Virgin Galactic Shows the Finished WhiteKnight Two

Klaus Schmidt writes "Virgin Galactic today unveiled their WhiteKnight Two mothership, called 'EVE.' It is designed to carry the smaller SpaceShip Two into space. The rollout represents another major milestone in Virgin Galactic's quest to launch the world's first private, environmentally benign, space access system for people, payload and science. Christened 'EVE' in honor of Richard Branson's mother — Sir Richard performed the official naming ceremony — WK2 is both visually remarkable and represents ground-breaking aerospace technology. It is the world's largest all carbon composite aircraft and many of its component parts have been built using composite materials for the very first time. At 140 ft, the wing span is the longest single carbon composite aviation component ever manufactured."

Comments

Brace for EVE Online jokes

[unity100]

coming in 3, 2, 1 ...

Richard Branson sets up EVE Online Guild. News at 11.

Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes

[192939495969798999]

But wait, I wanted to make the "where's the adorable trash-collecting robot to be its boyfriend" jokes!

Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes

[Yvanhoe]

Yeah, my first thought was "How many turrets can you fit into that ship ?".
Then "Is there a Gallente version of this ?"

Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes

[Erbo]

It probably requires Frigate level 5 to fly. Or would this count as a Tech 2 ship?

I'm sure there'll be better jokes coming along soon. Have a Quafe while you wait for them.

Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes

[ptbarnett]

It probably requires Frigate level 5 to fly. Or would this count as a Tech 2 ship?

It's a carrier at least, maybe a mothership. :-)

Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes

[Oktober Sunset]

the collective noun for dorks with no life is the same whatever game your playing.

Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes

[GoNINzo]

It looks almost like a Kestrel. So it will have 4 launchers, and 0 turrets.

EVE
Kestrel

The bonuses suck because they're split and don't stack, but 305 m^3 isn't a lot of space, so he's going to want a lot of expanders with it's two low slots..

Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, "noob". It's the "cunt" of the internet.

Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes

[Prune]

I don't get it :?

Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes

[Nazlfrag]

No life? When I die, I'm instantly resurrected! I have infinite lives!! I AM IMMORTAL!!!

Impressive

[Calathea]

Well it certainly looks the part, you do wonder what these privateers could come up with given the budgets NASA work with.

Re:Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

> you do wonder what these privateers could come up with given the budgets NASA work with.

Hardly. Looks are more important, if you want to get some space tourists, which content themselves at reaching "outer space", in contrast to getting some real equipment up there. That also explains the budget difference.

Re:Impressive

[michrech]

Probably the same stuff NASA does. I personally believe budgets *should* be kept small, even if artificially. This *forces* innovation. If they knew they had whatever amount of money they desired, I don't think the science would advance as far, or as fast.

In short, I think it's the lack of resources that forces people to come up with workable solutions to whatever problems they face with what resources they have at hand.

Re:Impressive

[somersault]

That also explains the budget difference.

Sure. I'd expect the budget difference has more to do with the fact that NASA built their shuttles way back when, and didn't have such advanced software tools and modern materials to use when designing and building them. To get a bigger payload up you 'simply' need a bigger rocket :p

Re:Impressive

[physburn]

I wondering if how reusable 'Eve' is for useful space jobs, other than the worlds biggest roller-coaster. If the Eve plane, can carry without modification, a satellite launch rocket, for LEO of even better GEO. Virgin Galactic should have a real money-spinner. Otherwise i fear for the companies running out of cash.

Re:Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that is a bit naive. When I look at a project I look at the variables and decide a course of action. Sometimes i trade money for (saved) time. Sometimes i trade time (lower productivity) for money (saved). Saying that you should always have a low budget, even artificial, really ignores the reality of project management.

Re:Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that NASA funded a lot of the research a development that these people are taking advantage of.

Re:Impressive

[FishWithAHammer]

Richard Branson is going to decide all of a sudden that he doesn't want to fund it anymore? Gee, I didn't know Slashdotters were psychic.

Re:Impressive

[camperdave]

I personally believe budgets *should* be kept small, even if artificially. This *forces* innovation. If they knew they had whatever amount of money they desired, I don't think the science would advance as far, or as fast.
br. While I agree with the principle, there are some scenarios where knowing you had a larger budget would be better than having a "limited" budget. Take safety equipment for example. You may be able to get seat belts from an auto wreckers for $5 each, but wouldn't you rather have brand new units even if they cost $800? Are you better off with dollar store flashlights, or Maglites?

Re:Impressive

[DerekLyons]

The problem is, with tens of millions of dollars in the budget this project isn't lacking resources by any reasonable interpretation of the words. Further, comparing them with NASA is a bit misleading as the White Knight/SpaceShip Two craft operates in what is a fairly benign environment compared to what would be encountered by an orbital craft.

Re:Impressive

[ThreeE]

Don't forget that taxpayers funded a lot of the research a development that these people are taking advantage of.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Impressive

[wigaloo]

I personally believe budgets *should* be kept small, even if artificially. This *forces* innovation.

Most of any budget goes toward funding people, either directly or indirectly. Small budgets result in innovators spending most of their time completing tasks that would otherwise be looked after by others, and this distracts from innovation. Artificially small budgets don't force innovation -- they create demoralizing conditions that stifle it.

Re:Impressive

[MBGMorden]

You may be able to get seat belts from an auto wreckers for $5 each, but wouldn't you rather have brand new units even if they cost $800? Are you better off with dollar store flashlights, or Maglites?

$800 seatbelts are where NASA goes wrong. Every single component on a space craft doesn't need to be "space-age". Somewhere between those $5 used seatbelts and those $800 seatbelts are the $50 seatbelts that will work just fine. Not that I'm saying these decisions should be made randomly - but after an engineering analysis, if the cheaper component fits the specified needs (as well as a reasonable safety margin) then by all means use the cheaper version - the extra funds can be spent on other projects or even other things on the spacecraft that DO need the extra funding.

Re:Impressive

[pnewhook]

Sure. I'd expect the budget difference has more to do with the fact that NASA built their shuttles way back when, and didn't have such advanced software tools and modern materials to use when designing and building them.

You do realize that in general, modern software design tools have *increased* design costs, not decreased them over traditional non-software based design methods.

Re:Impressive

[OriginalArlen]

Right, it looks the part; what could possibly go wrong?

Re:Impressive

[CodeBuster]

but after an engineering analysis, if the cheaper component fits the specified needs (as well as a reasonable safety margin) then by all means use the cheaper version.

Suppose that you and your fellow crew members are sitting on the pad in the shuttle at the cape about to ride 7.5 million pounds of thrust in a massive controlled explosion all the way to orbit 200 miles above the surface of the Earth. Now, would you prefer to have the $800 dollar seat belts along with the best of everything else or would you prefer instead to ride a vehicle with over 2 million moving parts, each supplied by the lowest bidder, knowing full well that there is no reset button in real life and that most failures have a high probability of killing everyone aboard?

Re:Impressive

[profplump]

Increased with respect to what? Certainly modern design has increased design costs with respect to lifting capacity, production costs, testing costs, safety, and/or some other area -- why else would it still be in use?

Re:Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious you can buy better things with more money, if all you are doing is purchasing pre-made stuff. Parent was talking about actual innovation and building entirely new things, not just plugging together off-the-self parts.

Re:Impressive

[profplump]

Thousands of people fly every day, miles above the Earth, propelled by a controlled explosion In a machine with a whole lot of moving parts supplied by the lowest bidder. Most people in that situation get a $5, single-strap safety restraint. Even the pilots and crew don't get an $800 restraint system.

I'm not saying space travel is easy, but in real life there's usually some reasonable compromise between "the most safety we can provide at any cost" and "the most safety we can provide at a reasonable cost, considering the inherent risk of this situation". But it doesn't surprise me that you've lost sight of that -- many people have these days.

Re:Impressive

[Lemmy Caution]

but after an engineering analysis

Where do you think the high costs of these things comes from? The design of a product for a given context is an expense that is, for mass-market products, paid for by the volume of sales. The market for space-shuttle seat-belts is probably 6 to 8 units, total.

The cost of an item includes all the costs of research and analysis. $800 is, maybe, half of someone's workday (once you include the full costs of hiring someone, including benefits and space). I think I would actually be nervous if the seat belts were that little.

Re:Impressive

[Rakishi]

Thousands of people fly every day, miles above the Earth, propelled by a controlled explosion In a machine with a whole lot of moving parts supplied by the lowest bidder. Most people in that situation get a $5, single-strap safety restraint. Even the pilots and crew don't get an $800 restraint system.

Commercial airplanes aren't supposed to experience his acceleration (ie: why you need seatbelts) and when they do experience them people get injured. The space shuttle experiences decent acceleration quite often and it's one of the lower accelerating space vehicles. I'm sure fighter jets use quite expensive safety systems for that very reason.

The Soyuz vehicles, for example, have more than once experienced enough Gs to cause permanent damage to the occupants despite the safety harnesses in place (during reentry failures or emergency ejections). In other words the EXPECTED maximum load that may be put of them (ie: during emergencies) those $500 seat belts may be the minimum that is required.

Re:Impressive

[MBGMorden]

Depends. If the cheaper seat belts would do the job, then the $800 seatbelts are unnecessary.

