Slashdot Mirror


Construction On Spaceship Factory Set To Begin In the Mojave

angry tapir writes "A production facility that would build the world's first fleet of commercial spaceships is set to begin construction on Tuesday at the Mojave Air and Space Port. The facility will be home to The Spaceship Co, or TSC — a joint venture owned by Mojave-based Scaled Composites and British billionaire Richard Branson's space tourism company, Virgin Galactic."

147 comments

  1. New Vegas... What about mutants? by Tei · · Score: 3, Funny

    My suggestion is to have tiny crates all around with scraps metal and drugs.

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  2. Windows Mojave by tsj5j · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Will those spaceships run on Windows Mojave?

  3. I must be dreaming by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Headlines like that give me goosebumps.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:I must be dreaming by Taxman415a · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I think a spaceship factory is kind of cool too, but with a name like Mojave Air and Space Port, I'm really disappointed there's been 30 some comments and no one has made a reference to the "wretched hive of scum and villainy", Mos Eisley. It's even out in the desert southwest where at least one of the far off shots from the film were done.

    2. Re:I must be dreaming by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      These aren't the space ports you're looking for [waves hand]

    3. Re:I must be dreaming by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      No kidding. There's nothing to distinguish this headline from one a character might see in any scifi novel. The concept of a private company building a factory solely to build spaceships (albeit 60km ones) is staggering.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    4. Re:I must be dreaming by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Mojave Air and Space Port

      Almost an anagram of Mos Eisley. Any mesas nearby to shoot the obligatory vista scene?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:I must be dreaming by Reziac · · Score: 1

      One is indeed tempted to misdirect would-be spaceport visitors to the nearby aircraft boneyard. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:I must be dreaming by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes... well, mountains and high rocks, anyway, and very long views. Not sure if you can see the spaceport, tho, since Mojave is at the edge of where the north fragment of the Antelope Valley gives way to rough country.

      [I live about half an hour away]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:I must be dreaming by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the year 2070! We hope you can adjust quickly to your environment. People are generally happier in this age, so I don't think you'll be lonely for long!

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    8. Re:I must be dreaming by IorDMUX · · Score: 1

      But I dunno about that name... "The Spaceship Co."? Seems a little uninspired.

      I would prefer something like, say... "General Products".

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    9. Re:I must be dreaming by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Wait, nerds can get girls? Or at least sex bots?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  4. I'm waiting for an unearthly voice... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 3, Funny

    saying "We require more Vespene gas"

    1. Re:I'm waiting for an unearthly voice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We've got the factory now. Next in queue: three boosters, cockpit, stasis chamber, engine.

      (captcha: hexagons)

    2. Re:I'm waiting for an unearthly voice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're clearly doing it all wrong. Factory is for ground units; build a spaceport ffs!

    3. Re:I'm waiting for an unearthly voice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the summary: "... the Mojave Air and Space Port"

      Seriously, I'm thrilled by this kind of news.

    4. Re:I'm waiting for an unearthly voice... by supertrinko · · Score: 1

      You clearly need to build additional pylons.

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
  5. long term plans? by Vectormatic · · Score: 3, Informative

    TFA mentions the factory will produce:
    - three white-knight IIs
    - five SpaceshipTwos

    so, what will happen after these 8 builds? Any plans for spaceshipThree?

    Cool stuff though, if branson can build some type of spaceshipthree which does orbital flight en masse, this might be the beginning of true private spaceflight

    --
    People, what a bunch of bastards
    1. Re:long term plans? by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Orbital flight is still future talk for them. The WhiteKnight/SpaceShipTwo combos can only do sub-orbital flights (around 100 km, half of orbital flight). But they are also quite cheep at $200k. Maybe in a few years they'll offer leo/geo flights too, or maybe even further.

    2. Re:long term plans? by kingturkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wikipedia says the plan for SpaceShipThree will be point-to-point sub-orbital flights rather than orbital as previously planned. But obviously that's contingent on their continuing success.

      I'm truly amazed that they're this far along, I've previously written this stuff off as fantasy but it really is happening. There aren't hovercars but we're almost living in the future.

    3. Re:long term plans? by damburger · · Score: 2, Informative

      100km suborbital is "half" of orbital flight? and this gets modded 'Informative'?

      Presumably 'half' is a purely qualitative guess by someone who doesn't understand newtonian mechanics?

