Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White Knight Two Unveiled

Posted by kdawson on from the call-me-EVE dept.

xanthos writes "Sir Richard Branson was at the annual Experimental Aircraft Assoc Fly-in to show off EVE (previously known as White Knight Two), the launch vehicle for Virgin Galactic's commercial space operation. Test flights for the vehicle are slated for next year with the first paying passengers going up in 2011. What surprised me was the following from the article: 'So many people have signed up already, Whitehorn said, that the company has collected $40 million in deposits with orders to build five spaceships to meet the demand.' Will this mean that the $200k price tag may be dropping?"

144 comments

  1. $200K for outerspace? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Expensive, but I would do it if it were for a couple days in orbit...

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  2. Obligatory skepticism by Robaato · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Space tourism, yeah. But orbital flights?

    Why SpaceShipOne Never Did, Never Will, And None Of Its Direct Descendants Ever Will, Orbit The Earth

    1. Re:Obligatory skepticism by FleaPlus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Orbital human flights aren't planned for SpaceShipTwo, but they are planning on doing orbital microsatellite launches:

      http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/30/330347/oshkosh-2009-virgin-galactic-flies-high-at-oshkosh.html

      Virgin Galactic will use the cash injection to develop equipment - including a new pylon between the twin hulls of WhiteKnight Two - able to carry a two-stage launcher and satellite weighing up to 200kg (440lb), with a total payload of 17t- into orbit. The aircraft is designed as the mothership for Virgin Galactic's spaceliner SpaceShip Two.
      Virgin Galactic's chief executive Will Whitehorn says that the company will begin its space cargo business in about three years time, two years after it expects to carry the first paying space tourists into suborbit. "For the first five or six years, 80% of our business will be tourism, but five to nine years after that it will be 50/50 [between passengers and cargo or training and scientific flights]," he says.
      Whitehorn says the company could take the cost of launching a satellite into space using a ground-based launcher from $30 million to "as low as $2 million" using WhiteKnight Two.
      He expects the first satellite launchers to be Virgin's own design, either built at its factory in Mojave, California or contracted out to a specialist manufacturer, but eventually the aircraft will be able to carry third-party boosters.
      Whitehorn says that Virgin Galactic was approached by Aabar because the latter saw the opportunity beyond space tourism for the Scaled Composites-built WhiteKnight Two.
      "This investment now gives us the capital to take us through the commercial launch and build an extra WhiteKnight for the satellite business," he says.

    2. Re:Obligatory skepticism by BuR4N · · Score: 1

      "Virgin Galactic will use the cash injection to develop equipment - including a new pylon between the twin hulls of WhiteKnight Two - able to carry a two-stage launcher and satellite weighing up to 200kg (440lb), with a total payload of 17t- into orbit. " Will look something like the Pegasus launch system (but half the payload) I presume

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_rocket

      --
      http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
  3. Not likely... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will this mean that the $200k price tag may be dropping?

    Because everybody knows that when people are trampling each other at the gates to pay the retail price, it's a sure sign that the store is going to lower it in a hurry.

    1. Re:Not likely... by 2short · · Score: 1


      There was no supply whatsoever; and only a very limited supply projected in the future. A significantly larger supply is now forecast.
      Demand may be strong, but unless it gets stonger, the price ought to drop.

      So sayeth Econ 101, which I'm often suspicious of, but pretty much buy here. Assuming the whole thing doesn't fold taking peoples deposits with them, flights will get cheaper to operate the longer they actually own and fly the craft. And I'm dubious they can keep finding customers at 200K for long. You can get a few minutes of weightlessness in an airplane a lot cheaper, and that seems a steep price to do so in what is at best "technically space".

    2. Re:Not likely... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I can also experience weightlessness by jumping off my roof for free, but the scenery isn't as cool.

    3. Re:Not likely... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yes, eventually the price (relative to today's dollar) most likely will drop. But there certainly isn't any point to dropping the price anytime soon, where there is no supply, continuing demand (as in more new people signing up).

      And it becomes a huge hassle and PR problem if they drop the price before providing any flights, without also giving all of their customers the same price.
      People will pay more to be first. But even rich people don't like to feel like they are getting ripped off.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Not likely... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Given a perfectly flat supply curve, Econ 101 wouldn't predict any change in price.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Not likely... by moderatorrater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because everybody knows that when people are trampling each other at the gates to pay the retail price, it's a sure sign that the store is going to lower it in a hurry.

      If they're smart, that's exactly what they'll do. If they can get it working smoothly, then scale up to where their costs are lower, then lowering the expense of the flight is the most profitable route. Right now the only market they're tapping is the market of the very rich and those who are willing to save up multiple annual incomes for one trip. Every time they lower the price they'll increase the size of their market.

    6. Re:Not likely... by 2short · · Score: 1

      They were planning to build a spacecraft, now they plan to build five. That's not flat. I assume you mean, they weren't flying any customers, and now they still aren't. That's flat, but it isn't a market.

      It's a futures market. They are selling future space flights, so it's the expected future supply that is relevant. As I understand it, expected future supply has increased.

    7. Re:Not likely... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Think market share. They have maybe a one year advance on spaceX. It is better to launch 500 tourists a year at 100,000$ than 50 at 200,000$

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    8. Re:Not likely... by 2short · · Score: 1


      Yes, but for a small fraction of 200K, you can experience weightlessness for a similar amount of time with similar scenery as what they are selling. The guy taking your money won't call a plane a spaceship, or the part of the atmosphere you reach "space". But other than that, it will be the same thing for a lot less money.

    9. Re:Not likely... by CecilPL · · Score: 1

      But the thing is, the reason people are willing to pay $200k is the novelty of it. How many people are going to want to pay $200k to go up a second time, or a fifth? Eventually they'll have to drop the price to continue attracting new customers - hopefully their cost comes down as quickly or they'll become unprofitable.

    10. Re:Not likely... by 2short · · Score: 1

      So you think the price will remain strong for a long time... well into the distant uncertain time in the future where they might start actually delivering any product?

    11. Re:Not likely... by maxume · · Score: 1

      I'm not making any assertion about the actual shape of the supply curve, just pointing out that supply and demand can interact in a way where price never changes.

      I would expect that the savings from building 5 ships (especially fancy-doo carbon composite ships like Rutan likes to build) are rather minimal and will simply be skimmed off as profit, but that's just speculation.

      And all that leaves aside that they don't actually have any competitors, so supply is strictly a function of their choices, not the result of a market.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Not likely... by 2short · · Score: 1


      Once they have built and start operating the ships, the incremental cost of flying more trips will constantly be getting lower. This means they'll have the option of setting a lower price and still flying, if they think that will get them enough more customers that their total profit will be higher.

      Anyway, I didn't really mean to get into any formal analysis of market forces involved here. I actually think that's all irrelevant; markets depend on rational actors and that's not what we've got. I expect that the people who have already put down pre-order deposit represent much of the total market that there is. People who wait until the product actually exists to make a decision based on whether the experience offered is worth the money will decide it isn't.

