging rights. Like, being hauled up Mt. Everest by Sherpas, or a helicopter flight to Machu Picchu.

Besides, look at the bright side - if you know any of the people who signed up, you can enjoy a bit of smug intellectual superiority as you correct them when they're droning on in the bar for the umpteenth time about their trip to "space."

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

turgid (580780) | about 5 months ago | (#46982391)

In that case I'm going to paint "Jockanese Galactic" on my 10-year-old Vauxhal Vectra Diesel and sell rides up to the top of Shap Summit on the M6 for £200k.

A couple of dozen of those, and I'll be able to retire in style.

Ugh... dude... money isn't everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46982805)

Or perhaps because... you know, you get to go up higher than just about any other civilian? If i had the money to blow i'd do it in a heart beat. I'm still waiting on that flying car let alone a personal space-ship.

Re:Does it really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46982453)

For the amount of money paid, I would have read the fucking contract!

People with that kind of money pay other people to read the contract for them and summarize it.

Re:Does it really matter? (3, Interesting)

IDreamInCode (672260) | about 5 months ago | (#46981263)

As long as I was weightless, I wouldn't care.

Re:Does it really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981319)

It's overrated, IMO. How am I supposed to do that little hop while squeezing into my skinny jeans? How am I supposed to keep my moobs from flapping about? No thanks.

eee (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981757)

Exercise.

Re:Does it really matter? (4, Interesting)

RockClimbingFool (692426) | about 5 months ago | (#46981497)

If all you want is to be weightless, the Vomit Comet [gozerog.com] is a much cheaper alternative for about $5,000.

If you are paying the $245,000 premium, I would think they would want to get the official astronaut status of 62 miles.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#46981781)

If you are paying the $245,000 premium, I would think they would want to get the official astronaut status of 62 miles.

If I'm paying that much money, I expect to get laid in space and snort cocaine off the boobs of the flight attendants.

For most people, that's the price of a house.

So I fear most of us have little sympathy if these people are truly in space or not, and this purely boils down to "look at how much more money I have than you".

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 5 months ago | (#46982191)

It's actually 250k for 5 people so $50k per person. Although this is ALOT of money it's not outside
the possibility for the average software developer if they are willing to save for a few years.

And 20 seconds at a time is not really the same experience. You're basically on a roller coaster at that point.
There is no comparison between that and actually being able to eat a meal, do acrobatics, or have sex
in no gravity.

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 5 months ago | (#46982223)

I misread. It's 250k for 6 people so 41k per person. Still quite a bit more than an average vacation but
less than some people spend on a car.

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#46982641)

I misread. It's 250k for 6 people so 41k per person.

Hmmm ... so, why then does TFA say:

So far more than 700 people have signed up for a trip on SpaceShipTwo, each paying $240,000 up front to reserve their seat.

It sure doesn't read like they're paying $41K/person. It reads like they're paying $240K/person.

I'm not sure where you're drawing your conclusion from.

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46982707)

Even if it was 240 000$USD divided by 700 people (342.85$USD), I still wouldn't go. You can get a pretty decent mid-range GPU at that price!

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

Junta (36770) | about 5 months ago | (#46981571)

You can be 'weightless' at an altitude of 10 feet (for a very brief period of time). You don't have to be in space to be weightless, just in an environment that is accelerating at the same rate as you in the same direction.

But I take the point that physiologically there would be much difference between 50 and 64 miles up inside a vessel.

Re:Does it really matter? (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46982183)

You don't have to be in space to be weightless, just in an environment that is accelerating at the same rate as you in the same direction.

Um... not to nitpick, but you might want to work on your wording a little. If "your environment" were accelerating at the same rate as you, in the same direction, you'd be weightless for a lot longer than "a very brief period of time".

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46982621)

Um... not to nitpick, but Junta's "brief period of time" is clearly a caveat to the first sentence, not the one you quoted. That (the second sentence) is a generalisation of the first example, which is clearly meant to refer to a situation such as jumping off a wall on Earth.

Re:Does it really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46982625)

Until you hit the surface, dingus.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

deadweight (681827) | about 5 months ago | (#46981585)

You can be weightless for about $150/hr for plane and pilot. Granted it won't be in more than about 20 second incriments, but my kid and his friends love it: "Daddy make the plane do the weightless thing again" alternates with 'are we there yet".

Re:Does it really matter? (5, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46981789)

You can be weightless for about $150/hr for plane and pilot. Granted it won't be in more than about 20 second incriments, but my kid and his friends love it: "Daddy make the plane do the weightless thing again" alternates with 'are we there yet".

The looks you get when filing a parabolic flight plan must be priceless.

Re:Does it really matter? (3, Funny)

Ksevio (865461) | about 5 months ago | (#46982249)

Flight plans don't typically list the altitude for every point in the flight. ATC might have some questions though seeing the altitude on the radar if he's not flying VFR.

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46982375)

I figured as much (even went so far as to do a little research), but couldn't let a little thing like reality get in the way of a laugh.

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

jcgam69 (994690) | about 5 months ago | (#46982003)

If you go this route make sure the plane you rent doesn't use a gravity fed fuel system, otherwise you could have a short flight ending in a field.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 5 months ago | (#46982117)

20 seconds at a time is not really the same experience. You're basically on a roller coaster at that point.
There is no comparison between that and actually being able to eat a meal, do acrobatics, or have sex
in no gravity.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46982733)

I'm getting a weird feeling of Déjà lu.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 5 months ago | (#46981849)

As long as I was weightless, I wouldn't care.

There are cheaper ways to do that, and I doubt that Virgin's "spacecraft" is going to allow you to unbuckle and float around... There is always the Vomit Comet flying a parabolic zero G arc. I got a feeling it would be cheaper and you would get to float around for 25 seconds at at time.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46981957)

I doubt that Virgin's "spacecraft" is going to allow you to unbuckle and float around...

Why would you doubt that? It's exactly what they're planning on letting passengers do.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 5 months ago | (#46981871)

Skydive, it's cheaper... Who knows, it might be safer too..

Re:Does it really matter? (2)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 5 months ago | (#46982153)

Terminal velocity and ballistic freefall are mutually exclusive.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

Scud (3015185) | about 5 months ago | (#46982939)

You can experience weightlessnes at pretty low altitudes (5-6 miles) for about 2-3% of the cost Virgin charges. Google for "zero g aircraft".

Re: Does it really matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981283)

At $ 240K I might be a bit more concerned on the details

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 5 months ago | (#46981791)

Presumably they are looking to see the curvature of the earth and the stars set against a black background. If I saw that, I'd feel like I went to space, even if technically I did not.

So, you'd settle for a picture or a video? Well, I think I'm going to expect a bit more.

Re:Does it really matter? (1, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46982755)

For a dollar and a 240K resistor, I wouldn't expect much.

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46982775)

Sorry, I was replying to the AC above your post.

Re:Does it really matter? (5, Interesting)

Moike (986142) | about 5 months ago | (#46982281)

The 62-mile internationally-accepted boundary is a completely arbitrary artifact of the metric system. It happens to be a nice, even 100 kilometers. There is nothing physically distinct about hitting 100 kilometers that makes it become "space". NASA previously defined it as 50 miles because they also wanted a nice even-sounding number and they were using imperial units to express it. I agree that if I got into a rocket, blasted off, saw the curvature of the earth and the blackness of space (and felt weightlessness for an appreciable period of time), I would say I have been to space, whether it meets the internationally-accepted definition or not.

Re: Does it really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46983011)

Problem is you can get a similar thrill ride at Disney World.... For much less.

Well, that's.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981259)

Virgin is trying to get around the issue by claiming it is using a definition of space used by NASA — in the 1960s."

Well, that's gay. Before you think I'm a homophobe, I'm using a definition used in the 1960s.

Re:Well, that's.... (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 5 months ago | (#46981671)

You think the statement is "happy"?

Re:Well, that's.... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46981805)

Oh no, it still meant "homosexual" back then, but it wasn't considered derogatory.

"Gay" == "happy" was more like 1930's slang.

Re:Well, that's.... (1)

NoSalt (801989) | about 5 months ago | (#46981857)

I believe you meant queer [wikipedia.org]

Re:Well, that's.... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46982795)

As long as you don't think it's an Harley Davidson rider [wikipedia.org] , it's alright.

Pedantic at best (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 5 months ago | (#46981275)

If you know how far you are going above the earth, can't you decide for yourself before purchasing if that qualifies or not? Who cares what anyones definition is but your own if you are the one going? Is the problem if you step outside you may not die quite as quickly because you aren't over the imaginary line?

