Slashdot Mirror


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."

25 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Impressive by Calathea · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Impressive by michrech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    2. Re:Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Impressive by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Impressive by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Impressive by ThreeE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Impressive by wigaloo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Impressive by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Impressive by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Impressive by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...but after an engineering analysis...

      What do you think makes the seat belts so expensive?

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    10. Re:Impressive by RJBeery · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. Re:*Yawn* by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What is SpaceShipTwo if not a custom airplane?

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  3. "environmentally benign"? WHY? by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY? by gnuman99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  4. Re:*Yawn* by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  5. Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY NOT? by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  6. Re:Article text by nasor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY NOT? by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  8. Re:Painted Windows??? by turtledawn · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    --
    Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
  9. Re:Pretty impressive by TheSync · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

  10. Re:Oh dear, slashdotted. by StonedRat · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    "Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
  11. Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  12. Re:Article text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Pretty impressive by OriginalArlen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven