Virgin Galactic to Build Space Port in New Mexico

aapold writes "Virgin Galactic today announced plans to build a $225 million space port in southern New Mexico. Richard Branson will meet with governor Bill Richardson Wednesday to unveil the plans. Virgin Galactic is the company leveraging Spaceship One which, as reported by Slashdot, claimed the Ansari X prize for commercial space flight."

Comments

Exciting times

[Orgazmus]

This is really exciting times. A private spaceport is emerging, and the "real" exploration of space can begin.
I cant wait until my first moon-vacation ;D

Re:Exciting times

[binaryDigit]

and the "real" exploration of space can begin.

I think you meant to say "the real exploitation of space can begin". Think high velocity spacecraft junk is a problem now, wait till you have disposable camera wrappers and discarded "Welcome to Space!" flyers zooming around up there.

Re:Exciting times

[Orgazmus]

Those two seem to go hand-in-hand with us humans.
But hopefully, all progress is good progress when it comes to space exploration/exploitation.

Re:Exciting times

[Erwos]

Who cares? It's not like space trash is going to remain in stable orbit all by itself - eventually, it'll hit the atmosphere and burn up.

There's also nothing wrong with exploiting space. It's not like it's a person who you're taking advantage of. It is a resource, nothing more.

-Erwos

Re:Exciting times

[Anonymous Coward]

eventually, it'll hit the atmosphere and burn up

That's assuming it doesn't hit something else first, like, say, one of these galactic tour buses, or a nice satellite.

There's also nothing wrong with exploiting space. It's not like it's a person who you're taking advantage of. It is a resource, nothing more.

Ahh, yes, just like all those resources here on good ole' Earth. Exploit'em as much as you want, it's only a "resource", you can't hurt it's feelings. But you can damage it to the detrement of everyone. Not to say that it will happen here, but you can't take a "it's open season and we can let folks to anything they want" approach with it biting you in the @ss later on (see space junk above for but one example).

Re:Exciting times

[Anonymous Coward]

That's assuming it doesn't hit something else first, like, say, one of these galactic tour buses, or a nice satellite.

Space is quite big, you know. From a commercial point of view, you won't be taking anything extraneous up with you anyway as that'd be a riculous expense.

Re:Exciting times

[D-Cypell]

wait till you have disposable camera wrappers and discarded "Welcome to Space!" flyers zooming around up there.

Then the spacecraft operators will need to inform their customers to keep their hands and feet inside the spaceship at all times and keep all doors and windows securely fastened.

Re:Exciting times

[TangoCharlie]

This brings a Star Wars quote to mind... "Mos Eisley spaceport: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."

Sheesh! There are some people who have way too much money.
They'll be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes!
Yeah!, them and those wasters who post to slashdot!

Bugger.

Re:Exciting times

[Capt James McCarthy]

I cant wait until my first moon-vacation

Go to a spring break and you'll get your "moon-vacation."

Re:Exciting times

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll all be over just as soon as millitary powers pop enough satellites to create near unpenetrable debris.

Hurray of space wars, too bad they over before we enjoyed them!

Re:Exciting times

[Pxtl]

Yep. I wish people were better acquainted with how mindbogglingly huge space is. The amount of volume in near earth orbit means that worrying about this stuff is the height of ridiculousness. Even if you're dumping a lot in the exact_same orbit, you'd still be hard pressed to see anything.

Re:Exciting times

[antoinjapan]

More CO2, better it stayed in space.

Re:Exciting times

[somersault]

Who cares?

I sure hope you're from america, otherwise I'm going to cry for the rest of humanity.

Also, you should still managej your resources responsibly. My bank account is nothing more than a resource, but I dont want it to be exploited.

Re:Exciting times

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. I wish people were better acquainted with how mindbogglingly huge space is. The amount of volume in near earth orbit means that worrying about this stuff is the height of ridiculousness. Even if you're dumping a lot in the exact_same orbit, you'd still be hard pressed to see anything.

Space, on the whole, is vast and may be infinite. However, the part that where you can orbit the Earth is finite. By definition, any finite area or volume can potentially be filled. At the rate we are currently launching it will take a long time before "space junk" becomes more than a minor nusciance. Yet, isn't the major intended effect of these new private space enterprises to increase the usage of LEO and other orbital regions?

On the other hand, orbital trash removal could become a profitable business.

Re:Exciting times

[seanmeister]

Actually, TorC is a nice place. The wretched hive of scum and villainy is a couple hundred miles to the east.

Re:Exciting times

[Pxtl]

Yes, but this isn't like water pollution. We're throwing several orders of magnitude less crap into several orders of magnitude more volume. This is one of those cases where you don't have to deal in absolutes like "we will eventually fill it, we said the same about pollution" - at our current rate, filling it is the least of our worries.

Basically, by the time that we have enough industry that creating space pollution is a serious problem, we should have the technology to start thinking about junk removal. Right now, we have neither the ability to cause significant pollution, nor the capability to avoid it, so it's doubly moot.

Re:Exciting times

[yotto]

*Right now, we have neither the ability to cause significant pollution, nor the capability to avoid it, so it's doubly moot.*

Until a paperclip tears through your passenger cabin at 10km/s

Re:Exciting times

[Belgand]

Indeed, while reading this story I was briefly able to suspend my disbelief a bit (and more importantly, my actual knowledge about what's really happening) and read a story about Virgin Galactic opening up a new spaceport like it was common, everyday news. For the first time in recent history I felt like I was living in the future.

Re:Exciting times

[Erwos]

Bad comparison. You have personal ownership of your bank account. No one has personal ownership of an asteroid.

You can exploit a resource responsibly, too. You need to stop thinking of exploitation as "taking advantage of", and start thinking of "making use of".

-Erwos

Re:Exciting times

[pizzaman100]

The Las Cruces landscape looks like Mos Eisley. It's desert, has adobe huts. Go to a used car lot and you'll even find scum and villany. Throw in a second sun and you woudn't be able to tell the difference.

Re:Exciting times

[Somegeek]

Right now, we have neither the ability to cause significant pollution, nor the capability to avoid it, so it's doubly moot.

Try telling that to NASA the next time that they are about to shift the orbit of the Shuttle or the ISS because of a possible collision with debris in orbit. I sure they will be relieved to find out that it doesn't really matter and they don't need to bother. And the astronauts that have been on orbit during collisions with debris will probably be doubly relieved to find that it was just an insignificant event and nothing to worry about.

some links:

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office : http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/
picture of damage to the shuttle front window:
http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery /gallarypage/sts7crack.jpg
picture of a panel that was left in orbit for over 5 years and then brought back for examination:
http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery /gallarypage/ldefpanel.jpg

Re:Exciting times

[mahmud]

There is actually quite good anime on the subject of cleaning up the garbage in space.

Highly recommended.

Re:Exciting times

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

Well, cool... now they only need the space ship to have something to launch from their fancy spaceport... :-)

No, really - I wish Virgin, Branson and Scaled Composits all the good luck in the world - they have deserved it. Maybe, after all these years of empty promisses, we *are* at the verge of the space era.

Re:Exciting times

[somersault]

Exploit to me means more than just 'making use of'. It would be more like making use of to the maximum. 1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents. 2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate. 3. To advertise; promote. I just think it sounded like taking advantage of selfishly rather than for the benefit of all, including space itself.. there's a lot of it, but we're far too ready to misuse things. The more space we have, the more we waste. Also, I expect some people do have personal comparison of asteroids.. hehe

Good for Business?

[TwoTailedFox]

I'm trying to think of the long-term implications of having a space-port. You have noise pollution, traffic problems, and money that the populace argues would be better spent elsewhere, say, Africa, or Brixton, UK.

The commercial opportunities must far outweigh those potential problems.

Re:Good for Business?

[Bibz]

Actually i think he can make this profitable. It's $225 million, but a spae flight will be around 250 000$ or more if i remember right. There is already a long waiting list so i'm pretty sure he can make profit out of this.

And for that money to be spent elsewhere, it's his money, not the governments, it's better to do something with it than keeping it away from anyone.

Re:Good for Business?

[ocelotbob]

They do. Cheap travel into space means opportunities in metallurgy, mining, medicine, and tourism, just to name a few industries. New Mexico isn't England, it's large, sparse, with a lot of area that, simply put, isn't easily inhabitable, thus mitigating a lot of the pollution problems that come with any large industrial venture. Traffic is not a very major problem as well; the area already has a freeway bisecting it that could handle a few thousand more people in terms of traffic with no problem. New Mexico was chosen precisely because it's out of the way enough that you don't have to worry about the NIMBY affect, but close enough to civilization that people can still get to it. Face it, space is the future, plain and simple.

Re:Good for Business?

[AnswerIs42]

I lived in Las Cruces, NM for a few years. So let me put it this way...

noise pollution : No one is going to notice.. well, no HUMAN is going to notice. Between TorC (as everyone calls is) and Las Cruces.. there is a whole lot of NOTHING. Just miles and miles and miles of desert. Well, there are a couple of very small communities if you stay next to the interstate.

traffic problems : Non issue there is hardly any traffic now.. the road would be a little busier because peopel would have to live in TorC or Las Cruces that is a plus for both cities.

money that the populace argues would be better spent elsewhere : HAH! I take it you have never seen the area... Go 4 minutes outside the city limits of Las Cruces and you are IN the third world country within the USA. This will pump millions of MUCH NEEDED money into the area.

They have been waiting 10+ years for this. It is nice to see it finally happening. One section of Las Cruces even split off a few years back (~ '96-'97).. became incorperated and called temselves "spaceport City" because they were dead sure that a spaceport would be built by '99. By late '98 and early '99 they were out of money (they had to make a lot of improvements to fit the terms of becoming a city) and the residents dumped the idea and voted to become a 'burb of Las Cruces again and forget the whole incorperation thing.

Re:Good for Business?

[VENONA]

Mod parent informative. He's dead on about the area. 25 miles south of TorC there's pretty much nothing. The White Sands test range is already there. Placing a spaceport in the same area seems completely sensible, if Virgin couldn't get a location closer to the equator.

Re:Good for Business?

[z0idberg]

Lots of job opportunities for the local population. Someone has to work there to keep the place running. Specialists would move to the area to work there as well meaning new housing developments etc so more growth in construction, retail stores in the area etc. Then if it really takes off your state/area could become the space capital of the world which would could easily be worth billions (trillions?). If you have the real estate to spare I would think it would be worth the investment.

Re:Good for Business?

[adamanthaea]

Agreed. There is practically nothing between TorC and Cruces. Heck, there is practically nothing between Socorro and TorC for that matter. If they had to ditch the craft they could try putting it in one of the lakes instead of the desert. For that matter, there's practically nothing to the east until you get past White Sands to Alamogordo and basically nothing at all in New Mexico to the west and still not much until you cross into Arizona and eventually get to Phoenix. And traffic on I-25? You've gotta be kidding me. You can drive for a long time between Cruces and Albuquerque and have whole sections where the only car you can see on the road is the one you're in. The biggest bottleneck would be that Border Patrol checkpoint north of Cruces and maybe they couldn't easily expand the highway through that S-curve south of TorC and crossing that canyon north of TorC (Nogal?). What's kinda funny is that there have been signs on I-25 for years now at the approximate spot. "Future Site of the New Mexico Spaceport." I just figured it was some local pipe-dream. Still, I'll believe it when I see it. New Mexico has a history of losing companies that started there.