It's not like they are going to miss out on "Official Space Certification".

To me, as long as Virgin actually takes you 50 miles or higher, they have fulfilled what they said they would do.

Re:Pedantic at best (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981381)

You can't advertise "We're going to take you into space" and then put "we're not actually going to take you into space" into the tiny print. Anyway, I wouldn't pay that kind of money for anything less than a couple of orbits, which makes altitude nitpicking moot.

Re:Pedantic at best (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981625)

You can't advertise "We're going to take you into space" and then put "we're not actually going to take you into space" into the tiny print.

Why not? My cousin is a lawyer, and he says you can put anything you want in the fine print.

Re:Pedantic at best (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46981825)

You can't advertise "We're going to take you into space" and then put "we're not actually going to take you into space" into the tiny print.

Why not? My cousin is a lawyer, and he says you can put anything you want in the fine print.

Does your cousin's name happen to be Vinny?

Re: Pedantic at best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46983093)

Morally, you nitwit. You can do all kinds of horrific shit legally, but that doesn't mean that you are not earning yourself beachfront property in hell.

Re:Pedantic at best (0)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46981783)

You can't advertise "We're going to take you into space" and then put "we're not actually going to take you into space" into the tiny print. Anyway, I wouldn't pay that kind of money for anything less than a couple of orbits, which makes altitude nitpicking moot.

We're giving you 1 TB of storage*!

*We're actually giving you 1,000,000 MB of storage, but when the next advertising asshole gets hired he's going to abuse the definition all the way to 1,000,000,000,000 B.

Re:Pedantic at best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46982221)

1,000,000 MB ... 1,000,000,000,000 B

Same thing.

Re:Pedantic at best (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46982567)

1,000,000 MB ... 1,000,000,000,000 B

Same thing.

That you think that shows how much you've been fucked by marketing assholes and cheap corporations.

Re:Pedantic at best (3, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46982875)

It seems you are confused [wikipedia.org] . Anyway, good operating systems report file sizes correctly so there's no discrepancies to be concerned about.

A long way up (1)

Dzimas (547818) | about 5 months ago | (#46981315)

50 km is 164,042 feet. That's a long way up. Only 543 people have reached an altitude of 50 km or higher.

Re:A long way up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981365)

That's 544 maan. This one time, I took so much acid, I was orbiting Pluto. I got higher than *anyone* !

Re:A long way up (1)

sosuke (789685) | about 5 months ago | (#46981673)

50 miles is 80.4672km so even higher than you thought. https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

Re:A long way up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981899)

And people went higher than he thought since 543 people have reached an altitude of 50 miles or higher according to List of space travelers by name [wikipedia.org] .

Re:A long way up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46983073)

543 people out of ~100,000,000,000 humans that have ever lived. That's pretty rare.

Space is more about energy than location (1)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 5 months ago | (#46981317)

A reasonable definition of space would be based on orbital velocity, not location. Virgin galactic is selling a few minutes of zero-g, similar to, but considerably longer (and much more expensive) than the commercial vomit-comet flights. You could do something similar by dropping a capsule from a high altitude balloon.

Its true that they are in an area of very low air pressure, but that isn't particularly interesting to passenger .

Its fine if people want to pay for this, and if calling it "space" will give them bragging rights, its OK with me. It isn't really space travel.

The only reason I care is that this can confuse the general public into thinking that say Space-X and Virgin Galactic are doing anything remotely comparable, or thinking that an orbital virgin -galactic upgrade is a minor change, not a completely new and spectacularly more difficult problem.

Re:Space is more about energy than location (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981559)

So if I'm somewhere between the Sun and Alpha Centauri, but I happen to have no velocity with respect to the Earth, then I'm not in space?

Re:Space is more about energy than location (2)

leonardluen (211265) | about 5 months ago | (#46981827)

i don't know, but you are certainly breaking several laws of physics to do it.

Re:Space is more about energy than location (1)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 5 months ago | (#46981907)

Fair enough. I'm happy to count kinetic and potential energy, and them by my definition you are in space.

If you argue that then sitting on Mercury isn't "space", I'll point out that you will have to have been in "space" to have gotten there.

