Out of the two, I'd rather fly Spaceship 2 (or eventually 3), so much more sci-fi, and ofc the longer flight time is a bonus! But honestly I'd be thrilled to go on either 😃
A tesla roadsters window is actually larger than New shepherds windows, so the tesla roadster in launched in 2018 into mars orbit is the largest window in space
I can't imagine having to chose but that Space Ship 2 design just screams awesome. If I was to ride in a capsule (cost aside) I would hold out for orbital.
Got an idea: Omaze is doing a drawing for two tickets aboard Spaceship 2, lets all buy tickets, and whoever wins can give Tim a ticket. It would be way cooler than just donating money to get him a ticket because then a subscriber would also be able to ride with Tim to space!
It definitely shouldn't be forgotten that Blue Origin propulsively landed a rocket a month before SpaceX. But it should also not be forgotten that it took them two years longer to do it.
Landed a slower non orbital rocket, conpared to spacex's much faster orbital class rocket. Yep we shouldnt forget the details. afterall, its like comparing a honda civic with a ford f150 just because they are 4 wheeled vehicles.
I'm late to the party here but the DCX landed propulsively way before Blue Origin. SpaceX was the first orbital class to do it, and DCX was the first sub-orbital.
After Blue Origin’s tweet yesterday, we all know whos more petty now Edit: Im going to address some of the replies to this comment. What I said above was supposed to be lighthearted and not to be taken too seriously. We're all Team Space here after all. Its just that the Blue Origins tweet doesn't sit well with me after their lack of progress perhaps a little bit of what went down on the HLS contract. Now Im writing this right after Unity 22 had a safe flight but I just hope commercial spaceflight gets less competitive and more "Oh wow we're launching space tourist to space!!!". Maybe one day we'll see Blue Origin launch New Glenn before Rocket Lab gets their Neutron operational.
I don't understand why BO has to try to market NS for what it isn't. DUDE! its a reusable suborbital rocket, its not a small thing. Its not even scratching orbital requirements but it never was designed that way. Like the only way I can explain why BO would be so toxic about the suborbital space is that they somehow run into some gigantic roadblock with New Glenn, and have to back down to their one working vehicle.
this sort of competition is in the blood of, and is what drives these guys to make rockets. It's more of a friendly jab , but I do believe all of the companies are rooting for the other. If the side effect of competitiveness is multiple companies that can launch to space, i'm all for it.
I don’t get the extreme hate overs BO’s tweet. Like yeah BO is a fun punching bag and haha memes but what is with the hate. BO is VG competitor and that was just a bog standard marketing tweet. How is it any difference than Samsung mocking a newly revealed Apple product.
@@valerie80yearsago90 It is petty, but if you honestly consider them scum and hope they fail because of it, then I think you're taking it a little too seriously.
I remember the days of the guy in the orange suit who said he'd never actually fly to space. Glad to see you join all of us in the yearning to fly amongst the Stars! Cameraman on dragon doesn't sound so far fetched now huh?! Get us some good shots of the moon will you!
I can't wait for the endless parade of Instagram models and social media influencers shoving their "I've got spaceflight money" attitudes while duckfacing at 80km above the Earth's surface. One giant leap for mankind indeed.
@@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368, ... while some of that money spent will be reinvested by these companies back into R&D. Rich people already spend their money. This time, at least, we might be able to benefit from it in the form of new tech being developed. So, there are positives. And I, personally, would like to fly, too. Therefore, seeing more people flying = more system testing and bringing down the cost, makes me hopeful.
@@udilschik Think of how climbing mount Everest has become a cottage industry where rich people who have no business mountaineering are paying $100,000 to basically take a selfie at the summit. Humanity hasn't really benefited because of the long lineups right before the peak of Everest. It's just managed to cheapen the endeavour and make it so rich people have a story to tell at their next dinner party. I hope you're right and that some good will come from this, but I remain heavily skeptical from a lifetime of seeing how corporations operate.
@@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368, I think comparing climbing Everest and space tourism is apples-to-oranges comparison. Climbing Everest has lower potential for improving our lives while space tourism has a potential to pave the road for earth-space-earth travel, which would be a way faster method of transportation than a traditional airplane. Again, first, for the rich. Like Concord supersonic flights back in the day. But look at United now buying a new generation of supersonic planes - safer, cheaper for everyone. I think same will happen with traveling via rockets. While I don't see trickle-down-economics actually working in many areas, space seems to be a bit different. At least, to me.
@@udilschik Fair enough, but space tourism is less about pushing tech boundaries and more about cost savings and passenger safety. I won't diminish the importance of both, because those are huge for getting people off of the planet and developing the industry. But I just don't see it doing a whole lot for the exploration and advanced tech areas that are being paperclipped to the space tourism endeavour. And in the interim of years, perhaps decades, of tickets still costing tens of thousands of dollars even for a budget trip, so I'll still maintain that my Everest analogy remains apt. I bet there will even be a point where a rich person has to decide where to spend their $100k -- on a 10 minute space flight or on an Everest expedition.
I love this guy Everyday Astronaut because he breaks everything down for the non-US audience. You don't see that on the other streams. Way to go. All the best and success!
Virgin seems like a nicer ride, but I don't understand why they couldn't add 10k to the height. Sure it doesn't really make a difference, but getting over the "magic number" probably makes a big difference for marketing etc.
...They just need to add a couple of JATO's to the spacecraft. After the initial rocket motor is burnt out, light the JATO's and go a few miles higher.
not only do they need more fuel to do that, they would need a steeper angle of attack so they could actually break out of the atmosphere. the speed needed to do so at the angle they took would tear them apart in seconds, which is why virgin galactic is a big nono for me. they're trying to do something that has been proven time and time again to be one of the most dangerous flights, because no matter what if they try to actually enter space and break through the atmosphere, the shape of the plane is going to cause so much drag that they will begin to tumble and burn. this is why rockets shoot "mostly" straight up and out of the atmosphere, and also don't have wings. because wings are for creating drag in air to create lift, if you try to use them at the speed needed to exit the atmosphere and at the angle they took, the sheer force of friction would rip the vessel apart. this is why they didn't go over the magic number, because if they tried they would have all died.
They could just expand the rocket system probably but as said in the video it likely won’t make much difference. Also as noted this mission is actually a proper flight up and down whereas NS is a quick blast up and a fast fall back down. In terms of an actual passenger experience I think Virgin will offer the best experience for the money though. Even at 250k for either seat, Virgin gives you more of an actual experience to enjoy. I also personally think the flight element with 2 pilots provides a level of assurance that a fully remote system doesn’t - this is still space flight after all!
It's really awesome to see multiple companies entering the same market because it encourages competition. Hopefully they can improve each-other. So much cool stuff happening now in the spaceflight and tech worlds, can't wait to see it all unravel!
You really believe them landing vids? Them tiny fins wouldnt do sh!t. They just show the take off in reverse with some crappy MS paint effects. Anyone who plays video games or makes art n cartoons on a PC should be able to see all this cgi easy as? Its PS2 graphics at the best
The fact that they had the revealing at the Intrepid is really cool. (Would have been even cooler if the Enterprise was preserved and had the unveiling there)
They’re both really cool obviously and I’d love a ride on either. If I had a choice I’d probably choose spaceship 2 cause of the slower buildup to get to space and landing sequence, and I just think it’s a really comfy and cool concept I guess, just like taking a plane to space.
You'd be allowed to do a few rolls... What would you want to do during this time? It's 4 min of zero G only, so you'd prolly get like 3 min of "free time" out of your seat before being asked kindly to sit back and strap yourself in. It would be... nasty... for everyone, not just you, to get caught with high Gs and not being secured in your seat with belts and harnesses.
I'd start whacking it. What are they going to do? Cancel the flight by doing an emergency landing in Pittsburgh? Haha, eat my floaties, other passengers!
The Angry Astronaut already covered this in a recent video. Blue origin = no time out of seat. Virgin Galactic = 5 1/2 minutes of free floating around the entire cabin AND you can ask the pilots to point the ship in whichever direction you want. In my opinion, Virgin Galactic is the only way to go.
I'm watching this video in March 2023, and your comment at the end about grabbing a chance at either service is rather amusing, now that you're a Dear Moon winner :) You're going so much farther than the Karmann line, my friend!
then you wouldn't go into space at all lol. branson didn't even hit 300,000 feet, and space is like 324k feet. and if he were to even try to enter space, the entire ship would burn up due to the amount of friction from his shallow angle holding the ship in the burn zone for so long, that coupled with the extreme horizontal speed he would have to reach to even provide the lift necessary to do it would mean virgin galactic is just another high altitude flight machine that will NEVER enter space in any other form than a fireball.