Re:Good for Business?

[orgelspieler]

AnswerIs42 seems to have covered most of your concerns, but you might want to hear some locals actually talking about it. These questions all came up on the NPR broadcast this week. To hear NPR tell it, the local populace is excited about the tourism possibilities, reasoning that since these guys have shelled out hundreds of thousands of dollars, they may have a few bucks to throw around on snowglobes and stuffed jackalopes. They were even excited that one of their streets (the one to the launch site) is going to get paved after decades of just being a gravel road. Now I'm sure there are some hold outs who aren't interested in this kind of tourism, but I'll bet that most people will welcome this influx of people and cash into their community.

Re:Good for Business?

[hanshotfirst]

You won't find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Let's See:
Large desert area... Mos Eisley, check. New Mexico, check.
Lots of aliens... Mos Eisley, check. New Mexico, check (terran, others subject to speculation).
Smuggling operations... Mos Eisley, check. New Mexico, check.

Sounds like a perfect location!

Re:Good for Business?

[Hasai]

. . . . You have noise pollution, traffic problems, and money that the populace argues would be better spent elsewhere. . . .

. . . . I take it from the above statement that you've never been to southern New Mexico?

Re:Good for Business?

[TwoTailedFox]

Correct. Closest for me is Florida so far.

Careful there....

[c0dedude]

Remember, the CEOs of tech companies failed to constrain costs in the late 1990s, and we know what happened to them. Be very careful in spending. Consider whether this port is absolutly necesssary.

Re:Careful there....

[tpgp]

Remember, the CEOs of tech companies failed to constrain costs in the late 1990s, and we know what happened to them. Be very careful in spending. Consider whether this port is absolutly necesssary.

Two points:

1) They have a practical source of income - with the first two million allready accounted for

2) "Tech companies" did not fail to constrain costs in the late 1990s, internet startups failed to have viable business plans. There is a big difference.

Re:Careful there....

[Shakrai]

2) "Tech companies" did not fail to constrain costs in the late 1990s, internet startups failed to have viable business plans. There is a big difference.

What's not viable about selling dimes for nickels and making up the loss in volume?

Re:Careful there....

[Mike1024]

Remember, the CEOs of tech companies failed to constrain costs in the late 1990s, and we know what happened to them. Be very careful in spending. Consider whether this port is absolutly necesssary.

Of course, Branson is a businessman with a successful track record, and his personal fortune of approximately $5,300 million would allow him to absorb the complete failure of this $225 million spaceport (although obviously no-one would want to lose that much money).

Michael

Re:Careful there....

[TooMuchToDo]

And that's not even taking into account the fact that if it doesn't work out as a Spaceport for tourism, he could lease it to a launch firm to take satellites into space. I doubt he'll be losing any money on this deal.

Re:Careful there....

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting article on Branson's 'success' -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1664999 ,00.html

Re:Careful there....

[terrymr]

According to trump : "Branson went after me, I killed him"

Not sure when this alleged killing took place.

Re:Careful there....

[vertinox]

Remember, the CEOs of tech companies failed to constrain costs in the late 1990s, and we know what happened to them. Be very careful in spending. Consider whether this port is absolutly necesssary.

"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program."
-Larry Niven

Re:Careful there....

[Anonymous Coward]

Number 1 on that list is someone named "IM GAY!!!" who refuses to list his source of wealth. I have a few suspicions for that...

Re:Careful there....

[Generic Guy]

Be very careful in spending. Consider whether this port is absolutly necesssary.

Actually, this is beginning to illuminate Branson's plan all along. The Space Ship One is an atmospheric vehicle, not truly a 'space vehicle'. I've always wondered why Richard Branson, with a successful airline already, would want to get into the high-atmosphere business with SS1. It seemed like a limited, fad market.

But here, I'm seeing his true intention. Branson isn't just selling a few tickets on a high-flying plane, he is getting into the space industry! And here will be a cornerstone of this industry: The New Mexico SpacePort. No matter what team or company ends up making the best ships, they will still need somewhere for customers to get service and a place from which to lift-off.

It's f&*^ing brilliant, when you think about it. No wonder this guy's a mega-billionaire. He's trying to corner the airport -- I mean SpacePort -- market!

What the hell?

[RandoX]

I come in to work, and not ONE * * Beatles Beatles story on the front page?

You're slipping, Scuttlemonkey.

Re:What the hell?

[Pxtl]

Still, notice the nick. Starts with all 'a's. I need to change my nick to "* * * aaronson" if I want to get posted.

Re:Wouldn't it be better...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and so an Airport should be build in the...air?

Hmm

[TallMatthew]

Virgin Galactic said it had chosen New Mexico as the site for its headquarters because of its steady climate, free airspace, low population density and high altitude. All those factors can significantly reduce the cost of the space flight program.

Low population density significantly reduces the cost of the space flight program? I guess they're assuming there will be some bourgeois shrapnel flying around.

I wonder what the road sign looks like that warns against burning appendages falling from the sky.

Re:Hmm

[CrazyTalk]

Low population density = cheap land. Not to mention plenty of room to grow and fewer legal hurdles, complaining residents, etc. Imagine trying to build a spaceport in Manhattan!

Re:Hmm

[quarkscat]

No, the location in New Mexico is perfect for handling (what will be) this corporation's largest customer - the USA's Department of Homeland Security. When completed, I predict that this spaceport will be used to deport illegal aliens without the burdeon of rampant recidivism.

An added benefit is that when the regime currently in power renditions(TM) "enemies of the state", they will damn well not be talking to the press afterwards.

Re:Hmm

[Billosaur]

Low population density significantly reduces the cost of the space flight program? I guess they're assuming there will be some bourgeois shrapnel flying around.

Actually, that's correct, from the standpoint of safety. They can't afford to immolate too many people if one of these things crashes or explodes for some reason. The area south of T-or-C and north of Las Cruces is sparsely populated, mostly open area, and is bordered to the east by White Sands, and even further east by Roswell. I'm sure Virgin Galactic is hoping to lure the ET contingent. Anyway, they're trying to keep the insurance rates down.

NASA originally considered the White Sands area for launching the Apollo Saturn V, but decided it was too dangerous, as one Saturn V carried the destructive power of an atomic bomb. They did do engine testing for the Lunar Module and Service Module there.

And if you drive north of T-or-C to the small town of San Antonio, you can stop at the Owl Bar and Cafe for the best green chile cheeseburgers in all the world. [end shameless plug]

Re:Hmm

[rocket97]

small town of San Antonio, you can stop at the Owl Bar and Cafe for the best green chile cheeseburgers in all the world.

Agree 100% every time that I drive up to Santa Fe from Las Cruces to visit my parents I stop by there. Good stuff.

Re:Hmm

[tizan]

And if you drive north of T-or-C to the small town of San Antonio, you can stop at the Owl Bar and Cafe for the best green chile cheeseburgers in all the world. [end shameless plug] No...then you havenot tasted the best chile cheese burger yet....its oppsite the Owl bar at the place called Mani's...Owl used to be good i heard but deteriorated of the last few years.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why airspace is such a big deal. SpaceshipOne is carried aloft higher than high altitude jet airways before launched anyway. Plus Class A airspace (controlled IFR) ends at 60,000ft so launch would take it above that really quick. I guess it is only the matter of coming down that is the problem. However, there is plenty of uncontrolled airspace in the US that is not in the south west.
From what I understand though the FAA did try to get Scaled Composites to get a special airworthiness or operations certificate for their first powered flights. Maybe that has some impact on their operation plans, who knows.

Re:Hmm

[Pryon]

Manny's?!?!?! Dear god no. Have you ever been in that place? Anecdote has it that the best time to eat there is when Manny (RIP?) is passed out and you can go into the kitchen and cook for yourself.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

psssht.... mannies has better green chile burgers. the owl has the best onion rings though.

Re:Hmm

[Sinical]

It might get exciting if they fly over/around the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). They shoot some pretty impressive missiles there, including THAAD, which is exoatmospheric. THAAD has to pull some pretty crazy maneuvers (tight spirals) right after launch to burn off enough fuel to stay within the range. It has a flight termination device (self-destruct), too, I'm sure. But accidents, they do happen.

Also fired there: ESSM, Standard Missile, various other explosive critters. I didn't look to see exactly where the spaceport will be, but WSMR is near Las Cruces: Alamagordo is on the far side.

Burning appendages indeed!

Re:Hmm

[tizan]

You obviously have not eaten at the Owl (whose burger compares well to McDonald's) and Manny's (Manny is dead and its run by his son now for the last 4 years i think) recently !

I am not the only one

Check the link http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_2 526/

Unless you confused booger with burger then you are right !

Awesome

[iamdrscience]

The spaceport, to be located some 25 miles south of the town of Truth or Consequences

That's got to be one of the best names for a town ever. Right up there with Yeehaw Junction, Florida and Ding Dong, Texas.

Re:Awesome

[dylan_-]

I thought it sounded like a good name for a GSV. They must name at least one ship after it...

Re:Awesome

[Shky]

What about Dildo, Newfoundland? Oh, it's real.

Re:Awesome

[deltree1010]

Apparently they changed their name from Hot Springs in 1950 to that of a popular radio show. "Originally called Hot Springs, it took the name of a popular radio program in 1950, when Truth or Consequences host Ralph Edwards announced that he would do the program from the first town that renamed itself after the show. Ralph Edwards came to the town during the first weekend of May for the next fifty years." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_or_Consequences ,_New_Mexico

Re:Awesome

[deltree1010]

The full story (I doubted the wiki) http://www.truthorconsequencesnm.net/ralph_edwards .htm "So, in a special city election, 1,294 of the town's residents voted for the change to "Truth or Consequences." On the other hand, 295 area residents opposed the change and a protest was filed, so the city returned to the polls and again voted- by a margin greater than four to one- to go ahead with the name change. Almost 14 years later, in January 1964, the question went to the people again and they voted to keep the city's unique name. A fourth election was held on August 18, 1967, and once more a majority voted to keep the name Truth or Consequences."

Re:Awesome

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Don't forget the towns of "Intercourse" and "Blue Ball", both in PA.

I guess if things don't work out in Intercourse, you have to move to Blue Ball?

Re:Awesome

[elrous0]

It's so funny when small dying towns whore themselves out in sheer desperation. It's like paying homeless people to fight or going to the strip club and offering desperate single mothers $1 bills to rub your junk. America the beautiful.

-Eric

Re:Awesome

[ToxikFetus]

Don't leave out the Pennsylvania nominees: Blue Ball, Beaver, Mount Joy, Virginville, Intercourse. Damn, those Amish must've had some latent sexual issues...

Re:Awesome

[jcdick1]

The town used to be named "Hot Springs" but they changed it for the game show in the 50s. The host of the show said he would host it from the first town willing to rename itself.

Given the latest bits, it may not be the best in references, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_or_consequences

Re:Awesome

[ryry]

Don't forget Assawoman, VA :-)

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always been partial to Boring, Oregon.

Re:Awesome

[Steven W00ston]

more like pennsyltucky rite

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Zzyzx, California, right off the highway about half-way between LA and Vegas

Re:Awesome

[SubOptimalUseCase]

and my personal favorite: Bazoo, WV.