      Their competitors (that sell you weightless flight) call their ship a plane, and don't dubiously claim you were in space. Other than that, it looks like the same product to me. Do those differences make it worth 40X as much money? Some people think so, but I suspect they are the same ones who buy flights before the ship exists.

      I predict they'll drop the price unless they just go bankrupt too fast to get the chance.

    13. Re:Not likely... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I actually think that's all irrelevant; markets depend on rational actors and that's not what we've got.

      It's never what we've got. :P It's one of the reasons economics is so screwy when you try to make it into an applied science.

      Their competitors (that sell you weightless flight) call their ship a plane, and don't dubiously claim you were in space. Other than that, it looks like the same product to me. Do those differences make it worth 40X as much money? Some people think so, but I suspect they are the same ones who buy flights before the ship exists.

      They call their planes planes because they're planes not ships of either the rocket- or space- variety. How high can they go? The world altitude record for an air-breathing craft is 37km. Personally, I see a huge difference between that and 100km, between this and this.


      I predict they'll drop the price unless they just go bankrupt too fast to get the chance.

      Well, if they aren't bankrupt, they've already made it clear they plan to drop the price, so I'm predicting your prediction comes true even if for different reasons.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Not likely... by 2short · · Score: 1


      100Km is quite high, and many people call it the edge of "space". Any such definition is arbitrary, and 100Km is picked mostly because it's a round number. There is too much atmosphere at 100Km to permit acceleration to orbital speed; you need to go twice as far, to 200Km just to get thin enough atmosphere, and even then you better have a whole lot of fuel left to get up to speed. If you can't orbit, even if you had enough fuel, because there is too much air, I don't call that space.

      I'm not sure what the huge difference you see in those pictures is, unless it's the amount of horizon-curvature - but I suspect that's due more to the lens than the altitude - it's a lot more than I'm used to seeing from shuttle shots at another 3 times the altitude.

      I find sub-orbital space flight underwhelming; Rutans designs are cool, but they are no part of a program leading to orbit.

    15. Re:Not likely... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      That only applies if you can increase your supply in a hurry. It's unlikely that the company will be able to field the expense of increasing ten-fold their shuttle fleet within a single year. Keeping the price high is the only way they can maximize their earnings before competition bites into their market.

  4. But it's not - it's suborbital. by maillemaker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure that the Virgin experience is completely suborbital. Basically it's $200K for a parabolic rocket ride. I don't understand the appeal. OK, so you left Earth's atmosphere for a couple of minutes.

    Where's my 2001 space station?

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where's my 2001 space station?

      Did you lose that thing again? It's outside, parked next to my flying car.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    2. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Where's my 2001 space station?"

      They spent the money on Iraq. I'm not trolling it's a fact. They have spent around a trillion dollars with no end in sight. When you add in the continued cost of staying in Iraq and the support costs for all the soldiers it's a lot more. A trillion would buy a big chunk of your 2001 space station if not the whole thing. If we spent half on space what we do on defense it would be a very different world. The problem is people will accept the money being flushed down a rathole in Iraq because of fear but they don't want to see it "wasted" on something like making 2001 a reality. There's another problem that few talk about. There simply aren't enough resources to get large numbers of people into orbit. Dropping the price down to say $10,000 would mean millions, maybe tens or hundreds of millions could potentially aford a trip into space. We're having trouble providing food and water and energy to the world so the resources have to come from some where. You really have to focus on a space infrastructure first then work on making it accessible to large numbers of people. The space elevator was an option but it's hard to say how practical it will be. We almost need to consider space mining and space based power before we think about putting a million people into orbit. I realize it'd be over time but the amount of resources is the same.

    3. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure that the Virgin experience is completely suborbital. Basically it's $200K for a parabolic rocket ride. I don't understand the appeal. OK, so you left Earth's atmosphere for a couple of minutes.

      Where's my 2001 space station?

      This is creating a paying way to get there. Of course, there needs to be a use for the 2001-style space station. It's rather useless if it's only an orbital hotel. I'd say the killer app for space tech right now would be the solar power sats followed eventually by space-based mining and manufacture. You move the industry off into space, the surface of Earth can be left for living.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? $200K for a week in an orbital hotel and an open bar? There's probably one in the works already, they're just trying to figure out how to hose vomit off the walls in zero-G.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    5. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It clearly demonstrates that there is a demand for space flight. If someone developed an affordable means to get there, there are plenty of people who would be booking flights to the moon, or to Mars. Given an assurance of supplies to make the stay survivable, plenty of people would be making their flights one way. All the BS about exploring space for science if just fine - but PEOPLE WANT TO GO! Call us kooks, or whatever. There is a drive to explore, in person.

      Screw reality shows, let's get out there and meet reality, eyeball to - whatever reality looks back at us with.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A potential use for such flights is a 1 hour trip between any two points on the globe. Plus, I think you can clearly see the shape of the earth - which to me, would make it feel f'n C.O.O.L.

    7. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the appeal. OK, so you left Earth's atmosphere for a couple of minutes.

      The appeal is seeing the Earth from space. Going to space, even if for just a couple minutes. Of doing something that people born 50 years ago dreamed of doing but had no chance of happening for all but the tiny handful who became astronauts. Of seeing my home planet from a perspective I otherwise would be unable to. I can't even fathom how that is unappealing.

      I now have as a goal in my life to see the earth from space. Amazingly, astoundingly, this goal does not look completely unreasonable or unrealistic. In fact, it's beginning to look like there's a good chance I'll be able to do it without doing anything more than setting aside some savings for that purpose. And it's because of people who are trying to do what is practical, rather than shooting for the stars.

      Where's my 2001 space station?

      Currently non-existent and not likely to exist any time soon and same with a way to get to such a station, were it to exist, that is even in the realm of affordability.

      So you can poo-poo reality because it doesn't match your ideal dream, but I for one am pretty damn excited about Virgin Galactic. If commercial space flight continues to advance such that at some point orbital flights are reasonable, then great but I don't think you're going to get there directly, and if it doesn't happen I'll take the next best thing thanks.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Kepesk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there is an orbital hotel in the works. Most people aren't aware that there are already two orbital space hotel proof-of-concepts. http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

      --
      Help me fix my brother's injured butt!
    9. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by moon3 · · Score: 1

      You move the industry off into space, the surface of Earth can be left for living.

      So true. Also you can use sky-hooks to lift the cargo from sub-orbital to orbital position. Moving things into space at the fraction of the cost we do now.

    10. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by NoahTheDuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why do you hate paragraphs so much? What did they ever do to you?! WHYYYYYY???

    11. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by mahdi13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What we need is a good old fashioned galactic invasion to kick the space program back in gear. If a military threat was coming from another world you know they would spend a couple trillion on the space program in a heartbeat.

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    12. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by ailnlv · · Score: 1

      Dude, where's my space station?

