Space tourism.

Richard Branson is pioneering space tourism which is his "Virgin Galactic" enterprise. It will most likely be many years until these flights are for commercial purposes and can be used by the public, but when that day comes and a trip to space is a viable option for any person (with enough money), what do you FE's expect? Are you confident that when these flights are finalised, people will be travelling up into space and be amazed by the sight of a flat earth?

Many pieces of evidence that I see people claim as proof for a round earth, such as photographs, Red Bull jump etc, people will dismiss as doctored photos or quite frankly either conspiracy monger or perpetuate arguments from incredulity.

This space tourism endeavour seems like it should be the final nail in the coffin, no more trusting large companies as a source of your information, you yourself will be able to take a trip to see for yourself.

(Sorry in hindsight if this has already been talked about).

Don't worry, everything has been talked about. If you couldn't ask something that has been done before, there would likely be no more threads.

Space tourism is a speciality of mine. Its a gigantic scam and Branson is one of the worst offenders.

I'll put below a few of my objections as you've been very general, and if there is anything you wish to focus on, ask about it.

We have been on the verge of civilian space travel since 1969.
 
Howard Hughes beat Branson to the punch on this bit of marketing by 40 years.
Just because Branson is the latest lunatic to pretend his cheesey brand will succeed, doesn't mean he will be any more successful. If he was serious, would he have asked Bert Rutan to design his space ship? A guy who builds aircraft the exact opposite way round to everyone else? Propellors at the back, horizontal stabilizer at the front, Rudders on the wings? He might just as well have asked George Lucas for a design.
Rutan's Long-EZ 61 below.

^ For the record, I have flown one of these myself (yes IRL!)
Nice toy, but not a mode of transport for the masses.

Pinning your hopes on this duo ... I can't even finish. And people laugh at FET!

In 2004 it was reported

Meanwhile, Virgin Atlantic Airways founder Sir Richard Branson launched Virgin Galactic at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London on 27 September, promising the first commercial suborbital space flights early in 2007.

But by 2005 it was reported

Virgin Galactic still has major design decisions to make for the SpaceShipTwo (SS2) suborbital craft, which is planned to enter service in 2008 carrying seven tourists and two pilots.

By 2009 and still no tourists they reported

2010 becomes less and less likely as a date. So how long till 2010 becomes 2011 officially?

And now in 2011

No date has been set for the first commercial flight, although news.com.au reported that the company hopes to start taking tourists into space in 2012.

Emperor's new clothes? It should be noted that the company has taken more than $70 million, of refundable deposits in that time. That's one hell of an interest free loan and at least 8 years of premier marketing for Virgin Atlantic.


He's laughing at you all. Suckers!

I guess time will have to tell. But you cannot seriously and honestly subscribe to the idea that there will never be such a thing as space tourism? You'd have to have an extremely pessimistic world-view to believe something like that.

Would you accept that if space tourism does turn out to be a reality, it would ultimately conclude this discussion?

Also, is there anything that would convince you that the world is in fact spherical? It does seem extremely demanding and tedious to believe the world is flat, the scientific consensus is not on your side and it also requires (it seems to me anyways) a mass collaboration amongst all space organisations such as NASA and the other countries equivalent to be suppressing the knowledge that the world is in fact, flat. If they are not suppressing that specific idea, they are at most lying about the ISS for some reason. Astronauts on that space station have come from many countries and many space related organisations, all of which must be keeping absolutely silent for some reason or another about this. Which does seem extremely implausible to me.

The nearest anyone will get to space tourism is high altitude flying. If they're happy with spending a fortune on that, then fair enough.

High altitude flying? How is that not synonymous with commercial airline flights? If it isn't, then that fits the definition of space tourism.

Quote from: RyanTG on May 14, 2013, 10:07:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 14, 2013, 10:01:03 AM

The nearest anyone will get to space tourism is high altitude flying. If they're happy with spending a fortune on that, then fair enough.

High altitude flying? How is that not synonymous with commercial airline flights? If it isn't, then that fits the definition of space tourism.