@@dummyjoe7895 and so as nasa but the show goes on these thing’s do happen unfortunately and who knows when Jeff will have a disaster? I don’t wish that on him btw just pointing something out
@@alanbrady420 you know blue Origin, they don’t rush and blow up sats and cargo like SpaceX does. Blue origin has a 100% success record unlike SpaceX who is at 98.5% blue origin makes sure everything is right and they go slow.
@@dummyjoe7895 yes that’s because he’s hardly done fk all, Elon’s had numerous orbit launches and manned launches and he’s going harder then anyone we have seen before, so if your really a space enthusiast why the hate on space x which is far superior in comparison to Jeff who?
I am SO glad and relieved that you mentioned SpaceshipOne and Scaled Composites! It seems like everyone has completely forgotten about Burt Rutan and SpaceshipOne. It was his "feathered wing" design for re-entry that made this all possible.
We aren't making fun of Blue Origin because New Shepard is suborbital. We're making fun of Blue Origin because they're older than SpaceX and are only just now about to achieve suborbital crewed flight. Maybe we wouldn't make fun of them if they didn't brag so frequently about stuff they still haven't done.
Here we are two years later and BO is claiming New Glenn will launch this year, and both send a satellite to MARS and land the booster on the first try. It’s a good looking rocket, but come on man let’s get this show on the road and let’s also be realistic about its very first flight and what it will accomplish.
Not to mention one of their BE-4 engine, which they say will be 100 percent reliable since they’ll never push it past its limits, just straight up exploded before it could be delivered to ULA
Only if one of those explode, let's be honest, it wouldn't sell as a movie as it is going to probably be. There will be documentaries that's for sure. Edit: And btw TV won't be a thing by then haha
I love the way blue origin is a little more ‘traditional’, but being English , it just has to be Virgin Galactic for me. Have followed it closely for many years, and has just left me in awe. I dream of being able to fly on it one day.
New Shepherd is my favorite. It’s just amazing to experience a launch and also see the Earth from 20 km (60,000 feet higher) through those incredible windows. Not to mention abort system which would give me extra confidence, also I would feel good helping to fund New Glenn and a moon lander as opposed to simply more suborbital tourism SS2 is very close though and if it were my money paying for it, I’d go with this since it’s half the price while being almost as good
Love it! You know, a little bit of weed and a little bit of imagination it might work. 20 bucks! Like that. At least you come back home with the smile and sleep nice close fist knowing all your money still in your bank account
Would Blue Origin think about using the abort motor once they've separated to increase altitude? I'm guessing this would interrupt a period of free fall (or zero g), but once the two stages have separated there's no use for the abort motor, so why not use it to get higher (and give a better trip)?
From what i have seen it looks like a very unpleasend amount of g's that the passengers would pull when the system is activated, so i think its only suited for emergencies. It would probably also drive up the cost if they had to change out the abort system after every flight.
I don't think so, as the propellant for an abort is usually not ignited by an external source to be able to escape (I guess you mean that with abort motor?). It's called "hypergolic propellant" and nearly all of them are pretty toxic, so you wouldn't want to use them if there isn't actually a good reason to do so.
Actually the escape engine is a solid rocket booster, so the toxic part doesn't effect anything. Personally I wonder about using that solid rocket booster as well.
Chances are that at that altitude the SRM abort engine wouldn't really do much anyway. It's not optimised for use at those altitudes because of the unlikely nature of neading to seperate from the booster past MaxQ. Lighting it up would be useless at beast and wasteful at worst, so it's best to keep it handy for doing what it was designed to do.
Burning that engine to gain altitude would increase the re-entry speed, the higher you go up, the faster you come down, and thus require design changes (would need a heat shield) to compensate for the increased velocity.
My question is what Blue's plan is with New Shepard. Virgin is making plans to start flying from spaceport Cornwall, they've developed spaceship three. They seem like they want to make their suborbital flights more rapid and reusable, making them go more smoothly across the board. Oh, and then Virgin is also doing Virgin Orbit. Blue seems like they have no idea what they want to do with New Shepard other than occasionally flying people. [Edit] - I understand what New Shepard is for. People are acting like I don't understand the basic concept. All I am saying is that it doesn't seem like New Shepard has much direction on what the long term plan is, and I feel like it is just going to be retired after New Glenn starts flying.
It's being used to learn how to propulsively land a booster ahead of New Glenn, similar to the Grasshopper tests SpaceX did ahead of Falcon 9, as well as developing systems for their Blue Moon lander, which is similar to New Shepard in several ways. Basically, it's a test vehicle they've found a way to monetize by also using it for space tourism. It's also worth noting that BO has hinted they might try launching New Shepard from other locations.
As this very video explained, Blue is moving towards the New Glenn orbital rocket. They also compete for Moon landing vehicles, but lost to SpaceX selling a scaled down starship at only 3 billion $.
@@johndododoe1411 I am very, very much aware. I am hopeful that New Glenn will fly in 2023 as predicted, but I perceive that they don't seem to be working on making New Shepard very competitive, which I think is foolish.
Blue origin seems like obvious choice, if they price is close to the 250k price tag on the VO flight. Automated systems, less room more human error, new Shepard flies higher and has bigger windows so the view is defiantly better. Getting the traditional rocket experience that nasa astronauts experience is also a major bonus, being able to be in a capsule and experience traditional re-entry and a parachute glide back down to earth. The clean burn from the rocket propellants which are less harmful for the environment is a plus as well.
Of course I'd ride on either one or both.....if the price was right. But if I was rich enough for just one of them, I'd choose VG over BO. Super obvious to me: 4 minutes of weightlessness for both of them puts them on a completely equal footing on that absolutely key metric. But the longer total ride time of VG totally blows BO out of the water. And if the cost of BO is >= twice that of VG..... Choose BO over VG?? Are you kidding me?? NO WAY!!!
Also BO goes above 100 km / 62 miles, which is what most of the world defines as the start of space. Virgin "only" goes above 50 miles, which only the US considers the start of space.
@@phobos2077_ yeah. So? That’s how it is for now. Only successful and rich people can go to space, because it’s super expensive. What’s wrong with that? Soon it’ll be available for cheaper.
@@phobos2077_ tbh I think it's going to be cheaper than these suborbital flights in the long run. 250k is still going to be a huge amount of money, but I'd rather pay that for a roundtrip to the moon in a starship rather than a 4 minute suborbital flight lmao... And you can save up a million or 2 even as a relatively normal person given you have a decent job.
I’m just so glad to be in a world where more people can become astronauts and these billionaires get to see the world without borders and hopefully become better people like every astronaut has described
Apart from not paying much taxes Richard is a great dude. He always tries to show transparency and friendliness in his employees and companies. On the other side, I can’t count how many overworking stories I’ve heard from amazon employees
@@Stellar-Cowboy "not paying much taxes" is a rather generous way of framing "changing citizenship and moving corporate to other countries to avoid paying taxes". Branson's a leech and should have his knighthood for "services to entrepreneurship" revoked. He's just not as terrible a person as Bezos, but that's a low bar to clear.
@@Stellar-Cowboy is it really there fault that they don’t pay a lot of taxes. They’re just following what’s legal and if you have a problem with it blame the government who sets the rules
For Virgin Galactic you would probably need to do a lot of training, maybe some air force experience for handling supersonic speeds and all that would be a plus, but if you are dedicated and willing to put the effort in you could try out for it. For BO you only have to transition into a computer. Under current law you don't even have to undergo any actual conversion therapy. You just have to identify as a computer, which sounds much easier than all that training.
However, VG only goes just above 50 miles, which only the US defines as space. The rest of the world defines 100 km / 62 miles, to be where space starts, and BO aims for that.
I wasn't too excited about the space plane, but then I started thinking about how hard a vertical rocket is on the human body. I think for the average citizen of the future, space planes might be the ultimate way to get to orbit. Plus, they are just awesome.
@@m.tariqulislam6522 well, yeah.. That would be great, if it gets built. Each trip would be cheaper, and a lot smoother. I was thinking more near term in the future I think. But who knows, maybe we will have a working space elevator soon. As things stand, I could see this being developed into a just barely orbital plane 10 years from now if they try. Then a vehicle already in space could rendezvous with it, taking you to your space hotel or job or whatever. It wouldn't even truly have to be orbital to do that.
Hey Tim! My son and I did Virgin Galactic public testing at NASTAR in Hatburo Pa. Got up to 6.2g. Yes I passed out! But it was the present profile with a movie screen in the gondola being played. So I kinda went to space...visually . What a hoot it was to participate to further commercial space flight. Got a video of me passing out too. ,👍. Great comparison video. Really enjoyed it Thanks
Gotta question that I'm stumbling with. On the VG ship, what is the purpose of the angled nozzle? Seems to me that non-symmetrical shapes like that would cause some effect, obviously a desired one, but I can't figure out what that would be. Any ideas?