Re:Space is more about energy than location (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46982163)

Another problem is that objects routinely exceed orbital speed in labs (LHC for example), and people could theoretically travel that fast on Earth (say, in a train in a trans-Pacific tube). Better leave the task of defining "space" to people working in the field.

Re:Space is more about energy than location (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46982907)

You're somewhere between the Sun and Alpha Centauri? Great! Can you make a little detour to the local planning department office of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council?

What a complete waste of time and money (2, Insightful)

burisch_research (1095299) | about 5 months ago | (#46981339)

This is just insane. Going to 50 miles, or 62 miles, or even 200 miles straight up is utterly pointless. It does not advance us at all. It's a gimmick for people with too much money and not enough brain cells. Yes, it might be 'space' (for a few minutes) -- but so what?! This is really old tech. The USA did this in the 50s.

Getting to orbit is a lot harder, yes; but that's an actual achievement, instead of a publicity stunt. You can actually do useful stuff once you're in orbit. You can't do that from a jumped-up fairground ride.

I expect this whole fiasco will quietly fade from the public eye, once the backers realize that they've invested heavily in a pig in a poke. If they are smart, they won't plough (plow, for Americans) any more cash into this travesty.

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (1)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 5 months ago | (#46981513)

I agree that its nothing like going to orbit and doesn't really advance technology.

Its just a stunt, but if people want to pay for it, I'm OK with them wasting their money. A few hours in a Mig 29 sounds like more fun though.

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | about 5 months ago | (#46981627)

A Mig29 ride would surely be a lot of fun!

But I'm certain that going up in a Dragon would beat that by at least an order of magnitude.

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (4, Insightful)

neilo_1701D (2765337) | about 5 months ago | (#46981711)

Back in the late '70s and early '80s, there were these expensive gimmicks called "personal computers". They didn't do much at all. Heck; some needed you to flip a whole bunch of switches before they could load a paper tape!

Then there was this uber-expensing thing from some fruit company. Used a gadget called a "mouse", and you used the mouse to move boxes around on the screen. Cost $10,000 1983 dollars; back when the average income was just under $21,000.

--

Just because something is gimmicky today doesn't mean it won't become useful tomorrow. It does advance us, in terms of building an infrastructure that allows these flights to happen at all, in terms of learning to build space-rated hardware within a commercial cost basis. Then the price comes down, the $/lb comes down (over time) and we have a civilian launch system.

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (5, Insightful)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46981965)

Just because something is gimmicky today doesn't mean it won't become useful tomorrow.

Conversely, just because some gimmicky things in the past have become useful today doesn't mean that everything considered gimmicky today will become useful in the future. Two words for you on that: flying cars.

Being open-minded to technology doesn't mean you have to accept EVERY technology or technological idea as practical.

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (1)

neilo_1701D (2765337) | about 5 months ago | (#46982175)

Just because something is gimmicky today doesn't mean it won't become useful tomorrow.

Conversely, just because some gimmicky things in the past have become useful today doesn't mean that everything considered gimmicky today will become useful in the future. Two words for you on that: flying cars.

Nice counter-example :)

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (1)

14erCleaner (745600) | about 5 months ago | (#46982207)

we have a civilian launch system

Or at least a way to launch rich people and vapid celebrities to 50 miles above seal level. Unfortunately, we have no way to keep them from coming back (yet).

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | about 5 months ago | (#46982357)

It will not be useful, not ever, despite your most desperate wishful thinking. Your argument is invalid. 'Straight up' will never work (unless you have enough delta v to escape Earth's gravity, but that's not what we're talking about).

Infrastructure? This is not a driver for infrastructure. Oh wait -- you count Disneyland as infrastructure. Nuff said.

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981713)

You missed the point. This is not aiming at exploration, or directly advancing a given nation's scientific output, or world knowledge. It's tourism. Yes the "USA did this in the 50s", but you didn't.

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | about 5 months ago | (#46982525)

Fair point, I'll give you that. But this makes it still worse -- why on earth should we (as a species) be expending so much money (== resources) on such a futile endeavour? Personally, I'd be ashamed to take part in this.

Well, ok, it's still really cool, even if it's totally useless!

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46982045)

This is just insane. Going to 50 miles, or 62 miles, or even 200 miles straight up is utterly pointless.

Hey, guess what? Other people aren't you!

It does not advance us at all.

Why does it have to?

It's a gimmick for people with too much money and not enough brain cells.

