The US Air Force and NASA also experimented with such concepts during the early days of the space race. The original concept was for a spy type platform that would fly a "skip" pattern later they had the idea also to put nuclear bombs on them. Of course all this never went beyond the conceptual stage.

A Wikipedia page on the program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-20_Dyna-Soar

I had not heard of it until reading a book on the development of the Space Shuttle which can to some extent at least trace it linage to this concept. Of course it was a German scientist who first had the idea the goal to make a bomber that could reach the US again of course it never went past the paper stage.

Of course this concept is workable in theory and I can see why it is popular again as it is a cheaper alternative.I think the primary issue as you said is that the craft must enter actual orbit to deliver something else in orbit and I doubt this concept can achieve that without costing the as or more than a more traditional method.

Good question.

Let me look at the United Nations Permanent Commission on When Humour is Appropriate after Accidents (UNPCWHAA). According to the Borat Agreement signed in Kazakhstan in 2006, my comment was just inside the acceptable time frame.

So no, not too soon. :D

Good question though. :up:

Will have to bear that in mind the next time one of NASAs manned craft explodes. :yep: :salute:

Need Another Seven Astronauts.

Can we call this one a draw?

Looks like they were warned about the unstable fuel they were using,

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vir...say/ar-BBcAgZ9

Can't find a link, but Branson went on about how the engines were thoroughly tested before hand, and he had words for the media that were immediately placing the blame on the new fuel. He also said they aren't ruling it out either, but to place blame right now is not smart.

Semi-related, but I am currently reading Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff", nominally about the Mercury program, but the book also deals extensively with flight tests and experimental aircraft in the fifties and early sixties. Back then, test pilots routinely died, the odds were 1 in 4 of dying.

Testing new technology especially in an unforgiving environment has always been dangerous.

Branson is reported in the UK news this evening saying that nobody will fly in his craft until after he and his family have.

That's putting your money where your mouth is. Good for him..... unless he does not like his family much. :D

Never gave the latter a thought :)

Branson is a decent chap, he's built his empire from the ground up, and I've heard he's pretty good to work for. The whole 'take as much holiday as you want' policy that he put out a month or two ago was very Google-esque.

Back on the subject at hand, it seems that pilot error was the cause of this terrible incident:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...iptwo-disaster

The one article I had read said, yes, the one pilot prematurely engaged the feathering system, but only the first step to doing so. The second step remained untouched, so it shouldn't have deployed. There may be a mix of causes here.

@Stealhead

Yes, that was one of the projects I was talking about. One of the others was the Spiral, however both of them were using a proper space booster if I remember it right.

However so far the only reusable space plane that flew on the regular bases was the Space Shutle, Buran-Energy although it did get into testing never survived the death of the USSR, even though the Energy space booster had a future (as it was actually cost efficient unlike most reusable space planes).