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?"
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
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
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?
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.
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