    13. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      >All the BS about exploring space for science if just fine - but PEOPLE WANT TO GO!

      Was is scientists who found the americas? Was it a bunch of scientists who opened up the west? Not at all! It was regular people who wanted to get out and explore. That's why we aren't living on the moon already. They only let really "smart" people up there.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    14. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by masshuu · · Score: 1

      i can't seem to find that either. Maybe we can rely on its LoJacj to find it.

      o, wait... thats not working

      its the hackers i tell you

      --
      O.o
    15. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoiler alert: it's round.

    16. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the nice folks monitoring the Hubble telescope are above adding in a few blotches and claiming they're a probable enemy threat, so everyone can get their space station, and the Hubble folks get a big laser cannon courtesy of Boeing.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    17. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't want a space elevator if only due to how high the risk of it being targeted is.

    18. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $200,000 is some savings?! Must be nice to have that kind of cash.

      If the ticket cost $200 I'd say id be great. Even $2000 be good. $200,000 is well a house. If yo got the cash to buy a house laying around great for you. The rest of us will keep on dreaming and working to make those dreams reality.

    19. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you have been into space, but AFAIK many haven't even been in a sub-orbital flight.

    20. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Crystalmonkey · · Score: 1

      Theoretically you could survive on any given part of the planet without the intervention/help of scientists.

      The same is not true of the moon.

    21. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by demachina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "They have spent around a trillion dollars with no end in sight."

      Actually I think the end is very much in sight in Iraq, 2011 all U.S. combat forces are supposed to be out of Iraq. There is talk they might accelerate the withdrawal by another brigade soon. Iraq mostly wants the U.S. out so they can finish their civil war, the U.S. doesn't want to be in the middle of their looming civil war.

      The war with no end in sight is in Afghanistan. They just added 21,000 more troops added this year and rumors today McChrystal may request more next year. I think there we will be fighting a forever war because we are trying to prop up a completely corrupt government the Afghan people hate so much they often prefer the Taliban.

      It should be remembered the war in Vietnam played a pretty key role in Nixon killing Apollo and sending NASA on a road to no where (the ISS and Shuttle) since Vietnam was bankrupting the U.S. in parallel with Apollo.

      Considering we spent $100 billion on the ISS, its one of the most expensive science projects in history, and it doesn't do anything useful I'm not really sure building a 2001 class space station would have really been any better even if we hadn't blown the money on wars. Maybe there would be a tourism case but I think its dubious you will get real space tourism anywhere close to a break even point any time soon, other than flying the super rich.

      Before anyone dreams of a 2001 space station we need to get LEO launch cost down, way down, to like $1 a pound instead of $1000-$10000 a pound. Virgin Galactic is talking $200K for a 200 lb person to suborbital for a few minutes. That's $1000 a lb for not much. At present a space elevator is probably the only thing that will make getting out of Earth's gravity well economical and that still faces some enormous hurdles that throwing money at it may or may not solve.

      I think the problem with Apollo, 2001, Star Trek, Star Wars syndrome, especially in the U.S., is they created a lot of dreamers who dwell on how romantic space travel is, when most of the time it wouldn't be anything like that. Space is an empty vacuum, it has all the appeal of a vacuum. It is mostly a nasty place, and working and traveling in space will for a long time to come be tedious, boring, stressful and dangerous. Only things interesting in space are the other rocks in space and most of them are no picnic.

      I predict manned space travel will continue to have a really rocky future until A) we take all the inflated romance out of the idea and B) figure out ways to utilize space that are actually useful and make sense. Some early leaks out of the upcoming Augustine report worry me. There was talk they were going to propose manned space flights to Lagrange points just to prove we could do long duration space flights. They seem to miss the fact that flying to points in space in a tin can and sitting there would leave the world aghast with the stupidity of it all.

      Planting a permanent colony on Mars is the mission most likely to be worth and that would fire the imagination of the whole planet like Apollo 11 did. It is the one place where humans have a fighting chance of making another biosphere and fulfilling the human desire to break new frontiers.

      Tapping solar power in space to solve our energy problem might be worth exploring.

      Working towards asteroid mining to eliminate future shortages of resources on earth, and to use in construction of structures in space might be worth doing.

      Its just an opinion but:

      - returning to the moon isn't very useful and smacks of the ISS all over again, except on the Moon
      - putting men in tin cans in space going no place in particular isn't worth it either
      - Justifying every mission in space with "searching for life" is weak, really weak. Searching for signs of life is a worthwhile secondary goal to primary missions that matter. The odds of finding life elsewhere in our solar system are not great so when that is the be all, end all goal for your space program you ar

      --
      @de_machina
    22. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      $200,000 is some savings?! Must be nice to have that kind of cash.

      Heh, I was talking about it being feasible at some point in my life, not at today's prices. The ones paying $200k are the ones that will help drop that price. I've heard they have plans to get the cost down to $20k in a relatively short time frame. That's starting to get somewhat feasible -- instead of a nice new Acura, get a used beater and a rocket ride to space? No idea if it'll happen, but if it does, even if I'm ancient I'll sign whatever health waivers are necessary. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    23. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

      "This is creating a paying way to get there."

      No, not really. The technology in the White Knight / Virgin system is impressive, but they are not really paving the way to orbit, and they're not really trying to do that. They identified a market for sub-orbital trips with a really marvelous view, and they're trying to fill that market need. The Virgin system is a commercial successor to NASA's "Vomit Comet.

      The X-33 / VentureStar program was paving the way to cheaper, more reliable, more frequent access to space. This was a well thought out R&D program with a realistic technology development path. If you want cheaper access to space, this is the right way to start.

      There's also the proposed Skylon system. It shares some of the general approach to reducing flight costs (standardized payload integration for example) but is based on a different engine technology, a hybrid, hydrogen powered, jet and rocket engine.

      It's likely that both types of systems could be developed, for less than the cost of continuing to fly systems based on custom integrated payloads on vertical rocket stacks launched from 1960s era launch pads. Either of the systems would be dramatically more flexible than the various fleets of rockets we currently support or are building: Atlas, Delta, Aeries I.

      The planned Aeries V rocket would provide a single-payload lift capability much higher than either the planned X-33-derived VentureStar or the Skylon system and could carry physically larger payloads. That might be useful, if the payload needs are infrequent, and high value (you're willing to tolerate $500 million per flight launch costs). Otherwise, the VentureStar design should scale up nicely to a larger vehicle, once the first generation has been flying a while.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    24. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Wel, this means that we obviously need some fearmongering for aliens from outer space. ;)

      Who's with me? Let's spread some viral stuff. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    25. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by sjames · · Score: 1

      I suppose if you already have a fast car and a yacht that some small navies would envy, you might as well vacation somewhere your friends have never been, even if only a few minutes.

    26. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by sleeponthemic · · Score: 1

      Basically it's $200K for a parabolic rocket ride. I don't understand the appeal.