      Hybrid rocket engines cannot give you the mass fraction to get into orbit. Those lightweight hulls cannot withstand the temperatures associated with re-entry from orbit. TSC isn't going to build an orbital spacecraft any time soon, sorry to burst your bubble.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    4. Re:long term plans? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Not if Malachi Constant has anything to do with it. In order to prove Winston Niles Rumfoord wrong he will cancel all the space projects so there will be no way he can go into space and fulfill the prophecy Rumfoord laid out....unless something goes terribly wrong.

      Slightly early, but happy birthday Kurt, RIP.

    5. Re:long term plans? by Lillebo · · Score: 2, Informative

      There aren't hovercars but we're almost living in the future.

      We're actually not that far away when it comes to hovercars either: DARPA's flying Humvee

    6. Re:long term plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will the other five Spaceship Twos be named after Star Trek ships as well?

      (if so, I'm definitely *not* going to fly on Voyager! I saw what happened to them.....)

    7. Re:long term plans? by kylegordon · · Score: 1

      so, what will happen after these 8 builds? Any plans for spaceshipThree?

      First hit on Google - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipThree

    8. Re:long term plans? by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [quote]Wikipedia says the plan for SpaceShipThree will be point-to-point sub-orbital flights rather than orbital as previously planned. But obviously that's contingent on their continuing success.

      I'm truly amazed that they're this far along, I've previously written this stuff off as fantasy but it really is happening. There aren't hovercars but we're almost living in the future.[/quote]

      What's also nice is this approach seems more realistic, each stage of the process intended to generate a positive cashflow, the profits being rolled into the next stage. Too many of these projects try to do everything at once and never even get off the ground. So to the naysayers who go waa waa, this thing's only sub-orbital, just wait another generation or three.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    9. Re:long term plans? by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      yeah, i figured some kind of sub-orbital long distance travel would also be needed, but somehow i figured SS2 would be suited for that..

      i would love for SSx to go for full orbital serial production

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    10. Re:long term plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant hoverboards.

    11. Re:long term plans? by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never really thought about it before, but surely the war on terror has killed the hover car as anything but a plaything for the super rich. Can you honestly imagine our twitch-reaction governments allowing people to fly around in cars? I can't even board a plane that someone else is flying without letting them pat-down search me and look in my shoes.

    12. Re:long term plans? by Speare · · Score: 1

      Given the rapid orbital decay of objects below approximately 200 km, the commonly accepted definition for LEO is between 160 - 2,000 km (100 - 1,240 miles) above the Earth's surface. --Wikipedia

      Yes, speed is the key, but I can see why someone could rationally simplify the statement to "100km is roughly half of a LEO altitude." He wasn't giving a definition, he was simply pointing out that 100km isn't orbital, and giving one way of looking at the difference.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    13. Re:long term plans? by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      I wanted to go all philosophical on you with "Technically, we'll always live in the present...", but I'm afraid that I'd get my a** handed to me if I start with this. :(

    14. Re:long term plans? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Hybrid rocket engines cannot give you the mass fraction to get into orbit.

      What makes you say that? There's nothing inherent in the design of a hybrid that precludes it. Obviously, they have a thrust to weight ratio sufficient to push SpaceShipOne to an orbital altitude. Getting to an orbital velocity is simply a matter of clusters and staging.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:long term plans? by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      I imagine this:

      1. More people pay up because then it's for real.
      2. Price goes down.
      3. Repeat.

      That's all they really need to get an industry jump-started, and get capital flowing in. With six passengers on board, each flight is worth 1.2 million USD. It's not hard to iterate that to get a significant operating budget.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    16. Re:long term plans? by Acetylane_Rain · · Score: 1

      Hybrid rocket engines cannot give you the mass fraction to get into orbit.

      And why not? I'm not a rocket scientist, but there's nothing in the literature I've read thus far that says hybrids can't be scaled up.

      Those lightweight hulls cannot withstand the temperatures associated with re-entry from orbit.

      True. But this has always been a puzzle to me. Why is heat shielding less important going up than going down? Why has nobody invented a spacecraft that can aerobrake without turning into a fireball? "Descent" velocity shouldn't be higher than escape velocity, right?

    17. Re:long term plans? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      All very excellent, but ... what's their destination?? They must have a private planet tucked away somewhere.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    18. Re:long term plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, technically, it takes a few nano-seconds for light and sound to travel to you, and a few more for your brain to process the data and create a perception. You are always living in the past, not the present.

    19. Re:long term plans? by ScientiaPotentiaEst · · Score: 1

      "Hybrid rocket engines cannot give you the mass fraction to get into orbit."

