The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: DuckDodgers on December 05, 2013, 05:25:31 AM
-
http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/nbcuniversal-announces-exclusive-partnership-with-sir-richard-bransons-virgin-galactic-to-televis/
It appears as if they are slated to have the first flight next year with Branson and his children. I noticed an odd lack of clarity on when this flight will actually take place (even a rough prediction of next spring, summer, fall, etc.). I think I smell another "delay" ahead which will require more money be thrown at it to overcome.
-
This'll be interesting...not that it'll go anywhere definitive. Could be a marketing ploy, could be any number of things. Go figure the flight is him and his kids.
-
Him, his kids, and NBC in what will turn out to be a heavily edited piece, given that it actually happens. It's no doubt a marketing ploy though, possibly something to throw off the scent of lawsuits for defrauding people of their money. A way of saying "Look, I'm actually using the money for what I said I'd use it for".
-
It has amazon postage drones written all over it.
I do hope that marketing idea comes true though. My air rifle hasn't been used in ages. I'd like to steal the electronics from one and turn it into a new rc toy for me!
Sadly we can't shoot at virgin galactic :( we will just have to wait and see if anything ever happens. If it does though would any images have any more value than weather balloon images? I highly doubt it.
-
Him, his kids, and NBC in what will turn out to be a heavily edited piece, given that it actually happens. It's no doubt a marketing ploy though, possibly something to throw off the scent of lawsuits for defrauding people of their money. A way of saying "Look, I'm actually using the money for what I said I'd use it for".
Interesting. I thought that them building VMS Eve and VSS Enterprise and test flying them were VG saying "Look, I'm actually using the money for what I said I'd use it for".
-
Who says they can't have multiple methods of that? I mean this guy has been stealing money for 9 years now, I'm sure some of his early investors are on his tail to produce something more than ideas and tests.
-
How can you say that VG is "stealing money" when the deposits are 100% refundable? I have a feeling that the R&D costs far exceed the total deposits collected.
-
How can you say that VG is "stealing money" when the deposits are 100% refundable?
Because they can pile money into an interest-bearing account and profit off of something that won't ever see the light of day. Even if they give the original deposit back.
-
If they continually have delays of whatever sort, they never have a reason to refund en masse and can funnel the money into interest bearing investments as junker has pointed out.
-
How can you say that VG is "stealing money" when the deposits are 100% refundable?
Because they can pile money into an interest-bearing account and profit off of something that won't ever see the light of day. Even if they give the original deposit back.
So the where are they getting the money to spend on R&D, construction and the test flight program for the mother ship and SpaceShip2 if all the money is going into the bank?
-
You realize that money goes both into and out of bank accounts right?
-
Also, I don't think NASA will ask for a refund.
-
You realize that money goes both into and out of bank accounts right?
??? So VG isn't just holding onto the deposits to make interest? Make up your mind, will you?
-
Where did I say they only deposit money into a bank to make interest?
-
Then what exactly are you trying to say that VG is doing with the deposits that constitutes "stealing money"?
-
Using the money for personal gain which was donated in good faith for the betterment of the company to achieve it's goal of space flight. It isn't going to achieve this goal and is putting on a show so that it can funnel the remainder of its funds in investments.
-
And of course you have evidence to support your claims, don't you?
-
Not yet, I'm speculating at this point. Unfortunately private companies are not privy to the public records requests that government entities are.
-
Not yet, I'm speculating at this point.
Since VG has built and is testing the hardware that they claim will be used for the flights and you have no evidence of any wrong doing, then would it not be prudent to give them the benefit of the doubt until you can provide some sort of evidence to the contrary?
-
Considering they have been going at this for 9 years with only tests to show for it, I'd consider this to be evidence which leans toward something fishy going on.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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? ???
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? ::)
-
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.
-
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? ???
Still using the argument from personal credulity? Sorry Jroa, but the story sounding wrong to you is not a good argument for it being wrong. For the 3rd or 4th time in this thread, you are assessing their progress without and real knowledge or expertise. Why should your opinion count?
-
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.
Yes a small company should be able to do it very efficiently. So far they haven't been able to despite many years of promises.
-
Yes a small company should be able to do it very efficiently.
That would depend on what resources that small company has at its disposal.
So far they have been able to despite many years of promises.
??? Huh? Maybe it's time for you lay off the sauce when you post.
-
I am on percosets for a few days.
-
In the latest news, they have made a super sonic flight and say they are on schedule for its first sub-orbital flight "some time this year".
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4619861
-
http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/nbcuniversal-announces-exclusive-partnership-with-sir-richard-bransons-virgin-galactic-to-televis/
It appears as if they are slated to have the first flight next year with Branson and his children. I noticed an odd lack of clarity on when this flight will actually take place (even a rough prediction of next spring, summer, fall, etc.). I think I smell another "delay" ahead which will require more money be thrown at it to overcome.