      Don't be so sure. Watch the whole thing, to get the full gist, but here is the crucial point (and assumably this is lower), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cASGhcDHvUU

      --
      I record my sleeptalking
    27. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by JuzzFunky · · Score: 1

      I wonder what would effect it would have on global politics if we sent the political leaders of the world into sub orbital space together. Perhaps it might help give them some perspective...

      --
      Unexpect the expected!
    28. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Cecil · · Score: 1

      This is very true, and pretty obvious. I mean, consider *any* tourist attraction. The great wall of China, Statue of Liberty, Eiffel Tower, Stonehenge, Macchu Picchu, Niagara Falls, whatever. All of these things have been photographed and videotaped in immense detail. They have been imaged from every possible angle, at every possible time of day or year, from the air, from satellites, from the ground, from inside, whatever. And the best of these images are usually available in books, postcards, on the internet, etc.

      And yet people still go see them. In droves. Massive crowds of people. Paying admission fees, nevermind flights. Obviously there is still a huge market for people to see things with their own eyes, and there likely always will be.

      --
      Random and weird software I've written.
    29. Re:But it's not - it's suborbital. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Actually - no, it isn't true. Granted, your statement is partly true, today, and will remain partly true for all of our lifetimes. Given about 50 to 100 years of EXPERIENCE in space, scientist won't be required for survival, in space, on the moon, or on Mars. Today and tomorrow, your survival will depend far more on technicians and "common sense" that it does on scientists. (note that today's "common sense" is likely to be very fatal in space - said sense will be learned by the first generation in space)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  5. Passenger Compartment? by Ngarrang · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, instead of optimizing the vehicle to be just a launch system, they are creating additional revenue by adding in a passenger compartment. "Only $1,000 will get you a window seat where you can watch rich people fly into space!"

    --
    Bearded Dragon
    1. Re:Passenger Compartment? by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, instead of optimizing the vehicle to be just a launch system, they are creating additional revenue by adding in a passenger compartment. "Only $1,000 will get you a window seat where you can watch rich people fly into space!"

      Hey, I'd pay to see something that cool up close, especially if they also threw in a few zero-g parabolas.

    2. Re:Passenger Compartment? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      One of the things about whiteknighttwo is that it is a dual fuselage design (to allow the launch cargo to be carried in the middle between them)

      Furthermore they made the hulls as big as spaceshiptwo so that they could use one of them to train tourists for thier flight in spaceshiptwo.

      So may as well do something profitable with the other hull (making the two hulls different sizes/weights would probablly be very bad for stability)

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  6. EVE of destruction? by Nick+Number · · Score: 1

    Expensive, but I would do it if it were for a couple days in orbit...

    But when you return it's the same old place.

    --
    Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    1. Re:EVE of destruction? by megamerican · · Score: 1

      Expensive, but I would do it if it were for a couple days in orbit...

      But when you return it's the same old place.

      The poundin of the drums, the pride and disgrace
      You can bury your dead, but dont leave a trace
      Hate your next-door neighbor but dont forget to say grace

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    2. Re:EVE of destruction? by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1
      and tell me over and over and over again, my friend

      you don't believe we are on the EVE of destruction

      --
      We are the Borg...
    3. Re:EVE of destruction? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Your sig is oddly appropriate.

  7. Stupid Economics by hercubus · · Score: 1

    Now we're going to end up with Pepsi ads in orbit and hotels on the moon.

    --
    -- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
    1. Re:Stupid Economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How is that bad? It's not like you're going to mess up the moon's ecosystem (it's dead) or that these projects would come to realization if marketing/product placement wasn't funding the initial effort...

      What I'd like to see is even more commercialization of the moon so that the private sector can finally kick NASA's slow ass to mars ;)

    2. Re:Stupid Economics by Deosyne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      God, I hope so. The only way that space exploration is going to really take off is after it becomes commercialized. America wasn't discovered out of idle curiosity; those dudes were out looking for ways to make more loot, whether it be the Vikings looking for resources to take or Columbus looking for a better trade route. I'd rather a rich guy drop a quarter million on a company that will produce bigger orbital launch vehicles and facilities than give the same to a real estate developer for yet another useless suite in New York.

    3. Re:Stupid Economics by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

      Now we're going to end up with Pepsi ads in orbit and hotels on the moon.

      And this would be bad...how? Let the rich pay the way to future space colonization by the masses.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    4. Re:Stupid Economics by ukyoCE · · Score: 1, Funny

      THIS

      We gotta convince the content industry there's DRM on Mars

      They foot the bill for space exploration, AND we get to kick them off the planet.

    5. Re:Stupid Economics by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      ...When everybody knows the hotels belong in orbit and the Pepsi ads on the moon.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Stupid Economics by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      I laughed at that but the mods tell me that I should flame you. So here it goes: That was funny. Moron.

  8. Looks like lots of white knights... by tetromino · · Score: 1

    ...are getting a sequel announced this summer: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/100/1008671p1.html

  9. "passenger's"? by Mendokusei · · Score: 1

    Does anybody proofread these submissions at any point?

    1. Re:"passenger's"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Haven't you heard? That's how we make word's plural on the Internet.

      In other new's, the contraction of "you are" is "your", and "it's" means "belonging to it".

    2. Re:"passenger's"? by damien_kane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Haven't you heard? That's how we make word's plural on the Internet's.

      There, FTFY

    3. Re:"passenger's"? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Its the contaction of "passenger is".

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    4. Re:"passenger's"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the contraction of "passenger is".

      Sorry, couldn't resist

    5. Re:"passenger's"? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      "it's" means "belonging to it".

      I was already aware that that was wrong, but the question is *why*, since the possessive apostrophe applies to almost everything else?

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    6. Re:"passenger's"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was already aware that that was wrong, but the question is *why*, since the possessive apostrophe applies to almost everything else?

      For the same reason we say "her" instead of "she's", and "his" instead of "he's". Pronouns are irregular. It makes more sense for "it's" to be a contraction of "it is/has", the same way it works with "he's" and "she's".

    7. Re:"passenger's"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anybody proofread these submissions?

      Brevity is wit.

  10. Dropping? by thedonger · · Score: 1
    [FTFA]

    Will this mean that the $200k price tag may be dropping?

    They have more orders than they can fill with a $200k price tag, so why again would they consider dropping the price?

    --
    Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    1. Re:Dropping? by pluther · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't, as long as they're the only ones doing it, and as long as people are signing up faster than they can get flights up.

      In those circumstances, the price would logically rise fairly quickly.

      However, it's unlikely that both of those conditions will remain true for very long.

      With the (hopefully large) profits they pull in, they will be able to build more systems and launch more frequently. This will allow them to operate more flights. They may be able to then lower the price to attract more customers, and make more money with a smaller profit margin.

      Also, once they've proven there's money to be made, other companies will copy them, often making incremental improvements, allowing them to do the same thing with far less initial R&D, and possibly lower operating costs, which will drive prices down even further.

