Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virgin Galactic Shows the Finished WhiteKnight Two

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the two-is-one-more-than-one dept.

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."

52 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 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!
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. Re:Impressive by profplump · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    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. slashdotted before first comment! by Corf · · Score: 4, Funny

    is this some sort of record?!

    --
    The pain was excruciating and the scarring is likely permanent, but that just means it's working.
    1. Re:slashdotted before first comment! by demachina · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:slashdotted before first comment! by TappedOut · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  3. Cool, but... by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting
    1. When does the next SpaceX Falcon fly?
    2. When will Rutan pursue a true LEO space vehicle?

    We can use all of these.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Cool, but... by Cormacus · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

      --
      Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
    2. Re:Cool, but... by Bureaucromancer · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Cool, but... by savuporo · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
  4. 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.
  5. Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    stuff |
  6. Eve? by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  7. I like the competition's product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  8. Mothership... EVE? by Silverlancer · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Mothership... EVE? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  9. Article text by RingDev · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. 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.

    2. Re:Article text by inviolet · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    3. Re:Article text by wizbit · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Article text by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

  10. Re:Pretty impressive by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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).

  11. "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 fastest+fascist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... 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.

    2. Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY? by KGIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. 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.

    4. Re:"environmentally benign"? WHY? by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    5. 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.

  12. Oh dear, slashdotted. by apodyopsis · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    1. 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.
  13. Did their webserver get launched into space? by pulse2600 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  14. Painted Windows??? by kidgenius · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

  15. Impressive record . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  16. Re:Brace for EVE Online jokes by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Non-slashdotted article by martinmarv · · Score: 4, Informative

    Flight article about the same thing

  20. 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!!
  21. 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!

  22. Wing Sparring by kiehlster · · Score: 3, Funny

    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."

  23. Re:Pretty impressive by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  24. Re:Pretty impressive by ashitaka · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  25. 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.

    --
    What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
  26. 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