Slashdot Mirror
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."
This is really exciting times. A private spaceport is emerging, and the "real" exploration of space can begin. ;D
I cant wait until my first moon-vacation
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
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.
~The TwoTailedFox posts again....
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.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
...and so an Airport should be build in the...air?
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.
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
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.
My pics.
Compared to NASA.
They spent $800 million on a new launch center... IN 1962
Think of all the money they'll save hiring undocumented workers.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I tried putting one in my town on SimCity, and it did nothing but cause problems.
So... who's got a truck big enough for a whale?
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.
You're an immobile computer, remember?
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.
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!!
May the Maths Be with you!
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)
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
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.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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?
A high altitidue balloon based launch platform .
2 7063353.htm
s
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/2002/08/0208
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-driver
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/moondust.htm
Thanks !
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
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.
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.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
Guess it kinda makes sense that a recognizable name should be used for the spaceport...
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.
Will it have a duty free shop and if so what will it sell?
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.
\
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.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
. . . 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
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.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?