If that flight ever gets off the ground, they will probably take the passengers up at night, at high altitude and have them look up at the stars, etc and make them believe they are in space.

I do believe Branson's conception of the Virgin Galactic experience is that the shuttle will travel at escape velocity around the planet as to negate the effects of gravity and give the sensation of weightlessness. This is why space tourism seems so sexy and romantic, no one is going to pay multiple thousands of pounds/dollars to gaze up at the stars in an aeroplane.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 14, 2013, 10:11:33 AM

Quote from: RyanTG on May 14, 2013, 10:07:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 14, 2013, 10:01:03 AM

The nearest anyone will get to space tourism is high altitude flying. If they're happy with spending a fortune on that, then fair enough.

High altitude flying? How is that not synonymous with commercial airline flights? If it isn't, then that fits the definition of space tourism.

If that flight ever gets off the ground, they will probably take the passengers up at night, at high altitude and have them look up at the stars, etc and make them believe they are in space.

I do believe Branson's conception of the Virgin Galactic experience is that the shuttle will travel at escape velocity around the planet as to negate the effects of gravity and give the sensation of weightlessness. This is why space tourism seems so sexy and romantic, no one is going to pay multiple thousands of pounds/dollars to gaze up at the stars in an aeroplane.

At the very least they will want to see the Earth, so the idea of only showing the stars wouldn't fly with consumers.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 10:20:22 AM

Quote from: RyanTG on May 14, 2013, 10:17:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 14, 2013, 10:11:33 AM

Quote from: RyanTG on May 14, 2013, 10:07:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 14, 2013, 10:01:03 AM

The nearest anyone will get to space tourism is high altitude flying. If they're happy with spending a fortune on that, then fair enough.

High altitude flying? How is that not synonymous with commercial airline flights? If it isn't, then that fits the definition of space tourism.

If that flight ever gets off the ground, they will probably take the passengers up at night, at high altitude and have them look up at the stars, etc and make them believe they are in space.

I do believe Branson's conception of the Virgin Galactic experience is that the shuttle will travel at escape velocity around the planet as to negate the effects of gravity and give the sensation of weightlessness. This is why space tourism seems so sexy and romantic, no one is going to pay multiple thousands of pounds/dollars to gaze up at the stars in an aeroplane.

At the very least they will want to see the Earth, so the idea of only showing the stars wouldn't fly with consumers.

I'm sure, in time, we will get some pictures of earth, with a few smiling actors telling us all just how thrilling it was to see the big circular earth.

If I went up, I'd expect to see land mass underneath me and if I go up at night, I'd expect to see lights on the land mass and stars up above me.
It's a snip at a couple of hundred grand a time.

It seems to be you subscribe to the idea that there is a mass conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is in actual fact flat. Why on earth would anybody care whether or not the people of this planet believe in a flat earth or a spherical earth? Seriously?

So no matter what happens, anyone who reports taking a final phase flight into space and talks about the Earth or tapes the experience or takes a picture from their flight will automatically be branded as part of the conspiracy?  That seems to be looking at this with a very open mind?

Ryan, there is already a thread about the conspiracy, multiple actually.  I'dsuggest looking at those first.  You don't want to lead this thread off topic and never return to space tourism, do you?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 10:36:05 AM

So no matter what happens, anyone who reports taking a final phase flight into space and talks about the Earth or tapes the experience or takes a picture from their flight will automatically be branded as part of the conspiracy?  That seems to be looking at this with a very open mind?

It depends on the picture taken. I mean, a picture can be taken of the earth from a certain height with a decent camera, it's just a case of how the earth is shown.
If it's shown as merely land mass and sky, then fair enough.
If it's shown as a globe with an atmospheric band around it, then it's fake.

There is a blatant whole in your logic there.  Flagging at contratrial evidence as fake is a poor way to prove your theory.  Suppose two pictures are taken, one early showing landmass and sky, the next shows a globular view of the Earth.  Now suppose there is a recording of the flight cabin the entire trip which shows the person taking the photos, one of which also during zero-g travel.  Would that be enough evidence for you?

