Slashdot Mirror


New Pictures of White Knight Two and SpaceshipTwo

soldeed writes "Over at the Virgin Galactic press site, there are new pictures of both White Knight Two and SpaceShip 2 during construction for media use. After seeing them, I can't help but wonder; Gee, what's in the box?"

195 comments

  1. What new pictures? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't see any dated newer than February.

    1. Re:What new pictures? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      They're as exciting as looking at all the parts in a fresh-out of the box model --

      As in, not very exciting. At least you get a complete picture on the front of a model's box. Yawn.

    2. Re:What new pictures? by _Pablo · · Score: 1

      The only new picture i've seen is this grainy airborne spy shot that shows the wing attached to at least one of the booms.

      I'm a little surprised that there are not more frequent progress updates from Virgin Galactic given the level of interest in the project.

      --
      $2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
    3. Re:What new pictures? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Erh, "looking at all the parts in a fresh-out of the box model" is very exiting!

      You're inner-geek is hereby officially dead

      --
      This is blinging
  2. My 2 cents by 2.7182 · · Score: 1

    OK, kinda cool, but heres the thing. 100 miles is high, but look at it compared to the globe. The radius is 4000 miles, so 100 miles is 2.5 percent of that. No air, sure. But space ? Come on. Apollo 11 went to space. This is just a good place to put satellites.

    1. Re:My 2 cents by emtilt · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's ceiling is actually 110 km, not 100 miles. And 110 km is way lower than where you need to put satellites if you want them to be at all stable in orbit for any long term use (ie more than a couple months).

    2. Re:My 2 cents by pmac2322 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However, referencing that same link, all other countries with a space program consider space to start at 100km or 62 miles, while the US uses 50 miles. I thought that was interesting anyway.

    3. Re:My 2 cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it's still a pretty arbitrary point to call "space".

  3. Same old... by B5_geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as we depend on cigars with wings and chemical based propellants we will only inch our way along this journey. I had higher hopes for this crew.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Same old... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Such as what? The technology simply isn't there for anything else, especially not for the miniscule budget these guys have.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    2. Re:Same old... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      As long as we depend on cigars with wings and chemical based propellants we will only inch our way along this journey. I had higher hopes for this crew.

      What new space-alien-derived here-to-unknown technology where you proposing they use? This thing isn't headed for Mars, you know.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Same old... by hardburn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Launch loops can be built without any unobtainium. Though it is still in government-funded territory.

      Space elevators might have a higher cool factor than a launch loop, but I don't think it's going to be even theoretically cheaper by any significant amount compared to a launch loop. And a launch loop is still pretty cool.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    4. Re:Same old... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's an interesting idea, but holy crap did you read the Wiki page on launch loops?

      It would have to be 2000km long. That would be a little bit pricey. And it would have to be built over the ocean because the momentum of the thing if it breaks would be equivalent to a nuke going off. I hate to go all George Carlin, but Not In My Back Yard.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    5. Re:Same old... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      This is one of those things that sounds extremely simple in concept but turns out to be very difficult to construct in practice, even ignoring the ridiculous amount of money that such a thing would cost. It is therefore beyond current technology.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    6. Re:Same old... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Well clearly, if Zefram Cochrane can come up with a warp drive in a shed, these guys have no excuse.

    7. Re:Same old... by Buran · · Score: 1

      Care to tell us how he did it? You could build a spacecraft and launch it on a Titan II-class rocket if you so chose, but you can't make the drive work with the technology we have right now and our current understanding of physics. Once the tech improves, sure, you could build a spaceship in a shed -- that's essentially what these guys are doing here.

      You won't use a Titan for it, though -- the last Titans have already been used up.

    8. Re:Same old... by Artuir · · Score: 1

      Pfft, what, someone offering a "superior" idea didn't actually read up on said idea to begin with and instead opted to spout it out of their ass with total disregard to anything? Welcome to Slashdot dude - if anyone can piss on anything, they will.

    9. Re:Same old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod (-1, No Sense of Humour), plz.

    10. Re:Same old... by Rocketman_Ryan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as we depend on cigars with wings and chemical based propellants we will only inch our way along this journey. I had higher hopes for this crew.

      You know, this is precisely the reason there are so few private companies doing this. People expect miracles, and when the miracles don't happen the public loses interest.

      Yes, we need to invest more heavily in advanced propulsion concepts. However, we don't currently have any private manned platforms based on *conventional* propulsion, so how could you possibly expect this? You could never raise enough venture capital to do anything other than conventional craft, because the risks are huge enough as-is. That will hopefully change in the future, but people need to prove that this is even feasible first. The Virgin Galactic team is going a long way to demonstrating this, and they should be commended for it. And this is all you have to say? Seriously?

      I shouldn't drink and post; it makes me care too much :D

    11. Re:Same old... by hardburn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A rough estimate (pdf link to presentation slides, estimates towards end) puts it around $10 billion for a small system, and $30 billion for a larger one. Add on an order of magnitude to the price for government waste, and it's still pretty good. Better than the most optimistic estimates for a space elevator, and way better than rockets.

      Building over an ocean (or rather, starting from an uninhabited island and extending over the ocean) isn't really a big deal. Baker Island will do as long as we can deal with the pesky environmentalists trying to save its status as a wildlife refuge.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    12. Re:Same old... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I like the idea of it. It's brilliant. And compared to the space shuttle it seems pretty affordable. But with needing exotic locations and the multibillion price tag, this project seems like something that you'd need to be a government to pull off. I don't see Virgin Galactic having this kind of clout.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    13. Re:Same old... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I prefer the skyhook. The idea is to launch a cable about 1000 km long into orbit then spin it up so that it rolls along its orbit. At the lowest point one end of the cable is inside the atmosphere almost stationary relative to the ground. The other end of the cable is 1000 km higher and moving above escape velocity.

      This system could easily exchange mass between any two planetary surfaces in the solar system for a much smaller cost than chemical rockets. Of course for every kilo of food you send to Mars you need to send a kilo of Martian rock back.

    14. Re:Same old... by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Yeah... Where the hell are those damn anti-gravity devices we were promised!

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    15. Re:Same old... by khallow · · Score: 1

      They must be having trouble getting the Chinese telekinetics past immigration services.

    16. Re:Same old... by damburger · · Score: 1

      Just out of interest, how long is the great wall of China?

      We as a society have simply lost the capacity for large projects.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    17. Re:Same old... by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      Considering they are using materials you can goto the store and buy and build your own projects in your garage, I'm not exactly sure what you dissapointed about.