      Staged hybrids are certainly capable of reaching orbit. If you mean SSTO, then I'm aware of no single stage rocket with the mass fraction to get into orbit - regardless of rocket motor used. The Atlas booster/rocket came close. Still, it dropped it's two outboard motors - leaving the central sustainer running to achieve orbital velocity.

    20. Re:long term plans? by damburger · · Score: 1

      Once you introduce staging, the costs go up because it works less like a plane and more like a conventional rocket. Also, due to the abysmal performance of hybrids, you would need a fuckton of staging to do it.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    21. Re:long term plans? by damburger · · Score: 1

      LOx/H2 can do SSTO but its a seriously tight margin. More likely technology is something that is partially airbreathing (i.e. Skylon or something based on the US scramjet research)

      You can only use airbreathing for the lower altitudes and speeds, but it gets you a big boost because oxygen is such a large portion of the LOx/H2 mix.

      However, this is a very difficult technology to master. Its almost certainly not going to provide access to space any cheaper than the big old nasty space agencies do.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    22. Re:long term plans? by damburger · · Score: 1

      No matter how much you scale up a hybrid, the mass fraction and specific impulse will always be too crappy for serious spaceflight. You haven't read much of 'the literature' if you don't know this.

      You also show your lack of knowledge with the second question. Rockets accelerate to orbital velocity outside the Earths atmosphere and thus do not heat up in the process. Spacecraft have to heat up that much during re-entry because that is the amount of kinetic energy they need to dump in the atmosphere. If they didn't, they would have to lose kinetic energy with a retro-rocket about the same size as the one that launched them.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    23. Re:long term plans? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      never really thought about it before, but surely the war on terror has killed the hover car as anything but a plaything for the super rich. Can you honestly imagine our twitch-reaction governments allowing people to fly around in cars? I can't even board a plane that someone else is flying without letting them pat-down search me and look in my shoes.

      Honest Q : has the FAA changed commercial flight rules since that lone deranged "lone nut" teabagger flew his $150,000 private plane into the regional IRS headquarters?

      Here comes the troll : oh, that's right, we're only skeered of them foreign, brown terrerists.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    24. Re:long term plans? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      I guess we'll have to wait for the fully orbital SSx before we can have the VSS Minnow go on a "three hour tour"...

      Probably best to steer clear of any space ship named VSS "Ironman" or VSS "Capricorn" for that matter.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    25. Re:long term plans? by ScientiaPotentiaEst · · Score: 1

      As you identify, SCRAM jets work only in the atmosphere where it isn't practical to accelerate much beyond Mach 6. This is only a small fraction of the delta-V needed to get into orbit (not to mention a small fraction of the altitude necessary). The extra weight of the wings/lifting body shape and SCRAM components are a burden for most of the acceleration.

      Regarding Skylon: as happened with the HOTOL design when it advanced, I suspect it will prove impractical if its design progresses. IMO the design is too big a leap - too many unknowns and assumptions.

      Meanwhile, Atlas was 50 years ago nearly SSTO with the VT part of VTVL. And the DC-X demonstrated robustness and near-ground maneuverability in the early 90s (eventually succumbing to an undercarriage malfunction).

      These considerations lead me to believe that a true SSTO vehicle will be in a non-airbreathing VTVL configuration. However, be it VTVL or HTHL, any practical SSTO will be a major advance I would welcome!

    26. Re:long term plans? by drcheap · · Score: 2, Funny

      There aren't hovercars but we're almost living in the future.

      I want to live in the future. Every night I go to sleep thinking, "tomorrow is the future, and so when I wake up I'll be living there!" But then I wake up and damned if it isn't just "today" again, and the future is yet again 1 day away :(

    27. Re:long term plans? by drcheap · · Score: 1

      I wanted to go all philosophical on you with "Technically, we'll always live in the present...", but I'm afraid that I'd get my a** handed to me if I start with this. :(

      Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday?

    28. Re:long term plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not necessarily a Tea Party activist. One Google result called him a libertarian.

    29. Re:long term plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were practical concerns that killed space travel. Who wants to crash into a chronosynclastic infundibulum?

    30. Re:long term plans? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Well sure. Why, has there been a bunch of white or black terrorists attacking the US?

      Also, I'm wondering why you haven't differentiated between men and women, or age.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    31. Re:long term plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not you're in orbit has very little to do with altitude, though. It's not like if you get up to 300km you'll just float there. You could be half way to the moon, and if you don't have the horizontal velocity you'll fall like a stone. That said, you could also achieve proper weightless orbit at sea level, if you had enough horizontal velocity, a magical engine that'd keep you at that speed through the air, and got rid of all those pesky continents you'd otherwise run into. (That's not totally academic, either. On the moon, such a low orbit would make sense for travel. No air, not much in the way of mountains.)