I was merely commenting that there are a plethora of conspiracy topics,  it'd be a shame if this turned into another spouting of unsupported suppositions of a potential conspiracy

Isn't that first picture a Disneyland ride? Not an advertisement for commercial flights to the moon.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 10:48:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 14, 2013, 10:41:39 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 10:36:05 AM

So no matter what happens, anyone who reports taking a final phase flight into space and talks about the Earth or tapes the experience or takes a picture from their flight will automatically be branded as part of the conspiracy?  That seems to be looking at this with a very open mind?

It depends on the picture taken. I mean, a picture can be taken of the earth from a certain height with a decent camera, it's just a case of how the earth is shown.
If it's shown as merely land mass and sky, then fair enough.
If it's shown as a globe with an atmospheric band around it, then it's fake.

There is a blatant whole in your logic there.  Flagging at contratrial evidence as fake is a poor way to prove your theory.  Suppose two pictures are taken, one early showing landmass and sky, the next shows a globular view of the Earth.  Now suppose there is a recording of the flight cabin the entire trip which shows the person taking the photos, one of which also during zero-g travel.  Would that be enough evidence for you?

Any video or pictures of a globe would be fake, that's just my opinion.

So anything against your preconceived ideology is a fabricated lie, but anything that agrees with your ideology is evidence for a flat earth? Where is the intellectual integrity and endeavour for truth?

P.S As someone who contributes regularly to the sceptical community, your name is making me cringe. Please do not refer to yourself as a sceptic. Ideologue-bound-partisanamatic might be a more suitable alias.

Your blind disregard for any evidence against your position goes by another name, faith.  You've basically presented an unprovable hypothesis based on only yourself, despite the fact that anything tangible can be studied and described and proven to be an accurate description of the object.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 11:00:47 AM

Your blind disregard for any evidence against your position goes by another name, faith.  You've basically presented an unprovable hypothesis based on only yourself, despite the fact that anything tangible can be studied and described and proven to be an accurate description of the object.

This is what happens when you question everything and believe nothing.

That is what happens when you question everything and accept nothing.  I don't see how you can continue your existence constantly questioning whether you're real, your neighbor is real, you are not a part of a test, etc.  At some point there is something that is questioned and passes your reason test and you accept it as true.  You HAVE to believe something, even if it is as simple as I exist.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 14, 2013, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 11:00:47 AM

Your blind disregard for any evidence against your position goes by another name, faith.  You've basically presented an unprovable hypothesis based on only yourself, despite the fact that anything tangible can be studied and described and proven to be an accurate description of the object.

This is what happens when you question everything and believe nothing.

That is what happens when you question everything and accept nothing.  I don't see how you can continue your existence constantly questioning whether you're real, your neighbor is real, you are not a part of a test, etc.  At some point there is something that is questioned and passes your reason test and you accept it as true.  You HAVE to believe something, even if it is as simple as I exist.

I choose to believe in a world that no one wanted.  That is how I sum up the collective energy that I have expended believing in a flat earth.  No one wants the truth even if the entire world were just spherical and we came to an agreement.  There are certain levels of truth that are always being forsaken.  This is the reason why I believe that a flat earth is only a slight reflection of the reason why I live.  It serves a great purpose but not all of the purpose of my life.  I hope that shines some clarity in dark corners.  The observations we rely upon take a life of their own and they breathe at night like bed partners.  Its hard to say whether the way you look at them is always the same.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 11:50:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 14, 2013, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 11:00:47 AM

Your blind disregard for any evidence against your position goes by another name, faith.  You've basically presented an unprovable hypothesis based on only yourself, despite the fact that anything tangible can be studied and described and proven to be an accurate description of the object.

This is what happens when you question everything and believe nothing.

That is what happens when you question everything and accept nothing.  I don't see how you can continue your existence constantly questioning whether you're real, your neighbor is real, you are not a part of a test, etc.  At some point there is something that is questioned and passes your reason test and you accept it as true.  You HAVE to believe something, even if it is as simple as I exist.