      That and one of the engineers who worked on the engine design, built a little one and put it on his bycicle, which now can hit 60mph in under 8 seconds.

      If that isn't a giant leap forward for mankind, I don't know what is.

    18. Re:Same old... by vidarh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a famous quote attributed to Richard Branson. On the question from an interviewer about how to become a millionaire, he supposedly answered "you begin as a billionaire, and then you start an airline" in reference to Virgin Atlantic. Somehow I have the feeling he'd prefer to be more cautious this time around - Branson lost a whole lot of money before they managed to turn Virgin Atlantic around.

    19. Re:Same old... by scooter.higher · · Score: 1

      No no no, you didn't allude to the proper movie line. It's not a cigar with wings.

      "Well it looks like a big tylenol with wiiings."

      http://www.moviequotes.com/fullquote.cgi?qnum=33100

      --
      Ramen
    20. Re:Same old... by TriggerFin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have a point to spare, but I've already posted here.

      On a related note, I seem to be getting mod points every weekend... when I have trouble finding things that need more modding than they already have. Too slow, I guess.

      --
      Here's your sig.
    21. Re:Same old... by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your orbital mechanics professor must be so proud.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    22. Re:Same old... by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't expect it to be commercially-funded. It wouldn't be a good investment unless we already had a large demand for cheap space travel, but we're not going to have a large demand for cheap space travel until something like this exists. That puts in into the sort of infrastructure the government would invest in so as to stimulate a new industry.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    23. Re:Same old... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      One must learn to crawl before one learns to walk. What magical technology should we be using instead? Reasearch goes on into new propulsion and delivery methods. In the meantime I guess based on your logic we should stop what we're doing until we have flying saucers.

    24. Re:Same old... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Your sig is an awesome rebuttal to your claim. You do remember Apollo, don't you? That was less than 40 years ago. If you're going to invoke the Great Wall of China, a largely useless structure built in fits and starts over a period of a thousand years, then surely a pause of 40 is nowhere near sufficient.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    25. Re:Same old... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Our transportation network alone is far greater than any large project ever built.

    26. Re:Same old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The cigar shape happens to be the most efficient shape in existence for flying through the atmosphere at high speed, which is what these aircraft are intended to do. Do you suggest they should perhaps switch to a shape with more drag but a more science fiction look so it would be "cool" for you?

    27. Re:Same old... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      You're replying to a Trekkie dude.

    28. Re:Same old... by Buran · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're getting at. I also like Star Trek, and I'm not sure what that makes me in this context.

    29. Re:Same old... by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I think the biggest problem is with the government and the public both lacking the gonads to launch with a substantial amount of nuclear material on board. Right now, that's the best tech we have for ground-based launch, and it's within easy reach, if not for the politics involved.

    30. Re:Same old... by putaro · · Score: 1

      A humorless Trekkie?

  4. Offended by Feminist-Mom · · Score: 0, Troll

    From the article:

    "These things are so simple that a grandmother could fly it".

    As a 49 yo grandmother, c programmer and feminist, I find this offensive.

    1. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Are you also a pilot? No? Then you shouldn't be offended.

    2. Re:Offended by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Are you also a pilot? I concede that you may well be, but if so it's a strange omission to make.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    3. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What has being a feminist got to do with it? If your allegation is that the article author specifically not to use "grandfather" implying some difference in technical ability then I'm sorry to say that I believe most people's grandmothers at this point in time are probably still less technically minded than their grandfathers. This is a reasonably common expression and it's not intended to be malicious against women.

      I find your oversensitivity offensive. It's this kind of overreaction that made political correctness so unnecessarily imposing and resented.

    4. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. The article should have said, "These things are so simple that a caveman could fly it".

    5. Re:Offended by asylumx · · Score: 1

      I'm having a hard time finding that in any of the article links but regardless of that, maybe you should be complaining there rather than at Slashdot, which is just a simple news aggregator & forum system. It's not like anyone here has any control over the editing of the articles. Even if they did, hell, they can't even edit the summaries correctly most of the time.

      Besides, the only articles I see linked are wikipedia articles -- if you saw it there and it bothers you so much, why don't you just go change it?

    6. Re:Offended by D-Cypell · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Well... I *am* a pilot (well ok, student pilot, but I am about 95% of the way through the course).

      My first ever flying lesson was giving to me by a women who was certainly older than 49 and quite possibly a grandmother (I didn't ask). When you are about to take to the skies for a first flying lesson, and shortly before take off, you instructor finishes the final briefing with the phrase, "Ohh.. and here is what you do if anything happens to me up there...". You tend to notice stuff like age! :)

    7. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that the grandfather statement is a myth.

      Well that's fantastic and I'm happy for your personal situation. However, "the grandfather statement" is not a myth. Presently, most grandfathers are more technically competent than most grandmothers. Sorry if reality currently goes against your affiliated movement.

      Personally I go for "equal opportunity" rather than "feminism".

      I am much more technologically capable than my husband. Most women would be, if they hadn't been educated in a system that is so biased towards men being scientists and engineers.

      If everyone had an equal education opportunity most women would be more technologically capable than their husbands?

      Sounds like someone has a bit of an agenda here and a strong gender bias of their own.

      Enjoy your weekend :)

    8. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, "Equal opportunity". This is just a neocon way of keeping women and minorities out of the old boy network and smoke filled rooms that run american politics and industry. Here in Canada, we put our money where out mouth is. As a result, we have a more competant tech work force, since it is more integrated with competant people who werent shut out for the wrong reasons.

    9. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, you're a retard.

    10. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope the doctor can get you some meds on Monday. I hear infected humor glands can be quite painful.

    11. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that what you're saying is that "equal opportunity" is not good enough, and therefore "feminism" is the way to go, therefore implying that feminism is a pro-gender bias, or pro-active discrimination. I.e. to tackle gender discrimination we should advocate... gender discrimination.

      This is just a neocon way of keeping women and minorities out of the old boy network and smoke filled rooms that run american politics and industry.

      Honestly, it's 2008. What are you doing, reading feminist propaganda from the 1980s? Can't say I've been in any smoke filled rooms or part of any "old boy" networks recently. I also work in the tech sector with a lot of very smart women who I've seen hold equal positions to men all the way up the chain.

      But pro-gender bias is offensive on either side of the divide, and maybe you should face up to that fact.

    12. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most women would be, if they hadn't been educated in a system that is so biased towards men being scientists and engineers.

      Most older women at this time were.