Some people would say the same about watching football games, going to watch a funny movie, or posting on Slashdot.

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 5 months ago | (#46982253)

I suppose you say the same thing about roller coasters.

Re:What a complete waste of time and money (1)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 5 months ago | (#46982839)

This is just insane. Going to 50 miles, or 62 miles, or even 200 miles straight up is utterly pointless. It does not advance us at all.

You realize that the original roller coasters were wood, didn't go very far or fast. Now we have death pendulums and vommit ridden corkscrews.
Advancement into space is just like smart phones. Someone has to pave the road for that bleeding edge tech to do things we couldn't do before.
Don't complain that these front runners get bragging rights to almost space, because soon you and I will be able to go all the way into actual space for far less.

Sounds like another familiar lie... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981359)

If you like your space, you can keep it...

People paid for their astronaut wings (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 5 months ago | (#46981477)

At 50 miles, passengers will not qualify for a NASA astronaut badge.

Re:People paid for their astronaut wings (0)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#46981553)

I'm sure there's a feminine hygiene product tie-in there somewhere?

Re:People paid for their astronaut wings (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 5 months ago | (#46981841)

One to many Axe commercials "Nothing beats an astronaut"...

Re:People paid for their astronaut wings (1)

Scutter (18425) | about 5 months ago | (#46981575)

If they're not a NASA astronaut, why would they?

Re:People paid for their astronaut wings (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 5 months ago | (#46982951)

The Virgin Galactic pilots did. Actually, I just noticed that Virgin Galactic's own site claims that you will get them! lol! whoooops!

"Later that evening, sitting with your astronaut wings, you know that life will never quite be the same again."

http://www.virgingalactic.com/... [virgingalactic.com]

"On return to Earth these pioneering individuals will receive their Virgin Galactic astronaut wings and plenty of images and videos of their experience."

http://www.ulixtravel.com/virg... [ulixtravel.com]

Although, according to Space Law: A Treatise [google.com] it says:

In the US, any person going higher than 50 miles is awarded 'astronaut wings'

So maybe there is still a chance?

We know... (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#46981535)

We know you have a choice in Space Tourist Travel services and it looks like you picked the wrong one.

Re:We know... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46982985)

We are currently awaiting the loading of our complement of small lemon-soaked paper napkins for your comfort, refreshment and hygiene during the journey. Meanwhile we thank you for your patience. The cabin crew will shortly be serving coffee and biscuits again.

Not a big deal (1)

lbmouse (473316) | about 5 months ago | (#46981567)

I'll now wait until they hit the 62 mile mark before signing up.

Retro-space! (1)

NickDanger3rdEye (1206476) | about 5 months ago | (#46981637)

The hipsters will love it.

whoops! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46981741)

ha at first glance, I read this headline as "Virgin Galactic Passengers May Just Go Missing in Space". Glad that's not the case!

That line is "space"... (1)

joh (27088) | about 5 months ago | (#46981997)

... like a bathtub full of saltwater is "the ocean".

Re:That line is "space"... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46982757)

Sure, because a bathtub full of water is totally like 80% as deep as an ocean.

I doubt any of the passengers could tell the difference between 50 miles up and 62 miles up.

Yet another Virgin product... (1)

Alex Cane (3296683) | about 5 months ago | (#46982055)

that doesn't go the whole way.....

Re:Yet another Virgin product... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46983007)

I see what you did there.

good enough (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 5 months ago | (#46982099)

Hey, the sky is completely black while at the top of everest. If there's little to no gravity and you can see black stuff and look down and there's Earth, I don't think anyone will be complaining.

Re:good enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46982267)

You should be damn "high" and far away from earth before there will be "a little to no gravity"

And so it is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46982133)

Just like the "miracle of 3D printing" stories all fall apart under the harsh light of reading the story once, all this "private space" crap is just an amusement park ride for the idle rich.

Not 62 miles (4, Insightful)

YoungManKlaus (2773165) | about 5 months ago | (#46982523)

100km you imperial-unit-morons!

Re:Not 62 miles (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46982699)

Enjoy your welfare state, asshole.

Re: Not 62 miles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46983051)

We do. That's what non-asshole people do : having empathy, helping each other, community sense, having social conscious. If you deride that, YOU are the asshole.

Re:Not 62 miles (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46983037)

100 km, you missing-space moron!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?