      Anyway, that's the ideal. Sure there are bumps along the way (for example, the more people are doing it, the more risk-averse they will become, thus the need for higher safety standards), but more likely than not, prices will start coming down soon. They'll likely never be cheaper than a planetary jet flight, for that you'd need a space elevator.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  11. Of course the price will drop by bytestorm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Virgin's FAQ says 200000 is only for the first 100 and then scaling down between 100 and 175K for the remainder of the first 1000 and 20k thereafter.

    1. Re:Of course the price will drop by bytestorm · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's just the deposit price; full ticket price is still 200,000.

  12. $40m? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

    $40m @ $200k/each is only 200 people. Do they really need 5 additional ships? (Though, they don't say if a deposit is 100% the cost, so it might be more people) And why the hell would you pay $200k for a suborbital flight for a couple minutes?

    --
    -SaNo
    1. Re:$40m? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Because going to orbit would cost you $20,000,000 or 100x as much, and that price isn't expected to decrease below the $1,000,000 point anytime in the next 20-30 years?

    2. Re:$40m? by thedonger · · Score: 1

      And why the hell would you pay $200k for a suborbital flight for a couple minutes?

      Why would someone pay $1million for a diamond ring? $1millon for a car? $50k for a sub woofer?

      Not because they can, but because you can't.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    3. Re:$40m? by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And why the hell would you pay $200k for a suborbital flight for a couple minutes?

      Hey, people paid $10,000 for a Concord flight... why not go suborbital for $200,000? If you gave me the choice of a trip to space or a Ferrari, I'd personally choose the trip to space.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:$40m? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Why would you pay $10,000 for a suit or $250,000 for a car?

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    5. Re:$40m? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Those can get you laid. Although a first date in space might not be a bad idea if that's your goal. How's the hundred mile high club sound?

    6. Re:$40m? by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1

      women

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    7. Re:$40m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you gave me the choice of a trip to space or a Ferrari, I'd personally choose the trip to space.

      A trip to space only impresses nerd girls.

    8. Re:$40m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those can get you laid.

      Many a female junkie will let you get laid for £20.

    9. Re:$40m? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And why the hell would you pay $200k for a suborbital flight for a couple minutes?

      I don't get why people keep talking about how it's suborbital, like that means it isn't completely fucking awesome. I'm serious, I just don't get it.

      I mean, it's almost as if you're saying that if I gave you a free ticket aboard Spaceship Two, you'd begrudgingly take it while muttering "what's the point?", and then once in space you'd be yawning and saying "Sure we're outside the atmosphere but it's not orbital" while the rest of us are shitting our pants at the incredible experience we're having, seeing earth from space.

      Is that the wrong impression? Are you just saying orbital would be cooler, but not actually denying that suborbital, if that's all you could get, would still be fucking sweet? I hope so, because otherwise there's just going to be too big a gap between our thinking to overcome.

      But if so, then the answer to "why the hell would you pay $200k for a suborbital flight for a couple minutes?" is simple: Because that's how much it costs, that's how high it gets you, and that's how long it lasts, to do one of the most incredible things you may ever have the chance to do in your life.

      For people who can afford $200k for a luxury, of which there are quite a few, this must seem like a great deal. If the price gets down to $20k like they suggest, then I'm going to be scrounging up my savings for the day when I will leave the planet's atmosphere, even if briefly. I know I sure as flying fuck won't be complaining that I'm only 100km above the earth's surface, doing something my father and father's father would have given their left nuts to do.

      (Though, they don't say if a deposit is 100% the cost, so it might be more people)

      Oh and yeah, it's pretty much the definition of a deposit that it isn't 100% of the cost. Putting down a "deposit" that is 100% of the cost is called "paying in advance". Combine this with the fact that Branson is out to make money and thus probably isn't building extra vehicles for no reason, and I think it's safe to say that $40m in deposits represents a lot more than 200 people.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:$40m? by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm already married :)

      Besides, anyone using a car to find women - well, let's just say those girls are not low-maintenance and you have been warned.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:$40m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, your left nut is probably worth significantly less than even $20,000.

    12. Re:$40m? by cecom · · Score: 1

      I for one don't think its awesome and I am sure I am not the only one. What's so awesome about it?

      First, it is completely pointless. It is not like suborbital flight generates useful science, or launches satellites or anything. It sole purpose is just idiotic entertainment for the rich.

      We were able to make real orbital flights in 1961. In 2009 you can pay a huge amount of money and make a pointless sub-orbital flight? Pfft. It is not my definition of awesome.

      Now, if we could dock with the ISS, that would be inbcredible! Not in our life time though.

    13. Re:$40m? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I for one don't think its awesome and I am sure I am not the only one. What's so awesome about it?

      Seeing earth from space. Leaving the atmosphere. If I have to say more, then there's nothing more I can say because you aren't the kind of kid who looked at the stars and imagined being an astronaut. This is the closest thing you can get. It may be the closest thing we get in our lifetimes.

      First, it is completely pointless. It is not like suborbital flight generates useful science, or launches satellites or anything. It sole purpose is just idiotic entertainment for the rich.

      Gotcha. Nothing done for just fun can be awesome. Nothing you personally experience that isn't useful is by definition not awesome.

      You're kidding me, right? Let me know if you are or not, because it would help me understand if I knew that I was just talking to the most boring person ever.

      We were able to make real orbital flights in 1961

      You sure as fuck couldn't. We're talking about civilians here. The point is not "what is the limit of human capability". We're talking about "What could you, some random non-astronaut, do?" And by that standard, this is an opportunity that has never been seen before. Still exclusive now due to the price, but they're talking relatively short timeframes to reduce that cost by an order of magnitude. Really, you have to completely lack perspective and imagination not to see how this is new.

      Now, if we could dock with the ISS, that would be inbcredible! Not in our life time though.

      What's so incredible about that? We've had space stations since 1971. It's not like you would get to do any useful science or launch a satellite. The sole purpose would be for a stupid joyride stunt and a little guided tour, idiotic entertainment for idiots. *snark snark snark*

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:$40m? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Ironically, your left nut is probably worth significantly less than even $20,000.

      No what's ironic is that while it's my left nut that I would find it hard to give up, my right nut is a solid gold with diamond inlay prosthetic worth a lot more thank $20k.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:$40m? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Yeah but there's a big difference between meth-head sex, and super-model sex on camera under a ceiling mirror.

    16. Re:$40m? by cecom · · Score: 1

      You are comparing space flight to climbing Mount Everest. No offense, but that is pretty sad. Climbing Mount Everest is totally useless, but at the same time "awesome" because it is hard, only a few people have been there, and you get to look on the world from up high. While there is some "coolness" factor in that, this is not what humanity aspires to.

      We like space flight for other reasons - science, discovery, planetary colonization and so on. Paying $200K for a pointless suborbital flight makes a mockery of all that in a sense.