Re:Awesome

[HermanAB]

Cochrane and Balsac in Alberta are a little more subtle...

and in a few months

[siddesu]

there'll be a rush to buy property in all places that are suitable for launch sites.
that is on the equator, facing east, and with good infrastructure around ;)

now is the time to buy ;)

Re:and in a few months

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

why not just buy the equator itself? it's really long but quite thin so you could probably get it cheap.

Re:and in a few months

[dylan_-]

that is on the equator, facing east, and with good infrastructure around

Damn! All the areas I have on the equator, with good infrastructure, are facing west!

Re:and in a few months

[Use Psychology]

the equator is infinitely thin -- total area ~ 0. * circumference of earth = nothing. ergo, equator is free.

Re:and in a few months

[c_forq]

You should send me an e-mail, I havea bridge that I think you would be very interested in.

Re:Wouldn't it be better...

[tpgp]

Is it only me, or does anyone else think a space port is better built...in space?

Yes,

It is only you.

At present the only viable way to get into space is using rockets. Therefor we're going to need somewhere for the rockets to take off and land.

Chump Change...

[joey_knisch]

Compared to NASA.

They spent $800 million on a new launch center... IN 1962

Re:Chump Change...

[halleluja]

Compared to NASA. They spent $800 million on a new launch center... IN 1962

This is easily explained by the fact that the 1960s intergalactic trade was at an all-time low after the Area 51 debacle.

Re:Chump Change...

[Tagren]

NASA also had a need for bigger rockets, and plans to go higher than 100km. According to Professor Richard A. Muller, in his: http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/PffP.html class, getting from 100km to 200km requires ~33 times as much energy. Something the Spaceship One, is not nearly capable of!

Another one for the Brits!

[Conor Turton]

Once more Britain is leading the way. Good for you Mr. Branson - a man not afraid to put his money where his mouth is.

Wonder if this'll get the U.S Govt to put NASA where it should be. I hope so. It's been a LONG time since there was any frontiers pushed - the US Space Programme seems happy just ticking along instead of pushing the boundaries as it did in the 60's and 70's.

Re:Another one for the Brits!

[JackDW]

Wonder if this'll get the U.S Govt to put NASA where it should be. I hope so. It's been a LONG time since there was any frontiers pushed - the US Space Programme seems happy just ticking along instead of pushing the boundaries as it did in the 60's and 70's.

But putting people in space is expensive, dangerous, and also futile, as it takes far too long to actually go anywhere at present. NASA has pushed back the boundaries constantly with the many probes it has sent out since the 60s, which are a much more cost-effective way to explore the Universe.

Re:Another one for the Brits!

[bn-7bc]

Well the point is that in the 60s the US had someone to compete egainst "THE USSR" IIRC they where first wit the following things: Feirst satelite (Sputnik 1), first man in space (Yuri Gagarin), first space station (salut). The us needed to beet them at somthing in space, that's why the space program was given extre priorety. Ehen the USSR colapsed he motivation dissapperd and so did the money, NASA allso had the wery expensive shuttle program to fund.

Re:Another one for the Brits!

[transatlantique78]

But putting people in space is expensive, dangerous, and also futile, as it takes far too long to actually go anywhere at present.

Expensive and dangerous, sure. Still, there's a bunch of people (starting with some who post here) who'd go, given a chance.

Futile ? Certainly not. Besides the positive psychological impact of reopening the "new frontier", there's a lot to do and a lot to learn -- as it's been said elsewhere in this thread, in physics, metallurgy, and science in general ; energy ; assembly and building, self-contained environments creation and maintenance (incl. complete recycling), etc... Things that would make a difference back on the ground.

As for being to slow to go anywhere, all of it could (and at this point in time, *should*) be done in close vicinity -- orbitals (I'm talking O'Neill structures here, not ISS-type tin cans) and a moon base would be more than enough for now.

Re:Another one for the Brits!

[Anonymous Coward]

Leading the way? To space? Oh, that's right, I forgot that the first man to orbit the planet was a former double-decker busdriver with bad teeth named Nigel.

Strategic location

[ch-chuck]

Think of all the money they'll save hiring undocumented workers.

Re:Strategic location

[rob_squared]

Wow, you'd think that the number illegal immigrants with knowledge of rocketry would be small. :)

Nothing to see here

[el_womble]

its just the set of Space Cadets 2.

Modded Interesting?

[s0me1tm]

Apparently some people do not recognize sarcasm...
Better leave the moderation of /. posts to chimps

Re:Modded Interesting?

[Anonymous Coward]

What sarcasm?

Re:Modded Interesting?

[wannabgeek]

Better leave the moderation of /. posts to chimps

Oh, I'm sure they can do a better job

I hope I get modded +1, sarcastic!

You are absolutely correct,

[m93]

I tried putting one in my town on SimCity, and it did nothing but cause problems.

Mexican Spaceport

[Random Q. Hacker]

So... who's got a truck big enough for a whale?

A new twist to the BSOD

[rvw]

> Virgin Galactic has a deal with Rutan to build five spacecraft, licensing
> technology from Allen's company, Mojave Aerospace Ventures.

This gives a complete new meaning to Blue Screen of Death...

Ooooooohhhhhh!!!!

[bezza]

There's a NEW Mexico????

Re:Ooooooohhhhhh!!!!

[rocket97]

You would be surprised. Back in College I worked at a visitors center and you would not believe the calls that we got. Every single day we would get at least one call asking if you needed a passport to visit New Mexico if you are coming from the Unite States. Some of these people were even from Texas, Arizona and Colorado (bordering states).

Re:Ooooooohhhhhh!!!!

[mooingyak]

I've heard stories about people from New Mexico being continuously re-routed to the international ticket sales department when they were trying to get tickets for the Olympics in Atlanta (96?).

Re:Ooooooohhhhhh!!!!

[jbeaupre]

After finishing my BS at NMSU, I started applying to grad schools. Georgia Tech sent me the application for foreign students and Purdue wanted proof I spoke english. I decided they must be a bit overated if they couldn't handle basic geography.

Re:Ooooooohhhhhh!!!!

[jbeaupre]

As the t-shirt says: "Cleaner than Old Mexico" Or a classic one you find from time to time in NM: "Land of the Flea, Home of the Plague." NM still has the plague. I can remember being taught in school "Don't pick up dead animals!" NM also has the Sin Nombre strain of Hanta. And a few years back they had an outbreak of anthrax. They buried the dead cows in the local land fill... Ah yes, NM. Old Mexico's crazy cousin to the north.

non-orbital

[close_wait]

For the Nth time: in response to all the inevitable "far cheaper than NASA" posts; this is not an orbital launch - it just goes up to the edge of space, then straight down again. And getting into orbit isn't just going that "little bit extra"; a spacecraft in low earth orbit has about 15 times the potential + kinetic energy of a spacecraft that is at the same height but is just at the top of a vertical up/down loop.

Re:non-orbital

[ajpr]

I think what they mean is that it is cheaper than an equivalent NASA attempt. NASA doesn't do sub-orbital launches, and therefore any similar launch by NASA would cost a lot more in terms of $ and safety. To get to orbit you can't use the hybrid engines that SpaceShipOne has, there's just not enough kick per unit mass. And the Shuttle only manages to crawl into space because of its solid rocket boosters, that massive tank in between the SRBs (liquid H2/O2 mix) contributes a small % to the overall thrust.

The technology for sub-orbital flights obviously has been around for a long time. Yet the costs involved for even sub-orbital launches have always been high due them being entirely governmental companies. The X-Prize was setup to find out the cheapest way to get the ordinary person into space, whereas the state space programs have always been about pushing the boundaries of human exploration. The cheapest way is to only go as far as the edge of space to save massively on the thrust and energy requirements. The savings that this makes can then be offset by using a less effective fuel (hybrid), but that has the advantage of being a lot safer. The hybrid engines use fuels that generally are easy to store safely (non of this cryogenic nonsense like the shuttle) and also can be switched off in the event of a malfunction (SRBs once lit burn all the way to the tip).

People will still have to pay $20 million to the russians to go into space for a few days, so there is still going to be a large gap between those that go sub-orbital and the few that can afford to pay for orbital space access.

Re:non-orbital

[RexRhino]

This is not an orbital launch... but once the industry is developed it will improve over time. Within 50 years, have no doubts, they will be sending people to orbit, for a fraction of the cost of NASA.

Much the same way single engine airplanes are not 747s, and humanity didn't jump straight from the Train to building huge International Jetways all over the world. They started building small airports, not much fancier than a farmers fields, and within 50 years the jet age began. You don't start building an entire industry over night. You build it in small, financially sensible steps.

NASA is a dead end for getting the average person into space.

Re:non-orbital

[wass]

NASA doesn't do sub-orbital launches, and therefore any similar launch by NASA would cost a lot more in terms of $ and safety.

Totally wrong, NASA has an entire facility ( Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island, Virginia) devoted exclusively to sub-orbital launches. I launched a balloon w/ telescope payload (went up to 20 miles altitude) from there back in the mid-90's. They also launch rockets and all other sorts of sub-orbital payloads, and research suborbital spacecraft from there as well.

Re:non-orbital

[terrymr]

huh ? what ???

The efficiency of H2/O2 is far greater than any solid fueled rockets ... I think you should rethink your math on the small % of overall thrust coming from the shuttle main engines.

Re:non-orbital

[multiplexo]

For the Nth time: in response to all the inevitable "far cheaper than NASA" posts; this is not an orbital launch - it just goes up to the edge of space, then straight down again. And getting into orbit isn't just going that "little bit extra"; a spacecraft in low earth orbit has about 15 times the potential + kinetic energy of a spacecraft that is at the same height but is just at the top of a vertical up/down loop.

For the Nth time: in response to all the inevitable "NASA goes to orbit this is just sub-orbital" posts; NASA's manned spaceflight division is a stupid, incompetent, completely fucked up bureaucracy that if you gave them $225 million to build a launch facility would get as far as clearing a dirt parking lot and putting up three portapotties before they ran out of money. Remember, we're talking about an agency that stuck two fully functional Saturn V boosters out in the sun and rain and let them rot. We're talking about an agency that let Skylab fall out of the sky. We're talking about an agency that built three flight qualified Skylab space stations and let two of them rot in museums. We're talking about an agency that just spent two billion dollars trying to make the Shuttle safe from chunks of falling foam and still failed. We're talking about an agency that gave us ISS.

NASA's manned spaceflight division hasn't done anything worth a shit since 1975.

Re:non-orbital

[Moofie]

No, you're right. Those "international jetways" were made possible by military investments in building long runways to launch bombers. Militaries are funded by governments.

If it weren't for government subsidy of airports, we'd still be using flying boats for trans-oceanic flights.

Re:non-orbital

[ajpr]

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/StaverieBoundo uris.shtml states the SRBs providing about 71% of the thrust during take off and first stage ascent. The first stage burns the most amount of fuel as it has to do more work than subsequent stages.

And the whole point of using SRBs is because H2/O2 isn't a cheaper alternative. H2/O2 may be more efficient in terms of raw energy released per unit mass, but that doesn't actually translate to a more efficient rocket. You have to take into account extra things such as the mass from the engines, storage (cryogenics adds a lot of weight), pipes, nozzles, valves, computers (redundancy on these), etc. Whereas the SRBs have a lot less extra mass and therefore provide a better punch. It's a bit like comparing a cheap firework and a model plane,the firework trades control for power, and when a typical launch costs $300 million, the firework model looks like a big bonus for a CEO.