I've been wondering that for years now. I think it has something to do with the thrust not going through the center of mass. Its not even a nozzle at an angle but the nozzle rim is angled. But yea, maybe it needs counter torque to be stable
It's to assist the pitch-up maneuver. Presumably it's more efficient and reliable than using aerodynamic control surfaces, particularly since they can lose some effectiveness at higher speeds.
That's the direction and angle they need the thrust. It burns for one minute, and the plane is pitched up for that span. As for supersonic effects of asymmetrical shapes, I think its location obviates the question.
Thanks Tim for another excellent video. I'm laughing as I read all these excited people. Did they miss the evidence of their own eyes? Firstly, both of these systems rely on the statistical likelihood of surviving a controlled crash. The BO capsule has no control over it's landing site and crashes onto a random spot in the desert, where the passengers will have to wait for recovery, while hoping that the vehicle doesn't go boom. Due to weight versus total rocket impulse issues, the VG rocket glider doesn't get past the 100 km line, has flimsy main gears and wheels, and has a nose skid instead of wheels. In the aviation world, it's return to the ground is known as an emergency landing. Neither system appears to be commercially viable, as both will suffer damage and require inspection and repair after every flight. The funniest part ... VG needs four pilots to get six passengers not quite into space.
Thats a ridiculous comparison, orbital and suborbital flights share no where close to the same amount of risk. You might aswell be saying "if I'm going to take the risk of driving a car I might aswell break the land speed record in a rocket car".
"that money" - it's not like orbital will only be double the price of suborbital. it's a completely different beast. for the next 5-10 years, orbital flights will be out of reach for anybody but the super rich. what VG and BO are offering is well within the reach of millions of persons all over the world. USA alone probably some 5 million households that can reasonably affort those jumps, many probably will in the coming years.
@@B33t_R007 Starship flight will cost ~$2 million. It can carry ~1000 passengers as Earth to Earth configuration and 100 passengers as long duration flight configuration. If we assume that ~300 passengers can fit on board of orbital tourism Starship, price per ticket to orbit would be something around $6666.
10 minutes for 28 million dollars is a really expensive carnival ride. Imagine someone throws up during the flight, then it would be 28 million for ten minutes trapped in a floating puke capsule :D
Heck yes, I'd fly on either. I would have gone up in the shuttle the day after Columbia exploded. I would have gone up on anything. Prices probably won't come down to where I could afford it in this lifetime, but I can still dream.
"Prices probably won't come down to where I could afford it in this lifetime" Daily reminder that we common folk will probably never afford to go up there. Why? Because democracy! Its so surreal to think about it, why that egg head can go up there even though there are more deserving people who should be in his place instead.
I love these videos and glad you are spending so much time on them. The explanation is so clear that I could understand everything even though I was away from the screen for most of it.
They'd just say the windows are curved, causing electromagnetic refraction mirages to make the horizon look curved or something. Doesn't have to make any sense, as long as they use enough fancy words that they can convince themselves of anything.
I think this will always be for the elite - like Concord was. I can't see the fuels and prep costs ever coming into Joe Average territory. Hopefully this is the start of future larger ventures like trips to a moon base. It's a truly an amazing time to be around though.
Concorde is a good comparison I think but that means it wouldn't be out of reach for many if one would really be determined to go. Pretty sure the cost will go down further in the future. Also with reustability like Starship aims for even the cost of getting into orbit could go down massively long term.
Maybe with SpaceX' Starship. Aiming at launch costs at 2M USD a passenger version with 200 passengers could possibly offer rickets at a theoretical 10,000 USD. This is of course sci-fi at the moment but a lot of people would be able to afford that or several times that. If/when Starship goes into service, space tourism including hotels in orbit will pretty much be a given.
With Concord at least you we going somewhere. SpaceX is working on what is essentially travel by reusable ICBM. California to Europe in 30 minutes, potentially for $15K.
@@codediporpal Yeah I don't see that point to point transport thing happening just yet. Even if safety and reusability works out like it should, theres still the problem that this could easily be mistaken for a nuke in the air.
I'm very excited that there are two different services going live at about the same time. That's competition which is very good for the consumer. Prices will come down and the experience will be constantly improving to try to edge the other out.
When I was a kid, I hoped to go to space to celebrate the 2000 new years. By 1995 I realized how absurd this was, And now a quarter century later, I realize my son will likely have this opportunity in his lifetime.
Correction: acceleration in Newtonian physics is defined as experiencing a change in velocity, and as you coast up to your apoapsis, your velocity is decreasing, even though you don’t feel it because you and your spacecraft are accelerating at the same rate.
Depends on cost for longevity and how the economy in general is. Think moment, you can't ride if you can't afford it or get funding for it. There a chance people will get bored with just going up and down. I think in the long term, they need go places in suborbital. Then i think it will be more sustainable.
I heard an interview once with Branson where he said his goal is to develop the tech needed for point to point travel. (Go anywhere in the world in just a few hours.)
If Starship reaches it's design goal of 2 million per launch, and that cost is split between 100 passengers, that's 20 000 per ticket. I'd call that affordable, especially since you actually get into orbit instead of just getting a couple of minutes of zero G. And Elon has mentioned that if they do reach that pricing goal, their next goal after that is a launch cost of 1.5 million. And I believe they can do it. Falcon 9 has reached 10 flights for a single booster and they are now shooting for 20.
@@atk05003 there all trying to copy space X on that front but chances are musk will get that before others unless China cut corners and do it as its already copied starship
@@atk05003 Wasn't that long time ago? Ever since development got stalled due to the crash, it seem there wasn't any movement with VG to go that way. I think Sir Richard was fully onboard with it They've not really innovated since they bought the design from Composite.
@@Wrangler-fp4ei I'm not sure when that interview happened. It's possible they backed away from that plan, but either way, these flashy tourist runs are doing most of the research that will be needed to be able to use suborbital hops as a form of long-distance transit.
Watched the Gemini launch when I was a little boy,watched all the Apolo launchs,including the moon landing, the first shuttle launch, the building of the ISS.....now another milestone. Space tourism. Can't wait to see what will happen next.
Thank you for structuring this video for people who barely noticed spaceflight until the recent publicity about flights for non-astronauts being somewhat achievable for members if the public who aren't super-rich. They're starting from nearly zero knowledge, so there is very much a need for this vid. I remember being 10 years old when Gemini and the X-15 were both flying and not understanding why the X-15 couldn't orbit - hey, it reached space. Took quite while before I came across something that explained it.
Exciting times indeed! I think the total experience Virgin offers will be highly compelling. Jet flight, Separation drop, Rocket flight, Zero G, Feathered reentry, Gliding flight, Runway landing.
Hey Dodd, just a small correction for 4:00 min. When you shut off the engines you are actually starting to accelerate towards Earth. You actually covered this pretty well in a previous video. Keep up the great work!
I am a veteran fan of the space race, as kids me and my best friend started making a scrapbook of newspaper clippings as news of Sputnik, Laika, Vanguard failures, Shepard, Glenn etc. was being reported. BTW, I am still broken hearted over little Laika to this day....the bastards! In any case, I am 75 years old now and my time has passed at becoming a space tourist as I don't exactly have a spare $250K laying around for a 10 minute to maybe a 2 hour adventure, but some of you will......enjoy kids, carry on!
I would like to ride on SpaceShipTwo far more than Blue Origin's rocket. It seems more bang for the buck with a nice ride up and down. The other is simply more like a rollercoaster ride.
same, i think its great to have options tho. Like NS probably has almost no risk to ride it considering the great redundancy in its design, Spaceship does have the better option I think just because of its originality and gliding up/down. Then the step up would be tourism dragon for a way longer time in orbit, looking down at earth for an amazing sight, and then why not throw in starship? 1000m^3 to place amenities for tourism? I can't wait to get my tesla tequila while zooming around the earth... if the price ever becomes low enough, of course!
@@peterwhitey4992 Won't matter much when you barely have enough time to catch your breath after the launch before you need to scramble back into your seat and prep for a rough re-entry. Not how the glory that is viewing earth from space should be experienced.
@@peterwhitey4992 yeah, at this point such a difference matters little. Unless you go substantially higher then suborbital flights will only get you do much airtime, and without a fully reusable solution, you can't get the price low enough to even be worth considering. I still think spaceX's starship will eventually win that race, but that will still give plenty of time for others to at least try to conceive their own solutions
@@mobiuscoreindustries - For people who are taking such a trip, because they want to have been to space, it makes all the difference, since most of the world does not recognizing that altitude as space.
While I'm far more excited by SpaceX's efforts with the Starship, I can appreciate the work these companies have done to make the experiences as safe and enjoyable as possible. They're more like amusement park rides though in my opinion compared to orbital flights where you actually get time to soak in the views from the windows and feel what it's like floating through the emptyness of space. I find that far more captivating.