      Now, don't get me wrong. Doing a suborbital flight is cool in the sense that jumping with a parachute is, mountain climbing, extreme sports, etc. If you can afford it and you enjoy it - more power to you. Have fun, and I sincerely mean it.

      But let's not pretend that it is something meaningful or important.

      (By comparison going to the ISS is awesome, because at least in theory it could be used as a starting point for interplanetary expeditions, and having ordinary people be able to go there means that we are advancing technology in that direction).

    17. Re:$40m? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      because it is hard,
      It's still hard but afaict it's a lot less hard than it used to be at least if you go up the normal route since there are now staging camps and ladders and ropes accross the hardest sections which are set up by the sherpass and left there for the whole season.

      only a few people have been there,
      Afaict a lot more people have been up everest than have made suborbital flights.

      and you get to look on the world from up high.
      True but you can see it from a similar height from an aircraft with much less hassle.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  13. you must be new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the "editors" are all imbeciles and the only editing they do is hamfisted "editorializing"

    slashdot is a joke

  14. Old News by Kepesk · · Score: 1

    How is this new news? WhiteKnightTwo was unveiled a year ago. http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/28/virgin-galactics-whiteknighttwo-sees-sunlight-for-the-first-time-gallery/

    --
    Help me fix my brother's injured butt!
    1. Re:Old News by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Last year was just the plane being unveiled. This is the first time that the craft flew itself to an air show (the world's biggest one, mind you), where anybody could go and see it for themselves. A number of additional details about the craft were also revealed (see my other comments).

      Admittedly, the "White Knight Two Unveiled" title is a little misleading though.

    2. Re:Old News by Kepesk · · Score: 1

      Agreed, agreed. Except that it has appeared at a couple other events where people could go see, but not anything nearly so well publicized. But yeah, the title is a little misleading.

      --
      Help me fix my brother's injured butt!
  15. Flight video; more details by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's some pretty cool video of White Knight Two flying at Oshkosh here:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/08/video-all-the-virgin-galactic.html

    There's also some notes from a panel discussion on the craft. Some highlights:

    * Production run for the program is set up for 12 WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft and 50 SpaceShipTwo crafts;
    * This is the first all-composites aircraft, something that the aviation industry needs to embrace more;
    * WhiteKnightTwo is not just an aircraft, it is a spacecraft delivery system that is capable of delivering cargo into space cheaply; [orbital microsatellite launch]
    * Scaled and Virgin are confident they can build a WhiteKnightThree that will allow they to launch even larger payloads into space;
    * Rutan said WhiteKnightTwo is very manueverable, and he expected to put the vehicle through aerobatic manuevers at the Oshkosh show next year;
    * Whitehorn didnâ(TM)t seem to like this idea very much, vigorously shaking his head and trying to dissuade the designer from such an idea.

    1. Re:Flight video; more details by Tekfactory · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know this was from the website so I don't refute you, but.

      * Rutan said WhiteKnightTwo is very manueverable, and he expected to put the vehicle through aerobatic manuevers at the Oshkosh show next year;
      * Whitehorn didnâ(TM)t seem to like this idea very much, vigorously shaking his head and trying to dissuade the designer from such an idea.

      Burt Rutan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Rutan
      has a brother Richard "Dick" Rutan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Rutan
      Burt designs aircraft, and Dick flies them.

      Richard had been a fighter pilot, and asked Burt for years to build him an Aerobatic plane, Burt wouldn't do it because the liability insurance on such a design would be too expensive.

      Instead Burt built an airplane called Voyager to fly around the world, and Richard flew it around the world with his then girlfriend as the copilot.

      Dick also flew a Rocket Powered Long EZ for XCOR a test bed for their Rocket motor, and other Rocket Racing League technologies.

      Knowing how conservative Burt is, and the fact he doesn't like Aerobatics;
      http://www.avweb.com/news/profiles/182970-1.html

      I have to believe it was Dick not Burt that said he'd fly aerobatics in WhiteKnightTwo at Oshkosh next year.

    2. Re:Flight video; more details by LenE · · Score: 1

      I have to believe it was Dick not Burt that said he'd fly aerobatics in WhiteKnightTwo at Oshkosh next year.

      You are wrong.

      White Knight Two was designed to be a fully acrobatic aircraft. Burt said what he said. Only a handful of Scaled test pilots has flown this aircraft, and Dick is neither a Scaled test pilot, nor one of those few men.

      To everyone else who cares, this particular plane is a proof of concept vehicle, a proto-type. It will be the first of many, and it will be the vehicle that launches the industry. The decals for windows on the left fuselage are to indicate where the design is intended to go. As of right now, there is no reason to waste resources on installing windows, seats, and other things into the left fuselage. The crew flies from the right side.

      Disclaimer -- I work for Scaled Composites. I am only clarifying public knowledge that has been given by the customer (Virgin Galactic) or people much higher on the totem pole than myself (Burt Rutan). I cannot provide any further insight.

      -- Len

  16. How fat? by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How fat can I be and still be able to fly?

    >>Cue jokes about Americans.

  17. Cola Space Wars? by starglider29a · · Score: 1

    the first paying passenger's going up in 2011.

    That is correct grammar~ In this case, "going up" is a noun, and it refers to the one person who was first. Much like "a send-up".

    You will probably quibble at the "first shooting down of the orbitting Pepsi ad" when it is reported.

    Unless, of course, the Pepsi ads DO shoot down. Sure, why not. Take the Cola Wars to the Final Frontier. First targets, Atlanta and Plano, TX.

  18. A Science Fiction Life by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Iirc it was 1964 when Star Trek came out. The science fiction stuff in it was pure fantasy; magic, impossible: cell phones, flat screen computers, doors that opened themselves, medical readouts in the hospitals, etc. It would be five more years before man walked on the moon; orbital flight was in its infancy.

    Now it looks like another fantasy will come true - the price of space flight may become affordable to an average guy like me! This is simply amazing.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
    1. Re:A Science Fiction Life by Tarsir · · Score: 1

      Now, I wasn't alive in 1964, so maybe I'm way off base, but I really don't think that a self opening door was pure fantasy, much less impossible. All you need is a crank with a motor attached, and a switch in front of the door that starts the motor when you step on it.

    2. Re:A Science Fiction Life by caseih · · Score: 1

      Except that this isn't "space flight." It's merely going up really high (to the edge of space) and then falling back down for a short time. Basically a more expensive version of the vomit comet, or a safer way to sky dive. It does nothing to address and overcome the real problems of space travel. On the other hand, it does contribute to the development of suborbital transglobal travel. So maybe the fantasy in "Rocketship Galileo" of a world where passengers can travel anywhere in just a couple of hours maybe be closer to reality.

    3. Re:A Science Fiction Life by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      But it was. When the Disney people saw Star Trek, they approached Roddenberry and his people, wanting to use similar technology in their Tomorrowland exhibit. They were disappointed to find that Star Trek used two off-camera stage hands to pull the doors open.