    32. Re:long term plans? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Technically, we'll always live in the present

      At my age, we live in the future. Today's tech is yesterday's science fiction. I never thought I'd see Star Trek's cell phones, flat screen monitors, self-opening doors, etc. I really never thought I'd see the day I could get my eye's lens replaced with a bionic implant and not have to wear glasses!

      The present was a long time ago.

      To quote a rock band whose name I can't remember, "today is only yesterday's tomorrow".

    33. Re:long term plans? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Any plans for spaceshipThree?

      Virgin Galactic have some artists impressions on various web sites. They have a long term concept for a transatlantic semiballistic rocket. Maybe half an hour in transit. That kind of thing.

    34. Re:long term plans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, hovercraft vehicles have great potential in theater. Consider this... It would render most IEDs completely ineffectual in terms of damage to supply and personnel convoys. Sure, we'd need extra training to handle the beasts, but it'd be well worth the cost to save lives and, in the long run, the additional cost of paying out medical care and life insurance to wounded soldiers and their families.

    35. Re:long term plans? by crispytwo · · Score: 1

      I think you meant to say, "we all live in the past." The present just hasn't reached our consciousness yet. As for the future, well, that's another story.

    36. Re:long term plans? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "100km is roughly half of a typical LEO altitude" would be more accurate, then. 100km would very well be orbital, if you are going fast enough.

    37. Re:long term plans? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "Big-L" Libertarians and Teabaggers are separated by a hair's breadth.

  6. Fallout New Vegas?? by Dudibob · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should call this facility REPCONN Aerospace

  7. I'm almost done with the Nights Dawn trilogy... by VMaN · · Score: 2, Interesting

    .. and P.F. Hamilton likes to include timelines, e.g.

    2020 — Cavius base established. Mining of lunar subcrustal resources starts.
    2037 — Beginning of large-scale geneering on humans; improvement to immunology system, eradication of appendix, organ efficiency increased.
    2041 — First deuterium-fuelled fusion stations built; inefficient and expensive.
    2044 — Christian reunification.
    2047 — First asteroid capture mission. beginning of Earth’s O’Neill halo.

    I'd love to see this story as one of those timeline points...

    1. Re:I'm almost done with the Nights Dawn trilogy... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      A little off topic, but I'm just finishing the Void trilogy and I had a similar thought.

    2. Re:I'm almost done with the Nights Dawn trilogy... by Lillebo · · Score: 1

      2044 — Christian reunification.

      ..?

    3. Re:I'm almost done with the Nights Dawn trilogy... by Edzilla2000 · · Score: 1

      That guy is the best modern science fiction writer, along with Iain M. Banks. His books are so good it's amazing

    4. Re:I'm almost done with the Nights Dawn trilogy... by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      I'd rather see:

      2010 -- Scrap all manned Moon/Mars missions for a decade. Fast-track Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) and similar missions.
      2014 -- Launch TPF and/or alternatives; First visible spectrum images of extra-solar planets that are not blurry specs
      2015 -- First image of an earth-sized planet in the habitable region of a star
      2016 -- First spectroscopic confirmation of an extra-solar oxygen-rich atmosphere and/or evidence of surface liquid water
      -- World realizes we're now only one step away from detecting extra terrestrial life. NASA gets more funding.
      2025 -- First grainy images of landmasses/clouds/seas on extra-solar planets. Vatican revises some of its positions. Other countries join the planet/life hunting race
      2030 -- Image of kilometer-scale rectilinear structure in orbit around extra-solar planet. Alien life, alien intelligence and alien technology all more or less confirmed.
      2031+ --- ??

    5. Re:I'm almost done with the Nights Dawn trilogy... by VMaN · · Score: 1

      protestant + catholic + other christians = new unified christian church

    6. Re:I'm almost done with the Nights Dawn trilogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2031 -- Profit!

    7. Re:I'm almost done with the Nights Dawn trilogy... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not Catholic but why would the Vatican need to revise positions based upon the discovery of other earth-like planets? Haven't they been saying for a awhile now that it's entirely possible other intelligent life could exist? One would assume intelligent life would likely come from some sort of habitable planet right? Or is there some fine grained difference between allowing for the the possibility of intelligent life and allowing for the possibility of earth-like planets that I'm missing?

    8. Re:I'm almost done with the Nights Dawn trilogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would the Vatican need to revise positions based upon the discovery of other earth-like planets? Haven't they been saying for a awhile now that it's entirely possible other intelligent life could exist?