It kinda goes back to the advice on the $20 motorcycle helmet. Yeah, only buy one if you have a $20 head. But, if it was the difference between my head asploding or not, I'd gladly be willing to shell out the rest of the earnings I'd make during my natural life. Certainly, say, $50,000 would be worth saving my head. That doesn't mean that a $50,000 helmet is NECESSARY though. Between the two extremes IS a compromise that is within reason. So say I find a $150 helmet that works great - that doesn't mean I'm only valuing my head at $150. It means that is the price point at which I consider the protection reasonable and anything extra superfluous. If you continually shell out more money to have the "best" then eventually you bankrupt yourself. Design simple, design within reason, and use the savings on other stuff.

Re:Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

That link doesn't seem to work. I think it is slashdotted, here is a mirror.

http://i2.iofferphoto.com/img/1137657600/_i/10228270/1.jpg

Will someone with modpoints please mod parent down before the idiot mods mod it informative without looking at it?

Re:Impressive

[wooferhound]

NASA needs a Home Depot next to the Vehicle Assembly Building

Re:Impressive

[pnewhook]

The design costs of a product designed with CAD are typically bigger than the design costs of a product designed in the traditional method with manually made drawings. This is well documented and well known among older designers. The reason is that with modern CAD tools, they do so much more, but they also require so much more information to be put into the model. This takes time. This information was not needed before as the skill of the machinist was relied upon instead of the accuracy of the model.

Granted, many modern designs are so advanced they need this analysis or they would never work. The days of "just build it and try it" are almost over.

Re:Impressive

[element-o.p.]

...but after an engineering analysis...

What do you think makes the seat belts so expensive?

Re:Impressive

[element-o.p.]

You're being a bit sensationalist here.

Thousands of people fly every day, miles above the Earth, propelled by a controlled explosion

No, it is produced by a controlled burn. There is a significant difference. In most cases, the burning (not exploding) fuel expands, gets squeezed out a nozzle, and then turns a turbine which in turn (no pun intended) rotates a ducted fan on the forward end of the engine. Very little of the exhaust gasses directly drive the aircraft, thus the name "high-bypass ratio turbofan engine".

In a machine with a whole lot of moving parts supplied by the lowest bidder.

...manufactured to tolerances specified by the designer, and approved by the FAA, then tested in multiple tests before receiving certification to ensure that the design is sufficiently strong and durable to see service in an airline.

Most people in that situation get a $5, single-strap safety restraint.

B.S. Even the "non-certified" restraints used in the so-called "amateur built experimental" category *start* at about $50 and go up from there. Certified restraints used to retrofit small general aviation airplanes like the single engine Cessna and Piper airplanes you see buzzing around the sky start at about three times that cost. The restraint in a 737 is going to be somewhere near the cost of a restraint in a Cessna or Piper, I'd bet. The pilot and crew? I'd estimate $200-300, but not being a Boeing/Airbus employee, I couldn't tell you for sure.

...in real life there's usually some reasonable compromise between "the most safety we can provide at any cost" and "the most safety we can provide at a reasonable cost, considering the inherent risk of this situation"

Yep, exactly.

Re:Impressive

[RJBeery]

Hence all of the amazing, life-improving innovation coming out of Uganda, for example...snark

Re:Impressive

[Atari400]

I personally believe other people's budgets *should* be kept small, even if artificially.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the budget that really matters. It's all the layers of government and oversight that get in the way and cause problems. When our space race began, we expected success, but we also knew there would be some deaths and setbacks. This is a HIGH risk arena and second chances don't happen. But we did what no one else has done. But today, when we have an accident with a space vehicle, Congress (???!!) gets involved and there are years of investigation and law suits. We have become a nation mired in legal knots and government idiots. Now, finally the private sector is showing that we, as a people, haven't lost the desire to just DO. We set outlandish goals and reach them. The people doing it are explorers (and test pilots). They push the envelope because it's there and want to see beyond it. And it is this type that will continue to take us beyond what we know. The true risk takers and pioneers.

Re:Impressive

[MBGMorden]

...manufactured to tolerances specified by the designer, and approved by the FAA, then tested in multiple tests before receiving certification to ensure that the design is sufficiently strong and durable to see service in an airline.

Not always. Experimental aviation is alive and well, and in general the only thing the engine needs to do is keep you flying for a 40 hour testing period before you can carry passengers and fly anywhere in the country. Rebuilt Volkswagon engines are quite popular, as are nearly 50 year old Corvair engines, 2 cylinder Rotax's, etc. A limited few people building things like the Pietenpol AirCamper who want to stay "traditional" even use the old Ford Model A engine. There are even some examples of Ultralights which have used a VW engine that had have the case removed, and the rest reworked so that it operated on only 2-cylinders. People have also adapter Harley Davidson motorcyles engines to the task of flying. The list is nearly endless as to what people manage to get flying.

B.S. Even the "non-certified" restraints used in the so-called "amateur built experimental" category *start* at about $50 and go up from there.

Actually for Experimental aircraft you can pretty much do what you want. I've seen (and flown) planes with bike handle bar covers on the control stick and pillows thrown in for seats. If one wishes to use surplus automotive seat belts from a junk yard they're free to, and many people do pinch pennies when building stuff like this. I've seen entire airplanes put together for under $5000. It was a simple design with a lot of parts scrounging and no-frills (gas gauges were plastic tubes with black permanent marker telling you the levels), but it did work fine.

Re:Impressive

[element-o.p.]

Sigh...I'm quite familiar with experimental aircraft. My airplane uses one of the two-cylinder Rotax engines you mentioned and you are correct that it only takes a 40 hour test period to get the restrictions removed from your experimental airplane (actually, I think in some cases, it can be as little as 20 hours). Having said that, experimental airplanes a peculiar niche in aviation. From the context, it sounded like the parent post was referring to commercial (i.e. airline) flights, in which case my response was entirely accurate: it is not merely thousands of parts produced by the lowest bidder flying together in formation.

As for whether or not you can do pretty much what you want, that's true as long as you can get the FAA inspector who reviews your airplane to sign off on it. So while you might feel perfectly safe using a couple of pieces of clothesline to tie you into the seat instead of a $50 restraint from Aircraft Spruce (or whoever), unless the FAA inspector signs off on it, you aren't legal (not to say someone probably hasn't tried it or that someone isn't flying without being signed off, but...). You could almost certainly get by with a seatbelt from the local junkyard, but like I said earlier, experimentals are a niche within aviation in general. You *won't* find junkyard seat belts in a Cessna, and if you do, it won't be legal. You for sure won't see them in an airliner.

Re:Impressive

[hostyle]

You do realise that iofferphoto auto-detect goatse images and replace them with zany space junk diagrams?

Re:Impressive

[MBGMorden]

You *won't* find junkyard seat belts in a Cessna, and if you do, it won't be legal.

Well, not automotive junkyard, but airplane junkyard maybe. As long as the equipment has been approve for for that model airplane (or you can get a field exemption) then it's ok to install used stuff. ;)

I get you point though; my point was just that aviation isn't quite "pristine everything must be perfect" as some believe it to be (not saying you do - just pointing it out for the non aviation crowd). That's what makes GA fun for me anyways - it's a bit gritty. I've seen a Globe Swift that wouldn't crank at the local airport that our local A&P/mechanic (who looks more like a guy who would be working on lawnmowers than airplanes) reached into the cowl, fiddled with some stuff, and told the airplane's owner (who wasn't local) to "Try it now.". After it cranked he (with a straight face) said "There. I think it'll get you home at least.".

Personally, while I have flown a few experimental aircraft with friends (most of that time spent in a Kitfox), the majority of my hours are logged in Cessna's (mostly a pair of 150's, but I've flown a few 172's a bit as well). I'm working on a Zenith 601XL though - mine will be powered by a Corvair engine when it's finished. When done right it generates power pretty close to an O-200.

Re:Impressive

[AK Marc]

No, it is produced by a controlled burn.

My last plane flight was powered by explosions, not burning. And it was 500+ miles (around 800 I think, but not sure), so not a short hop. Most aircraft are powered by explosions.

Re:Impressive

[Andrew Kismet]

"Necessity, who is the mother of invention."
  -Plato

Re:Impressive

[Maxmin]

modern CAD tools ... require so much more information ... was not needed before as the skill of the machinist was relied upon instead of the accuracy of the model.

The CAD vs. draftsman argument is a moot point when you're talking about a spaceship, built from composites and fancy alloys. Design data gets sent direct to computer-controlled milling machines (that'd be the new-fangled "numerically controlled mill" to an old-timer.) In addition to greater precision and work speed, they have the added benefit of nearly eliminating breakage caused by human error, overheating etc. Even auto drivetrain parts are milled by computer control these days.

You'll have to wait until the next industrial revolution for machinist jobs to start turning up again... a century or two after the current civilization finishes itself off.

Re:Impressive

[somersault]

I wasn't thinking of CAD actually, it's almost entirely analagous to 2D drawing unless you're using 3D CAD (which most our engineers do).