      Did you have a point, or are you just trolling?

    13. Re:Offended by pieisgood · · Score: 0

      Moar like sexist-mom amirite?

      --
      Eat sleep die
    14. Re:Offended by gl12 · · Score: 0

      You speak as if women are better/smarter then men. Seems someone is as sexist as those they despise.

    15. Re:Offended by iMOSET · · Score: 1

      Ok, feminist trolls aside, I like what Virgin Galactic are doing. I'm not much of a fan of what Virgin is doing to the interwebs in the UK and elsewhere. It is kind of messed up. But, get me into space and I will be more forgiving.

    16. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I talk about math, my 38 year-old girlfriend who is definitely a feminist says, "ewww, math!"

      Not all women fit your generalized view of what women "would be" were it not for all the generalizations.

    17. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude: 5 letter word, starts with T, ends with L.

    18. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a" (singular) women (plural)? I'm seeing that more and more these days, are people this stupid allowed to fly even a paper airplane?

    19. Re:Offended by Normal_Deviate · · Score: 1

      I'll admit that you don't fit the tendency if you will admit that there is such a thing as a tendency.

    20. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find this offensive.

      Typical C programmer. This always happens when you forget to bounds check input parameters.

    21. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a 49 yo grandmother, c programmer and feminist, I find this offensive.

      You would, wouldn't you?

    22. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      total?

    23. Re:Offended by Maxmin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Are people as ignorant as you allowed to access even the internet? Surely you've noticed that the internet is populated even with people who have different national, language, cultural and educational backgrounds?

      Or should everybody be speaking/writing only English and perfectly even to your specs, before they should be even allowed online?

      ZOMG! A typo!! Must start flame war...

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    24. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      > As a 49 yo grandmother, c programmer ...

      C programming is so easy, even a grandmother can do it?

    25. Re:Offended by TriggerFin · · Score: 1

      Dude: 5 letter word, starts with T, ends with L.

      "Tubal"?
      Are you implying that conservative former Democrats (define "neocon") forced women to have surgery to prevent pregnancy if they wanted better jobs?

      Oh, wait, this wasn't meant to be serious, but looking at the posts, you might well take it to be, and offer "evidence" of just that.

      So... nevermind.

      --
      Here's your sig.
    26. Re:Offended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the point of complaining at one source when this phrase is commonplace? Better to complain in public, gets you more attention. And, yes: i agree. I would be offended too, if it reads "It's so simple that even a science geek could fly it."

    27. Re:Offended by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you are really 49 y.o., then you should be past taking offense at such silly items. Get over it.
      And I say this as a 49 y.o. c programmer as well.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    28. Re:Offended by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      I seem to have a tendency not to admit that there is such a thing as a tendency. But for tendency's sake I will admit that I don't fit the tendency by admitting that there is such a thing as a tendency. Sometimes I have a tendency to botch jokes on Slashdot and they get rated as troll by people who don't understand the joke as it has a tendency to go over their head.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    29. Re:Offended by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      You mean, a cavewoman?

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
  5. Death Tube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like paper mache, and there is dirt and FOB everywhere. I wouldn't fly in that Death Tube.

    1. Re:Death Tube by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 1

      You know, whilst parent makes perhaps bit of an extreme statement, I partly kind of agree. In the photo of the top half of SS2 being manhandled onto the lower half, the workers have their bare hands on the joining edges. Now as anyone who builds scale and/or flying models knows you don't handle surfaces to be glued so that fingerprints and oils don't reduce the bonding strength. In this case you would hope that they would clean them as best as they possibly can before joining.

    2. Re:Death Tube by putaro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, given that Scaled Composites is one of the most experience builders of aircraft with composite materials I would expect that they know what they're doing.

      It is kind of fun that it looks like they're building a spaceship in a big garage. Factories are not always what you think they will be. I used to work for a company that built mini-supercomputers. Our factory was surprisingly modest. I used to love that we would make the official stickers (you know, don't stick your fingers in here or you'll get electrocuted) with the laser printer and cut them out with scissors.

    3. Re:Death Tube by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've seen a lot of molded plastic manufacturing facilities (mostly spa manufacturers or boat manufactures. . . or custom car parts). They all look just like this because they all do the same thing. They build plugs, then molds, then finished pieces. I don't know why anyone would expect this factory to be clean. They are always grinding and cutting and spraying. It's just not a clean process.

      The important thing is they clean each piece before each step. It doesn't matter if some dust gets into the finished product, because it will be encapsulated in resin. As long as it's not too much, it won't have an appreciable effect. I know it's nice to think that it can be perfect and dust free, but it's just not possible.

    4. Re:Death Tube by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Since you guys clearly know more about this business than Scaled Composites, maybe you should go start your own composite aircraft company.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    5. Re:Death Tube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the same thing, someones leaving a tool in a wing somewhere. Clean that place up!

  6. The box contains... by mtmra70 · · Score: 2, Funny

    After seeing them, I can't help but wonder; Gee, what's in the box?

    It's the bomb that someone is senting up. After all, AYBABTU.

  7. Seriously - the box by Wapiti-eater · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is just a clamping weight. Used to hold pieces together while adhesives cure or to prevent warping. Normal technique used in composite construction.

    See the other one at the other end of the wing box?

    See all the other, smaller weights?

    Now tell me - you really couldn't figure this out for yourself?

    You need to get out more.

    --
    Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
    1. Re:Seriously - the box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just a reminder about context: You're being snarky to somebody who made a joke because they didn't recognize something was part of a technique used in composite construction.

      He needs to get out more? Really?

    2. Re:Seriously - the box by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      I am a box, you insensitive clod!

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    3. Re:Seriously - the box by nxtr · · Score: 1

      I was viewing that page through lynx through a dial-up connection in Procomm Plus, you insensitive clod!

    4. Re:Seriously - the box by BobNET · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you're saying there's nothing in the box? Absolutely nothing?!?!

      Stupid!!! You're so STUPID!!!!!!

    5. Re:Seriously - the box by brunokummel · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you're saying there's nothing in the box? Absolutely nothing?!?!

      Stupid!!! You're so STUPID!!!!!!

      Maybe there's a cat alive and dead in it...

      --
      What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
    6. Re:Seriously - the box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. Mod AC up.

    7. Re:Seriously - the box by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hear red snapper is a very good fish :)

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    8. Re:Seriously - the box by Da+Cheez · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, AC made a very good point. I don't see why he was modded down for his statement, other than for being anonymous and cowardly in posting it. Wapiti's comment was tad bit obnoxious, though informative nonetheless. I'll just come right out and say it: I didn't know what the box was for either, and I'm glad I know now. There are probably many other people here who didn't know either, but who aren't going to come out and say it.
      Now watch as I get modded down for talking sense.