The sub orbital flight industry will be viable as long as it's substantially cheaper than flying to (and returning from) orbit. If Starship works, and meets it's targets, everything else will be obsolete and over priced.
But starship doesn't fly crew to orbit today, and won't be flying crew to orbit for less than 250k/seat for at least a decade as that would require almost a full (100 person) flight
@@kylekingsberry5680 Never mentioned today's capability. Talking about if/when Starship succeeds. I agree Musk's estimates are very optimistic, but ultimately achievable. The $$ goal from what I've read is to get the cost of 100 tons to orbit at about $2M. Divide that by 100 and you're talking about $20k per seat. Suborbital flights will likely be cheaper and closer to the price of business class.
@@frankbieser Starship won't be flying enough people to be able to charge only $250k/seat anytime soon. Eventually, obviously, but today no and definitly not for the next few years
@@kylekingsberry5680 Yes this is true. Never tried to imply otherwise. But eventually, it will be true, and at that point the sub orbital tourist launch market will be dead (which was my point).
@@frankbieser Unless by that point a company has created a rapidly reusable suborbital space tourism vehicle that is much smaller than starship 🤷♂️. We'll see what happens, but the innovation in this space obviously hasn't stopped lol
@@_PatrickO Lunnaris01 . I don't know if you watched the full video, but while VG is debatable as it only reaches NASA definition of space, New shepherd passes the karman line of 100 km so by all definitions does go to space.
@@isaachunter4158 lol, the karman line is 52mi(83km). The 100km is not the real karman line, governments rounded up to create a buffer for sovereignty purposes. If you can't even get the karman line right, you are a fool throwing poo into the wind. The karman line is absolutely not space either because it is just the upper limit of winged aircraft. Space has nothing to do with airplane wings, sorry. The best definition of space is the lowest unpowered circular orbit before air resistance prevents it. 93mi or 150km if you like round numbers. The funny thing is that I got this from a research paper before, but while googling it, I found a tweet from today where the ceo of ULA points out the same number. Nasa and the military both used this threshold for space.
@@_PatrickO you're right, Theodore von Kármán’s criteria of "orbital forces exceeding aerodynamic ones" was calculated to be around 84 km, but it was the rounded up 100 kms that was called the "Kármán line". 100 kms is used by governments for sovereignty purposes. A person above 100 kms is an astronaut. It may be arbitrary, but its a common internationally agreed definition. If you think "lowest unpowered circular orbit" is a better definition, then by all means, take it up with the FAI. Meanwhile the wind just picked up, so i'm off to throw poo 😜.
I had a dude make fun of my Ford Focus's payload capacity and towing capacity (dude drove a heavily lifted truck with exhaust tips bigger than my head) and I straight up just asked him "When was the last time you needed to carry that much weight?" and immediately got in my car and drove off. Dude just stood there for a solid minute
I live in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. It's about 40 miles as the crow flies from Spaceport America. I went out this morning to take a look at the launch. It was pretty neat, from what I could see. Both VG and BO look like they'd be fun to ride on. I'm really fascinated by the feathering wing on the Unity. I can see that really going places down the line. Imagine taking a flight form LA to Sydney on that.
Out of the two, I'd rather fly Spaceship 2 (or eventually 3), so much more sci-fi, and ofc the longer flight time is a bonus! But honestly I'd be thrilled to go on either 😃
Matt,Don forget to put virgin galactic on your space this week!!
More time to enjoy your whiskey in suborbit.
Hi there!
It’s Latt Mowne!!
Tim forgot to mention: both offer approximately 4 minutes of weightless time.
A tesla roadsters window is actually larger than New shepherds windows, so the tesla roadster in launched in 2018 into mars orbit is the largest window in space
Technically true, which is the best kind of true.
Even when mucking about and having a laugh, Musk beats the competition.
@@VainerCactus0 by miles!
Why bother window when its open roof
Wasn’t it a convertible? Why care about widow size
In the near future Tim might actually be an Everyday Astronaut, think about that.
who is tim?
@@derekbehr8365 Tim is Everyday Astronauts name
@@justinkommers6312 OMG I know that, but I didn't remember!! hahaha Thanks!
That's an awesome thought, Tim chronicling his journey all the way. 👍
He should wait at the terminal in case of a no show.
I can't imagine having to chose but that Space Ship 2 design just screams awesome. If I was to ride in a capsule (cost aside) I would hold out for orbital.
Between those hops and orbit is about a factor of 36 (6x speed) in energy and cost.
Got an idea: Omaze is doing a drawing for two tickets aboard Spaceship 2, lets all buy tickets, and whoever wins can give Tim a ticket. It would be way cooler than just donating money to get him a ticket because then a subscriber would also be able to ride with Tim to space!
I wish both companies a safe flight
@@gamerfortynine because everyone should have a safe flight
@@gamerfortynine you shouldn’t be watching EDA if you are not team space
@@gamerfortynine because… people dying is bad?
ight, i only hope jeff bezos tries to spacewalk without a suit on, i wish the passengers and virgin galactic a safe flight
Is that you Arca?
Who will win?
•One half-plane-half rocket
-Or -
•One slightly NSFW launcher
Blue rocket good and plane rocket good
All companies are the same
"Slightly" thing looks like it was built to proportion
The half plane half rocket cus im a virgin.
Starship will win. And by win I mean recoup costs the fastest.
@@aerothecat Some companies are better than others. That's just how it is.
CONGRATS ON 1M TIM, it looks like interest in Space is coming back!!
Imagine Elon being first on Mars, and BO builds the New Musk 😂
Lol. This made my day
lol ~~ and then the new starship
"the first rocket to go to Mars"
Makes for good fan fiction, but Elon already said he doesn't plan to go into space.
Makes sense.
@@protorhinocerator142 He's also not American, but it was meant as a joke
It definitely shouldn't be forgotten that Blue Origin propulsively landed a rocket a month before SpaceX. But it should also not be forgotten that it took them two years longer to do it.
Landed a slower non orbital rocket, conpared to spacex's much faster orbital class rocket. Yep we shouldnt forget the details. afterall, its like comparing a honda civic with a ford f150 just because they are 4 wheeled vehicles.
And? SpaceX actually got into orbit, which is much more revolutionary.
@Jelly4Frog Good point. You win
I'm late to the party here but the DCX landed propulsively way before Blue Origin. SpaceX was the first orbital class to do it, and DCX was the first sub-orbital.
After Blue Origin’s tweet yesterday, we all know whos more petty now
Edit: Im going to address some of the replies to this comment. What I said above was supposed to be lighthearted and not to be taken too seriously. We're all Team Space here after all. Its just that the Blue Origins tweet doesn't sit well with me after their lack of progress perhaps a little bit of what went down on the HLS contract. Now Im writing this right after Unity 22 had a safe flight but I just hope commercial spaceflight gets less competitive and more "Oh wow we're launching space tourist to space!!!". Maybe one day we'll see Blue Origin launch New Glenn before Rocket Lab gets their Neutron operational.
I don't understand why BO has to try to market NS for what it isn't. DUDE! its a reusable suborbital rocket, its not a small thing. Its not even scratching orbital requirements but it never was designed that way. Like the only way I can explain why BO would be so toxic about the suborbital space is that they somehow run into some gigantic roadblock with New Glenn, and have to back down to their one working vehicle.
this sort of competition is in the blood of, and is what drives these guys to make rockets. It's more of a friendly jab , but I do believe all of the companies are rooting for the other. If the side effect of competitiveness is multiple companies that can launch to space, i'm all for it.
Petty? Talk about scummy. I hope the company fails.
I don’t get the extreme hate overs BO’s tweet. Like yeah BO is a fun punching bag and haha memes but what is with the hate. BO is VG competitor and that was just a bog standard marketing tweet. How is it any difference than Samsung mocking a newly revealed Apple product.
@@valerie80yearsago90 It is petty, but if you honestly consider them scum and hope they fail because of it, then I think you're taking it a little too seriously.
I remember the days of the guy in the orange suit who said he'd never actually fly to space. Glad to see you join all of us in the yearning to fly amongst the Stars! Cameraman on dragon doesn't sound so far fetched now huh?! Get us some good shots of the moon will you!
I can't wait for the endless parade of Instagram models and social media influencers shoving their "I've got spaceflight money" attitudes while duckfacing at 80km above the Earth's surface.
One giant leap for mankind indeed.
@@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368, ... while some of that money spent will be reinvested by these companies back into R&D. Rich people already spend their money. This time, at least, we might be able to benefit from it in the form of new tech being developed. So, there are positives. And I, personally, would like to fly, too. Therefore, seeing more people flying = more system testing and bringing down the cost, makes me hopeful.