I was thinking more of structural analysis tools and fluid analysis tools (we use ANSYS/CFX for this). That greatly reduces the time it takes to calculate fatigue, blade efficiency (for things like wind turbines and underwater impellers), aerodynamics etc. You can use a wind tunnel to 'see' what is happening aerodynamically, but as far as testing for weak points in a complex structure, it's more reliable and quicker just to give it over to the computer rather than rely on gut instinct and human calculations (though you still need a human to give the inputs to the simulation so it could still be flawed). It also leaves room for more interesting designs as say architects could use simulations to test out unusual designs and different uses of materials. Sure they already generally know what is possible, but simulations help give a proof-of-concept.

Computer modelling tools mean that even small firms without much cash can design proper supercars and rockets without having anywhere near as much money as companies like Ferrari or NASA.

Re:Impressive

[pnewhook]

but as far as testing for weak points in a complex structure, it's more reliable and quicker just to give it over to the computer rather than rely on gut instinct and human calculations (though you still need a human to give the inputs to the simulation so it could still be flawed)

No. Computers are stupid. You still need an experienced engineer to both enter the data and to look at the results to see that they make sense. Blindly taking the output of any automated analysis will likely be doomed to failure.

Computer modelling tools mean that even small firms without much cash can design proper supercars and rockets without having anywhere near as much money as companies like Ferrari or NASA.

Knowledge is in the people, not the tools - you still have to pay your employees. Generally if you can only afford to pay people crap, you will get crap output. Small firms accomplish great things due to the lack of bureaucratic overhead and the small team atmosphere, not because of software tools.

Re:Impressive

[pnewhook]

Agreed, except the spaceship is not entirely made up of complex parts and expensive materials - if it was it would never be affordable or likely work at all. Simple parets are cheaper to make by machinist vs modelling in CAD.

Also, materials such as carbon fiber sheets are not milled, they are laid by hand mostly, or in some cases by machine in large areas.

Re:Impressive

[somersault]

But the software tools still speed things up and take a lot of the brunt of the calculations. Smaller companies do benefit from a lack of red tape sure, and they don't necessarily have to pay poorly, but they still generally have less funding per project at their disposal than large companies. I work for a small company myself and we have plenty of smart and experienced engineers, but ANSYS and CFX have been invaluable to us when it comes to testing out our structures and designing blades for our mass-flow dredging tools and a tidal turbine that we are developing. One of our guys is a genius with his calculations (went to Cambridge, used to work for Rolls Royce, and used to teach at our local university before he started working for us full time) and probably could have done a fair bit of the work without them given enough time, but that is not the point. Computers are great at churning through calculations very quickly, and they do reduce the man hours and resources required to do design and test complex structures. Better to run a simulation on software that you pay a yearly fee for, than to manufacture a new part and then hire a wind tunnel every time you need to test out a design.

Re:Impressive

[pnewhook]

I agree completely - software based analysis will save time if you need to do it. My other point related to that is that you cannot take the results of the analysis blindly, you need a human sanity check. This does not mean you need a person to redo the calculations by hand, just that you need an experienced person who can tell when the results make sense and when they dont.

Re:Impressive

[element-o.p.]

Assuming you are referring to a piston engine, then you are mistaken; you are flying in an airplane that is powered by a controlled burn. An explosion in a piston engine is called detonation, and it will destroy the engine if you allow it to continue. (see http://www.streetrodstuff.com/Articles/Engine/Detonation/ for more information).

The wikipedia article on detonation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking) states that pretty much all diesel engines do experience detonation to some extent, but goes on to state that even in a diesel engine, the engine designer takes care to minimize the detonation as much as possible, so as to extend the life of the engine.

Re:Impressive

[AK Marc]

Explosion is a burn with a flame wave over some arbitrary speed. That burn rate is the same under detonation as proper ignition, making both either explosions or neither explosions. I am very familiar with the terms and how they are used for automobiles. If they aren't used the same in aeronautics, then I will conceed, but an internal combustion engine does certainly meet the description of an explosion. But, since you like Wikipedia, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion and see if the first line in that doesn't match well with both a jet and a piston engine for both being explosions.

slashdotted before first comment!

[Corf]

is this some sort of record?!

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[Anonymous Coward]

The site seems to have been built using .NET, so it may be a record, but is hardly surprising.

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[Phyrexicaid]

I guess I'm not the only one who only tries to RTFA when it's been tagged "slashdotted".

Don't know what I expect...

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[demachina]

A couple of the pictures are on the Scaled composite web site.

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[hansraj]

No. Just that the story caught the fancy of not just your usual slashdotter but our intergalactic overlords too.

(And they are probably pissed because rumor has it that google is thinking of a partnership with virgin galactic and mount a camera on top of the galactic bus. And sure as hell they will ignore all those galactic "no trespassing" signs.)

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[RingDev]

The site seems to have been built using .NET, so it may be a record, but is hardly surprising.

The site is written in PHP, not .Net.

-Rick

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[Anonymous Coward]

high res images http://virgingalactic.com/pressftp/

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[TappedOut]

More, high-res pictures here http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[RingDev]

How do you know?

Because the default page is set to Index.PHP, the theme system in the HTML sites an open source PHP theme tool, the content of the body sites another PHP based CMS...

I'm assuming the rest of your post is written using some blend of cliche, sarcasm, and humor, so I'll leave that to a chuckle ;)

-Rick

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[ashitaka]

"Sites" or "Cites"

Not trying to be a GN but with the context it actually makes the post confusing to read.

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[hagardtroll]

Here is a mirror. http://i2.iofferphoto.com/img/1137657600/_i/10228270/1.jpg

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[snooz_crash]

engadget has a good pic and info at http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/28/virgin-galactics-white-knight-2-spaceship-carrier-gets-unveiled/

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[RingDev]

heh, nice catch, it should have been 'cite'. I blame my lack of sleep this weekend for such a silly mistake. On the bright side, the lack of sleep was caused by the presence of a newly rescued dog. New Dog > Sleep.

-Rick

Re:slashdotted before first comment!

[RealErmine]

Branson and Rutan are truly ushering in a new golden age...

of mutton chops

Pretty impressive

[moz25]

Efforts such as these give the impression the advances in spaceflight will gravitate towards commercial companies catering to consumers, rather than expensive government projects.

Re:Pretty impressive

[CRCulver]

Efforts such as these give the impression the advances in spaceflight will gravitate towards commercial companies catering to consumers

In his novel Firestar , the first volume of a future history attempting to be a realistic vision of the rise of human spaceflight, Michael Flynn had FedEx as one a major sponsor of private launches. Being able to deliver a package anywhere on Earth in 90 minutes, Flynn thought, would be an incredible advantage to a courier firm. With the rise of the Internet, however, there are ever fewer physical packages to be transported, and maybe no company would be willing to pay thousands extra for just a few hours less of delivery time. Now, except for space tourism, I'm hard-pressed to find any commercial use for mere orbital flights (as opposed to getting out there and mining).

Re:Pretty impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

my experience is that since the rise of the internet, shipping has gone UP, significantly. While people don't fedex or UPS documents too much anymore, the truth is they were faxing them years before the internet showed up as a major player anyway. However, when people can now use the internet to not only find out your company on the other end of the earth exists, but that you make the funky product they were just wondering about. On top of all this, they can also place an order directly with you to get your bizarre niche product...your business, and shipping increases tenfold.

Mind you, I am not an expert, and I freely admit I may be wrong about this, but this is what it has been in my experience.

How many people use amazon instead of going the the store nowadays?

Re:Pretty impressive

[TheRaven64]

How many of these things are time-critical though? In most cases, you want information now, and a product some deterministic time in the future. A lot of things are still transported on ships because, although it takes longer, it is cheap and you can guarantee that it will arrive in exactly three weeks (for example).

Re:Pretty impressive

[First Person]

This is an avenue which has gotten some attention, but you must be realistic about the numbers. First, assume about an hour of time on either side to account for multiple pickups and traffic. This assumes that spaceports exist at major cities. Then consider the economics of on-demand launches. Rockets will he held until there are enough packages. Throw in business hours and, in many cases, overnight with 9:00 AM delivery will be identical in practice.

Rockets offer two potential advantages. First, they will be more effective for long trips (e.g. NY to Sydney). Second, they can get places that planes can't (e.g. Luna, Mars, ...).

Don't hold your breath waiting for FedEx.

Re:Pretty impressive

[TheSync]

With the rise of the Internet, however, there are ever fewer physical packages to be transported, and maybe no company would be willing to pay thousands extra for just a few hours less of delivery time.

Even physical "critical parts" can be produced locally rapidly by emailing a file and using a 3D computer controlled machining device.

To pay for a rocket, it would have to be a very rare material. Like plutonium - of course, we already have rockets ready to deliver those in 90 minutes or less!

Re:Pretty impressive

[ashitaka]

Fedex uses a major hub approach to distribution anyway. See the animation of their plane flights to see the grand dance in and out of Memphis.

Re:Pretty impressive

[jollyreaper]

To pay for a rocket, it would have to be a very rare material. Like plutonium - of course, we already have rockets ready to deliver those in 90 minutes or less!

Or the next one's free?

Re:Pretty impressive

[ashitaka]

Geez. One misplaced single quote.

Fedex uses a major hub approach to distribution anyway. See the animation of their plane flights to see the grand dance in and out of Memphis.