    9. Re:Seriously - the box by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      The box is part of a practical joke that Richard Branson had planned for his engineers.

      When someone opens it, fake snakes made out of cloth and springs jump out of it, like those fake peanut brittle cans.

      Then Richard Branson comes out, and points his finger at them and laughs, and then points to a hidden camera, and said he is going to submit it to World's Funniest Videos to win a $50,000 grand prize to help pay off the cost of production.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    10. Re:Seriously - the box by Eternauta3k · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's so hip, he goes to wild parties where he meets hot female composite construction engineers

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    11. Re:Seriously - the box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A clamping weight? That's what they want you to think. It obviously contains health, ammo, new weapons, or even maybe even a 1up.

    12. Re:Seriously - the box by Epistax · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're close. Remember, these are SPACESHIPS! The boxes are where they keep the gravity. If they took the boxes off, the thing would just float up into space. They'll take the boxes off when they're done.

    13. Re:Seriously - the box by soldeed · · Score: 1

      Hey man, I WAS MAKING A JOKE! Besides, It's a natural human reaction. We all like boxes and getting and opening boxes. And when you see an anonymous box sitting around you wonder what's in it. It's why christmas is so popular. They may be using them for weights, but that does not necessarily mean they are empty, does it?

    14. Re:Seriously - the box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous Coward needs to get out more... or less, can't really tell at this point.

    15. Re:Seriously - the box by davolfman · · Score: 1

      Actually that would be kinda cool. How do I get an invite?

    16. Re:Seriously - the box by djjockey · · Score: 1

      They may be using them for weights, but that does not necessarily mean they are empty, does it?

      Because empty boxes make such great weights?

    17. Re:Seriously - the box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's in the box? River Tam of course (though that won't be revealed until *after* the flight due to the meddling of Fox executives - idiots...).

    18. Re:Seriously - the box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He never asked what the box is for, he asked what's in the box, it's a rhetorical question with an answer that it could be filled with anything. Even dead/alive cats.

    19. Re:Seriously - the box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I know what a real weighted companion cube looks like, I'm kinda disappointed.

    20. Re:Seriously - the box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet theres a smaller box inside it.

  8. Not new? by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Informative

    Agreed. I thought maybe these were newly published photos that had been held back from the public for a few months, but I've seen at least some of them before.

    What's new here?

  9. A little messy. by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been lucky enough to see Military aircraft being put together, space ships, and big commercial craft.
    By comparison, that place looks like a freaking disaster area.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:A little messy. by bmcintosh · · Score: 1

      Yea, this is what struck me as well. I have worked at Boeing/Hughes in satellite manufacturing and this looks like a place I get my Pinto tuned up, not where I get my spacecraft manufactured.

    2. Re:A little messy. by Buran · · Score: 1

      Except, they've already built one ship there already for quite a bit less than has been required in the past. Not everything requires clean-room conditions. But I'm sure if you asked really nicely, they might tune up your Pinto in between working on their flight-proven (in full public view, no less) spacecraft. Appearances can be, and are, deceiving.

    3. Re:A little messy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've no doubt seen metal production aircraft and over-paperworked metal and unobtanium space ships being assembled. White Knight Two and SpaceShip Two are both pre-production prototypes being built from composites, with totally different materials and techniques. You don't need a billion parts and fasteners, nor the cataloging system to track them when you build with composites. Also, trimming and fitting composites tends to be a messy business, when compared to punched and finished metal bits that only need to be riveted together. Adjust your expectations accordingly.

      -- Len

    4. Re:A little messy. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Actually, it looks a bit too neat. Almost no trash on the floor and most surfaces are clean and empty. They must have cleaned up for the camera. But this workplace looks pathologically clean (look for the shot of an F-22 under assembly).

    5. Re:A little messy. by damburger · · Score: 0

      I've been assembling satellite parts for a fairly small-time (on a space scale) project, and our work area looks far more professional than that, and I can definitely concur.

      As for using cardboard boxes for weights on the ends of the wings - not exactly scientific is it? I think a lot of these new space entrepreneurs have got the idea into their head that precision and accuracy in space engineering was just due to overzealous government bureaucracy, and that lean, efficient private companies didn't need to bother with it.

      That is probably why their shit keeps blowing up.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    6. Re:A little messy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, prototypes tend to be a little less polished.

    7. Re:A little messy. by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      You mean like the Challenger and Columbia?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:A little messy. by damburger · · Score: 1

      The space shuttle, for all its faults, was a far more sophisticated machine than anything that 'alt.space' has produced so far and the vast majority of its missions were a success. Rutan has managed to kill three people with a faulty nitrous oxide tank. Musk has so far tlaunched nothing that hasn't blown up in mid air.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    9. Re:A little messy. by CaseyB · · Score: 2

      The space shuttle, for all its faults, was a far more sophisticated machine than anything that 'alt.space' has produced so far

      Thanks, you've just summarized the whole freaking point of their efforts.

      Musk has so far launched nothing that hasn't blown up in mid air.

      I suspect that these companies could afford to blow up dozens of vehicles and still come in under a NASA budget. Meanwhile, they've learned volumes from each real-world test, instead of hinging the whole program on years of theory and simulation.

    10. Re:A little messy. by zmooc · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly. This is an accident waiting to happen. Tools, crap, dust, old parts, probably even iron filings and plain old mud all over the place. Now that may be typical of such projects, but what should really freak the future passenger out is the simple fact that nobody prevented those pictures to get out of the building in the first place. While the pictures show that apparently some people on the factory floor don't care, the fact that those pics managed to get all the way through the company out onto the website shows that actually nobody in there cares.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    11. Re:A little messy. by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Have you ever wondered why a small shop like Scaled Composites is able to do things so cheaply compared to what Boeing or Hughes would cost? Well, here's part of your answer....