Even if they do manage it, Virgin Galactic plans do to suborbital flight, in which they will allow people to experience the optical illusion of the curvature of earth and "weightlessness" caused by freefall. It's spaceflight that is as authentic as the Mission: Space ride at Disney is, with a much larger price tag and far greater personal risks.
-
Here is a pretty funny article lampooning the chronic delays:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/2014/jan/27/richard-branson-virgin-galactic-rocket-space
-
I'm pleasantly surprised to finally see some skepticism from the mainstream media on this. They've been blindly cheering anyone claiming that they're going to go to space for far too long.
-
Interesting. I thought that late and over budget was pretty much the norm for the aerospace industry.
-
well the way its been explained here is they want the paying customers to be comfy in their suborbital flight, tell me if you were offered a flight that involved being jammed into a cramped room with a bunch of other people then launched in a violent controlled explosion in a seat designed to only keep you safe with crap posture keeping then everything else that happens is that the experience you want. now the other stuff about how they haven't developed the technology is they designed it for durability, the rockets Russia sends up are still the same design as they used for sputnik not much has changed they go for dependency over new technology
-
As always, you want to know if something is real ... follow the money.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2ec2mwh.png)
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05802809/VIRGIN-GALACTIC-LIMITED
Virgin galactic has assets of £3.4m? They own a spaceship don't they? Worth only £2.5m? That's some pretty valuable tech they are sitting on there. ::)
Virgin Galactic is just a marketing arm for Virgin Atlantic, drumming up business in Branson's over-priced airline. Many Airlines have promised space flights. I think Howard Hughes was the first in 1955, unless anyone else can find an earlier source? In marketing it is called the halo effect (http://www.lecoursdesign.com/lift-your-brand-with-the-halo-effect/).
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B87lvs8UZIU/UA0FegcEqXI/AAAAAAAABw8/NGcdbC7qzz8/s640/***twaposter.jpg)
-
remember everyone that goes up to space knows how to fly what they are launched in, think of what they have to do when they launch a bunch of people that don't know how to fly it its a whole new ball game
-
*yawn* Yet another Virgin Galactic delay.
Some customers who paid up to $250,000 for a ticket on the Virgin Galactic are reportedly looking for their money back, following the latest delay to the space rocket project.
Speaking on David Letterman’s TV show in the US, Richard Branson said the inaugural flight would now be delayed until “February or March or next year”, having previously planned to launch by the end of this year.
-
Thanks for helping, Markjo. :)
-
*yawn* Yet another Virgin Galactic delay.
Some customers who paid up to $250,000 for a ticket on the Virgin Galactic are reportedly looking for their money back, following the latest delay to the space rocket project.
Speaking on David Letterman’s TV show in the US, Richard Branson said the inaugural flight would now be delayed until “February or March or next year”, having previously planned to launch by the end of this year.
Its like Zeno's paradox. Eventually the passengers will be waiting at the hatch of the spacecraft for the rest of their lives being told there are an endless string of delays.
-
Thanks for helping, Markjo. :)
I figured that I'd save you the bother.
-
Thanks for helping, Markjo. :)
I figured that I'd save you the bother.
If I posted every time Branson moves the goalposts, I'd have to start a blog.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29857182
Looks like no one is going into space for a few more years. ::)
-
Looks like no one is going into space for a few more years. ::)
When were they ever going to space?
-
Never. They were going to cross the Kármán line and weasel a space victory out of a technicality.
So, I'm going to predict the future ...
The report says a crash happened. Its not unlikely that if that is the case, the pilot is dead. Its not like that little death trap has an ejector seat.
Overcome with grief, Branson will close down the project citing it being out of respect to the families of the deceased and that he could not jeopardise anyone else in such a risky endeavour. He'll then walk away to his next scam having found a reason to Jew his way out of this one after 10 years.
-
found a reason to Jew his way out
Seriously? In the upper fora?
-
found a reason to Jew his way out
Seriously? In the upper fora?
I agree that Thork has been offensive again, especially considering the lost of brave souls today.
-
found a reason to Jew his way out
Seriously? In the upper fora?
This is a debate forum. Not a job application site. I can use whatever turn of phrase I like to make a point as long as it is on topic ... unlike your last post.
Talk about Branson's utter failure or get out of my thread.
-
It's more likely that he just discovered the truth and realized that breaking the Aetheric wall would be impossible, so he gave up.
-
found a reason to Jew his way out
Seriously? In the upper fora?
This is a debate forum. Not a job application site. I can use whatever turn of phrase I like to make a point as long as it is on topic ... unlike your last post.
Talk about Branson's utter failure or get out of my thread.