Re:Pretty impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

"..With the rise of the Internet, however, there are ever fewer physical packages to be transported..."

What nonsense! Almost everything is now transported as a package. How do you think Ebay works? Almost all my IT kit is now bought off the net and posted to me. Physical package transport is hitting the roof!

Re:Pretty impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, except for space tourism, I'm hard-pressed to find any commercial use for mere orbital flights (as opposed to getting out there and mining).

Thats the problem, I bet Columbus didnt think he would find a whole New World, nor chocolate, etc.
He just went looking for a cheap route to the Indies

Re:Pretty impressive

[OriginalArlen]

We'll be taking trips out of LEO to go mining just as soon as Earth runs out of rocks, and someone figures out how to launch 10,000 tons of smelter. Oh, wait, that's never going to happen is it. DUH.

Re:Pretty impressive

[Shotgun]

Rockets are expensive now, because they're not mass produce; but they could eventually be cheaper for transport.

Consider a Fedex flight from Tokyo to New York. You have a fat airplane pushing it's way through a thick atmosphere for 14 hours. Most of the fuel used is consumed pushing through the air. Then you have 3 or 4 decently-paid pilots along for the ride on a mostly automated ride, trying to best not to die of boredom.

The rocket ride last 90 minutes. A big push up into very-thin to non-existant atmosphere, then a coasting glide home. Most of the fuel is burned in a single big push. No need for the 3rd or 4th pilot (who is there for relief on the airplane ride), since the trip is so short.

I could see the rocket eventually being much cheaper than the airplane for certain types of transport.

Re:Pretty impressive

[Bent Mind]

Talk to the Customer Service department of any on-line retailer. Almost all customers want their packages yesterday. All too often, I've heard about the customer ordering their party dress on Wednesday for the party on Friday. You'd be surprised at how many customers pay for expedited shipping.

As for shipping via ships, I suppose it depends on the source and destination. However, most of that kind of shipping isn't going to end customers. It's going to assembly plants and resellers.

Re:Pretty impressive

[TheSync]

Rockets are expensive now, because they're not mass produce; but they could eventually be cheaper for transport.

There have been plenty of ICBMs built...

Let's consider an antipode capable ICBM (range: 12,000 km). One of the smaller ones is the three-stage solid Minuteman III , weighing in at 35,400 kg (I suspect most of that is solid fuel), and delivering 3 Mk 12 RVs, about 400 kg payload total.

I suspect you'd be hard-pressed to design better than that.

The "flyaway" cost of Minuteman III is about $5 million (which isn't too bad for a military device!), perhaps we could drop that to $1 million in the private sector, then it is just $2,500 per kg to antipode.

This is on the order of 100 times more expensive than flying...

Re:Pretty impressive

[Chris Burke]

I can think of plenty of things where shipping them across the world in 90 minutes would be advantageous. I disagree that the internet has decreased shipping (the opposite in fact), but certainly most things aren't going to be worth the cost until it comes down a great deal. But here are some things that absolutely would be worth the cost today:

1) Initial wafer lots. With fabs thousands of miles away from the engineers who designed the parts, the longer it takes for samples to arrive and any possible bugs found could mean literally millions wasted on bad wafer starts. Turn around time on this kind of thing is critical.

2) Executives. For the big-wigs, video conferencing just doesn't cut it. They still fly the traditional way. Being able to hold meetings on the other side of the world without ruining their circadian rhythms would be very much worth the price.

Okay, that's actually all I've got right now... There's potential here, but with current prices no mass market to be sure. Maybe enough to marshal economies of scale? I don't know.

Re:Pretty impressive

[godfra]

Even physical "critical parts" can be produced locally rapidly by emailing a file and using a 3D computer controlled machining device.

It's possible but how many people are actually doing this?

Re:Pretty impressive

[petermgreen]

Even physical "critical parts" can be produced locally rapidly by emailing a file and using a 3D computer controlled machining device.
Sure if the part is nothing more than a shaped lump of homogenous material.

I think you would have great trouble getting a say a multilayer PCB fabricated and populated in less than a day though (and that is assuming you can source the parts locally).

White Knight 2 Finished... so's their webserver

[Anonymous Coward]

It shot past 100km & it's still climbing Woo!

Cool, but...

[WindBourne]

1. When does the next SpaceX Falcon fly?
2. When will Rutan pursue a true LEO space vehicle?

We can use all of these.

Re:Cool, but...

[Cormacus]

Well, just think of all of the structural engineering problems with producing a true LEGO space vehicle.

Do we really need modularization on that level?

Re:Cool, but...

[Bureaucromancer]

He already has said that SpaceShip 3 will be orbital, although nothing else about such a vehicle. The tone of the annoucement was that it would happen if Galactic is succesful, but otherwise it really was just the intent. (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/08/23/201097/spaceshipthree-poised-to-follow-if-ss2-succeeds.html) Dragon on the other hand is supposedly coming along nicely (not that they've shown anything publically). Supposedly that means Falcon 9 flies a demo flight early next year, and Dragon is up unmanned by the end of 2009. That's already delayed from Q4 08 and Q1 or 2 09 respectively, but we'll really have to see on this one. My impression is that Dragon will probably fly next year, but won't be manned for some time after that, might look a bit like the Shenzhou timeline in fact (though I don't expect flight to be only 1 a year). I suspect the project WILL be succesful though, if for no other reason than NASA will bail them out to make sure there is an American vehicle available from 2010/11 until Orion finally turns up. SpaceShipThree on the other hand could be a hell of a long way off without serious investment from Bransom et al or goverment.

Re:Cool, but...

[savuporo]

SpaceX Falcon launch is tenatively scheduled for this and next week with launch window closing on august 9th, some are saying its further delayed until end of August already. most up to date news here prolly

Re:Cool, but...

[OriginalArlen]

The next Falcon? They've not had a single real-life launch yet. I'm the first to admit they've got an impressive looking vehicle, though, and they're actually some really smart people over there. Who knows, maybe they'll get a 100% success record (or will be able to cope with two or three lost vehicles early in the program.)

Incidentally you'll notice they've built a traditional rocket in order to get to 27000mph, rather than a plastic aeroplane to reach Mach 2.5 going straight up and straight back down. Anyone got an number for the cost of a Falcon launch, comapred to say a Delta heavy, Ariane or Soyuz?

Re:Cool, but...

[WindBourne]

They have launched 2x. The first was a TOTAL failure ( spectacularly ). The 2'nd was an almost that need not achieve final speed needed due to engine cut-out.
For Falcon costs.
The souyez is all over the baord, but consider that Russia is saying that they will charge America 50 Mill to launch a single astronaut, while spacex is saying 7 for less than 100 million.

Re:Cool, but...

[TheSync]

From SpaceX:

During launch, SpaceX will use the extensive range safety, tracking and telemetry services provided by the Reagan Test Site (RTS) at the United States Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) in the Central Pacific. The next launch window opens 29 July and runs through 6 August, followed by one from 29 August to 5 September.

The Falcon 1 will carry the Trailblazer satellite for the Jumpstart Program of the Department of Defense's Operationally Responsive Space Office (ORS). Additional secondary payloads include an adapter system developed by the government of Malaysia that holds two small NASA satellites.

Re:Cool, but...

[billn]

If you think about it, that's just a case of refactoring Spaceship Two. Right now, it's built as a vehicle capable of re-entry. Drop that requirement and re-engineer for a longer burn capability, perhaps with some of the scramjet technology from the HyperX platform. Most of the weight of a Space Shuttle launch is fuel, and a staggering amount is expended just getting it off the pad. Rutan's approach, while slower, is much more efficient. Trading out Spaceship Two for a longer, heavier second stage module with slaved avionics/control surfaces isn't that far fetched of a notion. I wonder how the size of the toys they're building over at Bigelow Aerospace compares.

Re:Cool, but...

[WindBourne]

I have talked to one person that has a brother that has gone to work at Bigelow. He says that place is a mess. But he is young and he only worked at adam air. I need to find out new info and see what he thinks of it now.
Personally, I am a fan of it and have worked in start-ups often enough that I know that they can appear to be a total mess.

As to SS3, I would really like to see that happen soon. There have been rumors that they are actually building it as well. But more than several ppl here who are full blow rocket scientists (I am not), tell me that it will be a LOT of work. I am not certain how much it really will be, but it makes sense. The hyperX may be off a ways in terms of time. Until then, I suspect that they will use some regular engine. It would be interesting for them to approach spacex about 1 of theirs, perhaps a single merlin could do the trick.

Re:Cool, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The true LEO vehicle will be SpaceShipThree. It's a planned development arc.

Re:Cool, but...

[billn]

I'm curious what the lifting capacity on the new 'mothership' is. If they can make that center mount modular..

Re:Cool, but...

[OriginalArlen]

I stand corrected, shame on me for not checking my facts; thanks. It turns out I had the wrong idea of the relative power of Falcon 9, and I had no idea at all they were going to try manned launches in 2009. After last night's debacle (yes I was awake to watch it live, at 4am in the UK) I wonder how many of the NASA hater types would still like a ticket on one of the first, say, dozen manned flights.

Re:*Yawn*

[Free the Cowards]

What is SpaceShipTwo if not a custom airplane?