      If your definition of "awhile" is "Exactly one year to the day" then yes, you would be correct. They wrapped up their conference on the 10th of November, 2009, but the idea was being discussed for the previous couple of years.

      As for why they had to? Well, that's what happens when you base your Religion and Faith on faulty, incomplete, or downright incorrect information. You either change your position to reflect the 'new' facts, or you look like a complete idiot. Which generally results in people doing everything possible to ignore or deny the facts, and kill anybody who mentions it.

      Or is there some fine grained difference between allowing for the the possibility of intelligent life and allowing for the possibility of earth-like planets that I'm missing?

      Well, the Bible claims that Man was made in the image of God, and set above all other creatures on Earth. But it doesn't mention aliens, so they would be an unknown in their Holy Heirarchy. Christianity really has a pretty swollen head about mankind's "place" in the Grand Scheme of Things, and has always had a rather sordid love affair with the idea that both Man and Earth are unique... and thus by extension inherently superior. Another habitable planet would cast this into doubt, one with human-like creatures would really unsettle it.

      But the biggest fear of the religious, is if aliens DID show up, took one look at the Bible, and said "Hey, check THIS out, man! Remember that con artist, called himself Moses, he was in the Galactic Capital a few thousand years back? Ya, the one who got in trouble for screwing those underage girls and jumped Solar Systems before he could be arrested? Guess where HE wound up setting up shop... "

    9. Re:I'm almost done with the Nights Dawn trilogy... by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      If I were them, I'd make the required adjustments to the doctrine as soon as I realize that intelligent life is close to being discovered. The most likely reaction would be to say: "There is only one God, but he appears to different people in different ways. And so does Jesus. For his Earth appearance, picked the Israelites. Seven days / 6000 years are all metaphorical, not literal."

    10. Re:I'm almost done with the Nights Dawn trilogy... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing Catholicism with a subset of American protestants. Catholics are decidedly not 'young earth' and already agree with the majority of what you just said. It's easy to peg all Christians together based on the ones that scream the loudest and the silliest but in that case you should avoid calling out a particular subset so it's clear you are generalizing.

  8. FUCKIN-A !! WHAT ARE ODDS IT BLOWS UP ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And only the terminally ill need apply ??

    Yes, everyone is terminally ill, but some are closer to their terminal.

    What a way to go. Better than shitting yourself in your final weeks.

    Taco? You signed up ??

    1. Re:FUCKIN-A !! WHAT ARE ODDS IT BLOWS UP ?? by damburger · · Score: 1

      Got a point actually. Especially considering a spokesman for the company said they were going to offer flights *into* the Aurora, with a few millimetres of plastic your only shielding. It'll be a very pretty sight, something that you would tell your grandkids about if the trip didn't sterilise you.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  9. I know we are living the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... when the headline starts with "Construction On Spaceship Factory Set To Begin In..."

  10. Private Sector efficiency! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1, Informative

    How long it took NASA to grow to a level where it could launch big rockets! That is the Government inefficiency baby. Look at private enterprise. They launch rockets, even before they build the factory. http://www.lanewsmonitor.com/news/California-Missile-Mystery--Real-Missile-Launch-Or-Jet-Contrail-1289389883/

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by damburger · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the private sector managing to replicate the X-15 flights of the 1960s, 50 years late! and doing so using demonstrably simpler and less powerful rocket technology (and handholding from NASA when their N20 tanks explode on the ground). Go free market!

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    2. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Whooosh!

      Look up, you see the joke flying a mile over your head, with a contrail too!

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      and doing so using demonstrably simpler and less powerful rocket technology

      Since when is efficiency a bad thing?

    4. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by vbraga · · Score: 1

      How long? NASA was created from NACA in July, 1958. The first manned suborbital flight (from NASA, since Vostok I did made a full orbital flight somewhat earlier) I remember is the Mercury-Redstone 3 in May, 1961. So, it took about three years. A full orbital flight - something Virgin will took many years to make if ever - was in February, 1962.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    5. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by damburger · · Score: 1

      Its not efficiency, its dead-end technology. What the USAF (and by extension NASA) developed in the X-15 program directly fed into the development of future US spacecraft. The X-15 used a bipropellant liquid fueled engine, something that can potentially be upgraded to reach orbit. A hybrid rocket, as far as we can tell, can't practically be upgraded beyond what they are doing already (very low energy, sub-orbital millionaire hops).