Re:non-orbital

[ajpr]

From what I can read of it, the facility appears to do both suborbital and orbital launches, but only for science/research. There's no corporate sub orbital launches, and that's because NASA pays a large amount of the operation of the centre. If NASA were to do commercial sub-orbital launches, then they would cost a LOT more than any sub-orbital research mission. Plus, the sub-orbital launches are only for objects, not people, which adds more to the cost. It's putting people into space that has always caused costs to spiral .

So really I should have put "any equivalent" in my phrase that you quoted. However, NASA has done a lot of research into getting cheaper space access, but has always been too stuck in its ways to find something new. The X-Prize was always going to create a lot of new real working designs for getting to space, even if they are all ultimately flawed by only being capable of sub-orbital launches.

Re:non-orbital

[terrymr]

The only reason for the SRB is cost ... the original plan used the same engine as he orbiter for the strap-ons, performance was scrificed for cost.

Re:non-orbital

[FleaPlus]

Do you have an estimate for how much NASA's suborbital rockets cost, and what sorts of payloads they typically have?

Space == Money

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The commercial opportunities must far outweigh those potential problems.

No kidding. Branson's investement is pretty much a no brainer. Estimates of price per ticket are at around $200,000 dollars a seat, times seven passengers is $1.4 million dollars in cash per flight.

Branson's in the airline business already. I'm not sure about the specifics of it, but I seriously doubt that there are any regular commercial flights out there that pull in $1.4 million dollars per trip. Even those that come close would be 747 type aircraft that probably cost as much to run as SpaceShipTwo will anyway. Can we get some figures here?

Now I would have said that Branson's best bet was to set up shop in some middle of nowhere location, to dodge regulations. But the fact that he's setting up shop inside the US shows that he's serious about doing things professionally. Nonetheless I expect customers will be expected to sign off in the event of an accident.

As to potential customers. Does anyone seriously suggest that Branson won't be able to find people willing to spend $200,000 on a trip into orbit. There are thousands of people who spend ten times that on a boat. I think he'll manage to fill a plane once a week at least.

Step 1: Wait for private group to develop initial technology.
Step 2: Buy group and its technology.
Step 3: Scale up development
Step 4: Charge suckers $200,000 per flight AND satisfy them
Step 3: PROFIT!!

Re:Space == Money

[16K Ram Pack]

Does anyone seriously suggest that Branson won't be able to find people willing to spend $200,000 on a trip into orbit?

38,000 people have already paid the 10% deposit. That's 3/4 billion of funding already in the bank. I'm not sure how long it's going to take just to get through that queue, but it sounds like a long time to me.

Re:Space == Money

[TheMadcapZ]

Well, if the TSA is on charge of security, expect a queue time of 10 hours due the newly implemented body cavity searches and mandatory flea bath.

Re:Space == Money

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is a retarded idea. Basically, we can have rich assholes pay $200,000 for a ticket to go into space, yet, you know, people can just starve to death, live in the gutter, die from treatable diseases, etc. Fuck that.

Re:Space == Money

[rfunches]

Finding out how much profit will be made once the operation has broken even will be interesting...while it'll probably be pretty high, I doubt they're going to be able to run as many flights as you suggest. Similar projects -- Acela and the Concorde -- were driven by business users. A spaceport in the middle of a desert is not going to attract people flying for business reasons. There might've been up to 38,000 people putting down a deposit, but are they likely to be repeat customers? I don't think so.

Re:Space == Money

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

You're so short-sighted... they can all work at the spaceport!

Re:Space == Money

[letxa2000]

There might've been up to 38,000 people putting down a deposit, but are they likely to be repeat customers? I don't think so.

So? Even if they're not repeat customers, that's about $7.6 billion. Except to someone like Bill Gates, that's a sum of money worth pursuing even if you only get it once.

Of course, once you get the thing working smoothly the costs will certainly come down from $200k and the number of repeat customers will increase; or at least the number of one-time customers will increase beyond 38,000.

Personally, I'm surprised to hear that 38,000 people have put down $20k each for this. I wouldn't have though that many people would have both the money and the desire to go suborbital for such a short time.

Re:Space == Money

[bagsc]

For jumbojets like a 747 or a 7E7, depending on seat configurations, you can expect between 200 and 300 passengers. If you can get a full aircraft for an international flight, you can probably average $500 per seat (every ticket costs a different amount). 300*$500=$150 thousand revenue.

Now, I will argue that $200,000 is a bit pricey for that trip. The current spacecraft certainly wouldn't be in orbit for 24 hours, so the upper limit is $8300 per hour. That's an expensive experience, especially given that one could expect prices to come down if one waited a few years. There may be a few people willing to do it, but not enough to keep this thing in business efficiently.

I think a price tag of $20,000 is more reasonable. Still, you're talking a serious chunk of change, but an order of magnitude is an order of magnitude. At that point, then our aircraft and our spacecraft are generating similar revenues, though the margins will be much better for the spacecraft.

Re:Space == Money

[Nykon]

if you think $20,000 is a lot of money then you are not in the target demographic. The current people who can afford and are interested in being the first on their block to travel on a suborbital flight are people who consider $200,000 a drop in the bucket for a vacation or trip like that.

Further ways to reduce costs

[jurt1235]

There are more ways to reduce the costs of this base:
1. Let discovery channel make a documentary "Megastructures: Building the spaceport" and get paid for it (ofcourse).
2. Rent the spaceport, still under construction out to the movie: Space comboys II: Now the spaceport is broken, and they have to fix that before a spaceship can land. Ofcourse one of the cowboys is on board to keep it unpredictably longer in robit by burning the furniture in the engines, and to make the impossible landing.
3. Lots of movies in the titles like "Space Virgins part X". Possible to rent the spaceport out in all stages of development, like "Space Virgins: Under constractors part Y" etc.

Re:Further ways to reduce costs

[CrimsonScythe]

They probably will save quite a lot already just by building it outside of the USA. Gotta wonder what kind of Visa-implications this will have for Americans who want to travel through there.

Re:Further ways to reduce costs

[jurt1235]

I think they want to build it in the US for multiple reasons though:
- US citizens have most to spend, and an "US product is best".
- License issues and those same US citizens willing to go through the trouble of going to another country for a ride.

Why don't we just get virgin money?

[The Happy Robot]

Yet another pie has been poked by Branson.

Re:Why don't we just get virgin money?

[stupid_is]

Get it here

As a Virgin North West Trains user

[Silver Sloth]

We appologise for the delay in landing. This was caused by engineering works. Please be advised that this suttle will no longer be arriving in New Mexico but will be re-routed via Siberia. Suitable bus transport will be provided (eventually)

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[md04]

For the rail works, you can't really blame Virgin. It's network rail or what ever they are called these days. Virgin owns the trains and has little / nothing to do with the tracks themselves.

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[CmdrGravy]

That's correct, Virgin Trains are very good as trains go. I have the choice between catching either Centro Trains or Virgin Trains to Derby everyday and Virgin is clearly a better service.

Centro: litter everywhere, dirty, run down looking, rude/bored and occasionally abusive ticket collectors, no information at all on delays, connections, no shop, no power points, toilets usually filthy

Virgin: generally clean - they have a cleaner on every train, toilets OK, on board shop, staff generally polite, friendly and cheerfull looking, good information about delays, transfers, connections etc etc

Richard Branson said he would introduce High Speed trains and no one really believed him but now they are in service and he has pretty much delivered what he promised he would.

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[Silver Sloth]

It wasn't Network Rail (or whatever) that simply removed the carrage with my prebooked seat one Sunday. Suddenly there's two or three carrage worth of travelers looking for seats. As I had a small child in tow plus a large suitcase this was not funny. If I prebook a seat I expect it to exist. And if you think this is exceptional ask anyone who lives in the North West or Glasgow. My sister, a regular rail traveller, uses all the UK rail networks and says that she has to add one hour 'Virgin time' whenever she visits the NW.

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[CmdrGravy]

That's probably because there seems only to be one line to the NW which all train companies have to use, any delays, breakdowns etc for trains down the line also affects all the trains behind them. Virgin Trains are more often late than they are on time but this is most commonly due to problems with other trains and other train companies ahead of them or signals none of which Virgin can do anything about.

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[Silver Sloth]

Do you work for Virgin's PR dept or something?

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[CmdrGravy]

I'm fishing for a job !

Honestly though the basic fact is that all trains in the UK are crap because there simply doesn't appear to be enough track to run any trains reliably so there's not much point judging intercity services on reliabilty because they're all as bad as each other. Judged on the quality of service/comfort of the trains Virgin are way ahead of all the other operators in my area who basically don't seem to give a crap about giving their customers a pleasant journey or doing anything to eat into their profits e.g. employing cleaners.

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[David Off]

Before the privatisation saga priority used to be given to IC services by BR. Now there is no reason by the ConnexChuffer should wait for the Virgin Express to pass. What they need is a system a bit like IPv6 where trains are treated a bit like packets and get routed faster if they pay more.

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[Silver Sloth]

OK
I don't travel on many other lines so I haven't really got a right to compare. I'll accept your comment that they're way ahead of all the other operators in my area. I just wish that train travel in the North West wasn't so bad. My family live in the South East and I've spent far, far too much time on the M6/M1

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

Er - that doesn't quite fit with my experience...

You missed out the bit about no room for luggage on Virgin trains, a seat booking system that doesn't understand the concept of flexible tickets, no decent food and no idea of "getting there on time".

Comparing Virgin's service through Derby with Central Trains' is like comparing a 747 with a Cessna - Virgin's is a long distance service from the Southwest to the Northeast of the country, whereas Central go about as far as Manchester airport, and run what are essentially buses with big wheels.

Have a look at "long distance operators" (page 16) here:
http://www.sra.gov.uk/pubs2/performance_statistics /Nat_trends_yearbook/Nat_Year.pdf (yes it's a PDF - I know, I'm sorry). Guess which two "services" are at the bottom of the list... It can't all be pinned at Network Rail's door because the company that shares half the route is top.

Personally I'd rather a train run by a bus company (Midland Mainline - the competitors on the route) than an idiot full of hot air (Branson).

(and, for what it's worth, I'm not affiliated with any of the above companies - just someone who gets the train occasionally).

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron. You mean Central Trains, Centro is just a Greater Birmingham thing. And Central isn't that bad, perhaps you had Silverlink or Chiltern in mind.

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[JJman]

[end shameless plug]

Re:As a Virgin North West Trains user

[CmdrGravy]

Central have a 56% reliability rating over the last month, they're dreadful !

We are getting closer

[sinij]

Well we are getting closer to being welcomed as some insect's space faring overlords.

Re:We are getting closer

[speculatrix]

we are getting closer to being welcomed as some insect's space faring overlords.

as a representative of the inhabitants of mars, I for one welcome my new human overlords.

Re:We are getting closer

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new Virgin Overlords... wait... it's Virgin Galactic ? Nevermind, nothing to see...

Re:Wouldn't it be better...

[JackDW]

Is it only me, or does anyone else think a space port is better built...in space?

You're assuming that there is anywhere to go that would necessitate such a port. The only places to go from Earth orbit are Earth and the Moon.. and even the Moon will take ages.

Cool. I want to go to the moon.