Eve?

[Yvan256]

No thanks, I'll wait for the Wall-E model.

Re:Eve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait for WALL-E? Dude, he's already come and gone, long ago. EVE is the new, sleek model. WALL-E was the old clunker from the 1960s that took the first dog or chimp (or whatever it was) to space.

I'll take the new one, kthanxbai.

Re:Eve?

[Kligat]

Actually, the plan where the residents of Earth left through the Axiom while WALL-E robots cleaned up garbage on the surface took place in 2110, almost exactly 700 years before the year where the main movie plot takes place

Re:Eve?

[noob749]

wwwwaaaaaAAAAAAAlllllllleeeeeeeee

Re:Eve?

[Yvan256]

EEEEEEEEvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeee.

I like the competition's product

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen Wayne Tech's new Dark Knight? Really impressive.

Mothership... EVE?

[Silverlancer]

Better make sure they have sufficient dreadnought and battleship support with that thing, or it might get ganked.

Re:Mothership... EVE?

[Lord MuffloN]

Depends on, do we have a cyno jammer for this system?

Re:Mothership... EVE?

[Yvanhoe]

Heh, that would be quite a shock. Discovering that the solar system is a battlezone...

Re:Mothership... EVE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, just paint -A- on the side and any time it gets attacked it'll just disappear to safety in a spatial disturbance...

Re:Mothership... EVE?

[UnknowingFool]

Especially by a swarm of nameless Goons. :P

Re:Mothership... EVE?

[Plekto]

It definitely looks like it was designed by the same artists who make the ships in EVE. Very ugly and slightly misshapen.

Article text

[RingDev]

The text came up fine for me, even most of the images were available after a few refreshes. TFA as follows:

(Virgin Galactic) - WhiteKnightTwo launch vehicle for SpaceShipTwo heralds a new era in aerospace fuel efficiency, performance and versatility

http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Presspacks/VMSeveBransonRutan_thumb.jpg

Mojave Air and Spaceport, California

Virgin Founder, Sir Richard Branson and SpaceShipOne designer, Burt Rutan, today pulled back the hangar doors on the new WhiteKnightTwo (WK2) carrier aircraft that will ferry SpaceShipTwo and thousands of private astronauts, science packages and payload on the first stage of the Virgin Galactic sub-orbital space experience.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Presspacks/VMS%20Eve%20tow_thumb.jpg

The rollout represents another major milestone in Virgin Galactic's quest to launch the world's first private, environmentally benign, space access system for people, payload and science.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Presspacks/In%20Air%20Banking_thumb.jpg

Christened "EVE" in honor of Sir Richard's mother, who performed the official naming ceremony, WK2 is both visually remarkable and represents ground-breaking aerospace technology. It is the world's largest all carbon composite aircraft and many of its component parts have been built using composite materials for the very first time. At 140 ft, the wing spar is the longest single carbon composite aviation component ever manufactured.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Presspacks/VMS%20Eve%20rollout_thumb.jpg

Driven by a demanding performance specification set by Virgin Galactic, WK2 has a unique heavy lift, high altitude capability and an open architecture driven design which provides for maximum versatility in the weight, mass and volume of its payload potential. It has the power, strength and maneuverability to provide for pre space-flight, positive G force and zero G astronaut training as well as a lift capability which is over 30% greater than that represented by a fully crewed SpaceShipTwo. The vehicle has a maximum altitude over 50,000 ft and its U.S. coast-to-coast range will allow the spaceship to be ferried on long duration flights.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Presspacks/VMS%20Eve%20bow_thumb.jpg

An all carbon composite vehicle of this size represents a giant leap for a material technology that has already been identified as a key contributor to the increasingly urgent requirement by the commercial aviation sector for dramatically more fuel efficient aircraft. Powered by four Pratt and Whitney PW308A engines, which are amongst the most powerful, economic and efficient available, WK2 is a mold breaker in carbon efficiency and the epitome of 21st century aerospace design and technology.

The twin fuselage and central payload area configuration allow for easy access to WK2 and to the spaceship for passengers and crew; the design also aids operational efficiencies and turnaround times. WK2 will be able to support up to four daily space flights, is able to carry out both day and night time operations and is equipped with a package of highly advanced avionics.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Presspacks/Galactic%20Girl_thumb.jpg

Large numbers of VIP's, media and more than 100 fully signed-up future Virgin Galactic astronauts flew into Mo

Re:Article text

[nasor]

I think the most interesting thing about this whole enterprise is that there are over 200 people who have already put down $20k deposits for tickets, with a final ticket price of $200k each - for a ride on in a vehicle of dubious safety (compared to a modern airline, anyway) that hasn't even been built yet! This seems to indicate that there is vast money to be made in the space tourism industry. Just imagine how many people will likely want to do it once it has an established safety record. And this is merely suborbital - presumably people would be willing to pay much much more for an orbital ride, if anyone ever gets around to building a low-cost, reusable orbital vehicle. I don't know how much all this cost to develop, but I wouldn't be surprised suspect that the pre-sold tickets have probably already more than paid for it.

Re:Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

>I think the most interesting thing about this whole enterprise is
>that there are over 200 people who have already put down $20k
>deposits for tickets, with a final ticket price of $200k each - for a
>ride on in a vehicle of dubious safety (compared to a modern
>airline, anyway) that hasn't even been built yet! This seems to
>indicate that there is vast money to be made in the space tourism
>industry

          I sometimes wonder about that. Two hundred people is not a lot. And even if there are several thousand people who are willing to spend nearly a quarter of a million US dollars for a sub-orbital flight I am not convinced that there are enough to keep a sub-orbital tourism business going in the long term. I suspect that this could be a novelty business that never gets beyond catering to the more-money-than-sense crowd. Let's hope that I am wrong.

Re:Article text

[Moofie]

200 people at $200k/head is $40 million.

That is a non-trivial budget.

Re:Article text

[inviolet]

Christened "EVE" in honor of Sir Richard's mother, who performed the official naming ceremony, WK2 is both visually remarkable and represents ground-breaking aerospace technology. It is the world's largest all carbon composite aircraft and many of its component parts have been built using composite materials for the very first time. At 140 ft, the wing spar is the longest single carbon composite aviation component ever manufactured.

"Eve"?! Not only is that a boring name, but it overlooks some important aviation history that preceded this enormous aircraft. They should've named it "The Glass Goose" instead.

Re:Article text

[wizbit]

Remember that commercial aviation in its infancy was also prohibitively expensive for the average consumer and many people initially bought tickets solely for the thrill of riding in an aircraft. These "thrill" flights would usually depart and land at the same airport, a thought that is somewhat puzzling to all of us who rely on its completely pedestrian, utilitarian use today. Cost, needless to say, bottomed out, especially after deregulation.

That said, the commercial uses of present-day aviation are obvious. Space travel, especially LEO, strikes me as something that still needs a killer niche to succeed over the long-haul. And remember Concorde, which for many reasons (not the least of which was the rather high-profile crash, and which was even more susceptible to the post-9/11 drop-off in commercial aviation use) ultimately collapsed.

Passenger aviation is notoriously boom-bust. Eastern Airlines, TWA, the list of companies with obviously sustainable business models that collapsed anyway is a mile long.

Who knows what commercial application someone with a launch system like VG's could come up with? I hope we have another Boeing in the works, but I agree that as things currently stand, it's got a much greater chance of becoming another Concorde.

Re:Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

Space travel, especially LEO, strikes me as something that still needs a killer niche to succeed over the long-haul.

The only thing commercial space access short of satellite launches gets you is the ability to be anywhere in the world in an hour. The Virgin Galactic setup is a ways from that goal. Even if you had carrier aircraft stationed at all the airports to haul shuttlecraft up for suborbital flights between these airports, they would have to figure out how to deal with a shuttle missing its destination; remember, the current engine designs burn all their fuel in one go and then coast for the rest of the flight. There's nothing more embarrassing than overshooting or falling short of your destination, and dead-stick landings don't let air-traffic control decide when they can let you land.

The Concorde's problem is that people didn't need that extra day of time you saved over two Atlantic crossings. At least, it wasn't worth the more expensive tickets. For cargo, people aren't to the point of needing things faster than "overnight" internationally.

I don't think Scaled Composites will ever be a Boeing. They couldn't bring themselves to build boring aircraft.

Re:Article text

[Anonymous Coward]

Rutan is an aeronautical genius. I'd trust his designs immediately over a slew of other corporate designs. It's like pro car racing versus the big three engineers, all (some big number) the really smart guys go into racing, it is just more fun and they can innovate faster and better. In fact, a huge amount of modern day car improvements, for both performance, economy and safety, got developed in racing. Look at electric car development, even the smart japanese corporate efforts aren't near as good as a lot of the startups being built by enthusiasts..because they got passion for what they do, it isn't day to day punch a clock drudge work. Where did personal computers come from mostly? And so on.

Re:Article text

[OriginalArlen]

How do you know there are any more than than 200 people? Let's see how many of them walk away from the deposit after the first accident.

Re:Article text

[ThreeE]

Personally, I appreciate boring aircraft when I'm traveling. You know, I get on in the same number of pieces that I get off with. It's a real testament to commercial aircraft designers that we think that their products are boring.

