Right. Private spaceflight.<p>Anything less than orbit is a hack. And we won't have that until we build something better than chemical rockets. This venture has no more in common with spaceflight than a catapult has with atmospheric flight.<p><pre><code> It is the launch cost ($20m a time) that restricts their use. A successor to the SpaceShip/White Knight combination could deal with that.
</code></pre>
The reporter obviously doesn't understand the problems at hand.<p>"It's just a matter of incremental improvement to get into orbit, after all the lower bound for LEO is 160 kilometers. 160km-110km=50km, so we just need a bit short of 50% improvement in the technology. In fact, we just need to spend 50% more to get into orbit."<p>Find 3 errors in that line of reasoning.<p><pre><code> It is famously difficult to predict the market for disruptive technologies, whether they be computers, muskets, jet engines or digital cameras. *But cheap access to space, and to the other side of the Earth, is likely to be revolutionary.*
</code></pre>
Well, <i>yes</i>...but it won't be Virgin or Bigelow that make access to space cheap. Virgin will make 5-minute access to space cheap<i>er</i>. This development won't bring anything. If it is weightlessness you're after, going up in a jet flying parabolas is a much better option. Cheaper, plus you can move around the cabin and do acrobatics.