[91degrees]

Except we can't get to the moon.

Well, how about the ISS. Doesn't seem to bad, but seems a little cramped.

Ah. Going way too fast and too high for SS1.

Perhaps we can see some satellites? No? Too low?

So this is a flight, up... And down again.

Not sure aout the name

[Quiet_Desperation]

Virgin Galactic has too much of a Cherry 2000 thing going on.

Re:Not sure aout the name

[VENONA]

So what's wrong with a Cherry 2000? They probably run Linux, so it would be easy to remove the audio drivers. Bingo, the only problem they have is solved!

Re:Not sure aout the name

[Anonymous Coward]

Cherry 2000... that was a good movie (when you're 14)...

Illegal Immigrants

[jlebrech]

Has anyone thought of the possible problems of illegal immigration and so on.
If someone from a distant planet spots transmissions from our planet discussing a space they might think that it might be one that accepts incoming spacecraft and not just the earthly return flights.

Re:Illegal Immigrants

[aapold]

I'm sure they thought of that, hence its location in southern new mexico.

It is not us, but the aliens, who will need to worry about illegal immigrants...

Re:Cool. I want to go to the moon.

[m50d]

Indeed, but come on, you're going into *space*.

Name?

[NXprime]

What the hell are they going to call it? Space Port Zero? :)

Ugh. PHB-speak ahoy!

[meringuoid]

Virgin Galactic is the company leveraging Spaceship One which, as reported by Slashdot, claimed the Ansari X prize for commercial space flight.

Whatever happened to the verb 'to use'? As in 'Virgin Galactic is the company using Spaceship One'.

Anyone who uses the word 'leverage' in any context where the concept of newton metres is absent, or as a verb in any context at all, deserves to be slapped about the face with a kipper until they're sorry.

Re:Ugh. PHB-speak ahoy!

[aapold]

I didn't us... er.. actualize the word "leverage" word when I submitted the story. I cannot recall what word i used, but it was probably rewritten for the better.

Re:Ugh. PHB-speak ahoy!

[tgd]

"to use" is a phrase, nto a verb, and using "use" instead of "leverage" would make the statement blatently incorrect, as Virgin Galactic is not using Spaceship One, Spaceship One is at the smithsonian. They are using some technologies developed for Spaceship One, or quite correctly are leveraging Spaceship One.

Always remember, sometimes a PHB seems like a PHB because you do not understand or have possession of all the information.

Re:Ugh. PHB-speak ahoy!

[Kuciwalker]

Or in Finance.

leverage
n.
      1.
                  1. The action of a lever.
                  2. The mechanical advantage of a lever.
      2. Positional advantage; power to act effectively: "started his... career with far more social leverage than his father had enjoyed" (Doris Kearns Goodwin).
      3. The use of credit or borrowed funds to improve one's speculative capacity and increase the rate of return from an investment, as in buying securities on margin.

Re:Ugh. PHB-speak ahoy!

[passion]

Oooh-ooh, maybe I should start to leverage my scientific vocabulary slightly incorrectly. Only then will we gain the amplitude to become managers.

Let's torque these bugs

I received a mole of spam this morning.

I'm hoping my open source app will gain popularity through osmosis.

I sent the UI to the usability lab for some titration.

His technical knowledge lead him to become a singularity around the office.

I could come up with more, but this topic is too volatile.

Re:Ugh. PHB-speak ahoy!

[Anonymous Coward]

"to use" is a phrase, nto a verb

"To use" is the infinitive, or non-tensed, form of the verb. Granted in other languages, like Spanish, infinitives are single words so this is clearer than in English. However, you shouldn't pick the nits of other's grammar, when you don't have a basic understanding of it yourself.

You have a point with the rest of your comment, but starting off like this just makes you seem like an misanthropic, and mistaken, pedant.

Re:Ugh. PHB-speak ahoy!

[bagsc]

When one takes a high-risk venture, based upon some debt in their capital structure, we call this leveraging. As Virgin is a leveraged firm, and this is a high-risk venture, I believe the term is quite appropriate.

Re:Ugh. PHB-speak ahoy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to the verb 'to use'? As in 'Virgin Galactic is the company using Spaceship One'.

Because using 'use' in this case would convey the idea that they were planning to use that exact vehicle, or at least that design. As I recall their plan is to adapt the design of SS1 to something more applicable to commercial use.

Philippe Starck to design

[Cabby]

I see from the The Register that Philippe Starck is going to design the new base. I wonder if they picked him solely due to his War of the Worlds lookalike lemon squeezer?

Re:Philippe Starck to design

[16K Ram Pack]

Philippe Starck - the emperor's tailor.

Re:Philippe Starck to design

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's because of his camel-toe mouse. ( http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/mouseandkeyboard /philippestarck.mspx )

This is the Virgin spaceport, after all.

I'd like to see .....

[Ex-MislTech]

A high altitidue balloon based launch platform .

Imagine a platform at 160,000 feet, that uses a mass driver to toss cargo into low orbit .

High altitude ballons could carry the cargo to the platform 30 miles above the earth .

NASA has already done a small scale version of this :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/02082 7063353.htm

It would be a huge and complex task, but imagine a giant platform with many ballons in case one
fails, and a magnetic mass driver near the center to toss cargo into low orbit .

Power the mass driver would be difficult at that altitude with nearly zero oxygen .

Perhaps fuel cells, solar panels, or other non-combustion method .

I am curious how much a 30 mile headstart plus mag driver boost would help with fuel
cost to achieve Low Earth Orbit .

For the Anti Mass Driver crowd NASA has considered this before .

http://www.freeluna.com/spasnotes.htm

http://www.ssi.org/body_research.html#mass-drivers

http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/moondust.htm

Thanks !
Ex-MislTech

Re:I'd like to see .....

[ScottyH]

The anti mass driver crowd.

Nowhere but slashdot.

Re:I'd like to see .....

[orim]

Interesting idea, but I think baloons are a bit too flimsy for this kind of an operation. For one, these baloons would have be gi-normous. Looking at one of the articles has the baloons at 60 million cubic feet, (the biggest they've ever built) and a payload of 1500 pounds. Now imagine the size of teh baloon for an actual platform. They're also too fragile - as thick as sandwich paper.

No, I say we wait for the anti-gravity device that powers those star wars floating platforms... Then we go for it.

Re:I'd like to see .....

[Moofie]

Mass drivers have recoil. That's because they're mass drivers.

Altitude is easy. Velocity is hard. Launching from a balloon gives you lots of altitude, and very little velocity.

Re:I'd like to see .....

[StikyPad]

Yeah, but I bet they could save a ton of money if they just went with one very large balloon!

Re:New Orleans would be better...

[CrazyTalk]

Assuming this is not a troll - do you really want your spaceport built in an area below sea level that is prone to hurricanes? And if you read the article, you would see that having the high altitude in New Mexico was another key factor in keeping launch costs down.

fraud and exaggeration

[The Fun Guy]

The spaceport, to be located some 25 miles south of the town of Truth or Consequences, will be constructed 90 percent underground, with just the runway and supporting structures above ground.

Some people might think that they are going to all of the trouble and expense of digging out tunnels and pits to construct living quarters, maintenance, etc. is for energy efficiency or something.

The real reason is more unsavory.

If you are announcing your intention to build a conventional (above ground) 60,000 square foot multi-building compound, it will be obvious to everyone if you only build the first 5000 square foot building, and leave the rest for when you actually turn a profit. If it's "90 percent underground", then you can just dig out for that first little structure, put a few 5' side tunnels on and install locked doors in front of the dirt. Who can tell the difference? If you slap labels like "Authorized Personnel Only" or "Hazardous Area - Do Not Enter", then you don't have to open the doors for the reporters who come to tour the "spaceport".

What this means is that they can put up a few sheds and bunkers above ground, build one showcase underground structure to show the reporters and passengers (who come in one or two at a time). Have a few bulldozers and dumptrucks drive around for awhile "building" the rest, then call it a spaceport. That might give them enough time to do a few flights to get the money coming in, then they can actually build the rest of it (probably above ground, with a cover story about how the original underground plans were too expensive). If the project tanks, they walk away without having sunk a lot of money in the thing.

If you can't see it, it isn't there.

Re:fraud and exaggeration

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like air?

Re:fraud and exaggeration

[Ortega-Starfire]

In other words, count all the dump trucks going away from the site with dirt. We will know thus how much work is actually done. There are hundreds of other ways too, up to and including whistle-blowers.

Re:fraud and exaggeration

[ameline]

The real unsavory reason they're building below ground is that they expect things above ground to be blowing up. Hardly reassuring to potential customers.

Re:fraud and exaggeration

[Anonymous Coward]

"The real reason is more unsavory."

Do you have any proof, or did you have this information given to you during one of the rare moments you removed your tinfoil hat?

It's a great theory, but it's exactly people like you here on /. and various blogs that create a ton of misinformation on the Internet. Instead of stating things as "facts" that are either opinions, theories, or you just being a loon, it would be more helpful to the entire Internet community if people would take more personal responsibility when posting, blogging, etc. and at least try to get the facts straight.

Re:fraud and exaggeration

[BerntB]

Do you have any proof

I think the grandparent was joking. Quite funny too, IMHO.

The problem isn't the GP; the quality of this thread was abysmal.

Do the real space engineers have a vacation? You used to find lots of the people on /. that I saw posting on sci.space.tech in the 90s.

I've been sitting here with mod points -- and ending up complaining instead. :-(

Re:fraud and exaggeration

[The Fun Guy]

if people would take more personal responsibility when posting, blogging, etc. ... said the Anonymous Coward.

Re:fraud and exaggeration

[RexRhino]

Sounds like a great idea to me, player hater!

Re:fraud and exaggeration

[Anonymous Coward]

60,000 square feet is not really a large building. A regular shopping mall is usually around 500,000 - 1 million square feet. There are many over one million. The largest, I think, is over 6 million square feet, a hundred times the size of this spaceport-to-be.

60,000 square feet is about the size of a typical "anchor store" in a mall, say of the department stores like Macy's or a "big box" retailer.

This much construction wouldn't cost so much as to be worth cheating on.

Re:fraud and exaggeration

[erozen]

I think the REAL reason is even more unsavoury - if the fit hits the shan, and the craft crash lands, it won't crash into a terminal full of (ex) customers and reporters.

Better to lose 1 flights worth of paying customers than the rest of the days. Oh, and all you're employees.


Acknowledged, i haven't seen too many 747s crash land into terminals at airports - but this is VERY new technology - more to errors - and my understanding is that, like the shuttle, this thing is seriously moving when it lands... No air-brakes, or reverse thrust or anything to slow it down, either...

Mos Eisley, NM?

[dir-wizard]

Guess it kinda makes sense that a recognizable name should be used for the spaceport...

Re: Mos Eisley, NM?

[Anonymous Coward]

All those workers need a Cantina, right? You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.

Where do you get your news?

[GarrettZilla]

Virgin Galactic is the company leveraging Spaceship One which, as reported by Slashdot, claimed the Ansari X prize for commercial space flight.

Right... if it hadn't been for Slashdot, I'd have never known about any of it!

