[throwaway12357]

Reading this I can't help comparing it against SpaceX.

SpaceX is actually 2 years older than Virgin. But SpaceX is Getting Things Done at warp speed for some years now, while Virgin Galactic keeps having multiple crashes. Despite SpaceX having a harder mission.

Is it all due to the Elon Musk effect?

What's the secret?

[mikeash]

I just figured that Virgin Galactic doesn't have nearly the resources that SpaceX had or has. Getting stuff into orbit with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend would be easier than getting stuff into sub-orbit with peanuts to spend.

But then I checked Wikipedia and:

"After a claimed investment by Virgin Group of US$100 million, in 2010 the sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi, Aabar Investments group, acquired a 31.8% stake in Virgin Galactic for US$280 million, receiving exclusive regional rights to launch tourism and scientific research space flights from the United Arab Emirates capital. In July 2011, Aabar invested a further US$100 million...."

On the SpaceX side, according to this page, SpaceX spent $390 million developing Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, total:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/05/31/nasa-analysis-falcon-...

I don't know what the difference is. Maybe this is another example of how people should stop trying to use airplanes to get to space.

[xanderstrike]

The difference probably has to do with the fact that SpaceX has a functional revenue model beyond what's essentially a pre-order. Further down in the Wikipedia article for SpaceX, as of 2012 they had taken in over $4 billion in lifetime revenue. Also, they got a $1 billion investment from Google and Fidelity in exchange for 8.333% of the company this past January.

I think the answer really is money, SpaceX has more of it because it has built a product it can actually sell right now.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Funding

[mikeash]

That seems backwards. They didn't have ongoing revenue until they proved themselves capable. Their early days were a similar situation to Virgin Galactic now, but, apparently, with even less money and doing harder stuff.

[_mulder_]

Space X and Virgin Galactic are building completely different products. The only commonality is that they both go into Space (and Virgin Galactic barely even that).

SpaceX is not actually doing much in the way of 'new', to date. Their main product is an improved rocket engine design, but it's just an improvement on an existing product. (The self-landing rockets are amazingly impressive, but they haven't managed to achieve success with it yet).

Virgin Galactic is a completely new design (launching a passenger rocket plane in mid flight), at least in the non-military sector. That's a whole world of new unknowns they are having to overcome and, when you consider that, it's incredibly ambitious what they are hoping to achieve. They are less likely to achieve success as a result unfortunately. But well done for being the first to try.

The other big difference of course is money. SpaceX has way more funding behind it, and a much greater commercial potential.

[Gravityloss]

The X-15 was a rocket plane that went into space in the sixties. It was operated by the air force and NASA. I don't know if there's a big difference in the novelty compared to more traditional rockets.

[erobbins]

Slightly different requirements.. X-15 was single seat, no provision for sight seeing, trained test pilots that could handle high G forces, etc..

Also, X-15 had much more tolerance for failure, frankly. When you're doing something for the first time with military test pilots, you can be 95% reliable. Virgin has to be nearly 100%, and that last 5% is a bitch.

[codeulike]

In 2008 SpaceX had a terrible year (3 launch failures in a row) and almost went bankrupt http://www.space.com/5693-spacex-falcon-1-falters-time.html

edit: along with Tesla. interesting story: http://inspiremore.com/in-3-days-elon-musks-tesla-motors-spa...

[ohitsdom]

> Virgin Galactic keeps having multiple crashes.

Uh, what? This is the only crash they have ever had. They did have an accident on a test stand in 2007 when a tank blew up, but that wasn't a crash.

[7952]

Why is the SpaceX missions harder? Only a couple of aeroplanes have ever gone more than mach 3, and with significant difficulty. In comparison there are numerous rocket launch vehicles with thousands of successful launches. The atmosphere is a very hostile place and aerodynamic control is not trivial.

[mikeash]

Getting stuff into a suborbital trajectory is basically a subset of getting stuff into orbit. It's basically like, if you can drive from NYC to LA, you can drive from NYC to Chicago.

It could very well be that Virgin's chosen approach is more difficult because they are using airplanes instead of rockets. But nothing forced them to choose that approach, and it's not the mission. If you find it harder to get to Chicago than I do to get to LA because I'm driving a car and you're using a kayak, that doesn't mean your mission is harder.

[_mulder_]

Except a car costs $30,000 and a Kayak costs $300 with much lower running costs. Virgin are not trying to be the first to get into Space, they're trying to reduce the cost and make it more affordable.

[mikeash]

Lower cost of access to space is SpaceX's big goal as well. So far they're doing much better at it. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX could meet Virgin's price for a suborbital trip, if they felt it was worth their while. But they have vastly larger fish to fry.