Virgin Galactic to Report Quarterly Earnings (Losses) on Nov. 3
TUSTIN, Calif. (Virgin Galactic PR) — Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: SPCE) (“Virgin Galactic” or the “Company”), an aerospace and space travel company announced today that it will report its financial results for the third quarter 2022 following the close of the U.S. markets on Thursday, November 03, 2022. Virgin Galactic will host a conference call to discuss the results that day at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time (5:00 p.m. Eastern Time).
A live webcast and replay of the conference call will be available on the Company’s Investor Relations website at investors.virgingalactic.com.
About Virgin Galactic Holdings
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is an aerospace and space travel company, pioneering human spaceflight for private individuals and researchers with its advanced air and space vehicles. It is developing a spaceflight system designed to connect the world to the wonder and awe created by space travel and to offer customers a transformative experience. You can find more information at https://www.virgingalactic.com/
8 responses to “Virgin Galactic to Report Quarterly Earnings (Losses) on Nov. 3”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
VG is spending money like “drunken sailors.”
More like a slow financial death spiral. VG’s stock as of today was at $4.70 a share. Then they have a half a billion dollar worth of bonds they need to pay off before they take care of their stockholders. According to a November of 2021 Economic Times article: “The current price of the fare is $450,000 per seat, well above the $200,000-$250,000 paid by some 600 customers from 2005 to 2014.” if they still have that many 2005-2014 customers signed up, at introductory ticket price of $250,000 a person VG would need to fly 150 flights with 4 paying passengers at a time that goes 52 miles up not 61 as originally advertised. They currently have one spaceship and one mothership, and they are at least 2-years out on the delivery of the other two motherships they contracted out to a Boeing subsidiary company. If they were able to carry out 75 flights a year for the next two years with one mothership and one or two spaceships VG will generate only $37.5 million dollars. New Mexico …. we have a problem!!!
I always saw it as an expensive way of promoting the Virgin family of brands rather than a venture that will earn money for the investors. Of course Virgin Galactic did earn a lot of Capital Gains for Sir Richard as he harvested it, enough to bail out his other businesses.
I have no sympathy for VG at all.
They ignored my pleadings to convert an airframe to a UAV, in order to perform a rigorous test campaign without endangering test pilots. It’s like the Space Shuttle’s pink asses in the seats ?, no matter what damn it -all over again.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Doing both would be ideal: Don’t unnecessarily risk people for test campaigns or payload flights, but also don’t pass up reasonable opportunities to send people into space. The latter is inherently worthwhile. My problem with VG is that they ignore both sides of that logic, and both unnecessarily risk people while flying super-rarely.
The comparison with Shuttle is apt, and I’ve been saying similar things about it since the company started. It’s one of those “worst of all worlds” compromises that seems unique to spaceflight. Every single dumb idea in one: Air launch, hybrid rocket motors, bespoke and super-complex airframes, bunch of interfaces and moving parts, single-point failures galore. On and on.
I only disagree on air launch. Handled competently, it has a lot of potential. This one wasn’t and therefore doesn’t. I certainly understand your viewpoint though, as all air launch to date has been on overly complex airframes, or shoehorned onto birds designed for a very different flight regime. That I believe it can be done well is not an argument for you to change your views.
Using aircraft as a first stage for space rockets has always seemed like a good idea, but it’s actually not. It’s like designing aircraft to take off by being towed by a fleet of specialized trucks. It’s the Amphibian Tax: You pay the full overhead for both systems, even though they don’t work as well together as they would optimized separately. There are marginal applications for air launch, just like there are for amphibious trucks, but it can’t lead anywhere else or scale. It’s been around since the 1950s, but is still rare, expensive, and finicky.
We are not in disagreement on historical or currently known systems. Len Cormier did some work I find convincing a few decades back. Too long, specialized, and detailed for us to argue here.
It can scale to high flight rate, though not to heavy lift. It certainly doesn’t involve these expensive aerodynamic works of art