Branson's failure to create travel tourism is analogous to Thork's failure to treat people with respect.
It's more likely that he just discovered the truth and realized that breaking the Aetheric wall would be impossible, so he gave up.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... what Aetheric Wall. As far as anyone knows it has never been directly observed or indirectly corroborated.
He likely was a cheap bastard and has made an inferior product.
How'd I do?
-
Whoa, whoa, whoa... what Aetheric Wall. As far as anyone knows it has never been directly observed or indirectly corroborated.
He likely was a cheap bastard and has made an inferior product.
How'd I do?
The fact that no one has been to space gives credence to the Aetheric wall theory.
But your theory is good too. Keep up the good work.
-
Whoa, whoa, whoa... what Aetheric Wall. As far as anyone knows it has never been directly observed or indirectly corroborated.
He likely was a cheap bastard and has made an inferior product.
How'd I do?
The fact that no one has been to space gives credence to the Aetheric wall theory.
But your theory is good too. Keep up the good work.
Credence of course being completely different than observation or corroboration.
-
So the first part of my prediction has come to pass.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29857182
I really do have an uncanny knack of doing these predictions. Watch this space.
-
Woah, you successfully predicted that a mid-air aircraft explosion would result in death? Can you tell me next week's lotto numbers?
-
Just wait. I'm predicting the demise of Virgin Atlantic. One step at a time. Patience.
-
Hold on Thork, their second craft is 60% complete. They can still pull this off with another 5 years time.
-
Hold on Thork, their second craft is 60% complete. They can still pull this off with another 5 years time.
In 2004 they said they would be ready in 2007. Now in 2014 you want to give them another 5 years? The x15 achieved what Branson is trying to do in 1963. The whole thing is a joke on people who can't be bothered to research the subject.
-
Thork hit it right on the nose.
-
It seems that a minor setback like a fatal accident isn't enough for Branson to call off the scam.
Richard Branson, the founder of Virgin Galactic, whose SpaceShipTwo blew apart Friday after being released from a carrier aircraft, said Saturday that if they learn what went wrong-- and can overcome it-- the program will continue.
Branson, who was in Mojave, Calif., was asked at a press conference about the future of the program. He paused and said, "we would love to finish what we started some years ago."
-
He will. Just wait Markjo, just wait.
-
He will. Just wait Markjo, just wait.
Not necessarily. I think it's quite likely that he plans to keep the charade going until he dies. Then it'll be someone else's problem.
-
I think he will start haemorrhaging lots of money now. Many of those depositors are going to want their money back. They are now pushing the passenger launch date back to 2020. This was supposed to be a 3 year project. We are now looking at 16 years. Even the most gullible will have their doubts now. I think the loss of confidence may lead to economic collapse of this marketing department.
-
Funny how NASA claims that they could make it all the way to the moon in less than a decade with the processing power of a wrist watch, yet Branson can't get people into suborbit using modern technology. I think Virgin Galactic is just dragging this on in order to milk the government money as long as possible.
-
Hold on Thork, their second craft is 60% complete. They can still pull this off with another 5 years time.
In 2004 they said they would be ready in 2007. Now in 2014 you want to give them another 5 years? The x15 achieved what Branson is trying to do in 1963. The whole thing is a joke on people who can't be bothered to research the subject.
I suppose you can't read sarcasm very well.
-
This is aimed at thork,
"For Branson—a typically rabid enthusiast about Virgin Galactic—to even insinuate, by his lack of strenuous affirmation otherwise, that the future of the program may indeed be in jeopardy after just one crash, albeit a fatal one, suggests strongly that he already knows what the final decision will be. Virgin claims it has taken more than 800 payments for suborbital tourist flights, at $200,000 each. This might sound like an extraordinary haul, but at $160 million, it represents barely one-third of what Branson has already reportedly invested in the program. The company can't access that passenger money, however, until it starts actually flying people into space."
Pay particular attention to the last 2 sentences and try and reconcile you rabid and baseless assertions that this is a monetary scam.
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/whats-next-virgin-galactic?page=0%2C2
-
This is aimed at thork,
"For Branson—a typically rabid enthusiast about Virgin Galactic—to even insinuate, by his lack of strenuous affirmation otherwise, that the future of the program may indeed be in jeopardy after just one crash, albeit a fatal one, suggests strongly that he already knows what the final decision will be. Virgin claims it has taken more than 800 payments for suborbital tourist flights, at $200,000 each. This might sound like an extraordinary haul, but at $160 million, it represents barely one-third of what Branson has already reportedly invested in the program. The company can't access that passenger money, however, until it starts actually flying people into space."
Pay particular attention to the last 2 sentences and try and reconcile you rabid and baseless assertions that this is a monetary scam.