I choose to believe in a world that no one wanted.  That is how I sum up the collective energy that I have expended believing in a flat earth.  No one wants the truth even if the entire world were just spherical and we came to an agreement.  There are certain levels of truth that are always being forsaken.  This is the reason why I believe that a flat earth is only a slight reflection of the reason why I live.  It serves a great purpose but not all of the purpose of my life.  I hope that shines some clarity in dark corners.  The observations we rely upon take a life of their own and they breathe at night like bed partners.  Its hard to say whether the way you look at them is always the same.

You can cut the convoluted speech and convey your message in a clear concise fashion.  Observations of the same object under the same conditions are always going to be the same unless the object itself has changed.  And you're right, not everyone wants the truth, such is the reason this website exists.  People are denying the reality that the world is spherical and chaotic randomness with no greater cause for the randomness other than universal law.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on May 14, 2013, 03:48:48 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 11:50:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 14, 2013, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 11:00:47 AM

Your blind disregard for any evidence against your position goes by another name, faith.  You've basically presented an unprovable hypothesis based on only yourself, despite the fact that anything tangible can be studied and described and proven to be an accurate description of the object.

This is what happens when you question everything and believe nothing.

That is what happens when you question everything and accept nothing.  I don't see how you can continue your existence constantly questioning whether you're real, your neighbor is real, you are not a part of a test, etc.  At some point there is something that is questioned and passes your reason test and you accept it as true.  You HAVE to believe something, even if it is as simple as I exist.

I choose to believe in a world that no one wanted.  That is how I sum up the collective energy that I have expended believing in a flat earth.  No one wants the truth even if the entire world were just spherical and we came to an agreement.  There are certain levels of truth that are always being forsaken.  This is the reason why I believe that a flat earth is only a slight reflection of the reason why I live.  It serves a great purpose but not all of the purpose of my life.  I hope that shines some clarity in dark corners.  The observations we rely upon take a life of their own and they breathe at night like bed partners.  Its hard to say whether the way you look at them is always the same.

You can cut the convoluted speech and convey your message in a clear concise fashion.  Observations of the same object under the same conditions are always going to be the same unless the object itself has changed.  And you're right, not everyone wants the truth, such is the reason this website exists.  People are denying the reality that the world is spherical and chaotic randomness with no greater cause for the randomness other than universal law.

The chaotic randomness or the chaos of the universe is the great mother of the universe.  She in her great wisdom has given birth to a world of flatness.  A world that through revelation is the only perfect environment for human growth and exploration.  It is this flat earth that represents the only truth.  It signifies how men must know the lesson that individual observation must eclipse collective criticism and tom foolery...  Know for yourself and test the theories.  Do not just blindly accept.  Khamsa wa Khamis...

Seriously, less words more substance.  Your posts are painful to read through to get the content.  Chaos does not create perfection, and a FE requires a perfectly flat earth or else it is curved.

When my telescope comes in..., I will silence the entire world with the experiments I do on the many large oceans and still seas...  Everything will be alright then, as it is impossible to refute simple measurements.  I will not beat around the bush anymore.  I will remain direct and precise.  However, I thought my speeches were not all that flowery...

When my telescope comes in..., I will silence the entire world with the experiments I do on the many large oceans and still seas...  Everything will be alright then, as it is impossible to refute simple measurements.  I will not beat around the bush anymore.  I will remain direct and precise.  However, I thought my speeches were not all that flowery...

Looking forward to it. Happy measuring! 

When my telescope comes in..., I will silence the entire world with the experiments I do on the many large oceans and still seas...  Everything will be alright then, as it is impossible to refute simple measurements.  I will not beat around the bush anymore.  I will remain direct and precise.  However, I thought my speeches were not all that flowery...

Be sure to keep us updated on these experiments, you are indeed correct that it is impossible to refute simple measurements, yet somehow FET refutes a vast majority of them.