Virgin Galactic's Spaceship Makes First Manned Free Flight

These days, Virgin Galactic pretty much seems to be single-handedly upholding the notion that America is still the land of frontier adventure and innovation.

Then again, Virgin's parent is a British company, so that can only mean one thing: In 10 years, it'll be owned by the Germans. Still, it's a cool spaceship, and it did land on an American desert.

Virgin Galactic's First "Captive Carry" Flight a Success

The VSS Enterprise had a successful flight March 22, 2010. Photo by Mark Greenberg.

Virgin Galactic -- the private space firm headed by Sir Richard Branson (and the leading reason you or I might actually get into space) -- announced today the successful inaugural "captive carry" flight of the VSS Enterprise.

Captive carry refers to a flight in which a mothership supports the secondary ship, such as a missile or, in this case, a spaceship.

Enterprise's flight, which took place over the Mojave desert from the Mojave Air and Spaceport, was "a huge success," according to Virgin Galactic.

"Seeing the finished spaceship in December was a major day for us, but watching VSS Enterprise fly for the first time really brings home what beautiful, ground-breaking vehicles [spacecraft designer Burt Rutan] and his team have developed for us," said Branson. "It comes as no surprise that the flight went so well; the Scaled team is uniquely qualified to bring this important and incredible dream to reality. Today was another major step along that road and a testament to U.S. engineering and innovation."

Rutan himself called it a "momentous day for the Scaled and Virgin Teams" and said it was the start of "what we believe will be extremely exciting and successful spaceship flight test program." Scaled Composities is a Mojave-based air vehicle design firm.

Virgin will continue testing VSS Enterprise through next year, moving from more captive carry flights to independent powered flight.

Buzz Aldrin Says Obama's Right on Space; Private Space Groups to Be Embraced

The Apollo 16 command and service module over the moon. Photo courtesy NASA.

Ever since President Obama announced his budget plans for NASA, there has been quite a bit of worry from supporters of the space program that by curtailing our return to the moon, the U.S. was downsizing its extra-terrestrial ambitions. Former astronaut Buzz Aldrin writes on the Huffington Post today that the truth is quite the opposite, that Obama is positioning us to be better able to pursue our goals in space and to reap the rewards of the burgeoning private space investment that has stolen NASA's thunder.

The embracing of private space activities (including spending money to give U.S. astronauts rides on private spaceships) is causing consternation among two groups: people who think space should be strictly a public enterprise, and people who have made careers working in NASA-funded industries.

As I've noted here before, I'm thrilled with the private space activity. It gives me a feeling of "at last, we have traction." Things are really happening, and it's getting exciting for the non-astronaut, because our horizons are opening up. But I also think it makes financial sense. Let private industry do the investment. Government has to do certain things that private investment won't or can't sustain (including occasionally stepping in to save our necks when private financial firms nearly wreck the world economy, but that's another issue). But it needn't do everything, and it can wisely step aside when private initiative has its own momentum.

Anyway, we space enthusiasts no longer need to see NASA or the ESA as the standard bearers for the long-term project of ensuring that humanity isn't stuck on one planet forever. That's good news, because Western governments will be suffering long-term financial hangovers from this economic crisis of the past two years.

Furthermore, NASA's glory has been tarnished somewhat by the underwhelming performance of the space shuttle, slow progress on the international space station, and other issues. Part of the problem with NASA's operations and goals as set during the Bush administration is that ambitious goals of reaching Mars and of returning to the moon were combined with typical Bush tactics of not providing funding. Writes Aldrin of the moon project:

First, the President failed to fully fund the program, as he had initially promised. As a result, each year the development of the rockets and spacecraft called for in the plan slipped further and further behind. Second and most importantly, NASA virtually eliminated the technology development effort for advanced space systems. Equally as bad, NASA also raided the Earth and space science budgets in the struggle to keep the program, named Project Constellation, on track. Even that effort fell short.

I can't predict how well the Obama administration will carry out its plans. Our budgetary constraints are going to be severe in coming years, and American's don't seem to be looking to the skies for inspiration these days. Richard Branson might be helping to change that, and now Buzz Aldrin promises to pitch in his support.

Richard Branson Boosts Private Space in BBC Focus Guest-Editing Stint

The BBC, in addition to producing untold hours of radio and television programming around the world, owns Bristol Magazines Ltd, which -- as the name pretty much says -- publishes magazines. (It even produces them in Bristol.) The next time you're at Borders or Barnes & Noble or any other store with a big magazine area, scan through the history or science sections, and you'll find such titles as BBC Knowledge, BBC Sky at Night (an astronomy title), BBC History, and more.

Though I'm a history buff, the only BBC magazine I pick up from time to time is BBC Focus, which is a popular-science magazine. With a circulation of only about 68,000 (a level that would not even interest many American publishers), Focus produces a high-quality monthly package of more than 100 oversized (by anemic U.S. magazine standards) pages. The magazine is full of colorfully illustrated, easy-to-read articles about science in our lives.