      Typical for a market fundamentalist, you misunderstand Occam's razor and assume the simplest (and thus cheapest) solution is *always* the best.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    6. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      You need to account for Von Braun and co. They were working long before 1958

    7. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the government did this first in the days when supercomputers were less powerful than iphones and droids. back then the engineers had to actually do the math by hand and test everything via trial and error

    8. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by the_hellspawn · · Score: 0

      Right, but NASA did a lot of the leg work. Virgin Galactic is just standing on the shoulders of giants flying paper air planes. You don't need a huge launch facility to fly a Cessna. Don't get me wrong I do think that Virgin Galactic is doing good things. Never-the-less, they are still on the shoulders of giants.

      --
      "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
    9. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by vbraga · · Score: 1

      If accounting for the previous Von Braun work, we'd also need to account from Goddard work. And from the theoretical basis Goddard used.

      We're all standing in the shoulders of giants, so to speak.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    10. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The first X-15 flight was an unpowered test flight by Scott Crossfield, on 8 June 1959; he also piloted the first powered flight, on 17 September 1959, with his first XLR-99 flight on 15 November 1960. Twelve test pilots flew the X-15; among them were Neil Armstrong (first man to walk on the moon) and Joe Engle (a space shuttle commander). In July and August 1963, pilot Joe Walker crossed the 100 km altitude mark, joining the NASA astronauts and Soviet Cosmonauts as the only humans to have crossed the barrier into outer space (Soviet Yuri Gagarin was the first person in space, reaching 327 km in apogee of his orbital flight, while Alan Shepard was the first American in space, reaching 187 km during suborbital flight) and becoming the first to exceed this threshold twice.

      Yet the Soviets had a man in space in 1961, and had launched a satellite in 1957.

    11. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Your an idiot.

      No private sector on the planet can do what NASA does as effeciently as NASA does it.

      10 years and they can get people 100km up. yeah, real whoop dee do.

      G

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It was a poorly laid out joke.

      Of course, had you tilde'd it, it would have been obvious what you were attempting to do.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Its not efficiency, its dead-end technology

      Yep, that's why there's a huge waiting list of people who want to go up in these things. Because it's a dead end. Right.

      Typical for a market fundamentalist, you misunderstand Occam's razor and assume the simplest (and thus cheapest) solution is *always* the best.

      I do?

      Look, I understand that you need to grasp at straws in order to justify your mindless dislike of private space industry, but this strawman / ad-hominem bullshit isn't helping your case.

    14. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Umm, he was talking about dead end technology, not the fact that a lot of people might want to use it.

      And the Hybrid is pretty dead end. Any increases in efficiency, thrust to weight, and the like are almost certainly going to have to come via a different technology.

      All that being said, this is a truly cool thing. People who are upset about specifically what pushes Spaceship 2 are severely missing the point. This will be something that I can personally aspire to ride on, without it being a dream. And that is the point.

      I'd wager that a few seats might be available via lottery. If the popularity is there, a 100 dollar lottery ticket would be a great way to raise money for the project.

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
    15. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's mostly everyone's work, as is all of science.

    16. Re:Private Sector efficiency! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Nah, most did not click on the url, nor did they even parse the url. One look at it you know it is the topical reference to the brouhaha about the jet contrail missile launch news story. I would rather not explain my jokes. But if you post without getting it, I am coming back with a whoosh follow up.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. Your doing it wrong by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yawn. Wake me when they start building an orbiting spaceship factory.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  12. Virgin Galactic: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A giant insect that produces fertile eggs without the need for a mate. Not sure I'm liking this one. You guys have seen [insert bug related sci fi flick here] haven't you?

  13. Civ V! by bheekling · · Score: 1

    16 comments and no one mentioned the obvious Civilisation V reference? I am a sad panda.

    --
    "..."
    1. Re:Civ V! by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      Well, unfortunately these spacecraft are only going to the edge of space, at 60 miles up, not all the way to Alpha Centauri. We have already built the Apollo Program Wonder, and there really isn't another wonder to build until we make it to the nearest star,. . . So, unless we have some huge breakthrough in the next 40 years, we probably won't win the space race victory by 2050. Perhaps we can still shoot for a Diplomatic Victory in the UN (though Dubya tried for the Military Conquest victory),. . .

    2. Re:Civ V! by bheekling · · Score: 1

      Now you've made me sadder. And destroyed this week's productivity by reminding me that I haven't tried Diplomatic or Cultural victories yet.

      --
      "..."
    3. Re:Civ V! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      In Civ V we would have won with Apollo.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. It's not a spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The truth is that these are not spaceships in the sense that the shuttle is. They do not flew as high as the shuttle nor do they reach the Mach 25 speeds of the shuttle. What Virgin Galactic will be flying are special high altitude airplanes, and nothing more.