@@udilschik Think of how climbing mount Everest has become a cottage industry where rich people who have no business mountaineering are paying $100,000 to basically take a selfie at the summit. Humanity hasn't really benefited because of the long lineups right before the peak of Everest. It's just managed to cheapen the endeavour and make it so rich people have a story to tell at their next dinner party.
I hope you're right and that some good will come from this, but I remain heavily skeptical from a lifetime of seeing how corporations operate.
@@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368, I think comparing climbing Everest and space tourism is apples-to-oranges comparison. Climbing Everest has lower potential for improving our lives while space tourism has a potential to pave the road for earth-space-earth travel, which would be a way faster method of transportation than a traditional airplane. Again, first, for the rich. Like Concord supersonic flights back in the day. But look at United now buying a new generation of supersonic planes - safer, cheaper for everyone. I think same will happen with traveling via rockets. While I don't see trickle-down-economics actually working in many areas, space seems to be a bit different. At least, to me.
@@udilschik Fair enough, but space tourism is less about pushing tech boundaries and more about cost savings and passenger safety.
I won't diminish the importance of both, because those are huge for getting people off of the planet and developing the industry. But I just don't see it doing a whole lot for the exploration and advanced tech areas that are being paperclipped to the space tourism endeavour.
And in the interim of years, perhaps decades, of tickets still costing tens of thousands of dollars even for a budget trip, so I'll still maintain that my Everest analogy remains apt. I bet there will even be a point where a rich person has to decide where to spend their $100k -- on a 10 minute space flight or on an Everest expedition.
I love this guy Everyday Astronaut because he breaks everything down for the non-US audience. You don't see that on the other streams. Way to go. All the best and success!
Frankly speaking, this was so detailed. Thank you for doing this and yes you got a new subscriber here.
Virgin seems like a nicer ride, but I don't understand why they couldn't add 10k to the height. Sure it doesn't really make a difference, but getting over the "magic number" probably makes a big difference for marketing etc.
...They just need to add a couple of JATO's to the spacecraft. After the initial rocket motor is burnt out, light the JATO's and go a few miles higher.
They need bigger reservoirs of fuels.
not only do they need more fuel to do that, they would need a steeper angle of attack so they could actually break out of the atmosphere.
the speed needed to do so at the angle they took would tear them apart in seconds, which is why virgin galactic is a big nono for me.
they're trying to do something that has been proven time and time again to be one of the most dangerous flights, because no matter what if they try to actually enter space and break through the atmosphere, the shape of the plane is going to cause so much drag that they will begin to tumble and burn.
this is why rockets shoot "mostly" straight up and out of the atmosphere, and also don't have wings.
because wings are for creating drag in air to create lift, if you try to use them at the speed needed to exit the atmosphere and at the angle they took, the sheer force of friction would rip the vessel apart.
this is why they didn't go over the magic number, because if they tried they would have all died.
They could just expand the rocket system probably but as said in the video it likely won’t make much difference. Also as noted this mission is actually a proper flight up and down whereas NS is a quick blast up and a fast fall back down. In terms of an actual passenger experience I think Virgin will offer the best experience for the money though. Even at 250k for either seat, Virgin gives you more of an actual experience to enjoy. I also personally think the flight element with 2 pilots provides a level of assurance that a fully remote system doesn’t - this is still space flight after all!
It's always beautiful when Tim uploads! I already know the video about Soviet rocket engines is going to be like a documentary.
Would love to ride on Spaceship2! Gonna enjoy seeing Sir Richard Branson fly on it tomorrow!
Tim your documentaries are getting more and more professional by the day, with greater content every day....(Astronaut)🚀
It's really awesome to see multiple companies entering the same market because it encourages competition. Hopefully they can improve each-other. So much cool stuff happening now in the spaceflight and tech worlds, can't wait to see it all unravel!
Between the two, I'd rather go with the one that comes back in a controlled descent and lands back in an actual airport.
You really believe them landing vids? Them tiny fins wouldnt do sh!t. They just show the take off in reverse with some crappy MS paint effects. Anyone who plays video games or makes art n cartoons on a PC should be able to see all this cgi easy as? Its PS2 graphics at the best
@@ROAM1.0 Bet you never went to school...
@@ROAM1.0 not the brightest kid in class are you?
@@ROAM1.0 how much did they paid u to spam this nonsense comment? lmao
@@ROAM1.0 people behave like you when they only go to church and not to school
The fact that they had the revealing at the Intrepid is really cool.
(Would have been even cooler if the Enterprise was preserved and had the unveiling there)
The shuttle Enterprise is preserved at the Intrepid museum.
I hope Tim fulfils his dream by riding in either one of these. xx
Nan. Tim is an everyday astronaut and needs to go orbital. A Dragon, a Starship or the next Rocket Lab rocket would be a better choice. 🚀
@@EselfarBoth. Both is good
10 000 patreons and he gets a ride to space. At least that what he said.
Tim needs to orbit the moon, period. It can be done, it should be done.
Tap off starts like a pressure-fed, turbopump introduces positive feedback.
Simple and great explaination!
Ah, so it kinda fizzles to begin with and then quickly ramps up as the chamber pressure increases?
Love this format of show. Keep up the great work Tim et. crew!
They’re both really cool obviously and I’d love a ride on either. If I had a choice I’d probably choose spaceship 2 cause of the slower buildup to get to space and landing sequence, and I just think it’s a really comfy and cool concept I guess, just like taking a plane to space.
Could you talk about time out of the seat? and what are you allowed to do during this time? Thanks amazing video!
You'd be allowed to do a few rolls... What would you want to do during this time?
It's 4 min of zero G only, so you'd prolly get like 3 min of "free time" out of your seat before being asked kindly to sit back and strap yourself in. It would be... nasty... for everyone, not just you, to get caught with high Gs and not being secured in your seat with belts and harnesses.
This information will be a lot easier to come by soon ;)
I'd start whacking it.
What are they going to do? Cancel the flight by doing an emergency landing in Pittsburgh?
Haha, eat my floaties, other passengers!
@@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 Callsign: Minuteman
The Angry Astronaut already covered this in a recent video. Blue origin = no time out of seat. Virgin Galactic = 5 1/2 minutes of free floating around the entire cabin AND you can ask the pilots to point the ship in whichever direction you want. In my opinion, Virgin Galactic is the only way to go.
Brilliant video! Really well explained.
No matter who is "better". I think both of them demonstrate amazing technology that us Space buffs can just eat up.
I'm watching this video in March 2023, and your comment at the end about grabbing a chance at either service is rather amusing, now that you're a Dear Moon winner :) You're going so much farther than the Karmann line, my friend!
If I had that kind of money I'd much rather give it to Virgin rather than bezos.
I also prefer virgin.
Branson is also a terrible person like Bezos, neither of these two bozos deserve any money or respect.
@@alexseguin5245 Yeah, but from a business perspective I think Virgin Galactic seems to have a more viable model.
then you wouldn't go into space at all lol.
branson didn't even hit 300,000 feet, and space is like 324k feet.
and if he were to even try to enter space, the entire ship would burn up due to the amount of friction from his shallow angle holding the ship in the burn zone for so long, that coupled with the extreme horizontal speed he would have to reach to even provide the lift necessary to do it would mean virgin galactic is just another high altitude flight machine that will NEVER enter space in any other form than a fireball.
Same. Jeff is copying SpaceX's idea, and Virgin is taking its own path. Also Virgin owns my Internet soooo
Tim, you posted when NSF was live! I stuck with them but did queue you up right away, though. Go Team Space communicators!
Hi it's me, Tim Dodd the everyday astronaut
By far one of the most iconic intros
Def
Yes it is
Agreed 🤝
I would prefer the Virgin Galactic also, much longer ride.
Same here plus sir Richard Branson’s British lol but I’d love to go on jefff’s too 🚀🚀🚀
I wouldn’t. Virgin has already killed 3 people with their spaceship. Blue origin is much safer and is an actual rocket.
@@dummyjoe7895 and so as nasa but the show goes on these thing’s do happen unfortunately and who knows when Jeff will have a disaster? I don’t wish that on him btw just pointing something out
@@alanbrady420 you know blue Origin, they don’t rush and blow up sats and cargo like SpaceX does. Blue origin has a 100% success record unlike SpaceX who is at 98.5% blue origin makes sure everything is right and they go slow.
@@dummyjoe7895 yes that’s because he’s hardly done fk all, Elon’s had numerous orbit launches and manned launches and he’s going harder then anyone we have seen before, so if your really a space enthusiast why the hate on space x which is far superior in comparison to Jeff who?
This is awesome! We are entering a new Era, wish them all safe flights!