      The real thing came about years later. IIRC the first ones did use pressure switches in mats, and I do remember they were often unreliable. The early self-opening doors had handles for when they didn't work. More modern ones use motion detectors, which also didn't exist back then.

      What's more primitive than that, when I broke both my arms five years earlier, they knocked me out with ethyl ether to set the bones, and used plaster casts on them. Plaster gets HOT when wet. Now about the only thing ether is used for is automotive starting fluid. It was a ghastly, horrible experience to be anesthesized then. Now the ansthesiologist says "ok, you're going to sleep now" and you're out like a light, with no nausea, terrifying hallucinations, or any of that. A two hour surgery seems like a minute to the patient.

      If you could travel back in time to 1964 you would be amazed at how primitive things were compared to today. Having lived then, I realize intellectually that we are living in primitive times now.

      I marvel at the wonders young folks will see in their lifetimes. I would never have dreamed that I would ever get to have surgery that would correct my extreme myopia and I would be able to not need my thick eyeglasses.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    4. Re:A Science Fiction Life by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Iirc it was 1964 when Star Trek came out.

      Nooooooo it wasn't http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/
      "Star Trek" TV series 1966-1969

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  19. hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine-WTF? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can anyone more familiar with the rocket design explain this perplexing quote?

    This is how it works: The launch vehicle takes off like a plane, carrying the spaceship between twin booms; once it gets to a certain height, the spaceship drops from the launch vehicle, firing its hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine to climb vertically at almost four times the speed of sound; once it reaches 62 miles - the edge of space - it floats back down and uses its wings like a badminton shuttlecock to re-enter the atmosphere and land like a plane.

    So, does this thing literally burn rubber? :D

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  20. Travel to the stars is still far off though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And let's face it, that was the main point of a series called Star Trek

  21. EVE? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Bet he gets podded his first time out.

  22. wait a second... by haaz · · Score: 1

    White Knight... White Knight... wasn't that a BBS?

    Er, never mind.

    --
    -- haaz.
    1. Re:wait a second... by AntiGenX · · Score: 1

      Not that I'm aware of, but I used White Knight software back in the day to log onto BBSes.

  23. Re:hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine-W by radtea · · Score: 4, Informative

    So, does this thing literally burn rubber?

    Solid fuel compositions tend to be rubbery. This makes them insensitive to vibrations and thermal stresses which could lead to cracking in stiffer compositions. Cracking is a Very Bad Thing as it tends to produce sudden trust variations.

    So if by "rubber" you mean "made from the sap of a rubber tree or a similar hydrocarbon synthetic designed primarily for flexibility and resilience", then no, it doesn't burn rubber. The fuel is designed primarily for high specific impulse, with the rubbery characteristics design in secondarily.

    The use of a hybrid solid-fuel/fluid-oxidizer design allows the engine to be throttled, and yet is considerably cheaper than a comparably powerful liquid rocket design.

    Aside: has anyone noticed that /. is even more borken than usual today, failing to recognize the text entry area for comments past about a 64 column limit?

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  24. WK2 at Oshkosh by Nick+Driver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just got back home from Oshkosh and saw the WK2 up close and personal there at Aeroshell Square. I didn't know beforehand that only the starboard side fuselage pod has any seats for crew. The left side fuselage has fake painted-on "windows" so that it looks like there are real windows from a distance, but apparently the left fuselage only contains equipment and possibly fuel tanks, there are no seats for any occupants on that side.

    I took several photos of the center wing section where the spacecraft is supposed to attach. I saw no big heavy-duty attachment brackets there at all, but instead there were bundles of exposed wires only, and there were two cut-off loose wire ends just dangling out in the slipstream.

    I did get one good photo of the WK2 in flight as it approached to land, but they did not do any repeated overflights for the crowd to see, I only saw one overflight, then it landed.

    1. Re:WK2 at Oshkosh by yabos · · Score: 1

      I was just going to post asking where the pilots sit. It's a weird looking design, like 2 planes stuck together.

    2. Re:WK2 at Oshkosh by jvschwarz · · Score: 1

      There was a longer flyover Tuesday afternoon, I got about 50 photos. Quite impressive, and it's great to see a these planes up close. The other thing they announced was WK2 will not only be used for launching passengers, but will also be able to launch satellites.

      I didn't check, but there are probably some videos/photos up at the EAA Airventure websire, www.airventure.org

      Hopefully, this will usher in an era of affordable space access.

      --
      ... if that's your best, your best won't do... - Twisted Sister
    3. Re:WK2 at Oshkosh by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

      I was just going to post asking where the pilots sit.

      They sit inside the starboard fuselage. Even the seating capacity of that side looks extremely limited. From what I could see from the ground while I was standing on the ground under the plane, there were only two seats visibly installed for pilot and co-pilot. I could not see if there were any more seats installed behind the two front seats in the starboard fuselage pod. The plane sits pretty high up off the ground and they had it roped off so you could not climb the ladder and look inside the cockpit when I saw it on Wednesday.

  25. No Thanks; I Prefer The Reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    launch company known as Energia.

    Yours In Flight,
    Kilgore Trout

  26. Re:hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine-W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes and no, it burns hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (tire rubber) according to this article

  27. NASA has surplus space station in six years by peter303 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Some people at NASA are talking about deorbiting the ISS as early as 2016. This report is probably a red-herring to raise mroe funds from Congress. But some people are thinking about dumping it. Russians think it can last until 2020 or 2030. Partners could pick it up if US drops out.

    1. Re:NASA has surplus space station in six years by CecilPL · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're right. They're talking about it because Congress hasn't given them the funds to continue supporting the ISS beyond 2016. But they aren't doing it as a threat, they're doing it because there are international treaties that require them to deorbit it after they stop supporting it.

      Nobody at NASA actually wants to destroy it so soon after completing it, but if Congress doesn't fund it they won't have a choice.

    2. Re:NASA has surplus space station in six years by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Nobody at NASA actually wants to destroy it so soon after completing it, but if Congress doesn't fund it they won't have a choice.

      Maybe Rutan will have a new toy that needs a place to park by then :)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  28. Re:hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine-W by Enigma2175 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So if by "rubber" you mean "made from the sap of a rubber tree or a similar hydrocarbon synthetic designed primarily for flexibility and resilience", then no, it doesn't burn rubber. The fuel is designed primarily for high specific impulse, with the rubbery characteristics design in secondarily.

    You are wrong, the engine burns rubber (at least synthetic rubber). From http://science.howstuffworks.com/spaceshipone5.htm

    "To cut down on both cost and risk, SpaceShipOne is propelled by a mixture of hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (tire rubber) and nitrous oxide (laughing gas). The rubber acts as the fuel and the laughing gas as the oxidizer."

    --

    Enigma

  29. Re:hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine-W by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes. Truth be told, it doesn't matter what you use as the solid fuel in a hybrid rocket. You can use cardboard, salami, your mom, whatever. Some fuels are certainly better than others, but anything that burns with your oxidizer will work. They're probably using polyethylene or something similar (it's what we used in our college rocket club's hybrid rocket).