My Launch Pad

[EBFoxbat]

I build KNO3 rockets for a while with a buddy in high school. We molded them in 1.5" ID PVC pipe with one end cap. Post 9/11 we decided they looked too much like a pipe bomb we we stopped. If smart and safe, KNO3 rockets can make for a really fun and nerdy hobby. It just go too sticky for me with the local fire department (while not fobidding me) frowned upon it. Anyway, I made a small concrete slab for a launch pad. It cost me about $25 worth of quick-crete. It had a channel to vent exhaust away from our "control center" I thought it was snazzy. Massachusetts isn't as close to the equator as I hoped, so we never attained orbit (actually we sayed below 1000 feet for FAA reasons). But it gave me the idea to "launch" my own reality TV show con-ing people into thinking they were astronauts... oh wait that was a different /. article.

New Mexico Space Port

[Timberwolf0122]

You'll never find a bigger hive of scum and villainy, we must be cautious.

Leverage

[ameline]

They are not leveraging spaceship one -- they are using it.

Don't use the word leverage unless you can give an estimate in newton meters. Doing otherwise makes you sound like a PHB.

Re:Wouldn't it be better...

[Timberwolf0122]

Actualy the majority of an airports suface area is in driect contact with air, it is only the foot print that is attached to the ground.

Thanks Mr Branson!

[Centurix]

By far my favourite multi billionaire.

Re:Cool. I want to go to the moon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because the Wright brothers achieved a trans-Atlantic flight with their first plane.

Granted it is a bit useless now, nothing more than an amusement ride for the uber-rich. Then again, flying was only for the rich 40-50 years ago....

expensive pounds to orbit

[zogger]

I think once true colonization of space begins that very little if anything will be considered "trash". I would imagine most everything hauled up at expensive-per-pound will be built to be either well constructed and used for a long time or rebuildable/upgradeable or designed to be recyclable. Even various oerganic "wastes" will be reprocessed and used in space farming or energy production, liquids reclaimed for their H20 content, etc, etc. People only throw away things when they are cheap or broken now in "rich" industrialised economies, in space it will get fixed or used to build something else. Think "shanty towns" on earth now, complete communities built on "used various stuff", just in space it will be on-purpose from the beginning.

Re:expensive pounds to orbit

[todd10k]

I believe this man made a very valid point, and you all waltzed convienently over it.

Re:expensive pounds to orbit

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, the simple response to that is, "then why is there already so much junk in orbit?" but that seems to be addressed more in a previous thread, so let's think about the space ladder, or space elevator (which has had to slow its progress due to worries of what would happen if space debris collided with the tether).

From this LiftPort's website (http://liftport.com/research2.php) "According to several NASA studies, a space elevator would dramatically reduce the cost of sending payloads into space. The same studies estimate that the cost of sending payloads into space could be reduced from $20,000 per pound down to $400 per pound." Yes, this is a commercial site explaining the benefits of its proposed product, but I've also read about the cost difference in Wired and heard it other places.
You make a good point in that expensive things are rarely wasted, but all that changes when those things stop being expensive, and something tells me that "true colonization of space" will probably happen once the cost comes down, not before it does.

Some perspective

[amightywind]

This is really exciting times. A private spaceport is emerging, and the "real" exploration of space can begin. I cant wait until my first moon-vacation ;D

So you think the real exploration of space begins with millionaires the political elite taking $200,000 ballistic rocket rides? There is a fair technological difference between the Virgin Atlantic's proposed service and NASA's new lunar exploration program. If it was anyone other than Burt Rutan behind this I would be even more skeptical, but I do think Virgin Galactic will fly.

Re:Some perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I know! And $3500 for one of these huge honking cell phone things? Give me a break. That's only a toy for the political elite. We have about as much chance of sub-orbital flights sold only to those who can afford to $200,000 ride leading to commercial spaceflight for the rest of us as we do of seeing an affordable cell phone, computers, air travel, etc.

On the other hand, if NASA keeps blowing up space shuttles and crash landing probes on Mars, sooner or later we'll get a man back to the moon.

Re:Some perspective

[amightywind]

I know! And $3500 for one of these huge honking cell phone things [about.com]? Give me a break. That's only a toy for the political elite. We have about as much chance of sub-orbital flights sold only to those who can afford to $200,000 ride leading to commercial spaceflight for the rest of us as we do of seeing an affordable cell phone, computers, air travel, etc.

Comparing the evolution of space technology to consumer electronics is a laughable analogy. With space launches you are running up against a little thing called fuel mass fraction. It takes a big rocket to go to the moon. There is no way around that, even for Burt Rutan.

Re:Some perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a high fuel mass fraction doesn't automatically make a launcher expensive. LOX and kerosene are DIRT CHEAP. Fuel+oxidiser is typically 1% or less of the cost of a typical orbital launch.

It's the vehicle structure, engines, and most of all the *ground crew payroll* which costs the big bucks, and small, agile companies like SpaceX and t/Space are working on reducing the cost of these.

Re:Some perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, there was once a time in humankind's history where the idea of flying was silly. A lot of great minds and wealthy individuals kept trying and the common wisdom of the day was that if anyone at all could do it, they could- assuming it was even possible. No one expected a couple of bicycle shop boys to beat everyone else to the punch. Fast forward a few years later and the development of the airplane zooms forward thanks to war. When the peaceful commercial/private airline industry took off do you think it was the middle class who were flying? No, only the wealthy and "political elite" who could afford it went along. Then there was competition for even that market. In order to compete, costs had to come down, technology was driven forward (and at one point helped on by another war). Eventually, it got cheap enough for you and I to fly.

The point is, unless you're hoping for another war or some other international crisis that would cause governments to poor insane amounts of money into manned flight (say, something like the cold war and the apollo missions), you'd better hope that private industry does it. And these people aren't doing it for kicks you know, they want to make money. If they are successful enough, more competition will be there for the $200k suborbital flight market. Then to compete they'll have to pour more money into further development, lowering costs, etc. Sooner or later you and I will be able to afford a fun suborbital hop, wealthy folks will be able to stay in an orbiting hotel for a few days on vacation and wouldn't you know it but sooner or later the rest of us will be able to afford to as well.

Despite all the nay-sayers out there, I for one am glad there are still people out there with a dreams and visions and the will to go out and try to make them come true.

Re:Some perspective

[DavidTC]

Comparing the evolution of travel technology to consumer electronics is a laughable analogy. With steam engines you are running up against a little thing called fuel mass fraction. It takes a whole train car of coal to go 100 miles. There is no way around that, even for Sadi Carno.

While how much 'fuel' it takes to get to the moon may be a physical law, there is absolutely nothing in physics that says how much the fuel must cost, or what form it might take.

And it's not a physical law in the way you claim it.

While you do, indeed, have to push X amount of stuff downward to move upward, nothing says that has to be 'fuel', as in, the stuff powering the pushing does not have to be the same stuff that you are throwing out the back. Maybe it's air you merely accelerated, at least for the first part of the trip, maybe it's a load of highly compressed dirt you fling downward using electrity. Dirt is free, and electricity is cheap.

Or maybe you use a launcher on earth that gives you a lot of momentum 'for free' (by 'pushing' the earth), or maybe you use a space elevator that gives you it all for free.

And no matter what you throw out the back, space travel can't help but get cheaper, because spacehips are getting cheaper and lighter. 200,000 is how much it costs to put people and their part of the ship into orbit, and their part of the ship weighs a lot more than they do.

Re:Some perspective

[amightywind]

While how much 'fuel' it takes to get to the moon may be a physical law, there is absolutely nothing in physics that says how much the fuel must cost, or what form it might take.

True, but rockets that launch payloads to LEO or GTO for the forseeable future (100 years) will be chemically fueled. The best fuels that we can practically use for the forseeable future are H2 and O2 or Kerosene and O2. There is no easy way around it. What are your alternatives?

While you do, indeed, have to push X amount of stuff downward to move upward, nothing says that has to be 'fuel', as in, the stuff powering the pushing does not have to be the same stuff that you are throwing out the back. Maybe it's air you merely accelerated,

Amusing. And what would that stuff be? Air (and fuel!) get you to about 100,000 ft and Mach 3, but I'll agree it has a high Isp. What about the other 22 mach? Do you use magic pixie dust or warp power?

at least for the first part of the trip, maybe it's a load of highly compressed dirt you fling downward using electrity. Dirt is free, and electricity is cheap.

So you want to use dirt as the working fluid of an ion engine? It is not as easy to ionize as conventional fluids like Xenon. Electric power onboard an accending rocket is pretty scarce for what you are suggesting

Or maybe you use a launcher on earth that gives you a lot of momentum 'for free' (by 'pushing' the earth), or maybe you use a space elevator that gives you it all for free.

The Earth's rotation is about 1,100 mph. That leaves only 16,500 mph to be obtained from the rocket lauched eastward from the equator. Low latitude launches are efficient, but they don't help that much.

There is that pesky 'space elevator' again. Well, after all, this is slashdot.

And no matter what you throw out the back, space travel can't help but get cheaper, because spacehips are getting cheaper and lighter. 200,000 is how much it costs to put people and their part of the ship into orbit, and their part of the ship weighs a lot more than they do.

Virgin Galactic is conducting suborbital flights. They will require orders of magnitude more energy to reach orbit.

Re:Some perspective

[DavidTC]

True, but rockets that launch payloads to LEO or GTO for the forseeable future (100 years) will be chemically fueled. The best fuels that we can practically use for the forseeable future are H2 and O2 or Kerosene and O2. There is no easy way around it. What are your alternatives?

No one on this planet can make predictions about what technology we won't have in 100 years, unless that technology is impossible, and even then it's risky. I'll admit we won't have anything better in ten years, but that's simply because we don't have a commerical space industry. Once we do have one, expect new ideas.

As for what I think? I have no idea. Let's check in a decade or two where commerical space travel is a fifty billion dollar industry, and 90% of the costs are fuel, and let's see if they aren't doing, I dunno, some sort of research into that.

Actually, I do have an obvious suggestion: Use the O2 in the air until we get too high. (I know we don't have a way to do that right now, but it's certainly possible.)

Amusing. And what would that stuff be? Air (and fuel!) get you to about 100,000 ft and Mach 3, but I'll agree it has a high Isp. What about the other 22 mach? Do you use magic pixie dust or warp power?

I have no idea why you think that is the fastest you can reach by pushing air.

So you want to use dirt as the working fluid of an ion engine? It is not as easy to ionize as conventional fluids like Xenon. Electric power onboard an accending rocket is pretty scarce for what you are suggesting

Electrical power is exactly as scarce as batteries are powerful and compact. And we've made astonishing breakthoughs in that area recently.

The Earth's rotation is about 1,100 mph. That leaves only 16,500 mph to be obtained from the rocket lauched eastward from the equator. Low latitude launches are efficient, but they don't help that much.

There is that pesky 'space elevator' again. Well, after all, this is slashdot.

OTOH, the idea of 'tethers' to help change orbits cheaply makes some sense.

Virgin Galactic is conducting suborbital flights. They will require orders of magnitude more energy to reach orbit.

Just like the first air flight required orders of magnitudes of improvement to become transcontinential, or the first trains required orders of magnitudes of improvement to haul people cross-country.

Everyone knows this is an absurdly expensive undertaking at this point, suitable for the eccentric daredevils, and not in any way useful. There is almost zero reason to move people to orbit at all.