      Not to mention, your experience with satellite manufacturing is almost entirely irrelevant. Satellites get launched once and then run for years, independently, in space. This thing is going to live out in the desert and get launched for quick rides into space a couple of times a week. They might as well get it dirty while they're making it, because it sure isn't going to stay clean once it's finished.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    12. Re:A little messy. by bmcintosh · · Score: 1

      There is a lot to say for being organized and clean when manufacturing something that is going into space as you need to be pretty careful in the manufacturing process. Getting the outside dirty is one thing (and is not what I am talking about). I am talking about mistakes that happen in an unorganized environment. If, for example, someone drops or forgets a tool, screw or somethiong that will float in space and short something out - that is a huge problem. I assume any forign material that gets into a bonding agent for a composite that will experience the vacume in space cannot be a good thing. I have been around manufacturing facilities all my life, and what looks like a poorly organized manufacturing area usually is just that - unorganized. Doesn't sound like you have been around much manufacturing related to space. There must be a happy medium between a 'clean room' or what people are calling a 'NASA' environment, and what 'looks' like a garage.

    13. Re:A little messy. by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Almost nobody has been around a manufacturing facility for this sort of vehicle. Unless your space-manufacturing experience includes something like the X-15, you certainly haven't.

      There's an enormous difference between what's needed for an autonomous satellite that's going to spend years or decades operating in space, and a piloted vehicle that's going to spend minutes at a time.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    14. Re:A little messy. by LenE · · Score: 1

      I hate to pull this card out of my deck, but I work at Scaled Composites. All of your assertions about "Tools, crap, dust, old parts, probably even iron filings and plain old mud all over the place" are completely false. Cleanliness is absolutely essential when you need to bond composite materials, and we have rigorous procedures and quality checking to ensure that every bond is done correctly. There are daily inspections for foreign objects and debris.

      We do not spend a zillion dollars on our facilities, because it makes no difference, as long as the airframe can be constructed as designed. Too many people have been poisoned by Hollywood's perfect assembly factories. No doubt, you may have been expecting the order and fully uniformed employees of a James Bond villain's organization. This is reality. This is quickly building a prototype on a small budget, rather than the incessant preparation and logistics required for a multi-year, government funded production run. For us, empty space is wasted space, which we cannot afford.

      In time, when the design is finalized with flight testing driven changes included, the real production planes will probably be constructed in a more presentable looking factory. The build quality would only be different in that production planes would not bear the scars of required fixes and adjustments that are necessary during the prototype phase. Production work is not what Scaled Composites does.

      -- Len

    15. Re:A little messy. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe the boss likes things to look tidier than they really need to be so he can do a VIP tour at the drop of a hat. This looks more like the workshops of a few genius inventors I've known. They simply scale things differently; they don't have different teams of engineers and fabricators working on different pieces, they do everything in one place and move back and forth between different aspects of the project.

      Granted, the modular approach to scaling a project (split off a team for every major problem) is more reliable, but it's not the way you do things if you want to do something two or three orders of magnitude cheaper than anybody's done in before. Now if I were going to be on the maiden flight of a suborbital space plane, and had a choice, I'd far prefer to do it on a twenty or thirty billion dollar aircraft from Lockheed Martin. But if I had to do it on plane with a total project cost well under 100 million, I'd say Scaled probably knows how to do that kind of project better.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:A little messy. by putaro · · Score: 1

      As for using cardboard boxes for weights on the ends of the wings - not exactly scientific is it?

      Not "scientific"? Why not? A cardboard box with a properly measured amount of sand or iron shot in it is a very easy way to get a properly calibrated weight. What would you suggest they use? Carbon-fiber tubes filled with depleted uranium? Would that be "scientific" enough?

      Science isn't about the tools - it's about the methods. Spending money where you don't need to doesn't increase the quality of the final product. These guys have built amazing aircraft. It's one thing to be critical of people who haven't delivered but these guys have.

      As far as things blowing up, that's happened in just about every rocket manufacturer. You might recall that Morton Thiokol (makers of the SRBs for the Shuttle) had a big explosion back in the 80's. An X-15 blew up in a test stand. It's part of the risks of the business.

    17. Re:A little messy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you should dig up pictures of the Boeing 787 assembly from about August of last year. It was just as messy, except everything was 10x as big (and 100 times as massive). There were actually engineers who had their desks temporarily moved out to the production floor to be close to all the work/rework that was going on, temporary scaffolding all over the place, and boxes and parts layed out around the airframe.

      You've got to remember that there's a difference between assembly line production (even at low rates) and a first build of a new type. Of course, as the complexity goes up, so does the need to stay organized and clean (hence why satellites are always built in superclean environments where nothing gets left on a workbench without a tag saying exactly what it is and who to ask before touching it). There's a cost to organization and cleanliness that should be balanced against the risk of damage, lost parts, or lost productivity that mess might incur.

  10. The box by D-Cypell · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I can't help but wonder; Gee, what's in the box?"

    Well it is a box being delivered to a team of physicists, I guess they wont know for certain until they open it :)

  11. What's in the box? by gparent · · Score: 3, Funny

    A cat. We don't know if it's dead or alive.

    1. Re:What's in the box? by macshome · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obviously the cake is in the box.

    2. Re:What's in the box? by gparent · · Score: 1

      You mean the one that's a lie?

    3. Re:What's in the box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No. The one that the IE team sent them.

    4. Re:What's in the box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First you cut a hole in the box...

    5. Re:What's in the box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Pain.

  12. Not really space by 2.7182 · · Score: 1

    I know the shuttle goes up about 100 miles, which is more than this thing. OK, kinda cool, this thing goes 110 km, but heres the thing. 110 km is high, but look at it compared to the globe. The radius is 4000 miles, so 110 km is 1 percent of that!!! No air, sure. But space ? Come on. Apollo 11 went to space. This is just publicity hogging, and maybe a way to get a boy band member to pay for a ride.

    1. Re:Not really space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The accepted definition of "space" is higher than 100km. So yes, it is space. If you dont like it...well tough shit.

    2. Re:Not really space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is 'space' and then there is 'outer space'. Obviously this thing doesnt go to 'outer space'.

    3. Re:Not really space by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem isn't altitude, it's speed. The SpaceShipTwo will peak at 2600mph, which is in the same ballpark as the SR-71 but only 1/6th the velocity required to reach any sort of orbit.

      It's still a neat craft, but it would need to fifty times as powerful to become a true spacecraft, capable or doing more than popping above the "space barrier" for a few minutes.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    4. Re:Not really space by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      Set down your comic books and pay attention. If Rutan et al had claimed it went orbital, you'd have some validity to your complaint, but they don't. It's a "suborbital" ship, hence 110 km, that's their only claim.

      As one of the few non-governmentally planned-and-built space ships in existence ever to make (and *survive!*) the flight to space (not once but twice), give it a rest.

      Oh, right, it doesn't meet *your* specs for a proper space ship. Well then, drop us a line when *yours* is ready to go into orbit, yes?