  30. Re:hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine-W by skrimp · · Score: 1

    Actually, radtea is wrong and Anonymous Coward is correct.

    "In our hybrid motor we use Nitrous Oxide (N2O or laughing gas) as an oxidizer and hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB or rubber) as the fuel."
    -- scaled.com

    --
    "Maybe I should provide a clever tagline"

  31. First All composite plane? Not by a long shot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first all composite airplane? Hardly!

    Rutan championed moldless composites with the design of the Veri-EZ, and later the Long-EZ and Solitaire. All three planes are all-composite planes, and have been flying for almost 40 years. Spin-offs of the design include the Velocity (www.velocityaircraft.com), the Cozy (http://www.cozyaircraft.com/) and the berkut (now being made and used solely as a UAV for USAF. See http://www.genaero.com/video/Berkut_Autoflight.wmv)

    Meanwhile, in the certified world, Diamond Air has been making all composite planes since 1981. IIRC, they built the company using experience from building all-composite gliders. Cirrus announced certification of the SR20 in 1998.

    WK and SS1 broke alot of ground, but all-composites is not one of them.

    1. Re:First All composite plane? Not by a long shot! by pavon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, EVE is the largest all-composite plane ever built. Not the first.

  32. Red Ryder by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Ya know, back in the olden days, the premier BBS terminal program (think: properly and well-done HyperTerm) on the Mac was Red Ryder. It was such a popular shareware that the guy earned like $5 from it.

    Anyway, when he went pro, the Red Ryder people came calling and said he had to change the name. So he changed Red Ryder to White Knight. He then got complaints that White Knight was also a nickname for people in the KKK.

    Have times changed? How much more should a huge production like this catch the attention of people.

    Oh, and don't argue with me about the validity of the complaint. I'm just relating it.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  33. Re:hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine-W by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you look up "hybrid rocket" what you'll see is a lot of similar systems. Traditionally, rockets were either liquid fuel, where you mixed two liquids (oxygen and kerosine, oxygen and hydrogen, for example) or one block of solid fuel like the Thiokol system on the Space Shuttle boosters -- which is, itself, commonly referred to as rubber. A hybrid system uses a solid fuel and a liquid or gaseous oxidizer. Nitrous oxide works well. One interesting thing about it is that you can use just about anything that contains carbon as the solid fuel: rubber, a big stack of paper soaked in wax, or even the infamous Salami Rocket. ("That's what SHE said.") People who build big model rockets often use stacked wax paper discs because they hold up better than salami, and are easier to make than thiokol-type stuff (and they seem to burn more cleanly as well, compared to home-made polymer-type fuels.)

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  34. Re:hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine-W by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Can anyone more familiar with the rocket design explain this perplexing quote?

    This is how it works: The launch vehicle takes off like a plane, carrying the spaceship between twin booms; once it gets to a certain height, the spaceship drops from the launch vehicle, firing its hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine to climb vertically at almost four times the speed of sound; once it reaches 62 miles - the edge of space - it floats back down and uses its wings like a badminton shuttlecock to re-enter the atmosphere and land like a plane.

    So, does this thing literally burn rubber? :D

    Cheers,

    Yes. Watch some more Mythbusters, they built one that burns salami :)
    Ok, it was a sucky thing made in a few days with plumbing supplies, but that's mythbuster style, baybay.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  35. yo mama so fly, she can fuel mah rocket by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Yes. Truth be told, it doesn't matter what you use as the solid fuel in a hybrid rocket. You can use cardboard, salami, your mom

    BURN! :-p

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  36. It's been mentioned before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of speculation over the years about this little gem.

  37. So how much for a one way ticket by Sumbius · · Score: 1

    So, how much for a one way ticket?

  38. Space Mining by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Wish I'd be around to laugh at all the silly people who thought humans mining space was so insignificant it'll never mess with the mass of the planet... When they alter the orbit of the moon or earth and screw the planet with the same idiocy that has prevented progress on global warming even now when a lot of people realize it is a problem.

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
  39. Re:hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine-W by radtea · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected (although what I said is true of most solid booster compositions!) /. needs a "-5 I was wrong" mod!

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  40. NASA, Congress, and ISS funding by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    Actually what happened was that the Bush administration directed NASA to focus on a new mission -- returning to the Moon, and sending Astronauts to Mars (and also directed NASA to retire the shuttle) -- but did not provide NASA with the additional promised funding. NASA, therefore, in order to try to meet those mission goals within the projected funding levels, decided to retire ISS earlier than originally planned. I hope that the new administration fixes this problem. ISS is a marvelous research platform, and if we de-orbit it in 2016, we're going to wind up needing to build another one at a later time.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:NASA, Congress, and ISS funding by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Forget de-orbiting it. It should be converted into a fueling station for Mars-bound spaceflights.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  41. these dudes by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    These dude had enormous backing from governments.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  42. Re:hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine-W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod this guy up. It does burn rubber. The parent is wrong.

  43. A whole tarmac full of misfires by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    Branson has said he's naming it EVE. Until he takes possession of it, the name remains WhiteKnight Two.

    WhiteKnight Two was "unveiled" (called a roll-out) on July 28, 2008. It has been seen flying at Mojave several times since. It's first outside public appearance was at the groundbreaking ceremony for Spaceport America June 18, 2009.

    The EAA function is called AirVenture. The name was changed in 1998.

    WhiteKight Two has been undergoing flight testing since its first flight on December 21, 2008 (this ironically taken from the EAA News). Flight testing of Spaceship Two is scheduled for later this year.

    That's the problem with grabbing something off the Firehose and not looking into any of the details before submitting it.

    Nothing here states why WhiteKnight Two was taken to Oshkosh. It wasn't so the attendees could gawk at it or because Virgin Galactic needed the ticket sales. A pending submission covers this so I'll hold back and see how that turns out.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:A whole tarmac full of misfires by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      Here's the details as to why Branson was at Oshkosh:

      "One year after its roll out WhiteKnight Two flew from Mojave to the Experimental Aircraft Association's AirVenture show. While there, its owner Virgin Galactic announced an anticipated important next step by signing a major investor. However, the home of origin of this investor as well as many details of the merger came as a surprise. Aabar Investments http://www.aabar.com/ of the United Arab Emirates is paying $280 million for a 32% stake in Virgin Galactic, valuing the overall company at about $900 million. Aabar is also providing $100 million for the development of a smallsat launcher that would use WK2 as the launch platform, and will build spaceport facilities in Abu Dhabi and have "exclusive regional rights" for Virgin Galactic tourism and research flights. The numbers dwarf those of Virgin Galactic, which has invested $100 million developing its space flight program since it was founded in 2004. Meanwhile, WhiteKnight Two, the world's largest all carbon composite aircraft, is performing flawlessly in flight testing, and its sister craft Spaceship Two is preparing for flight testing later this year."

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B