Just like every other means of transport ever invented started out, all the way back to the first person to sit on a log and try to cross the river on it, the first person catch a horse and ride it, the first person to build a box with wheels and attached it to a horse and stand on it, or the first person to put a smoke-spewing stream engine on that box and try to move it without a horse. All of them were dangerous, most of them cost too much, and every one of them had people saying 'Pfft, that's a silly idea.'.

Re:Some perspective

[Orgazmus]

My point exactly

Commercially viable?

[Veneratio]

Would this venture really be commercially viable? TFA:

Virgin Galactic, the British company created by entrepreneur Richard Branson to send tourists into space, and New Mexico announced an agreement Tuesday for the state to build a $225 million spaceport.

Virgin will have a 20-year lease on the facility, with annual payments of $1 million for the first five years and rising to cover the cost of the project by the end of the lease.

...up to 38,000 people from 126 countries have paid a deposit for a seat on one of its manned commercial flights, including a core group of 100 "founders" who have paid the initial $200,000 cost of a flight upfront...

A quick math shows that they should be making 7.355 billion from the whole deal. The buildingcosts and 20-year-lease (1m annual cost) are already deducted in this figure, but since there are no figures about labourcosts and the like, its still a very rough figure. That said, its still not a bad amount of cash. I just wonder if the buildingcosts they claim, come *with* or *without* the actual air/spacecrafts. How much would they cost? How many will they have? Whats the costs of maintenance for these crafts?

And then another question: Okay, so there's 38000 people absolutely willing to buy a ticket. Those are probably the richer class people since a ticket costs 200K (according to TFA). What would be the point of building more than one spaceport, seeing as only the wealthier people can afford it can surely afford a ticket to New Mexico as well? I somehow doubt that a second port would be as commercially viable as this one would be.

Will it have

[Galston]

Will it have a duty free shop and if so what will it sell?

Whole Lot of Nothing

[aquatone282]

Isn't that the Nevada state motto - "Nevada - A Whole Lot of Nothing?"

Re:Whole Lot of Nothing

[MrWarMage]

...after 2010 or so, the state of Nevada will be able to boast that it's "No Longer a Whole Lot of Nothing! We Have Spent Fuel Rods, Too!!"

And that's just one of the myriad reasons why (at least southern) Nevada is not (and likely never will be) home to any sort of public spaceport. How to consider Groom Lake/Area 51 in terms of spacecraft is an exercise left to the reader...

Hardly

[Ethidium]

Nasa has sent balloons into high orbit, without mass drivers.

AND, people at MIT have built mass drivers, and used them on terra firma! And other people have thought about using them on the moon.

That's what your links say. Oh, and an offhand comment, that "SSI is conducting a feasibility study on the use of an aerostatically supported mass driver for terrestrial launch of bulk payloads." Just that sentence, nothing more.

The reaction force from the launch would be enormous, though--F=m*a, so take whatever acceleration you impart to the payload, discount it by the fraction of the payload's mass over the platform's mass, and that's the acceleration you impart to the platform. Doesn't sound too bad until you think about an aerostatically supported platform trying to launch things into predictable orbits while oscillating all over the place from the reaction force of the launches.

Just make it heavier, you say? Bigger energy cost to get it up there in the first place. Bigger problem if it fals. Also, those aerostats aren't going to last forever, so the increased mass will also be an increast maintenence cost. Or, maybe you'd like to put stabilizing thrusters on the platform? What would fuel them? How would you get the fuel up there?

Who would staff a platform at an altitude of 30 miles? How would you get them up and down? How much would you pay them, given the hazardous nature of the work?

Also, you want to send the payloads to the platforms on balloons. My understanding is that balloons are great for getting things to high-altitude, so long as the radial coordinate is the ony one you care about. If you want them at a particular spot in the sky (say, your platform), you'd have to use something more manoeuvrable.

Re:Hardly

[mi]

Doesn't sound too bad until you think about an aerostatically supported platform trying to launch things into predictable orbits while oscillating all over the place from the reaction force of the launches.

Very precise-hitting missiles are known to be launchable from hunks of steel flying miles above the earth. Once launched, in other words, the rocket can correct itself even if the platform oscillated and stumbled because of the launch.

Who would staff a platform at an altitude of 30 miles? How would you get them up and down?

The platform -- with the rocket mounted on it, the stuff needed, and the handful of support personnel (if any) -- can rise slowly from the ground some time before launch by inflating the baloons, and come back down afterwards by gradually deflating or releasing them.

Yes, I am talking about still using rockets, but with the huge headstart provided by the flying platforms and starters they would be able offer much better payload ratios.

Re:Hardly

[Ethidium]

You're talking about rockets; the parent poster was talking about railguns. Very important difference, although I suppose you could have a vehicle with manoeuvring thursters get its original "kick" from a railgun.

Also, I would suppose, although I'm certainly amenable to seeing the numbers worked out, that the energy advantage from lifting this entire platform on balloons every time you wanted to use it would not outweigh the additional costs of the system as I mentioned above. Rockoons were a neat (although now obscolete) idea, but this is far more complicated than a rockoon.

Re:Hardly

[crabpeople]

"Who would staff a platform at an altitude of 30 miles?"
Me.

"How much would you pay them, given the hazardous nature of the work?"
$200 000/yr.

"How would you get them up and down?"
Jetpacks.

Any more questions mr smarty pants?

Re:Hardly

[tomlouie]

In other words, [wait for it...] there's no such things as a free launch.

Re:Hardly

[caseih]

I'm afraid the headstart would be practically nothing. Obtaining orbit isn't a matter of altitude but rather speed. Shaving 30 miles off the distance is going to make no difference to the final speed you'll have to obtain get into orbit. And accelerating from 0 to 17,500 mph is still going to require almost as much fuel and oxidizer as it does now. Our best bet is to either a) try to find a way to push something into orbit without attaching a flying fuel tank by way of a mass driver, or to b) figure out more efficient rocket designs that can produce the same thrust with less fuel. Of course with a specific impulse rocket motor, there's only so much economy we can get anyway. Flying from a runway to space isn't really useful either, since the plane actually would require more fuel than a rocket to get to orbit, although maybe if we can harvest most of the oxidizer we need from the air, the extra fuel might be lighter than the rocket's LOX+fuel.

Re:Hardly

[mi]

You're talking about rockets; the parent poster was talking about railguns. Very important difference, although I suppose you could have a vehicle with manoeuvring thursters get its original "kick" from a railgun.

Yes, I'm talking about a combination. The vehicle's thrusters can be much smaller and/or use less fuel if it is already miles above ground and has a substantial velocity -- even if the speed's vector points into slightly wrong direction.

the energy advantage from lifting this entire platform on balloons every time you wanted to use it would not outweigh the additional costs of the system as I mentioned above

I suspect (hope?), you overestimate the additional costs. Whatever can be built on the ground, can also be slowly raised above ground on baloons :-) Not that I know, how big/heavy a rail-gun needs to be, but very heavy things are sometimes transported by dirigibles, and in this case we don't even care (much), which way the whole things drifts with the wind.

As for the energy win from being launched from high -- does not the usual rocket burn most of the fuel within the first few seconds of the launch? I thought, the curve is exponential -- with every mile closer to the ground, the amount of fuel grows very quickly, because of the weight of the rest of the fuel. If I'm right, then the win will be huge.

Re:Hardly

[mi]

Obtaining orbit isn't a matter of altitude but rather speed. Shaving 30 miles off the distance is going to make no difference to the final speed you'll have to obtain get into orbit. And accelerating from 0 to 17,500 mph is still going to require almost as much fuel and oxidizer as it does now.

Both are important -- I'm no rocket scientist, but I think, you underestimate the importance of the elevation. The rockets on the launchpad are pointing upwards and nobody is suggesting speeding them up initially on a special (but horizontal) rail-road. In other words, they do need to climb up. With a headstart in altitude you can afford to accelerate slower, thus possibly using a more efficient engine. And, two, the whole thread is about combining the baloon-provided elevation with the railgun-provided headstart in speed.

Re:Hardly

[tomlouie]

You do realize that lighter-than-air vehicles been to be replenished regularly with more helium/hydrogen, so it's not like it's a free means of elevation.

Re:Hardly

[Ethidium]

Just this: where can I get oneathem jetpacks, and what are the chances of it exploding on my back?

Re:Hardly

[mi]

It is not free, but it is much cheaper -- probably, an order of magnitude cheaper.

Things can happen slower, the engineering requirements can be far lower, etc.

Re:Hardly

[Ex-MislTech]

Pin point balloon placement at high altitiude is being done by these guys at
altitudes over 60,000 ft .

http://www.21stcenturyairships.com/

As to the recoil of the mass driver, yes your right, it would be difficult to
compensate for , but ships at sea compensate for pitch and roll for radar guidance
system at ranges out past 300 miles with cross roll gyros .

I used to work on those gyro systems, while a simplified verison of what would be
needed it is in the same vein .

These guys. with some mods to their idea, might haul ur cargo to the platform :

http://www.fuellessflight.com/

As to who would work up there, your right no one would dare climb on board a million
gallons of liquid hydrogen and light the candle as some ppl put it . (Apollo/Shuttle missions)

I mean what fool jumps out of a perfectly good airplane too ???

Also the platform could receive a "cartridge" for launch from a delivery vessel, the
platform could be operated remotely from earth with little or no crew .

I didn't say it would be easy either. I also posed it as a question as to I wonder
how much easier would it be to get to Low Orbit with something like that .

Ex-MislTech

Let me say it now, then..

[ThePuceGuardian]

*ahem*

Screw you guys, I'm goin' home..

.. thank you, thank you.

Virgin Trains

[clickety6]

If you've ever travelled on Virgin trains (assuming you can find one running!) you'd never want to trust the same company to put you into space! If they can't even run a train line what hope do they have of running space flights!

Re:Virgin Trains

[CmdrGravy]

I don't think Railtrack have anything to do with Space Travel so they should be OK.

Adam Corolla Runs Slashdot

[Peeptophe]

"Virgin Galactic is the company leveraging Spaceship One which, as reported by Slashdot, claimed the Ansari X prize for commercial space flight."

Of course the story referenced by /. was actually reported by AP who took the story from a Reuters feed who took the story from any number of sources that had already reported this before.

Good job Adam...err.../.

Nothing like changing the facts. "As reported by Slashdot" makes it sound like /. has some crack reporters out on the scene. It should read "As picked up by /. from another source..."

He means: Space Virgins XY: Stationary Erection

[Anonymous Coward]

He just got constracted by his disluctions.
g=

Baloons in space

[Froze]

Instead of a mass driver, checkout the idea that these people have. Using ion thrusters to drive a lighter than air (at some altitude) airfoil/ballon to LEO. http://www.jpaerospace.com/

MASA

[Pao|o]

I hope they dont allow badly drawn kids shipping whales up to the moon but I hope they keep the really cheap launch fees.

Great...

[BaGGyGCX]

Open Source space flight.. I can just see it now...

WARNING TO NASA

[waxxie]

You can no longer hide the UFO truth from the world anymore!

Re:WARNING TO NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

You can no longer hide the UFO truth from the world anymore!

Thank you. However, this message should probably go to the DoD instead of us. We will forward it on for you.

Re:WARNING TO NASA

[What me a Coward]

Oh Ye of little faith...

    Drug you on the way up or on the way down or both one way or another you won't recall a thing. The in flight electronic jammer will take care of all camera's as well so no proof.

