[jroa]

We went to the moon 40 years ago using 1960s technology with less than 10 years to develop the first moon landing mission.  It should not take this long using modern technology just to get a few tourists into low Earth orbit.  NASA thinks we are really dumb, don't they? 

[Rama Set]

We went to the moon 40 years ago using 1960s technology with less than 10 years to develop the first moon landing mission.  It should not take this long using modern technology just to get a few tourists into low Earth orbit.  NASA thinks we are really dumb, don't they? 

Tell us more of your substantial knowledge about engineering space ships for tourist use.

[jroa]

Has low Earth orbit changed so much in the last +50 years that we had to reinvent the wheel?  Can you tell me exactly how my reasoning is flawed?

[spank86]

Has low Earth orbit changed so much in the last +50 years that we had to reinvent the wheel?  Can you tell me exactly how my reasoning is flawed?

I think they'd like a bit more comfort and a few safety margins.

I mean the original NASA missions were pretty lucky they had as few problems at they did (plus a hell of a budget).

[markjo]

Earth orbit hasn't changed, however the specifications for the launch system and payload have.  It's one thing to have a large, powerful nation devote its resources to send people to space with a very complex, very expensive, high maintenance launch system, but it's quite another to have a small company develop a relatively low cost, low maintenance system.

[DuckDodgers]

Their launch system is dropping the ship from a plane.  It's not exactly complicated.  They've also had 50 years of NASA's work to jumpstart their spacecraft.  NASA also was supposedly able to send a man to the moon just 6 years after the Apollo program started in 1963, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html.  Their budget was also in the range of $3 million to $5 million (rounded up) a year during that time, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4214/app2.html.

[Rama Set]

A lot of poster's are speaking out of their depth in this thread. Anyway, $3M in 1963 would be worth $23M today and the Apollo missions did not have to build in as much of a safety margin since their astronauts were military and expected to assume more risk than a paying customer will.

[DuckDodgers]

So 6 years of $23M budget is still slightly more than half of the $300M which has been pumped into VG.  You don't think they had to build in safety margins to ensure the survival of their highly trainer pilots?  They had to keep these pilots alive for extended periods of time, sometimes lasting almost two weeks away from Earth.  These flights that VG are supposed to be launching will last several hours maybe upwards of a day tops?  I'm not saying it's easy to do what VG wants to do, but I'm not seeing why it should take them a third longer and almost twice as much money to do a fraction of what the lunar mission was.

[Rama Set]

So 6 years of $23M budget is still slightly more than half of the $300M which has been pumped into VG.  You don't think they had to build in safety margins to ensure the survival of their highly trainer pilots?  They had to keep these pilots alive for extended periods of time, sometimes lasting almost two weeks away from Earth.  These flights that VG are supposed to be launching will last several hours maybe upwards of a day tops?  I'm not saying it's easy to do what VG wants to do, but I'm not seeing why it should take them a third longer and almost twice as much money to do a fraction of what the lunar mission was.

It seems much more likely that the delay is better explained by our ignorance rather than fraud or hoaxing.

[spank86]

So 6 years of $23M budget is still slightly more than half of the $300M which has been pumped into VG.  You don't think they had to build in safety margins to ensure the survival of their highly trainer pilots?  They had to keep these pilots alive for extended periods of time, sometimes lasting almost two weeks away from Earth.  These flights that VG are supposed to be launching will last several hours maybe upwards of a day tops?  I'm not saying it's easy to do what VG wants to do, but I'm not seeing why it should take them a third longer and almost twice as much money to do a fraction of what the lunar mission was.

The up and down is the hard bit. Compared to that hanging about in space is easy.

[jroa]

It seems much more likely that the delay is better explained by our ignorance rather than fraud or hoaxing.

His ignorance caused a 50 year delay?  Do you have any idea about what your are even talking about, or you just typing random words into sentences? 

We went into orbit in the 50s.  It was dangerous.  It got easier in the 60s, and we even started to go to the moon.  Then, in the 70s, we had maned space stations.  70s trough 2000s, we had space shuttles going up there regularly to supply permanent space stations.  Here we are in the 2010s, and now it is too dangerous to take a dozen people into space.  It is just too complicated.  We have to start back at square one.  WTF?

[Rama Set]

It seems much more likely that the delay is better explained by our ignorance rather than fraud or hoaxing.

His ignorance caused a 50 year delay?  Do you have any idea about what your are even talking about, or you just typing random words into sentences? 