I'm not real big on my jet saying "BOO!! SURPRISE!!"

Re:Article text

[ceoyoyo]

That's not enough information to decide how much money there is available in space tourism.

The new condo down the street hasn't even broken ground and it's sold hundreds of $300k-$400k units. The costs for building a condo are MUCH less than for developing, building, maintaining and operating a spacecraft.

Re:Article text

[evilkasper]

To me this is just a step in making space accessible to the masses. As time goes on the price will drop. As technology improves they'll be able to do better things. I imagine they are fully aware that most people that would like to go have no way of affording the current price tag. As such to make more money and to sustain the business they will strive to make it more affordable. I really think that business will be the ones to pioneer space, NASA and the other gov run space agencies made some awesome progress for a while but haven't made any huge progress in years. (though i think the rover is pretty cool)

Re:Article text

[Fweeky]

Knowing how Virgin Media handles billing and service, 20 of those can look forward to not being charged, another 50 can look forward to being charged $300k, and 80% of them will spend 3 hours on the phone either on hold, or with John, an Indian who speaks about 12 words of English (none of which include "supervisor").

Also, about 10% of them will be considered too fat to go all the way into suborbit, and will instead find their $200k going towards a short Cessna flight.

Re:Article text

[srmalloy]

"...and represents ground-breaking aerospace technology."

Must be the materials used to construct it; I looked at the first picture and the Heinkel He-111Z came to mind -- a pair of He-111 bombers linked by a center wing section, used during WWII to tow the Messerschmidt Me-321 Gigant assault glider.

Re:Article text

[AigariusDebian]

Frankly, I would not want to fly in an air plane that is described as "ground-breaking" ... I can see how a ground breaking digger would be a good thing, part of its functionality really, but a ground breaking air plane?

Re:*Yawn*

[dreamchaser]

Good point, but it's the most important part. Technically speaking though it's a suborbital vehicle.

"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[plasmacutter]

I will never understand this insistence that everything be "environmentally benign".

The philosophy should be "progressive mitigation" of environmental impact rather than the insistence that everything we do have no impact what soever.

Think long-term. The priority should be cheaper first, environmentally friendly second or even third in this type of project, because, in the long term, the faster we get viable colonies off this rock, the less impact we'll have as a species on our home planet.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[Cheesebisquit]

fyi your sig is mispelled

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[fastest fascist]

... in the long term, the faster we get viable colonies off this rock, the less impact we'll have as a species on our home planet.

That's seriously long-term. The only ways I can see space exploration resulting in less use of earth-based resources is if:

A. We develop a way to ship off significant amounts of people to colonies. Considering how fast humans reproduce, this is not likely any time soon at all. Colonies will not be a solution to population growth.

OR

B. Space-based resources (minerals, energy would be the primary candidates, I guess) become cheaper than terrestrial ones. Again, I don't see this happening any time soon. Depends on how scarce resources become on Earth, of course. Even if space mining etc. were to become commercially viable, there's no guarantee the infrastructure required to launch and operate heavy machinery in space wouldn't come at a hefty environmental cost on Earth.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[KGIII]

I don't think the other planets really want us either. I can envision there being life on Mars but just hiding every time we go there kind of like not answering the door when the annoying neighbor knocks on it.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[Richard_at_work]

Problem is, if 'cheaper' is your first goal, then your second goal which costs money for no operational benefit simply won't get started on.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[Nebulious]

SpaceSHipTwo is both cheaper and "environmentally benign," so what's the problem? Think about the mammoth costs and environmental footprint required to launch space tourists through government space programs.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[TheRaven64]

I am currently reading Blue Mars. In this book, Earth has numerous space elevators and is shipping a million people off to Mars every year. The population of Earth at the moment is around six billion. To put that in perspective, it is about 1.3% of the current annual population growth rate. We don't have any space elevators yet, but even if we had several, ran them at full capacity, and had somewhere to send people once they got to the top, we still wouldn't dent the population growth rate, let alone the population. The only answer is wider education about birth control. Colonies in space make it harder for us (or a passing asteroid) to kill the whole species off, but they don't do anything about overpopulation down here.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[IcyHando'Death]

in the long term, the faster we get viable colonies off this rock, the less impact we'll have as a species on our home planet.

The idea that cheap or even free transportation into space will lead to an easing of population pressures here is based on an over-simplified view of human behaviour or maybe just wishful thinking.

It ain't gonna happen -- and I mean never.

The earth is just to well suited for us - much better than anywhere else we're likely to find or build out there. The only things I see getting the human population on Earth down are:

• some sort of major carnage (war, disease, comet impact etc.)
• the urbanization of mankind and the associated reduction in fertility rates continue to the point where world population starts to drop as it has in certain countries
• environmental disaster brought on by our planetary abuses - and then it's already too late

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[samkass]

Indeed. The average yearly population increase for the last 5 years was about 77M people a year. I would be surprised if humanity ever manages to ship that many people per year offworld into a colony. And if they decided to colonize, they'd probably start with the ocean rather than space.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[plasmacutter]

Actually, i'd counter that insisting that space colonies would not work is neglecting certain rather obvious nuances of human behavior.

The first couple generations will happily move to a space colony for the sheer novelty, after which it will become main-stream enough that it won't make that much of a difference to others.

In order to feed ourselves, we must have arable land, but the places we live need not be arable or even organic at all. The ideal civilization would involve all humans not directly involved with agriculture living elsewhere, whether it be in orbit, on the moon, or somewhere else in the solar system.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[maxume]

You don't even need to educate people about birth control; just increase their economic security. Of course, that isn't easy to do, but helping someone live an easier, more productive life is generally less controversial than trying to tell them not to have children.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[Anonymous Coward]

I will never understand this insistence that everything be "environmentally benign".

The philosophy should be "progressive mitigation" of environmental impact rather than the insistence that everything we do have no impact what soever.

1)Who insists everything have no environmental impact whatsoever? "Benign" doesn't mean "not having any impact"; a tumour can be benign if it doesn't kill you, it can still be annoying in that it makes you have an extraneous lump of tissue in a place where you would rather not have an extraneous lump of tissue. I could also link to e.g. Merriam-Webster, but i don't want to take away the fun of discovery.
2) Who would claim WK2 is an environmentally friendly / not environmentally impacting / in any way the environment benefacting vehicle ? It's a device that turns chemical energy stored in fossile fuel into potential and kinetic energy, producing CO2 and other oxidation products and spreads these up to 18km high into the atmosphere.
But it *may* well be more efficient in its energy use than a rocket, in which case it would be just the "progressive mitigation" you have been asking for.

Think long-term. The priority should be cheaper first, environmentally friendly second or even third in this type of project, because, in the long term, the faster we get viable colonies off this rock, the less impact we'll have as a species on our home planet.

Environmental cost is part of the cost. If you dump your garbage into the neighbour's trash can then it will reduce the amount of garbage you have to pay for, but it won't reduce the overall amout of garbage or the overall cost of dealing with it. If someone behaves in a way that saves himself money, but causes erosion to degrade soil in agriculturally used areas, how much money did the economy save? Yes, it's difficult to get the whole picture, and yes, it's rarely possible in such a complex system such as earth to find any interactions with absolute certainty. But that doesn't mean environmental impact is generally free and only things that have a price measured in money have a price. Of course, this vagueness is the crux of the who environmentalism issue, would be great if we could solve it now, i've got 5 minutes to spare.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[R2.0]

"We develop a way to ship off significant amounts of people to colonies. Considering how fast humans reproduce, this is not likely any time soon at all. Colonies will not be a solution to population growth."

Colonies don't relieve population pressure by removing people from the populace; colonies remove people from the FUTURE populace by selectively attracting those more likely to reproduce - risk takers and the lower classes, looking for a better life. I would contend that that is why Europe's birth rate is so low - they shipped off all of the baby-makers to the US.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[gnuman99]

You've got your head backwards,

1. Environmentally friendly first
2. Cheap

Then there is #0 that trumps it all,

0. Significant scientific understanding is gained for the purposes of #1 (most advances fall here)

Why is your thinking backwards? Because *we*, the people, *depend* on the environment, NOT the other way around. It is not about "saving the planet", it is about "saving ourselves". The shit we dump is the shit we eat. Therefore something cheap but end up fsking everyone over is not cheap at all.

The Earth doesn't give a flying fsck about us and does not care if we nuke each other or pave the planet over. It has seen A LOT worse. Life will continue almost NO MATTER what. Human life may not though.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real answer is Soylent Green.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[Rakishi]

*sigh* The world population growth rate is slowing down due to the increasing number of nations becoming developed. Current estimates indicate we'll stabilize at around 13 billion people or so. Birth control is pointless when people want to and in some cases need to have many kids.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[Bent Mind]

We don't have any space elevators yet, but even if we had several, ran them at full capacity, and had somewhere to send people once they got to the top, we still wouldn't dent the population growth rate, let alone the population. ... Colonies in space...don't do anything about overpopulation down here.

Down here? Who cares about Down here? I'm ridding Up to get away from Down here.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY?