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    5. Re:Not really space by Teancum · · Score: 1

      This can get up past the atmosphere for about $200k-$400k (assuming that Virgin is trying to make a profit here... an obscene profit at that).

      The Space Shuttle requires a minimum of $500m-$2b in order to go up.

      Which one do you think is going to have a better impact on humanity being able to get into space.

      Furthermore, Rutan does want to get into space in terms of something capable of LEO. The point here is that this is something where mere mortals can afford to go up at all and hopefully inspire a next generation of spacecraft that will do exactly what you are proposing.

      Remember... LEO is half-way to the rest of the Solar System (in terms of delta-v). SS2 is about 50% of the way to LEO... and the tough half of that.

  13. Cool names? by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

    I like how Virgin are naming the first two ships Enterprise and Voyager. IIUC another is supposed to be named Columbia and another Discovery. Virgin ordered seven of these.

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
    1. Re:Cool names? by Buran · · Score: 1

      They need to be really careful with the names, since some believe that naming a ship after one that sank is an ill omen, or so I have heard. Enterprise is sitting in the Smithsonian as is the Voyager aircraft, the first to fly nonstop around the world (another Rutan design), and Cook's Discovery is famous (but as far as I know, no longer exists) but they'd best tread carefully around Columbia and Challenger. Seems to me it would be a nice honor for the astronauts who died, but some potential customers might steer clear.

    2. Re:Cool names? by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not familiar with the naval traditions of every country out there. But the US and UK, at least, (And those two have about the strongest naval triditions out there.) have no particular problem naming new ships after ones that sank.

      After the first aircraft carrier iteration of the USS Yorktown (CV-5) sank after the battle of Midway, we named a new one after her just five carriers later (CV-10), and we have a guided missile cruiser in commission by the name right now. Also, the USS Indianapolis was sunk quite famously and horrifically. But we have a 688 class submarine with the name now.

      Sometimes, the best way to honor a fallen vessel, is to continue its tradition.

      cya,
      john

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    3. Re:Cool names? by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doesn't anyone else see the irony in a company named "virgin" naming its first two ships after ships from the Star Trek series? ;-)

    4. Re:Cool names? by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

      Please excuse my lack of comprehension, but as a matter of fact, I do fail to see any irony here. Is it ironic because Virgin and Paramount are competitors and therefore Virgin should avoid using names reminiscent of a Paramount product? Or is there something inherently sexual about the Star Trek series?

      --
      McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
    5. Re:Cool names? by cashman73 · · Score: 1
      Or is there something inherently sexual about the Star Trek series?

      Rather, something inherently asexual in Star Trek fans, but I see that one just missed you like a supersonic jet,... ;-)

  14. New Picture? by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 1

    What if everything you ever wanted CAME IN A ROCKET CAN? Featuring all new flavors like White Knight, Spaceship 2, and Gun!

  15. What's in the box? by LeonPierre · · Score: 1

    The girl's head is in the box.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRJcxMe1zWY

    --
    "If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet"
  16. letters on the box - QA and... by asleeplessmalice · · Score: 1

    using just photoshop I see QA *12BH133 9/24 *VB40x49x90 * I can't make these out so, it's probably a box being used for laminate clamping, but the box arrived as a shipping container for parts.

  17. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like a bunch of random geeks in a warehouse with a fancy tool kit. After looking at those pics there is no way in hell I pay what they are asking to go to orbit.

  18. You know what I find weird about all of these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that they want to name them the same as the shuttles. I think that is a bit dumb. Especially ones like Challenger and Columbia. I think that these should just be laid to rest in the space world. I can understand Enterprise, as that is an homage in and of itself, but aren't there some rules to this in Naval etiquette? I would think that names like Titanic and so on would be retired. In this case as well, it would be like naming my rowboat Nautilus or something. I would understand if these were greater ships, but they aren't even close to the capability, and is more of a joke or a way to gather greatness from association rather than an homage.

  19. Space port with a box, it has to be: by sjs132 · · Score: 2, Funny

    A space port with a box laying around? Sounds like someone lost their parallel dimension. Quick, turn it inside out before they invade!

    --
    --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
  20. It is weight... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Those boxes are weight... About 15 years back I helped build a very ez (Rutan's design too, btw). Construction was 'composite' materials - a bit of a radical chance from the way folks traditional built aircraft. You cut a lot of foam and put fiberglass and resin on it. The real work was making the jigs to get the right camber on the wings. You had to put weight on stuff to make sure it warped at the correct angle. With some parts, you had to do large chunks in one laying (is that even the right word?) of resin since it makes a stronger bond.

  21. So you've won a trip into space by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do you want to keep your space vacation or trade it for what is in the box?

    1. Re:So you've won a trip into space by rhiorg · · Score: 3, Funny

      What could be in the box? Boy, it could be anything! It could even be a space vacation!

  22. Wait by khallow · · Score: 1

    How new are these photos? I see they're dated from January and February of this year. But that could be deliberately misleading.

    1. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are from January. Keep tuned for July 28...

    2. Re:Wait by khallow · · Score: 1

      Interesting. So good chance we'll see the whole vehicles then? Ah, I see wikipedia is forecasting rollout of White Knight Two by then and test flights in September. Yow!

    3. Re:Wait by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      End of the month should be fun. Spacex, Scaled/Virgin. It seems like the private world is making more and more splashes. Here is to hoping that all the splashing is good.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Wait by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, one thing that is interesting here is that as far as I know (which frankly isn't worth very much) the only company to get as far as the two attempts while using private funding is Orbital Sciences Corporation. And they're obviously still launching rockets though I gather most of their money-making goes on in defense-related government contracts. This is new ground and I hope SpaceX, Scaled Composites, etc make it to profitability.

  23. The box by kikkomang · · Score: 1

    Well first you have to check if there's a hole in the box. Next you make sure there is any traces of "junk". After all aforementioned steps are accomplished, make sure there are woman around to examine the contents of the box.

  24. The box is labeled by eccenthink · · Score: 1

    Somebody wrote on the box. It says:

    QA
    V121B H133 9/24
    WB40x49x90

    Mystery solve :)

  25. Your comment history says otherwise by Mr2001 · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a 49 yo grandmother, c programmer and feminist, I find this offensive.

    Oh, do you really? Just a few months ago, you told someone else to chill out when they were offended by a similar statement:

    I am a grandmother too, and sorry but you are wrong. The truth is, that most grandmothers are not technically literate. I just happen to have a career as a programmer, but I think your being too pc if you think there isn't a grain of truth in the original statement.