I am SO glad and relieved that you mentioned SpaceshipOne and Scaled Composites! It seems like everyone has completely forgotten about Burt Rutan and SpaceshipOne. It was his "feathered wing" design for re-entry that made this all possible.
We aren't making fun of Blue Origin because New Shepard is suborbital. We're making fun of Blue Origin because they're older than SpaceX and are only just now about to achieve suborbital crewed flight. Maybe we wouldn't make fun of them if they didn't brag so frequently about stuff they still haven't done.
Here we are two years later and BO is claiming New Glenn will launch this year, and both send a satellite to MARS and land the booster on the first try. It’s a good looking rocket, but come on man let’s get this show on the road and let’s also be realistic about its very first flight and what it will accomplish.
Not to mention one of their BE-4 engine, which they say will be 100 percent reliable since they’ll never push it past its limits, just straight up exploded before it could be delivered to ULA
This is the best Saturday ever for space vids!! Thanks Tim!
7/11/2021 8am CT. Oh, the fun will begin... Virgin Galactic, to sub space and back...
This is going to be a made for TV movie in 20 years.
Only if one of those explode, let's be honest, it wouldn't sell as a movie as it is going to probably be. There will be documentaries that's for sure.
Edit: And btw TV won't be a thing by then haha
@@ryer8477 if both are successes it will be more like a comedy with nerd Bezos competing with the one upping British playboy.
Naw. But Elon Musk will be a center piece in history 20 years from now here and on Mars.
More like in 5 years
@@ryer8477 yeah people well normal people will not watch a success they want explosion
I love the way blue origin is a little more ‘traditional’, but being English , it just has to be Virgin Galactic for me. Have followed it closely for many years, and has just left me in awe. I dream of being able to fly on it one day.
The only thing English about Virgin Galactic is Branson. Everything else is American.
And you guys call Americans unreasonably nationalistic. Not that England is even a real country.
New Shepherd is my favorite. It’s just amazing to experience a launch and also see the Earth from 20 km (60,000 feet higher) through those incredible windows. Not to mention abort system which would give me extra confidence, also I would feel good helping to fund New Glenn and a moon lander as opposed to simply more suborbital tourism
SS2 is very close though and if it were my money paying for it, I’d go with this since it’s half the price while being almost as good
I'd pay $20.00 for a 2 hour IMax show recorded by cameras outside SpaceshipTwo.
I'm sure it will happen. Even if only as a way to entice new customers.
Love it! You know, a little bit of weed and a little bit of imagination it might work. 20 bucks! Like that. At least you come back home with the smile and sleep nice close fist knowing all your money still in your bank account
In short suborbital flights are new type of fancy amusement park rides 😂
For super-rich people.
They should start a lottery, so that eligible people can win space flights.
how envy burns
@@JamieSteam
The Super rich do all the dangerous beta testing so us poors get safe well tested products.
@@calvingreene90 true
I own virgin galactic stock so I hope they do great
Well, they did great, they've just landed sucessfully a few minutes ago 😃
long term
Would Blue Origin think about using the abort motor once they've separated to increase altitude? I'm guessing this would interrupt a period of free fall (or zero g), but once the two stages have separated there's no use for the abort motor, so why not use it to get higher (and give a better trip)?
From what i have seen it looks like a very unpleasend amount of g's that the passengers would pull when the system is activated, so i think its only suited for emergencies. It would probably also drive up the cost if they had to change out the abort system after every flight.
I don't think so, as the propellant for an abort is usually not ignited by an external source to be able to escape (I guess you mean that with abort motor?). It's called "hypergolic propellant" and nearly all of them are pretty toxic, so you wouldn't want to use them if there isn't actually a good reason to do so.
Actually the escape engine is a solid rocket booster, so the toxic part doesn't effect anything. Personally I wonder about using that solid rocket booster as well.
Chances are that at that altitude the SRM abort engine wouldn't really do much anyway. It's not optimised for use at those altitudes because of the unlikely nature of neading to seperate from the booster past MaxQ. Lighting it up would be useless at beast and wasteful at worst, so it's best to keep it handy for doing what it was designed to do.
Burning that engine to gain altitude would increase the re-entry speed, the higher you go up, the faster you come down, and thus require design changes (would need a heat shield) to compensate for the increased velocity.
Thanks for the ride Tim, very much enjoyably FUN.
And thanks NASA for keeping these endeavors safe and sane.
I like both companys, but I LOVE the VSS Imagine and the incredible Air Launch!
My question is what Blue's plan is with New Shepard. Virgin is making plans to start flying from spaceport Cornwall, they've developed spaceship three. They seem like they want to make their suborbital flights more rapid and reusable, making them go more smoothly across the board. Oh, and then Virgin is also doing Virgin Orbit.
Blue seems like they have no idea what they want to do with New Shepard other than occasionally flying people.
[Edit] - I understand what New Shepard is for. People are acting like I don't understand the basic concept. All I am saying is that it doesn't seem like New Shepard has much direction on what the long term plan is, and I feel like it is just going to be retired after New Glenn starts flying.
It's being used to learn how to propulsively land a booster ahead of New Glenn, similar to the Grasshopper tests SpaceX did ahead of Falcon 9, as well as developing systems for their Blue Moon lander, which is similar to New Shepard in several ways. Basically, it's a test vehicle they've found a way to monetize by also using it for space tourism.
It's also worth noting that BO has hinted they might try launching New Shepard from other locations.
As this very video explained, Blue is moving towards the New Glenn orbital rocket. They also compete for Moon landing vehicles, but lost to SpaceX selling a scaled down starship at only 3 billion $.
@@thejimmydanly It seems like they aren't planning on doing much with it - which I find to be a super wasted opportunity.
@@johndododoe1411 I am very, very much aware. I am hopeful that New Glenn will fly in 2023 as predicted, but I perceive that they don't seem to be working on making New Shepard very competitive, which I think is foolish.
As said in the video, and the plan all along, it's a commercial launch vehicle for paying passengers. The goal is literally the same as virgin
Blue origin seems like obvious choice, if they price is close to the 250k price tag on the VO flight. Automated systems, less room more human error, new Shepard flies higher and has bigger windows so the view is defiantly better. Getting the traditional rocket experience that nasa astronauts experience is also a major bonus, being able to be in a capsule and experience traditional re-entry and a parachute glide back down to earth. The clean burn from the rocket propellants which are less harmful for the environment is a plus as well.
very true
Of course I'd ride on either one or both.....if the price was right. But if I was rich enough for just one of them, I'd choose VG over BO. Super obvious to me:
4 minutes of weightlessness for both of them puts them on a completely equal footing on that absolutely key metric. But the longer total ride time of VG totally blows BO out of the water. And if the cost of BO is >= twice that of VG..... Choose BO over VG?? Are you kidding me?? NO WAY!!!
Also BO goes above 100 km / 62 miles, which is what most of the world defines as the start of space. Virgin "only" goes above 50 miles, which only the US considers the start of space.
This video has value that will gain momentum years from now. Thank you!
As always, Tim, your videos are well thought out, well made and very informational. Thanks for another great video.
Awesome video Tim. Would also love to get more insight on the differences in g-force, both for ascent and descent
i'll start saving for a ride to the moon on a starship, these early space trips are too short imo c:
For it to be reliable it may take some 15 years, that is how you get money for the price (saving up for 15 years)
Good luck with that, you'll have to be saving for like 100 lifetimes. Unless you're some kind of celebrity or CEO of tech company.
@@phobos2077_ yeah. So? That’s how it is for now. Only successful and rich people can go to space, because it’s super expensive. What’s wrong with that? Soon it’ll be available for cheaper.
@@phobos2077_ tbh I think it's going to be cheaper than these suborbital flights in the long run.
250k is still going to be a huge amount of money, but I'd rather pay that for a roundtrip to the moon in a starship rather than a 4 minute suborbital flight lmao...
And you can save up a million or 2 even as a relatively normal person given you have a decent job.
I’m just so glad to be in a world where more people can become astronauts and these billionaires get to see the world without borders and hopefully become better people like every astronaut has described
Apart from not paying much taxes Richard is a great dude. He always tries to show transparency and friendliness in his employees and companies. On the other side, I can’t count how many overworking stories I’ve heard from amazon employees
Hoping for a change in heart in a few billionaires won't fix the system that keeps producing them.
@@Stellar-Cowboy "not paying much taxes" is a rather generous way of framing "changing citizenship and moving corporate to other countries to avoid paying taxes".
Branson's a leech and should have his knighthood for "services to entrepreneurship" revoked. He's just not as terrible a person as Bezos, but that's a low bar to clear.
Borders are important. We are a world of different cultures, faiths, ethnicities.
@@Stellar-Cowboy is it really there fault that they don’t pay a lot of taxes. They’re just following what’s legal and if you have a problem with it blame the government who sets the rules
All details I wanted to know and a bit extra :) Thank you Tim!