[Mattsson]

The thing is, everyone else is already doing it the "easy", non-environmentally friendly way.
And being environmental about it might also prove to be cheaper per flight in the end, since going the brute force way usually involve massive amounts of toxic and hard to handle substances.
If you can get to orbit using lesser amount of cheaper fuel that's cheap to handle and store, that's a huge gain compared to "mainstream" spaceflight today.

Oh dear, slashdotted.

[apodyopsis]

The plane may be state of the art, but I do not think their server is. Oh dear.

Re:Oh dear, slashdotted.

[StonedRat]

They hot-linked to Virgin's "pressftp". I'm thinking Virgin wasn't expecting that to be hit with so much traffic.

Did their webserver get launched into space?

[pulse2600]

Because I certainly can't get to it from Earth....

Painted Windows???

[kidgenius]

Ok, one of the fuselages has real glass, the other has just black paint for windows. Why do this? Is it just a "looks" thing?

Re:Painted Windows???

[turtledawn]

Of course. It's a flat beautiful plane, why screw up the symmetry when a little bit of paint will keep it sleek looking?

Re:Painted Windows???

[Mattsson]

Hell, even the boom they're using to tow the plane is cool! =-D
Looks a bit strange to have two people handle the nosewheels though. Wonder if there's a chance of damage to the steering mechanism is they should happen to steer the thing at different angles. =/

But. . .

[MikeA]

will it blend?

Naming conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

If the MOTHERship is named EVE in honour of Branson's mother, will SpaceShip2 be named DICK then?

And, completely unrelated, is Richard Branson a bad MF or what?

Looks pretty and all

[Zwicky]

and loving the Galactic Girl side-art, but here's hoping they can get these babies to actually run on time ;)

Impressive record . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

From the silhouettes, I see that WK2 has already shot down a Wright Flier, Bell X-1, and Boeing 747, and NASA Lunar Lander.

Re:Impressive record . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

And... what's that silhouette on top! That can mean only one thing: It's been sent back into the past on a suicide mission to terminate itself before it can kill the future leader of the human resistance. Now *thats* impressive.

Re:*Yawn*

[LWATCDR]

Isn't my car a suborbital vehicle?
What about a piper cub?
And every model rocket?

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY NOT?

[Shivetya]

I will give them this, there is no reason to be polluting when you don't have to be. The technology for rockets and jet planes is pretty well known so it should be obvious as to what NOT to do. Plus it sells. If you advertised your rocket as being seal/dolphin/baby friendly that would go a lot further than saying "only a few puppies got the axe during production".

I don't agree with the cheaper first idea, meaning who is going to pay to clean up after cheaper? Doesn't it come back to bite us in the butt one day? I have been to some former Soviet states and let me tell you... cheaper is OK provided you actually plan to do it better and the problem is most governments don't. Private enterprise will only under threat of court but governments can turn a blind eye to it all.

The joke of it all is the idea that carbon trading or other similar money making schemes excuses them from what they don't do. As if CO2 is actually a problem, it currently is because some people make money on it being one yet the evidence coming out is slowly chipping away at the more marketing that science onslaught that got it popular.

Environmentally Benign???

[Anonymous Coward]

environmentally benign

Let's fill the air with burnt hydrazine fumes... It's not pollution, it's environmentally benign as long as we tell everyone "we're sorry" about the pollution...

But does it run Linux?

[doc_doofus]

Anyone?

Non-slashdotted article

[martinmarv]

Flight article about the same thing

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY NOT?

[plasmacutter]

Don't try to paint my post as some kind of invitation to go all gilded age and turn the entire planet's atmosphere into Beijing's.

In the past 15 years or so the opposite extreme has been creeping in and is now hindering our capacity to ween ourselves off imported oil.

Now every proposed solution must not only be "cleaner" than the technology it replaces, it must be completely and utterly non-polluting

Let's take the greenhouse issue with coal power plants in the US. Nuclear removes the atmospheric and climate issues, and replaces them with a much smaller scale radioactivity issue for which we already have numerous viable reprocessing protocols, but no.. it still pollutes a little! omg we must stifle this!

Looks disappointingly traditional

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anyone besides me a bit disappointed that this thing looks more like two conventional planes glued together at the wing than the futuristic and clean design of white knight (1)? It's espedially the unconventional conical cockpit of old white knight that would have improved the look a lot (but might be bad from a usability standpoint)

Re:Looks disappointingly traditional

[Moofie]

Yeah, a disappointingly conventional twin-fuselage all carbon fiber aircraft with a 140 foot long graphite spar. It should look WEIRDER!

Come on. Rutan makes things shaped the way they need to be, and he's never been shy about using non-conventional layouts. It's shaped the way it is for a reason.

Check out his personal aircraft, and tell me that his designs are too conventional: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Boomerang

Try to be there for the launch

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't overrecommend too highly that when this thing goes up
that you make an effort to get to the desert to watch. I was there
for SS1 and it was one of the most beautiful things I've ever
seen.

Branson, of course, will turn the second launch into a giant circus.
But the desert is a big place. And he'll probably improve the sound
system a bit.

fetch me slippers

[Anonymous Coward]

god blimey, smithers, the space is not what this catelogue sais. it's all dirty and black and empty. i demand to speak with someone responsible for this. and fetch me my shoes, i am going out for a walk.
i demand you open this airlock!

do you know who i am, i am the rich bastard worthington the XXXI. i paid for this bloddy tour and i want the stars to glow. MAKE THE STARS SPLODE

Scaled Composits Lossing Engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

I have it on good authority that a number of Engineers are leaving Scaled Composites in the next several months because they refuse to sign Northrop Grumman's draconian NDA.

My information comes from an engineer who left NG to work for SC some years ago because he "could no longer deal with having sold his sole to Northrop." Ever sense NG bought out Scaled he has been looking to jump ship as fast as possible, and he is certainly not the only one. Scaled Composites is no longer the same fast moving innovative company the won the X-Prize.

other limitations?

[Comboman]

I personally believe budgets *should* be kept small, even if artificially. This *forces* innovation ... In short, I think it's the lack of resources that forces people to come up with workable solutions to whatever problems they face with what resources they have at hand.

Overcoming limitations does force people to come up with creative solutions, but small budgets are just one kind of limitation. Short time line is another. Small size, low weight, extreme temperatures, pressures, vibration, etc. If people are spending time overcoming the small budget, they have less available to overcome the project's other limitations.

Wing Sparring

[kiehlster]

At 140 ft, the wing spar is the longest single carbon composite aviation component ever manufactured.

Wing sparring? At 140ft!? Dude, where do I sign up for this? "If you're gonna fight, take it up 140ft in the air, but there will be no fighting on my property."

Well, it WAS

[misterhypno]

his very own invention...!

Re:Well, it WAS

[frogzilla]

Well done!

4 engines

[heroine]

Sort of disappointing after all the progress in building the 777 on 2 large engines, they went back to 4 small engines.

Re:4 engines

[Maxmin]

Apparently, progress is not available in small packages. The PW4077 turbofan used by the 777 has a diameter just about four times that of the PW308 used on WK2, and produce about ten times the thrust. Having seen pictures of WK2's engines in place, do you think maybe they're just not appropriate?

Different powerplants for much different needs... (insert some kind of pun about engine scale and Scaled here... =)

Explanation required

[camperdave]

...because, in the long term, the faster we get viable colonies off this rock, the less impact we'll have as a species on our home planet.

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being dense. How will having a viable offworld colony have any impact whatsoever on the environment here? Are you planning on shipping all of the polluters offworld?

Re:Explanation required

[icebrain]

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being dense. How will having a viable offworld colony have any impact whatsoever on the environment here? Are you planning on shipping all of the polluters offworld?

-Space-based power: No particulate/CO2 emissions, and can provide power to almost anywhere on earth. Possible negative effects on things entering microwave beam, or beam being misdirected, however.

-Space mining: Resources can be gathered from asteroids, moon, etc. Can even feed factories up there.

-Space habitats could become largely self-sustaining, as well. No nasty fertilizer runoff or slash-n-burn of rainforests to feed people.

-(this is the big one) Technology transfer: In space, efficiency rules. You either have to bring everything you need with you, or go a long way to get it. The efficient technologies you need to develop in order to support a massive space infrastructure are directly transferable to making more efficient, environmentally-friendly things on earth. Self-contained hydroponic farms, wastewater recycling, more efficient power use, lighter structures, etc. are all usable down here, too.

All of these are technically possible, though they may cost an assload of money. I still truly believe it necessary to do them, however.

Here's the Image

[ndnspongebob]

http://www.freewebs.com/blackgrail/White%20Knight%202.JPG

Right solution, wrong problem

[icebrain]

The idea that cheap or even free transportation into space will lead to an easing of population pressures here is based on an over-simplified view of human behaviour or maybe just wishful thinking.

It ain't gonna happen -- and I mean never.

The earth is just to well suited for us - much better than anywhere else we're likely to find or build out there.

I think it's better to look at cheap spacelift more as a solution to the survival problem than the population one--ie, spreading humanity into the solar system (and eventually the galaxy) in order to survive things like planet-killing asteroids, worldwide plagues, etc. I'd think it better to live in a dome on Mars than not live at all.