    If all else fails they can claim it's just ice from the boosters or some other retarded thing of that sort that most people wouldn't belive if it came from anyone else other than the government but since it comes from them it's swallowed by all but the conspericy theorist's hook line and stinker as usual :D

NM

[jbeaupre]

He's dead on. I grew up in NM and went to school in Cruces. The state loves the strange (go to Sante Fe some day) and the dangerous (Los Alamos, Sandia, White Sands). A space port? It's in the blood. The first liquid fueled rocket by Goddard was launched in Roswell, V2's were tested at White Sands, and in general, people love to launch and blow stuff up. You've got a thousand PhD types blowing the crap out of anything they can get their hands on. If they'd put it on cable, it'd be the top red-neck channel. A friend even got college credit in explosives while working at Sandia. The biggest disappointment for locals will be that the spaceships won't blow up. "Another dud!"

As for 3rd world, a couple of interesting facts (which might be outdated). NM has the highest school dropout rate and the highest PhD per capita. AND the bordor patrol has a station NORTH of Las Cruces. Putting it south of there would interfer with international commuters.

Orbits

[jbrandv]

This only makes sense if they never want to put something into orbit. The Lat/Lon of White Sands Missile Range is such that it will require a non-homan orbital tranfer to get something into orbit. This means that it is very expensive, fuel wise, to get there. Otherwise it is an OK idea.

Budget Airlines

[David Off]

Just Imagine if EasyJet gets in on this....the flight will cost just $50 one way plus spaceport taxes of $25,000 but you will have to pay extra for oxygen, a spacesuit and a seat!

"There it is."

[mmell]

"Las Cruces Spaceport. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."

Bad news: Interspecies red light district . . .

[StefanJ]

. . . won't open until 2078.

And even then, the alien brothels won't take worthless earth-currency.

Of course, you could get some house credit by volunteering to have a horny L'CHHHTTTTHhhh plunge her ovipositer into your abdomen. The house doctor can usually dig the eggs out in time. But still, after a few times you get a reputation and . . .

Oh, sorry, this is a Virgin Spaceport. No red light district. The only bars serve lemonade and alcohol free margaritas.

Stefan

Doom Movie

[drwiii]

Why not just dig up the one in the Nevada desert?

Their first payload...

[SCHecklerX]

...will be a whale.

Re:Wouldn't it be better...

[DavidTC]

No.

An X-port is where X connects to the land, where people stop using traditional land vehicles and start using X vehicles. A seaport connect the sea to the land, an airport connects the air to the land, and a spaceport connects space to the land.

A carport even works this way, although it is where walking people connect to the road system and thus would be better called a roadport.

Why bother building a spaceport?

[wcrowe]

A spaceport already exists today in Oklahoma.

(I am not making this up)

Gravity Generators

[Solr_Flare]

Hopefully they'll employ that cutting edge technology devised by those U.K. Television execs and install gravity generators on all outbound vehicles.

A new slogan for New Mexico ...

[SubOptimalUseCase]

"Gateway to L5!"

"Next stop - LEO!"

"Jack-a-lopes in Space!"

"Orbital Armadillos!"

"Live Free or, well, Leave!"

Re:A new slogan for New Mexico ...

[Somegeek]

Texas already has the "Orbital Armadillos" angle covered.

http://armadilloaerospace.com/

Re:A new slogan for New Mexico ...

[SubOptimalUseCase]

Damn! I KNEW that it sounded too good. Maybe coyotes, hmmm ...

Re:A new slogan for New Mexico ...

[jbeaupre]

The licence plates used to say "New Mexico, Land of Enchantment." But eventually they decided to work on clear up a few misconceptions first and changed it to "New Mexico USA." A bit of self-depricating humor.

Why? An example: When my Uncle drove back from Canada years ago, the US border guard asked for ID. It was a NM drivers license. The guard wasn't going to let him in until a Canadian guard explained that NM is a US state.

Gamma World

[GebsBeard]

Does anyone remember the Albuquerque Star Port module in the Gamma World Referee's Screen from circa 1980? This is just too weird.

Re:Wouldn't it be better...

[SubOptimalUseCase]

Nope. The PORT should be on the ground. Now the PIER should be in space - makes it easier to fish from ...

"Look daddy, I caught an Asteroid! Can I keep it?"

"No son, it's too small and dry. We'll just let it go so it can grow up to be a Big Earth-Killer someday."

Should have put it in Wisconsin

[MrNovember]

They should have put this thing in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. People are talking about expanding the experimental suborbital one there.

Apparently launching East over water is convenient in case your rocket has a problem. FYI, Sheboygan is on Lake Michigan.

I can think of two other advantages. First it's a lot closer to large population centers than New Mexico which is good assuming you're blowing up over the lake rather than in Milwaukee. People can get to the launch pad a lot easier via ORD or MKE. And second, you have access to nice, fresh Sheboygan bratwurst for sustenance on your space journey.

Should build it in India

[heroine]

If it was in India, there would be a lot more interest and the latitude is lower. There isn't enough interest at least from u.s. to justify building a new spaceport h.e.r.e.. Having said that, the whole story seems more like a publicity move rather than an attempt to build anything.

Just an expensive amusement park ride.

[Nick Driver]

For the Nth time: in response to all the inevitable "far cheaper than NASA" posts; this is not an orbital launch - it just goes up to the edge of space, then straight down again.
 
...to sum it all up, this is just going to be a VERY expensive amusement park ride. Even though I'm usually all for technological advances such as this... but maybe just because it's the Christmas season or something... right now I can't help but wonder about stuff like how many Habitat for Humanity houses could be built instead with the money that people will be paying for a short ride to the edge of space.

Great news...

[smoker2]

Now the greys will have somewhere to land properly instead of crashing ignominiously and causing untold conspiracy theories. I wonder if they'll contact traffic control on the way in, or just temporarily paralyse other traffic.

Physics is not the only field that uses the word

[p3d0]

And no, they are not using SpaceShip One.

Shades of Moonraker

[j_f_chamblee]

From TFA:

"The spaceport, to be located some 25 miles south of the town of Truth or Consequences, will be constructed 90 percent underground, with just the runway and supporting structures above ground........Virgin Galactic also unveiled its logo _ the pupil of an eye incorporating an eclipse. Branson's iris will be used for the final design......."

Is anyone else wondering why Richard Branson now seems to be channeling an old James Bond villain? Underground spaceports and creepy logos with overtones of world dominion make you wonder, especially coming from the man who said, "I believe in benevolent dictatorship provided I am the dictator".

Heres the worst part

[tacokill]

It didn't get it's name by accident.

Commercialism is old news.

Go Dirt!

[Somegeek]

While you do, indeed, have to push X amount of stuff downward to move upward, nothing says that has to be 'fuel', as in, the stuff powering the pushing does not have to be the same stuff that you are throwing out the back. Maybe it's air you merely accelerated, at least for the first part of the trip, maybe it's a load of highly compressed dirt you fling downward using electrity. Dirt is free, and electricity is cheap.

So you realize that the 'fuel mass fraction' issue is related to how much fuel it takes to get to orbit right, not about how to get from one point in space to another? That's why you talked about flinging stuff downward?

Hmmm. Let's think about this cheap dirt/electricity idea.

A report complete with lots and lots of brain numbing formulas (at least to my simple brain) that describes trying to optimize a mass driver design for use as space propulsion or on the moon can be found here:

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettl ement/spaceres/III-3.html

Their optimized lightweight design was capable of flinging out a 10.5 kg mass with an acceleration of 1,000 G, four times a second. So this should be able to lift a 40,000 kg space ship at 1g. Oh but we still need our fuel, in this case 'cheap electricity'. So now you also need to lift the mass of the huge nuclear plant that you will need to generate all of that 'cheap' electricity to power the mass driver. (Or were you going to be unreeling an extension cord back to the Three Gorges Dam and getting your cheap electricity from there?) How big was the mass driver needed to accomplish this? It came in at 500 meters long and weighed over 3 million kg with the powerplant. And let's not forget that we need to also lift the mass of the dirt that we are going to be shooting out....

A mass driver could never lift itself let alone the spaceship that it was supposed to be pushing.

Go Dirt! Hooray for cheap electricity!

Re:Go Dirt!

[DavidTC]

All spaceships operate via 'mass drivers', in that they operate by driving mass, although not via the linear induction method of traditional 'mass drivers'. They push mass out the back. They are reaction drives.

That fact alone should give you some pause about what 'never' can happen.

Existing spaceships use the explosive properties of the fuel and a space that the explosion does not fit into, so it spews out the back.

This is nowhere near the only way to 'move things backwards'. It is, right now, the most energy dense way of doing so, and that is very important in space flight.

No, wait. That's not true. Atomic bombs are much more energy dense, and can lift a spaceship into orbit trivially. Sadly, atomic bombs have features that cause us not to want to use them, at least not on the same planet we live on, and they have to be 'constructed' instead of just poured into a tank.

As for the dirt/electricity, that was just an example. And we are nowhere near the maximum energy density for storing electricity, which is what I was talking about instead of the absurd idea of sending a nuclear reactor with a spaceship. If we come up with some sort of 'ideal battery' that can store a huge amount of electrons, some sort of static charge 'repeal dirt out the back' drive might work.

And there is always the 'airplane' means of travel within the atmosphere...simply accelerate the air via some means, and use that as the reaction mass. You could even store it for manuvering use in orbit, although obviously you're going to need some other reaction mass to get all the way up. But if it takes you 50% of the way, you can cut out 80% of the other fuel.

Re:Go Dirt!

[Firethorn]

Turn the system around. Mount the mass driver on the ground and shoot the projectiles at a target/pad on the payload.

Have the payload be a rocket, and launch it off the mass driver, getting that 1000g head start.

Virgin Galactic

[Anonymous Coward]

Virgin Galactic

Great, a universal virgin force.

Why not in Mojave, CA?

[Luminary Crush]

I'm curious why Mojave, California wasn't selected for this. Mojave seems to already be a de-facto spaceport with Rutan and company out there doing their own launches, along with a few other X-prize types. It's got the same low population/cheap land factors but is a bit closer to major population centers and aerospace infrastructure. It's also got a huge runway and aircraft servicing facilities and a is a transport hub with rail access.

What's with this bumble-frack Egypt location?? (no offense to Egyptians intended)

Boom - Here comes the Boom

[devfsadm]

What if the thing blows up and all life is lost?
Will everyone whine and hold Virgin Atlantic personally responsible.
I am sure people will sign papers stating that they will not sue.
But, dammit if they kill my brother kenny I will need closure.

I got my rights you know and I am sure it's all Bush's fault.
Dam whales knew this would happen. Thats why they avoid space flight.

Wait-

[Anonymous Coward]

Copywrite doesn't apply in space! They can sell literally anything for whatever they want!

Droolz...

Taxpayer Funded?

[bobcote]

Did I miss a post somewhere? From the articles I read it looks like Richard Branson is not paying for this spaceport, but rather the taxpayers of New Mexico are.

Building such a facility is their business, but I look at the number of state and municipal governments that were hoodwinked into spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build major sports complexes only to see the bulk of the revenues go into the pockets of the millionaire (billionaire) team owners' pockets. The promised jobs were generally low paying security and food service positions.

If this spaceport is such a wonderful and potentially profitable project, why doesn't Sir Richard use some of his own billions to fund the whole thing?