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    1. Re:Your comment history says otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how a 49 year old C programmer lacks proper spelling and grammar. :)

    2. Re:Your comment history says otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice!

    3. Re:Your comment history says otherwise by tenco · · Score: 1

      So you're impressed that someone here obviously reviews his/her attitudes and change it accordingly?

    4. Re:Your comment history says otherwise by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      that was not a review and a change. Feminist mom was simply carping on a whim. There was no thought given to the issue.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  26. VSS Enterprise by okoskimi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know what this means: Next Star Trek movie will have a new ship in the historical Enterprises display...

    (Yeah, I know the name has been known for a long time, but just came across it now and couldn't resist.)

  27. Gee, what's in the box? by alxkit · · Score: 0

    well, the box is orange... this leads me to believe it could be a collection of team fortress and halflife games

  28. Burt vs. NASA by heroine · · Score: 1

    This is a lot more progress than NASA made on Ares I in the same amount of time.

    1. Re:Burt vs. NASA by damburger · · Score: 1

      Apples and motherfucking Oranges!

      For a start, SpaceShipTwo is simple a bigger version of an already tested craft, which was in development for longer than Ares I has. Second, Ares I is a much, much bigger vehicle. It will be able to heft 25t into orbit (not a pissy little suborbital trajectory)

      If you are trying to make some point about private space flight being better, you should save it until they actually manage, 50 years behind those government agencies you think are so inefficient, to put men into orbit.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    2. Re:Burt vs. NASA by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For a start, SpaceShipTwo is simple a bigger version of an already tested craft, which was in development for longer than Ares I has. Second, Ares I is a much, much bigger vehicle. It will be able to heft 25t into orbit (not a pissy little suborbital trajectory) Hate to point this out, but Ares I is also just a bigger version of a current booster combined with a slightly improved old engine (all had been fully tested in LOADS of production). IOW, spacex AND NASA are doing the same thing.

      The real difference is that the comparison is false since it is between a spacecraft in the lowest of orbits vs. a rocket that goes to at least leo.
      But I would say that there is no reason to get snarky about it. Many of us who believe in NASA also believe in private enterprise. It is not one vs. the other. I will say that while I am not sold on ares I, I am a fan of the Ares V. We will need that kind of tonnage if we are really shooting for the moon (or mars) again. In addition, it will enable us to launch major sats across the solar system. Now, I just hope that we can afford to do it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Burt vs. NASA by damburger · · Score: 1

      Hate to point this out, but Ares I is also just a bigger version of a current booster combined with a slightly improved old engine (all had been fully tested in LOADS of production). IOW, spacex AND NASA are doing the same thing.

      What utter bullshit. There has not been a previous NASA vehicle that involved mounting a liquid fuelled second stage on top of a shuttle SRB.

      The real difference is that the comparison is false since it is between a spacecraft in the lowest of orbits vs. a rocket that goes to at least leo. But I would say that there is no reason to get snarky about it. Many of us who believe in NASA also believe in private enterprise. It is not one vs. the other. I will say that while I am not sold on ares I, I am a fan of the Ares V. We will need that kind of tonnage if we are really shooting for the moon (or mars) again. In addition, it will enable us to launch major sats across the solar system. Now, I just hope that we can afford to do it.

      There is a need to get snarky, because you are wrong yet you speak arrogantly about being wrong. NASA is unlikely to succeed in its bold visions because it isn't trusted anymore. In these days of private-enterprise-for-the-win a government agency such as NASA cannot reach the sufficient level of size and complexity to pull of the missions asked for. Even the first time around, NASA ended up being accused of being excessively socialist.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    4. Re:Burt vs. NASA by a208returns · · Score: 1

      WTF? How soes any of this relate to socialism? Really NASA and the Private comanies it hires are making a good deal of progress. Try reading this online paper to keep up spacedaily@spacedaily.com.

  29. It's a Mystery Box by Delchanat · · Score: 1

    It's a Mystery Box.

  30. O.K., but yeah - what's in the box anyway. by spineboy · · Score: 1

    We still want to know - the orangy-pink paper seems so festive. Maybe the clamping weight is made of ground up Stradivarius violins, or the preserved hearts of virgin sacrificial cloned lambs, or.....unreleased copies of Duke Nukem Forever!

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  31. These costs estimates are not meaningful by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cost estimates for things that have never been build are not reliable. Your $30 billion number seems . . . conservative. Seriously, this is a large, dynamic structure. They don't really know how they'd put it in place. They don't know how they would confine the ribbon, or how reliable that system would be. With so many unknowns, you're really just pulling numbers out of your ass. Moreover, the odds that it is actually build-able are not great. The odds of it staying up for any usable period of time are much worse.

    1. Re:These costs estimates are not meaningful by bagsc · · Score: 1

      "How much will it cost? I have no idea..." -quoted from page 27. http://www.launchloop.com/isdc2002loop.pdf

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  32. What's in the box? by Huntr · · Score: 2, Funny

    1: Cut a hole in a box
    2: Put your junk in that box
    3: Make her open the box

  33. What's in the box? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

    It's the severed head of soldeed's wife. John Doe wins.

    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  34. omglol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha, awesome point dude

  35. Weighted companion cube... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Gee, what's in the box?"

    It's just a weight. But it still has a nice shade of orange that would make it a pleasant companion to bring along on your space-borne adventure.

  36. Meta Modders, do your job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Offtopic on the parent???? That was obviously an idiot who has it in for others, since many of the other posts are echoing the same sentiments.

  37. These pictures speak volumes... by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Those MotherShip pics are scary. For one, the work areas are very cluttered which could lead to confusion, errors, rework and overall inefficiency. It appears there is no system in place to ensure that all tools and support equipment are properly accounted for and not left in the ship. This could lead to foreign object debris (FOD) destroying the ship while it is in operation. The other scary element is the apparent lack of work stands or platforms for the mechanics. When a plane gets built, it is important to build work stands or platforms first so that the mechanics have a place to stand wherever they need to be. As you can see from the pictures, they are doing their work standing on ladders. In addition to the inefficiency factor mentioned earlier, this also leads to ergonomic and safety issues. A mechanic standing on a ladder can't do the same quality job as when both feet are firmly on a platform, especially if any riveting is involved. Oddly, SpaceShipTwo has platforms for their mechanics but the MotherShip crew only has ladders. I was actually interested in taking a ride on this until I saw the pictures of their work areas!