It had been a number of months since I'd last bought a copy of Focus (I am rather falling behind in my magazine reading as it is), but the December 2009 issue caught my attention with its reflective silver logo box, a change from its usual red. The key factor in my decision to purchase the magazine, however, was the cover story package: the privatization of space. It's a favorite topic of mine, and it promised to be a nice look inside the burgeoning private space race.

The cover also noted that the issue was "guest edited by Richard Branson." Branson is the billionaire owner of the Virgin brand of companies, including Virgin Galactic, the leading private space travel firm. I am not, as a rule, a fan of guest-editing gimmicks. In this case, there was at least a compelling link between Branson and this magazine's topics.

If I have a complaint, it would be the one I've made in the past with regard to guest editors and the integrity of magazines' editorial products. Branson's issue of Focus includes at least five articles (comprising a majority of the special section on private space travel) by or about Virgin Galactic. Now, making all the necessary photo shoots, interviews, and information exchanges happen might well be a big part of what a guest editor brings to a magazine, but it still looks like BBC Focus gave Branson's company a big free advertisement in its December issue (or make that "... of its December issue.").

In a statement by Bristol Magazines, Focus editor Jheni Osman said of working with Branson: "The father of space tourism was a pleasure to work with -- full of feature ideas and Focus-esque humour. It's the first time he's guest edited a magazine, giving readers an exclusive insight into his world."

As with most BBC Focus magazines, it's a nice issue. Focus and Branson can be proud of their work on many levels. But I don't think they advanced the cause of journalism any.

Richard Branson Makes It Happen: Private Space Travel from Virgin Galactic

More than 30 years ago, Future Life magazine's July 1978 issue included an article by James Oberg on OTRAG (Orbital Transport and Racketen AG), a company based in then-West Germany and focused on making private space travel a reality. Back in those Cold War days, space travel was dominated by the Soviet Union and the United States, and private space ventures were still the stuff of science fiction or futurist dreams (therefore, I guess, the article found a natural home in Future Life).

OTRAG's plans were to "be able to attract the space launch business on a grander scale [than NASA launches], wooing the communications-satellite corporations for a start," wrote Oberg. Though Oberg included the skeptical reactions of scientists and others to the venture, a more important cautionary note in the article meant more for the ultimate end of OTRAG: "By dipping into a political stew, ... OTRAG has unavoidably unleashed a flood of repercussions. ... Western governments see [OTRAG's staff] as a threat to national space programs. Russia views them as the perfect tool for a propaganda putsch."

And indeed OTRAG was undone by those jealous world powers. Political pressure, particularly from France and the Soviet Union, forced OTRAG to give up plans to use African nations as launch sites for inexpensive rockets. Wikipedia has more on the politics behind it all, but I think it was a good example of overbearing governments killing an entrepreneur who could do things cheaper and faster -- and fairer, since OTRAG wanted to share its technology and access to space with poorer nations that were otherwise left out.

Skip forward to today, here in the already tarnished but still promising 21st century, when we seem to be witnessing a revival of the allure of private space travel. Virgin's Richard Branson is not the only person (and his Virgin Galactic not the only company) doing exciting things in this area, but he is arguably at the forefront of the privatization and commercialization of space. And for people who instinctively dislike the term "commercialization of space," know that the most likely alternative is the "militarization of space."

Recently, Virgin Galactic demonstrated its space plane to a large group of reporters in California's Mojave desert. The ship, called the Virgin Space Ship Enterprise (hey, at least they didn't call it the Virgin Space Ship Millennium Falcon), is a super-sleek vehicle (watch the Virgin Galactic promotional video above) that will take people off-planet to experience short periods of weightlessness for a reported $200,000 ticket price. There has been the expected criticism of these people who are paying a lot of money for a very short thrill ride, and Financial Times' John Gapper  wrote that the project feels "more like a practical joke than a giant leap for mankind."

I think the hand-wringing over the ticket buyers is off-base. Every new technology or exploration relies on someone with big pockets, and in the space race it has usually been taxpayers. But as Gapper also notes, "the U.S. public finances are over-stretched and most Americans would prefer private sector involvement to hitching a lift with the Russians." Well, I have nothing against the Russians -- despite what they did to OTRAG -- but I would definitely prefer private sector involvement for a number of reasons, perhaps most important because it will increase the number of folks who get to go off-planet. With Virgin Galactic -- and I'm sure with a host of other private space ventures to follow -- taxpayers aren't picking up the bill for a small group of Navy pilots to get their shot at fame and immortality. With Virgin Galactic, a relatively small group of rich people are paying the big prices now to get the company off the ground (forgive the phrasing). Like investors in any early-phase company, they put in a lot of money. Unlike investors in most early-phase companies, they will actually get something for their money, so I think this is a genius idea.