No need for the derogatory comments I think.  I am just saying that seeing as none of us are aeronautics engineers who have the know how to construct a craft that can get in to space, that we are not really qualified to say what is and is not an appropriate timeline for completion, or that a delay is unacceptable.  I see you and Duck Dodger talking about this like you have some clue as to what they are doing, what the challenges are, how easy it should be, but you do not have a clue do you?  However, a program like this if it were to ever be successful would be quite a challenge to FET, so not surprisingly, you have adopted a position of condemning it, even though you are doing it on tenuous grounds.

We went into orbit in the 50s.  It was dangerous.  It got easier in the 60s, and we even started to go to the moon.  Then, in the 70s, we had maned space stations.  70s trough 2000s, we had space shuttles going up there regularly to supply permanent space stations.  Here we are in the 2010s, and now it is too dangerous to take a dozen people into space.  It is just too complicated.  We have to start back at square one.  WTF?

Transporting civilians is not the same as transporting military personnel.  You have to make extra accomodation for the paying customer where you might tell a military person to suck it up.  Perhaps this is a source of delay? I don't know, neither do you.  I hope you were tossing in "We have to start back at square one." for dramatic effect?  because the comment seems inappropriate and inaccurate to the situation.

[jroa]

Yes, in 10 years we could go to the moon.  But, 40 years later, we are still working on getting people into orbit.  Makes perfect sense.   

[Rama Set]

Yes, in 10 years we could go to the moon.  But, 40 years later, we are still working on getting people into orbit.  Makes perfect sense.   

I refer you again to my contention that you have zero idea of what the issues in this project would be.  Furthermore, it is not like the NASA engineers that put people on the Moon have been continuing work for the subsequent 30 years to create Virgin Galactic.  Different people have had to develop their expertise, and so it would not be a linear progression of knowledge as you are supposing it to be.

Also, we began work on rocket technology before 1969, so it would have been more like 20-25 years from the inception of rocket engines to putting someone on the Moon.

[jroa]

Also, we began work on rocket technology before 1969, so it would have been more like 20-25 years from the inception of rocket engines to putting someone on the Moon.

20 - 25 years sounds about right to get a person from the Earth to the moon.  50 years later, we can no longer go to the moon, and we can not send people into orbit in a spacecraft that is reusable.  What about the shuttles?  There is some 1970s technology for you.  But, today, we can't improve upon that?

[markjo]

Their budget was also in the range of $3 million to $5 million (rounded up) a year during that time, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4214/app2.html.

Sorry, but you're reading the numbers in that link wrong.  Those numbers are in thousands, so that means that budget was in the billions, not millions.

[DuckDodgers]

Their budget was also in the range of $3 million to $5 million (rounded up) a year during that time, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4214/app2.html.

Sorry, but you're reading the numbers in that link wrong.  Those numbers are in thousands, so that means that budget was in the billions, not millions.

The fiscal year data does not denote it is in anything other than what is posted.  The funding break down denotes it is in thousands.  This tells me the fiscal year data is not adjusted and is displayed as it was recorded.

[markjo]

It seems much more likely that the delay is better explained by our ignorance rather than fraud or hoaxing.

His ignorance caused a 50 year delay?  Do you have any idea about what your are even talking about, or you just typing random words into sentences? 

We went into orbit in the 50s.  It was dangerous.  It got easier in the 60s, and we even started to go to the moon.  Then, in the 70s, we had maned space stations.  70s trough 2000s, we had space shuttles going up there regularly to supply permanent space stations.  Here we are in the 2010s, and now it is too dangerous to take a dozen people into space.  It is just too complicated.  We have to start back at square one.  WTF?

No.  Sending people to the moon isn't too complicated, it just hasn't been a national priority for the past 40 years or so.  SpaceX, the Russians, Japanese and others continue to send supplies and/or astronauts to the ISS because that is where the government's (therefore, NASA's) priority is right now.  If the government decides that sending men back to the moon is a high priority (as it was in the '60s) or it wants to get into the space tourism business, then more resources will be dedicated and progress will quicken.  As it is, manned moon missions are not a high priority and the government is not interested in space tourism, so progress in those areas is much slower.

[markjo]

Their budget was also in the range of $3 million to $5 million (rounded up) a year during that time, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4214/app2.html.

Sorry, but you're reading the numbers in that link wrong.  Those numbers are in thousands, so that means that budget was in the billions, not millions.

The fiscal year data does not denote it is in anything other than what is posted.  The funding break down denotes it is in thousands.  This tells me the fiscal year data is not adjusted and is displayed as it was recorded.

Did you try adding up the breakdowns to see if they match the FY numbers? 

[Rama Set]

Markjo is right.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

The wiki page cites the appropriate government publication and shows NASA budgets to be in the billions. Suddenly Virgin Galactic's budget seems paltry and possibly insufficient.