    If anyone from Scaled wants me to come out and do a full-scale industrial engineering evaluation, feel free to contact me by replying.

    1. Re:These pictures speak volumes... by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "cluttered" was exactly what I was thinking when I saw that picture. They're packed in there like sardines. Stuff's everywhere. Looks like it's hard to turn around and walk 2 feet without running into something or someone. It must take a lot of planning trying to move anything around in there, imagine someone trying to get a ladder to the middle of that room!

      There's making good use of space and then there's overusing space. That room has long since crossed the line. Don't get me wrong, I wish them luck, but unless they have some genius coordination and organization skills from everyone that works there, that's gotta cause problems.

      I'd hope it gets better when they have it more completed, since basically it's all torn apart right now so it's bound to take up more space. So here's hoping this the low point, as bad as it gets.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:These pictures speak volumes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the guys who have gained world acclaim for this kind of work know more about what their doing than some douche on Slashdot.

    3. Re:These pictures speak volumes... by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      That would normally be the case, but I have years of experience in military aircraft manufacturing. I saw numerous problems from those pictures that would have shut down any government contractor. I'm all about private aerospace companies raising the bar for government-sponsored companies, but when their facilities look like that, it is clear that the bar is not being raised at all. I wish them luck.

    4. Re:These pictures speak volumes... by SkyratesPlayer · · Score: 1
      The SS2/WK2 differences might be simply due to volume. AFAIK, there are 7 SS2s on order, and only 2 WK2s. So it would make sense to invest in more infrastructure for SS2 assembly.

      Unrelated, it seems one of the booms will be windowless. I wonder if it will get painted-on windows like on the models.

  38. What's in the box by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    I'll take a look and tell you what's in the box...my god, it's full of stars! DUN DUN!!!!!

    --
    stuff |
  39. "what's in the box" by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    "NOTHING, absolutely nothing! STUPID, you're so stupid!"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KezvwARhBIc

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  40. The only way space exploration will ever go... by Illbay · · Score: 1
    ...forward. I woulda never thought that "space tourism" would be the key, but hey, whatever works.

    All this bull****in' around with government space agencies, etc., is just a nice way to move tax dollars around in a shell game that in the end avails nothing.

    You get REAL PEOPLE anteing up their own money for commercial space ventures, and the "high frontier" will finally become a reality.

    (N.B. I live in Houston. It's impossible to get people here to see how useless NASA is. Living on the government teat will do that).

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  41. Spaceship 2... by d'baba · · Score: 1

    Government still zero.

  42. One size does not fit all by DragonHawk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Those MotherShip pics are scary.

    People said things like that about the Skunk Works back when Kelly Johnson was running the place, when they created the U-2 and SR-71. If we adhere strictly to your doctrine, those planes would be impossible. Yet they were built in those sorts of conditions, and remain incredible achievements to this day.

    Turns out that if the organization has a lot of people who are truly amazingly talented, a lot of that corporate wisdom doesn't apply so much. Scaled Composites has the right combination of small size, corporate youth, and flexibility to be able to pull it off.

    I'm not saying they *are* pulling it off, but I don't think you can say they aren't, either.

    Of course, most organizations are not staffed that way -- there just aren't that many truly amazingly talented people out there. In any large organization, you have to plan on having some people who are merely excellent, a lot who are moderately talented, and your fair share of duds. (And that's if you're lucky.) You have design the organization itself to be fault tolerant.

    There are also technical reasons why big companies and small companies can operate in different ways successfully. Take work platforms, for example. They're larger, more expensive, and less flexible. If you're building hundreds of planes, they pay off. If you're building an evolving prototype, they might actually hamper efforts.

    I work for a small defense contractor. We get lots of work sub'ed to us from the big boys, precisely because we're more flexible and don't play by their rules. They keep telling us we're doing things inefficiently, but we consistently do things cheaper than their own in-house staff can.

    So don't assume that just because Lockheed Martin and Boeing have to do things your way, that everyone has to.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  43. Another Take on the Box by florescent_beige · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I tried to read the writing on the box and at first I thought I could read HL-33 9/24 which is a type of threaded fastener called a Hi-Lok, -33 is stainless which would make sense to use in carbon but I don't think that's what's in the box. 9/24 is a nonstandard size anyway I don't think it exists.

    The writing appears to be dimensions, the boxes are used for ergonomic tests to make sure the various black boxes inside the vehicle can go in and out the doors. This is typical Rutan construction with rounded cutouts to avoid stress concentrations, that works well in carbon construction because theres not much ductility in the material. Mockup fit tests like these are typical and sometimes work better than trying to simulate it in CAD.

    There's a QA label at the top, the QA department has measured and labelled the boxes.

    Admittedly the box looks like it's being used as a weight at the time the picture was taken. But not for bonding, I seriously doubt any bonding is being done in the assembly jig, or at room temp. On a craft like this the bonding must be done in an oven or autoclave and the bond prep must be done in a clean room which as has been pointed out this facility isn't.

    From the look of the structure I believe this may be a non-flying prototype, at least the fuse and wing pods. But for limited production vehicles like this and prototyping shops like Scaled things don't always look high-tech pretty so it my be flight hardware, R&D often looks like this.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  44. Government 0? by skiddie · · Score: 1

    Neil Armstrong? The ISS? Spirit and Oportunity? Phoenix Lander?
    That's zero compared to this? Christ, you could be a figure skating judge.

    1. Re:Government 0? by d'baba · · Score: 1
      At the first flight of Spaceship 1 and the White Knight there was a poster being waved by someone in the crowd. During the pilot's 'victory lap' in front of the crowd he took and waved it around himself. "Spaceship 1, Government 0", meaning that there was no government involvement in the initial flight. They seemed quite proud of that.

      Now, I haven't looked closely to see if they took government money this time, but this is /., why should I do the research?

  45. And on the next edition of 'This Old Troll' by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thanks for watching today's troll, "Feminist-Mom." A classic but under appreciated troll, recognizable by the fact that she's been 49, a grandmother, c programmer, and feminist for the last five years.

    On the next edition of 'This Old Troll' we'll be revisiting other classic trolls such as "Mare Sex" and "Consider Your Breathing." Thanks for watching!

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  46. John Doe says... by Thurmont · · Score: 1

    "I visited your factory this morning after you'd left. I tried to play pilot. I tried to taste the life of a simple man. It didn't work out, so I took a souvenir... Gwyneth Paltrow's pretty head."

    --
    "If it's got a switch... it's my bitch!!"