  15. The Mojave Spaceport.... by benwiggy · · Score: 5, Funny

    You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

  16. Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by captainpanic · · Score: 3, Informative

    Altitude is quite irrelevant. It's velocity we need!

    The potential energy of 1 kg at 250 km is 2.5 MJ/kg.
    The kinetic energy of 1 kg at 7000 m/s is 25 MJ (10x as much!).
    The atmosperic drag adds less than 20% to the energy requirements.

    The point I try to make? We need velocity! How fast does that Space Ship go? (No, I didn't RTFA - it may be in there...)

    p.s. 100 km is half orbital only because low earth orbit is at about 200 km.

    1. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by damburger · · Score: 1

      The spaceship has essentially zero horizontal velocity, it flies directly upwards to gain the required altitude. In order to get to orbit, it would need to do as it does at the moment *in addition to* gaining that huge amount of kinetic energy you correctly calculated. Clearly, these 'SpaceShips' are no where near true orbital craft.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    2. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by Magada · · Score: 1

      Hmm... how about skip-(power)gliding to gain speed once you get all the way up there? Go suborbital, let gravity slam you back down into thicker air at an angle shallow enough to ensure you're going back out like a pebble on a pond, fire up your scramjet again to skip back up, only a little faster this time... rinse, repeat.

      It's perhaps impractical to do this with humans on board.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    3. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by damburger · · Score: 1

      I don't have the maths with me, but I am fairly confident that won't work regardless of how many people on board.

      Look at Skylon; a proposed design for an airbreathing rocket. The altitude at which it switches from atmospheric oxygen to on-board liquid oxygen is far lower than the altitude you could perform such a 'skip' maneouver at (which, by the way, decreases your velocity quite a bit. Most of the time, that is exactly why you do it)

      There is a notion that if there is enough of a monetary prize out there, some magical process will allow entrepreneurs to find away around the collosal energy requirements of achieving orbit. This is fantasy I'm afraid.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    4. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by Magada · · Score: 1

      Skylon was supposed to have hybrid ramjet/rocket engines, no? As opposed to a scramjet, I mean. A ramjet ceases to be useful around 5 mach or so, whereas a scramjet is supposed to top off at 20-something.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    5. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe for stage 2 we could put a massive orbital platform that could snag the spaceship with a tether and accelerate it the rest of the way? Then when they're ready to return then could use a big slingshot to slow it down for the drop.
      Would need to work out the math for that...
      Ech, low earth orbit doesn't really start until 200km. And even then it'd need to accelerate from roughly 0 to about 8km/s.

      Living in a gravity well sucks

    6. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by damburger · · Score: 1

      The maths isn't so much of a problem as engineering. Nobody has even attempted something so ambitious, and certainly a private space industry that is struggling sending very simple rockets to suborbital trajectories can't do it.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    7. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by damburger · · Score: 1

      Skylon uses an air-breathing rocket engine. It isn't any kind of -jet at all. It doesn't work at as high speeds as a scramjet, but what it can do is switch to an internal oxygen supply at this speed, whereas with a scramjet you need a whole other engine, which is going to punish you quite severely in terms of mass fraction as you also require more plumbing and thrust structure.

      In both cases, its pretty speculative technology.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    8. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So lift (with a conventional aircraft), boost (it's what SS1 does) and then power-glide. Surely you could even drop the spent booster?

      But yeah, scramjets are in the future.

    9. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The spaceship has essentially zero horizontal velocity, it flies directly upwards to gain the required altitude. In order to get to orbit, it would need to do as it does at the moment *in addition to* gaining that huge amount of kinetic energy you correctly calculated. Clearly, these 'SpaceShips' are no where near true orbital craft.

      The nice thing about spaceflight, and getting into space... the farther away from the gravity center you get, the more you get to pick which direction is actually... "up". It doesn't need much horizontal velocity, just enough thrust to change the direction of "up" to mean whatever direction you wish to accelerate in.

      For example.... where do you see a lot of horizontal thrust on the current space shuttle? I recall a fairly massive amount of "upwards" thrust and not much else besides the stabilizing jets and attitude controls.

    10. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by damburger · · Score: 1

      LMAO Epic physics fail

      Sure, you can pick a new coordinate system in space; but your velocity vector won't magically align with it. Nor will it suddenly acquire the far, far greater magnitude needed to orbit compared to that needed to pop above the Karman line for a few minutes.

      The worst thing is your combination of snarky arrogance with a complete unawareness of how vectors work. Betrand Russell was right I guess.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    11. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Skylon uses an air-breathing rocket engine.