I wonder what it's gonna take to get hired as a pilot on these things.
Blue Origin doesn't require a pilot because it is fully autonomous. Just get in, hang on, and shut the FUC* up! HAHAHAHA.
I wonder what it did take for the Virgin Galactic flight pilots. It's a great question actually.
For Virgin Galactic you would probably need to do a lot of training, maybe some air force experience for handling supersonic speeds and all that would be a plus, but if you are dedicated and willing to put the effort in you could try out for it.
For BO you only have to transition into a computer. Under current law you don't even have to undergo any actual conversion therapy. You just have to identify as a computer, which sounds much easier than all that training.
Weird to have Falcon 9 for a scale instead of a banana
The longer flight makes VG the one I would go for. But no doubt BO / NS is the one for the best view with those giant windows.
However, VG only goes just above 50 miles, which only the US defines as space. The rest of the world defines 100 km / 62 miles, to be where space starts, and BO aims for that.
I wasn't too excited about the space plane, but then I started thinking about how hard a vertical rocket is on the human body. I think for the average citizen of the future, space planes might be the ultimate way to get to orbit. Plus, they are just awesome.
My choice as an average citizen, if I had that long a future, would be space elevator.
@@m.tariqulislam6522 well, yeah.. That would be great, if it gets built. Each trip would be cheaper, and a lot smoother. I was thinking more near term in the future I think. But who knows, maybe we will have a working space elevator soon. As things stand, I could see this being developed into a just barely orbital plane 10 years from now if they try. Then a vehicle already in space could rendezvous with it, taking you to your space hotel or job or whatever. It wouldn't even truly have to be orbital to do that.
Hey Tim! My son and I did Virgin Galactic public testing at NASTAR in Hatburo Pa. Got up to 6.2g. Yes I passed out! But it was the present profile with a movie screen in the gondola being played. So I kinda went to space...visually .
What a hoot it was to participate to further commercial space flight. Got a video of me passing out too. ,👍. Great comparison video. Really enjoyed it Thanks
Hey thanks, this is a great presentation. Hoping for safe journey to the stars and back .
Gotta question that I'm stumbling with. On the VG ship, what is the purpose of the angled nozzle? Seems to me that non-symmetrical shapes like that would cause some effect, obviously a desired one, but I can't figure out what that would be. Any ideas?
I've been wondering that for years now. I think it has something to do with the thrust not going through the center of mass. Its not even a nozzle at an angle but the nozzle rim is angled. But yea, maybe it needs counter torque to be stable
It's to assist the pitch-up maneuver. Presumably it's more efficient and reliable than using aerodynamic control surfaces, particularly since they can lose some effectiveness at higher speeds.
That's the direction and angle they need the thrust. It burns for one minute, and the plane is pitched up for that span. As for supersonic effects of asymmetrical shapes, I think its location obviates the question.
"crewed operational flight"
I'm pretty sure VG still considers this a test flight.
crewed or crude?
Yeah. The real thing is that it is the first fully crewed flight.
I definitely would fly on SpaceShipTwo just so I can have the same experience of what they had back in 2004
Thanks Tim for another excellent video. I'm laughing as I read all these excited people. Did they miss the evidence of their own eyes? Firstly, both of these systems rely on the statistical likelihood of surviving a controlled crash. The BO capsule has no control over it's landing site and crashes onto a random spot in the desert, where the passengers will have to wait for recovery, while hoping that the vehicle doesn't go boom. Due to weight versus total rocket impulse issues, the VG rocket glider doesn't get past the 100 km line, has flimsy main gears and wheels, and has a nose skid instead of wheels. In the aviation world, it's return to the ground is known as an emergency landing. Neither system appears to be commercially viable, as both will suffer damage and require inspection and repair after every flight. The funniest part ... VG needs four pilots to get six passengers not quite into space.
I dunno... If I'm going to space, taking that risk, spending that money, etc, I think I want to go into orbit and stay for more than a few minutes.
Risk shouldn’t be too high
Thats a ridiculous comparison, orbital and suborbital flights share no where close to the same amount of risk. You might aswell be saying "if I'm going to take the risk of driving a car I might aswell break the land speed record in a rocket car".
"that money" - it's not like orbital will only be double the price of suborbital. it's a completely different beast. for the next 5-10 years, orbital flights will be out of reach for anybody but the super rich. what VG and BO are offering is well within the reach of millions of persons all over the world. USA alone probably some 5 million households that can reasonably affort those jumps, many probably will in the coming years.
@@B33t_R007 Starship flight will cost ~$2 million. It can carry ~1000 passengers as Earth to Earth configuration and 100 passengers as long duration flight configuration.
If we assume that ~300 passengers can fit on board of orbital tourism Starship, price per ticket to orbit would be something around $6666.
10 minutes for 28 million dollars is a really expensive carnival ride. Imagine someone throws up during the flight, then it would be 28 million for ten minutes trapped in a floating puke capsule :D
Ok but who doesn’t poke fun of a civics towing capacity
I don't, because that's not what it's made for. But what it _is_ made for, it does efficiently.
Can confirm, friend drives a civic. And I drive a Focus so im mostly just making fun of the fact that he drives a civic
@@IstasPumaNevada unorigional though
Heck yes, I'd fly on either. I would have gone up in the shuttle the day after Columbia exploded. I would have gone up on anything. Prices probably won't come down to where I could afford it in this lifetime, but I can still dream.
"Prices probably won't come down to where I could afford it in this lifetime"
Daily reminder that we common folk will probably never afford to go up there. Why? Because democracy! Its so surreal to think about it, why that egg head can go up there even though there are more deserving people who should be in his place instead.
Just finance it! 0 down and 250 E-Z payments of $1,000!
I love these videos and glad you are spending so much time on them. The explanation is so clear that I could understand everything even though I was away from the screen for most of it.
you and this feature can be on television. great job!
Wanna see some flat earthers get on those flights lol
probably going to say that the windows are just screens and stuff
They'd just say the windows are curved, causing electromagnetic refraction mirages to make the horizon look curved or something. Doesn't have to make any sense, as long as they use enough fancy words that they can convince themselves of anything.
Waste of time, they'll make up anything to avoid having their worldview shattered.
@@isaquest134 hello there
@@thecapacitor1395 Solution: Throw them out the window at apogee so they can marvel at the curvature of the earth for the rest of their lives 😂
I think this will always be for the elite - like Concord was. I can't see the fuels and prep costs ever coming into Joe Average territory. Hopefully this is the start of future larger ventures like trips to a moon base. It's a truly an amazing time to be around though.
Concorde is a good comparison I think but that means it wouldn't be out of reach for many if one would really be determined to go. Pretty sure the cost will go down further in the future. Also with reustability like Starship aims for even the cost of getting into orbit could go down massively long term.
Maybe with SpaceX' Starship. Aiming at launch costs at 2M USD a passenger version with 200 passengers could possibly offer rickets at a theoretical 10,000 USD. This is of course sci-fi at the moment but a lot of people would be able to afford that or several times that. If/when Starship goes into service, space tourism including hotels in orbit will pretty much be a given.
With Concord at least you we going somewhere. SpaceX is working on what is essentially travel by reusable ICBM. California to Europe in 30 minutes, potentially for $15K.
@@codediporpal Yeah I don't see that point to point transport thing happening just yet. Even if safety and reusability works out like it should, theres still the problem that this could easily be mistaken for a nuke in the air.
When ya going to do a vid on inspiration 4? Now that’s gonna be amazing! 4 minutes versus 4 days….
I'm very excited that there are two different services going live at about the same time. That's competition which is very good for the consumer. Prices will come down and the experience will be constantly improving to try to edge the other out.
i think this will be a start to a new era of commercial space flight, can't wait.
When I was a kid, I hoped to go to space to celebrate the 2000 new years. By 1995 I realized how absurd this was,
And now a quarter century later, I realize my son will likely have this opportunity in his lifetime.
I want the aliens to take me lol
Correction: acceleration in Newtonian physics is defined as experiencing a change in velocity, and as you coast up to your apoapsis, your velocity is decreasing, even though you don’t feel it because you and your spacecraft are accelerating at the same rate.
Depends on cost for longevity and how the economy in general is. Think moment, you can't ride if you can't afford it or get funding for it. There a chance people will get bored with just going up and down. I think in the long term, they need go places in suborbital. Then i think it will be more sustainable.
I heard an interview once with Branson where he said his goal is to develop the tech needed for point to point travel. (Go anywhere in the world in just a few hours.)
If Starship reaches it's design goal of 2 million per launch, and that cost is split between 100 passengers, that's 20 000 per ticket.
I'd call that affordable, especially since you actually get into orbit instead of just getting a couple of minutes of zero G.