Judging by the nose art...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir Richard's mom is hot! But is she really a virgin?

quite different actually

[deft]

"I think the most interesting thing about this whole enterprise is that there are over 200 people who have already put down $20k deposits for tickets, with a final ticket price of $200k each - for a ride on in a vehicle of dubious safety (compared to a modern airline, anyway) that hasn't even been built yet! This seems to indicate that there is vast money to be made in the space tourism industry."

I make things for a niche industry, and there is always a big rush for the product, and then when the small market is quickly saturated, there is a huge drop off in sales. I'm going to guess the market for this is not as big as you think, and not nearly as easily sustainable.

apogee of carbon composite development?

[frogzilla]

I do understand that this is a silly thing to discuss but it seems to fit whatever passes for tradition here. If White Knight Two is "the apogee of the application of carbon composites to aerospace" doesn't that imply that things won't be getting any better? Why would they put this in a press release?

Why four engines?

[GameboyRMH]

Why not two bigger ones? Four engines seems like an awful lot of unnecessary redundancy for the circumstances, and excess weight. I could only guess it might be to spread the weight across the wingspan more, but I can't imagine this setup would be lighter than two bigger engines and a slightly stronger wing.

Re:Why four engines?

[demonbug]

Does seem strange, a couple of possibilities I can think of for it:

1. Clearance - having 1 larger engine on each side might not have given them the ground clearance they wanted?

2. Possible efficiency? - Use all four engines for take-off, climb to altitude, then switch two of them off for the descent. Seems like throttling back two larger engines would work better, though.

3. Save development costs of new engine type - they might not have been able to find an existing engine that would provide the thrust range they needed, and didn't want to spend money developing a new one

Re:Why four engines?

[Shotgun]

I wouldn't want to try to control the mother ship to a landing with a the payload delivered.

Jet engines aren't like your car. You can't just stomp the pedal and zoom into traffic. You have to come in with some power and be ready to spool up slowly in the case of an emergency. With one large engine, that will be one long spool up from the setting that is low enough to allow the White Knight to descend.

The White Knight isn't the typical airliner. The 777 basically lands with everything that it took off with, minus some fuel. Well....at least we hope that is the case. The White Knight expects to lose half it's weight and drag midway through the flight. The engines need to have a range sized accordingly.

Re:Why four engines?

[greyhueofdoubt]

Part of the reason is redundancy, another part is wing loading, and another part is aerodynamics. Another reason still is simple geometry- assume the engine is a sphere, and compare the volume (which translates into throughput) of a sphere with d X versus d x/2. An engine in thin atmosphere requires lots and lots of volume as opposed to sea-level air or water, where you see a smaller number of much larger movers (fans, propellers, etc.). There are undoubtedly other considerations taken into account such as part cost/availability, turbulent vs laminar airflow, maintenance turn-around time, etc. It's a complicated business.

My two cents, anyways.

-b

Re:Why four engines?

[Kerrygeek]

It's probably a redundancy thing. Something like this: with a full load, it can maintain altitude on 3 smaller engines but if they use 2 larger engines and lose one it can't maintain altitude/control. The control thing might be a bigger issue with 2 engines than you think since they're a good distance from the center line. Losing an engine is much less critical if you have 4 than if you only had 2 to start with. I fly single engine planes, a lot of small twins won't maintain altitude on a hot day with high density altitude. I figure in a case like that the 2nd engine is just to get you to the scene of the crash a lot faster.

I bet Not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Article says: "longest single carbon composite aviation component ever manufactured" and I bet not.

I bet there are longer aviation components in service for a long time, built by the famous skunkworks!

Just saying...

100 ton Scout / Courier class at best....

[MRe_nl]

Maneuver Drive A
Flight Controls A
Jump Drive 0
Power Plant and Fuel A
Sensors, Communicators and Transponders A
Main Computer and Security 0
Hull and Environment A-
Cargo and Passengers 1T/2
Weapons and Screens 0
Crew Duties Landing
Traveller FTW ; )

That's turning around.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Let's take the greenhouse issue with coal power plants in the US. Nuclear removes the atmospheric and climate issues, and replaces them with a much smaller scale radioactivity issue for which we already have numerous viable reprocessing protocols, but no.. it still pollutes a little! omg we must stifle this!

Actually, that's turning around.

The whole "carbon dioxide will cook us oh noes!" thing has gotten a number of major names in the environmental movement to rethink their opposition to nuclear power.

More recently the massive rise in fuel costs, along with the massive rise in food costs, which is partly blamed on switching agricultural production to biofuels, has encouraged this trend.

Re:*Yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

> Isn't my car a suborbital vehicle?

It is if you can get it to go more than 100 km straight up.

Re:*Yawn*

[LWATCDR]

That is for a sub orbital space craft. Just about anything that moves is a suborbital vehicle. But your right in that I am down to nitpicking.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY NOT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, people are growing more open to the idea of nuclear power, not less. Even radical organizations like Greenpeace have said that nuclear power is probably part of the solution.

There's no technology that intrinsically creates 0 pollution, but I don't see anything wrong in trying to assure that you invest in enough offsets to keep your footprint flat.

If we agree that the environment can only take a certain level of emissions before things start sliding into bad areas we don't want to go to, then of course we can't keep adding emissions, even by the slightest bit. In fact, we need to roll back our emissions, but not contributing to the problem is a good place to start.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY NOT?

[OriginalArlen]

Now every proposed solution must not only be "cleaner" than the technology it replaces, it must be completely and utterly non-polluting

[ Citation needed ]

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY NOT?

[Mattsson]

The anti-nuclear power people usually aren't that afraid of the actual pollution that nuclear power creates. They're simple uninformed about the subject and scared to hell of anything that has any connection to any radioactivity at all.
In my experience with these kind of people, lots of them can't even distinguish between ionizing radiation and electro magnetic radiation.
Radiation is radiation. =P

I know the answer

[khallow]

"Personal observation/anecdote/opinion" is the "citation". It's implied by slashdot convention.

any other links

[Anonymous Coward]

are there any other links with the pictures? preferably links that don't have fucking talking smiley banner ads?

Excellent video news footage at...

[Atari400]

There's video news footage showing WK2, and the Virgin Galactic promo video (pretty good) at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2466198/Sir-Richard-Branson-unveils-Virgin's-spaceship.html. Sat down and watched it (4 mins), and thought I wouldn't mind a go too. Note: includes interesting audio commentary. The actual article also includes some interesting additional information.

Perky boobies ...

[giorgist]

What's with the graphics.
They are never that shape !?

G

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY NOT?

[slashqwerty]

Let's take the greenhouse issue with coal power plants in the US. Nuclear removes the atmospheric and climate issues, and replaces them with a much smaller scale radioactivity issue for which we already have numerous viable reprocessing protocols, but no.. it still pollutes a little! omg we must stifle this!

Let's contrast it with windmills. The environmentalist crowd harps about windmills killing birds so we can't have windmills. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin recently banned all windmills more than 150 feet high within a mile of any home because the blades produce pulsating noise and shadows that may be harmful to children!

Rutan Broke The Mold...

[TheHawke]

Yet again! Each time he applies his ever-fertile mind to a project, something amazing emerges from his hangar.
At first was his VariViggen, home built plane that made heads turn. Then to satisfy folks that wanted to go on rides in one, the VariEz and the LongEz.
THEN his legendary Voyager that circumnavigated the world on one tank of gas, two engines and two bold, spirited souls, Jeana Yeager and Dick Rutan, Burt's brother.
He's tinkered with various projects that were minor show-stoppers until a certain Angel funder by the name of Allen dropped by with open mind, open checkbook and one word on his tougne: Spaceflight. Thus was born SpaceShip One and the wild rides the test pilots took on it to win the X-Prize.

Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY NOT?

[RealGrouchy]

Nuclear ... still pollutes a little! omg we must stifle this!

My concern with Nuclear waste is not the small amount it pollutes in the spacial dimensions, but the length of time it must be monitored, stored, etc.

That, and safely extracting it from the ground without poisoning the local ecosystem.

- RG>

I'm confused...

[pgillan]

So, WhiteKnight2... is that one ship, or two? Do they break apart, or something?

Who cares???

[Jane Q. Public]

Rutan makes things that work. Better.

Pure functionality has a beauty all its own.

--
What a coincidence! I am actually a rocket scientist too!

Apples? Oranges?

[caliburngreywolf]

Much has been made of the cheap nature of the flights compared to the shuttle...I'm glad to see none of that lunacy here. What we have here are 1 day motorbike rides, compared to the shuttle's three-week fully-loaded-both-ways tractor trailer haul. Two entirely different animals. Can a private citizen build and operate a motor bike for touring rental cheaper than MACK can build and operate a semi truck (with trailer) hauling huge loads of cargo from coast to coast? Well duh.

Difficult design.

[rew]

The problem with this design is the mass that is on the other end of the "half-wing" in the middle. If you encounter turbulence while in flight, you'll be left with two half planes with only two engines on one side....

My prediction: It will break. Maybe not on its first flight.

Re:Difficult design.

[blagooly]

That thing will absolutely break,I agree. That was my first thought when I saw the model. It just looks completely wrong.

There's now a video

[martinmarv]

Not of the interior, but someone walking around the outside. Video.

To me, it's depressingly unimpressive.