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/whats-next-virgin-galactic?page=0%2C2
No, Branson has not invested half a billion dollars of his own money in this program.
Aabar bought a 31.8 percent stake in Virgin Galactic in 2010 and raised that to 37.8 percent in 2011, according to Aabar's website. United Arab Emirates media have reported the investment totalled nearly $400 million, and have quoted Branson as saying he aimed eventually to open a spaceport in Abu Dhabi.
So far, Virgin Galactic has spent about $500 million developing its spaceship.
He's been robbing Peter to pay Paul. Add in the deposits to that stake and Branson hasn't spent a penny.
-
This is aimed at thork,
"For Branson—a typically rabid enthusiast about Virgin Galactic—to even insinuate, by his lack of strenuous affirmation otherwise, that the future of the program may indeed be in jeopardy after just one crash, albeit a fatal one, suggests strongly that he already knows what the final decision will be. Virgin claims it has taken more than 800 payments for suborbital tourist flights, at $200,000 each. This might sound like an extraordinary haul, but at $160 million, it represents barely one-third of what Branson has already reportedly invested in the program. The company can't access that passenger money, however, until it starts actually flying people into space."
Pay particular attention to the last 2 sentences and try and reconcile you rabid and baseless assertions that this is a monetary scam.
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/whats-next-virgin-galactic?page=0%2C2
No, Branson has not invested half a billion dollars of his own money in this program.
Aabar bought a 31.8 percent stake in Virgin Galactic in 2010 and raised that to 37.8 percent in 2011, according to Aabar's website. United Arab Emirates media have reported the investment totalled nearly $400 million, and have quoted Branson as saying he aimed eventually to open a spaceport in Abu Dhabi.
So far, Virgin Galactic has spent about $500 million developing its spaceship.
He's been robbing Peter to pay Paul. Add in the deposits to that stake and Branson hasn't spent a penny.
Just because he recouped a portion of the money in 2010 does not mean Branson has not invested any funds; the $500M figure seems appropriate based on the quote you provided. It is possible that that $400M investment by Aabar did not go back to Branson as well, but instead became capital to begin other infrastructure programs.
To be clear, I am not saying it has gone to infrastructure, but you have a tendency to inaccurately vilify VG despite their numerous blunders.
-
Did you miss the second sentence then thork?
And where is the evidence Branson did not invest his own money in the venture?
-
Did you miss the second sentence then thork?
And where is the evidence Branson did not invest his own money in the venture?
How about you give me some evidence that he did. I already accounted for all of the money. Its much easier to prove a positive. Blow me away. show me how much of Branson's personal fortune went into that space hoax.
-
Did you miss the second sentence then thork?
And where is the evidence Branson did not invest his own money in the venture?
How about you give me some evidence that he did. I already accounted for all of the money. Its much easier to prove a positive. Blow me away. show me how much of Branson's personal fortune went into that space hoax.
VG has invested $100M so far,$380M by Aabar, $200M by the New Mexico government and $160M from deposits. So Branson's company has invested the least amount of money. If, and I think it is a big if, Branson is fleecing people, he would be making good money, but considering that the deposit money is due back upon request and it is unlikely that the NM government or Aabar would have invested this money without a buyout clause, it will be very difficult for Branson to appropriate these funds. The Virgin Group is not going anywhere, and can afford to pay back this money.
-
Genuine question: how does Branson's scam work? Is it that he's stealing the money from his customers or his investors? Both? Other?
-
Genuine question: how does Branson's scam work? Is it that he's stealing the money from his customers or his investors? Both? Other?
He is scamming you into believing in space flight.
-
I'm No expert in US consumer law but I'd imagen thst deposits are held in a bank account that can't be accessed by virgin Galactic. Any experts out their know a bit more about US consumer law? You see thork unlike you and many other fers, I don't proclaim to be an expert in fields I am not.
-
I'm No expert in US consumer law but I'd imagen thst deposits are held in a bank account that can't be accessed by virgin Galactic. Any experts out their know a bit more about US consumer law? You see thork unlike you and many other fers, I don't proclaim to be an expert in fields I am not.
Well, sort of...
The $50 million+ is currently in escrow. See: http://www.kacstaerospace.org/2012/en/images/speakers/pdf/13-whitesides.pdf (http://www.kacstaerospace.org/2012/en/images/speakers/pdf/13-whitesides.pdf).
But the T&Cs don't require escrow. See: www.transterrestrial.com/archives/Virgin-Galactic-T-and-Cs.doc (http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/Virgin-Galactic-T-and-Cs.doc) .
-
Can Richard Branson just stop trying to create new companies. Only a couple of the ones he has created have been successful, this one will be another flop. Anyway, Im pretty sure he has got enough money. Please just do us a favor and stop