Richard Branson to take balloon ride to edge of space Richard Branson is taking to the skies again, this time hitching a ride to the top of the Earth's atmosphere in a Space Perspective balloon. The mission, planned for 2025, was announced in the wake of a successful development flight in September when an uncrewed test capsule was taken 100,000 feet up and back during a six-hour …
> Why the Branson hatred? Sure, he's a bit of a self-publicist, but what harm has he done anyone or, in particular, anyone posting sneers at him here?
It is a peculiarly British disease to despise anyone successful unfortunately.
There are plenty of businessmen and women out there that have questionable business practices and/or are borderline sociopaths, but I don't remember Branson being in either of those camps, unless someone can correct me.
1985 – Sank in the [high-altitude hot-air balloon capsule] Virgin Atlantic Challenger 1 as we were crossing the Atlantic, had to be pulled out of the ocean.
1986 – On my first solo hot-air balloon flight, I crashed badly, smashing into the ground. It was a sign of things to come.
1987 – My co-pilot Per managed to bring the balloon down just before the capsule imploded and we tumbled to our deaths.
1987 – I was convinced I was going to die. On that memorable flight…I managed to crash the balloon into the North Sea and was rescued by helicopter.
1991 –We crashed in the Arctic – successfully completing the challenge, but crashing in minus-50-degree temperatures 3,000 miles from our planned destination in Los Angeles.
There was a wonderful cartoon in a newspaper after one of those exploits depicting the bearded one being winched out of the sea with the caption "Bring out the Branson".
[Branston (with a T) being a brand of sweet pickle who used the tag-line "Bring out the Branston" in their TV ads.]
Looking at your Branson Balloon form guide 1985-91 and the inclusion of Space Perspective's founders and major investor Branson on the maiden flight of the Neptune* brought to mind the final descent of the Titan submersible.
The comment by an officer in the senior service about the inevitable consequence of pointed tools coming in contact with inflatables shows there is intelligence and humour still defending this Sceptred Isle.
* AKA Poseidon (Greek) - the earth shaker :)
https://spaceperspective.com/spaceship
It is "propelled by renewable hydrogen at the gentle speed of ~12 mph". It's not stated whether they are using hydrogen for lifting as well as propulsion - I hope not.
(But I calculate that climbing to 100,000ft at 12mph would take about 90 minutes, which is not too far off their 2 hour ascent and descent claim)
I also note that it is launched from, and retrieved by, a ship mid-ocean - presumably in order to avoid taxes.
On the page linked to in this article, you'll find the following:
SpaceBalloon™ Performance: The flight demonstrated the successful use of hydrogen lift gas with the SpaceBalloon™ manufactured in house by Space Perspective, allowing the spacecraft to ascend to edge of space altitudes and descend safely, proving the viability of renewable lift gases.
Why would anyone not use hydrogen as a lifting gas in a balloon that's meant to go as high as possible?
It's half the density of helium, cheaper to get and easier to contain.
I have nothing against Branson. Granted he hasn't done anything very useful with his money, but on the other hand he hasn't done any great harm either. On the whole, I wish him well and hope he has a good trip. But I won't be patronising his new business.
Branson wannabees and shoulder-rubbers.
No need for Branson wannabees - the real deal here
Shoulders - Denni Parkinson's
note: NSFW - both for content, and, er, the daily fail website
So, about 2.5X as high as a commercial flight tops out at. *
.. Quite a big price point when its just over another 3X in height to hit (generally agreed definition) of space itself
*Yes, I know with the far greater height & the large viewing area (thats hopefully cleaner and less abraded than a commercial plane window) it will be a significantly better view than from a standard flight, but if I had a spare $125K I don't think I would be blowing it on this Branson balloon trip - not even a weightlessness experience** thrown in..
** If someone wanted that weightlessness experience then the cheapest (the cattle class equivalent booked well in advance) vomit comet booking is around $10K
Strictly speaking, you're right and OP's wrong on that count.
But honestly, if the most that can be disagreed with or said in their favour is that they *actually* got as "far" as 36.3% of the way into space- a marginal improvement over "less than a third"- then it simply draws attention to the fact that the main thrust of the criticism was more than valid.
100,000ft is hardly "the edge of space"
Is less than 1/3rd of the way there.
While this is true (if you use the international definition of 100km for the Kármán line), biological atmospheric space equivalence is around 60,000 feet, so to the human body it makes no difference whether you are at 100,000 feet or 330,000 feet, your decompression and demise will be just as rapid.
So, for a relatively static vehicle like a balloon I think it's fair enough to call it the edge of space. It's only for winged vehicles approaching or exceeding orbital velocity of around Mach 25 that an arbitrary Kármán line would have any meaningful significance (i.e. when a lifting body's stall speed matches or exceeds orbital velocity, Kármán deemed it to be orbiting in space and no longer flying in atmosphere.)
He likes stretching definitions a bit. 85km is above where space is defined in the USA, which I guess is where they launch from. The rest of the world uses 100km. Now they're talking about spacecraft at 100,000 feet.
I'm going to continue the trend in a few minutes and get into my Peugeot 307 spacecraft and pilot it away at an altitude of approximately 0.1 km above sea level.
Branson is missing a trick here, yes to the slow ascent but, after the view palls and all the hors d'oeuvres have been consumed, explosive bolts could release the gondola and you would experience quite a few minutes of weightlessness. You could also have a parachute to slow its impact (I suppose...)
I reckon the reference to "space" isn't the altitude but the area left in one's bank account after paying $125,000. Nice idea though, provided some plonker with an experimental space plane doesn't put a hole through the balloon. (Chute them all down....)
Does that include their head of marine operations who was fired after telling the CEO what he didn't want to hear?
Yeah, that disaster was on Stockton Rush, the arrogant POS who ran the company and dictated its safety culture, or lack of it.
Unlike the others on that sub who I have varying degrees of sympathy for, the only regrettable thing about Rush being killed in that disaster was that it would have happened way too quickly for him to be aware of it, let alone the realisation that it was his own hostility to safety and regulations that were about to kill him.
"Our one-of-a-kind restroom provides a spa-like sanctuary during the six-hour spaceflight. The lavatory will not only surpass the experience you would find in a first-class airplane cabin, but also will serve as a solo oasis. Because the capsule is pressurized, there is no need for a vacuum toilet like on other spacecrafts. Having a proper and beautifully designed lavatory on board contributes hugely to the uniqueness of the experience we are offering."
https://spaceperspective.com/spaceship
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