And Elon has mentioned that if they do reach that pricing goal, their next goal after that is a launch cost of 1.5 million. And I believe they can do it. Falcon 9 has reached 10 flights for a single booster and they are now shooting for 20.
@@atk05003 there all trying to copy space X on that front but chances are musk will get that before others unless China cut corners and do it as its already copied starship
@@atk05003 Wasn't that long time ago? Ever since development got stalled due to the crash, it seem there wasn't any movement with VG to go that way. I think Sir Richard was fully onboard with it They've not really innovated since they bought the design from Composite.
@@Wrangler-fp4ei I'm not sure when that interview happened. It's possible they backed away from that plan, but either way, these flashy tourist runs are doing most of the research that will be needed to be able to use suborbital hops as a form of long-distance transit.
Watched the Gemini launch when I was a little boy,watched all the Apolo launchs,including the moon landing, the first shuttle launch, the building of the ISS.....now another milestone. Space tourism. Can't wait to see what will happen next.
Thank you for structuring this video for people who barely noticed spaceflight until the recent publicity about flights for non-astronauts being somewhat achievable for members if the public who aren't super-rich. They're starting from nearly zero knowledge, so there is very much a need for this vid.
I remember being 10 years old when Gemini and the X-15 were both flying and not understanding why the X-15 couldn't orbit - hey, it reached space. Took quite while before I came across something that explained it.
Exciting times indeed! I think the total experience Virgin offers will be highly compelling.
Jet flight, Separation drop, Rocket flight, Zero G, Feathered reentry, Gliding flight, Runway landing.
VG seems like a much better thrill ride, which is desirable for something that’s basically an amusement park ride
Yeah, there is way more to that flight. It sounds much much more dangerous though, so many things that can go wrong and no backup abort system either.
Yes, on the other hand NS gives you much more astronaut vibes with the vertical launch and the the capsule landing.
2:28 you just roasted the heck out a ton of other people and it was epic. Best roast I've seen in awhile lol thanks
well tbf SpaceX's achievements dwarf both Blue Origin's and Virgin's by a long shot.
Who would win in a battle, pressure fed astronaut or everyday astronaut?
Pressure-fed astronaut? Did he eat beans?
@@MegaZsolti no, he just like big dumb boosters, look him up
Hey Dodd, just a small correction for 4:00 min. When you shut off the engines you are actually starting to accelerate towards Earth. You actually covered this pretty well in a previous video. Keep up the great work!
I am a veteran fan of the space race, as kids me and my best friend started making a scrapbook of newspaper clippings as news of Sputnik, Laika, Vanguard failures, Shepard, Glenn etc. was being reported. BTW, I am still broken hearted over little Laika to this day....the bastards! In any case, I am 75 years old now and my time has passed at becoming a space tourist as I don't exactly have a spare $250K laying around for a 10 minute to maybe a 2 hour adventure, but some of you will......enjoy kids, carry on!
Before the end of this decade, Tim’s Norminal hat needs to be flown to space and then returned safely to Earth.
I’m a fighter pilot wannabe, gimme the one with a stick! Respect to Virgin for making a manual gearbox sports car in a world of touchscreens.
I'd ride on both in a heartbeat if i was able to afford it.
Excellent video. Very well presented- and a complete lack of the oh-so-common irritations. Thanks Tim.
I love going back and watching these
I would like to ride on SpaceShipTwo far more than Blue Origin's rocket. It seems more bang for the buck with a nice ride up and down. The other is simply more like a rollercoaster ride.
same, i think its great to have options tho. Like NS probably has almost no risk to ride it considering the great redundancy in its design, Spaceship does have the better option I think just because of its originality and gliding up/down. Then the step up would be tourism dragon for a way longer time in orbit, looking down at earth for an amazing sight, and then why not throw in starship? 1000m^3 to place amenities for tourism? I can't wait to get my tesla tequila while zooming around the earth... if the price ever becomes low enough, of course!
It only goes to 55 miles altitude though. Blue Origin will go to 62 miles, which is what most of the world defines as the start of space.
@@peterwhitey4992 Won't matter much when you barely have enough time to catch your breath after the launch before you need to scramble back into your seat and prep for a rough re-entry. Not how the glory that is viewing earth from space should be experienced.
@@peterwhitey4992 yeah, at this point such a difference matters little. Unless you go substantially higher then suborbital flights will only get you do much airtime, and without a fully reusable solution, you can't get the price low enough to even be worth considering. I still think spaceX's starship will eventually win that race, but that will still give plenty of time for others to at least try to conceive their own solutions
@@mobiuscoreindustries - For people who are taking such a trip, because they want to have been to space, it makes all the difference, since most of the world does not recognizing that altitude as space.
While I'm far more excited by SpaceX's efforts with the Starship, I can appreciate the work these companies have done to make the experiences
as safe and enjoyable as possible. They're more like amusement park rides though in my opinion compared to orbital flights where you actually
get time to soak in the views from the windows and feel what it's like floating through the emptyness of space. I find that far more captivating.
The main difference - there’s no chance that Space Ship 2 would ever squirt at you
Space ship 2 looks super dope! Kinda like Padme's ship
i'm ready... let's do this!
The sub orbital flight industry will be viable as long as it's substantially cheaper than flying to (and returning from) orbit. If Starship works, and meets it's targets, everything else will be obsolete and over priced.
But starship doesn't fly crew to orbit today, and won't be flying crew to orbit for less than 250k/seat for at least a decade as that would require almost a full (100 person) flight
@@kylekingsberry5680 Never mentioned today's capability. Talking about if/when Starship succeeds. I agree Musk's estimates are very optimistic, but ultimately achievable. The $$ goal from what I've read is to get the cost of 100 tons to orbit at about $2M. Divide that by 100 and you're talking about $20k per seat. Suborbital flights will likely be cheaper and closer to the price of business class.
@@frankbieser Starship won't be flying enough people to be able to charge only $250k/seat anytime soon. Eventually, obviously, but today no and definitly not for the next few years
@@kylekingsberry5680 Yes this is true. Never tried to imply otherwise. But eventually, it will be true, and at that point the sub orbital tourist launch market will be dead (which was my point).
@@frankbieser Unless by that point a company has created a rapidly reusable suborbital space tourism vehicle that is much smaller than starship 🤷♂️. We'll see what happens, but the innovation in this space obviously hasn't stopped lol
Definitely would prefer Virgin Galactic's ride.. assuming I ever had a spare quarter mil layin' around.. lol
Neither goes to space, so whatever is cheaper is best for those that want a limited freefall experience.
@@_PatrickO might as well fly a reduced gravity aircraft tbh. I mean the look on the earth is nice, but you really aren't even in space anyway.
@@_PatrickO Lunnaris01 . I don't know if you watched the full video, but while VG is debatable as it only reaches NASA definition of space, New shepherd passes the karman line of 100 km so by all definitions does go to space.
@@isaachunter4158 lol, the karman line is 52mi(83km). The 100km is not the real karman line, governments rounded up to create a buffer for sovereignty purposes. If you can't even get the karman line right, you are a fool throwing poo into the wind. The karman line is absolutely not space either because it is just the upper limit of winged aircraft. Space has nothing to do with airplane wings, sorry. The best definition of space is the lowest unpowered circular orbit before air resistance prevents it. 93mi or 150km if you like round numbers. The funny thing is that I got this from a research paper before, but while googling it, I found a tweet from today where the ceo of ULA points out the same number. Nasa and the military both used this threshold for space.
@@_PatrickO you're right, Theodore von Kármán’s criteria of "orbital forces exceeding aerodynamic ones" was calculated to be around 84 km, but it was the rounded up 100 kms that was called the "Kármán line".
100 kms is used by governments for sovereignty purposes. A person above 100 kms is an astronaut.
It may be arbitrary, but its a common internationally agreed definition. If you think "lowest unpowered circular orbit" is a better definition, then by all means, take it up with the FAI.
Meanwhile the wind just picked up, so i'm off to throw poo 😜.
Nobody makes fun of Honda Civic's towing capacity, they make fun of fish jumping out of water thinking it's a bird now
I had a dude make fun of my Ford Focus's payload capacity and towing capacity (dude drove a heavily lifted truck with exhaust tips bigger than my head) and I straight up just asked him "When was the last time you needed to carry that much weight?" and immediately got in my car and drove off. Dude just stood there for a solid minute
Very cool comparison between the 2 vehicles. Thank you for sharing all of that.
I live in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. It's about 40 miles as the crow flies from Spaceport America. I went out this morning to take a look at the launch. It was pretty neat, from what I could see. Both VG and BO look like they'd be fun to ride on. I'm really fascinated by the feathering wing on the Unity. I can see that really going places down the line. Imagine taking a flight form LA to Sydney on that.
I`m really exited about the flight