      And with current technology its easier to carry a tank of LOX.

    12. Re:Altitude is irrelevant. We need velocity! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's easier, but you can only burn for about 8 minutes before you run out of juice, and all the time you're lifting infrastructure that exists solely for holding oxygen (or oxygenated fuel). Using the atmospheric oxygen lets you burn fuel for, say, 45 minutes (as in Skylon's projections), and if you use a wing alongside, you get lift, too.

      Trying to fight against air to lift oxygen through where there is plenty of oxygen seems pretty silly.

  17. Re:New Vegas... What about mutants? by promythyus · · Score: 1

    Soon the workers will start wishing for a nuclear winter!

  18. Well, for a very broad definition of "space" by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    It is a spaceship factory, if a few tens of Km over the surface of the Earth can be considered "space". But, let me not spoil it for the future "space tourists".

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Well, for a very broad definition of "space" by Venzor · · Score: 1

      If this is what commercial space has to start off with in order to make money and build incentive for orbital flight, then I'm all for it. Though, I must agree with the dissatisfaction with the ambiguous usage of the term 'space' in spaceship and spaceflight.

      --
      If someone is wrong, don't insult; Educate.
    2. Re:Well, for a very broad definition of "space" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The factory that built the Apollo didn't start be building things that go to the moon.

      So the initial craft are really just 'super high altitude' trips. If successful they will move on to the next step.

      But you go ahead and rag on technology if that's how you get your dick hard.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Well, for a very broad definition of "space" by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Your sig is pretty funny when you know the background behind it: http://www.gearfuse.com/the-japanese-agriculture-ministry-is-not-in-charge-of-gundam/

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    4. Re:Well, for a very broad definition of "space" by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I would think the story behind it is relatively well known. What I love the most about it, is the dual nature of the Japanese soul: on one hand, so solidly conservative (and patriarchal). On the other, quite nutty.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  19. Re:New Vegas... What about mutants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come this isn't tagged "REPCONN" yet?

  20. Wretched hive of scum and villany by Gothmolly · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not call it Mos Eisley?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Wretched hive of scum and villany by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because Lucas is a big cry baby and whiner.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  21. Star Trek by p0p0 · · Score: 1

    I just pictured the ship yards from Star Trek and then I squealed a little to loud and woke up the dog.

  22. Transatlantic flight began like this... by fantomas · · Score: 1

    "It is a spaceship factory, if a few tens of Km over the surface of the Earth can be considered "space". But, let me not spoil it for the future "space tourists"."

    Transatlantic air tourism across the Pacific Ocean in Boeing 747s began with retired WW1 pilots charging passengers to sit in the back seat of shaky 2 seater military planes for bumpy flights a few metres off the sea over the English Channel in the early 1920s.... Let's see where this goes before sneering too quickly.

  23. or even transpacific ;-) by fantomas · · Score: 1

    haha, correcting myself! well if I am going to talk about "transatlantic" of course I should be referring to the Atlantic Ocean not the Pacific! doh! but you get what I mean about small steps leading to larger ones, I am sure...

    1. Re:or even transpacific ;-) by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I noticed the error, but regardless, the main point came across already.

      I am only venting frustration for the slow pace of development, in the face of "we were on the moon in the 60's, for chrissakes!".

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  24. General Products by msk · · Score: 1

    It's going to be hard to feel safe in a spacecraft until we have something like General Products hulls.

    1. Re:General Products by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      wow, talk about your deus ex machina "impervious to anything but light, antimater and gravity" that is like saying "always one more than you" in your classic playground match to see who gets the last word

      Also, i wonder how you manage to feel safe in a car/bus/train, or if you never leave the house (because you dont feel safe in beforementioned modes of transportation) how you feel safe in a house. Given the possibility of huricanes, lightning strikes or meteorite impacts

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    2. Re:General Products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you have against my dear mater? ...Lorenzo

  25. Did their css file go missing or something? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one this page is all messed up for? Things are out of position and there is a big black area where the text matches the background and I have to highlight it to read it. I'm using Firefox.

  26. Call me a dreamer... by Vernes · · Score: 1

    but the very fact that there is such a thing as a commercial Spaceship factory, it makes me giddy.

  27. I did this quest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did this quest, but at the end I decided to betray the ghouls and make the rockets crash into one another.

    Wait... this isn't the New Vegas thread?

  28. Re:New Vegas... What about mutants? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I'd say Branson IS a new clear winner!

  29. Should be Yellow Knight by yt8znu35 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Their first mistake was not building the factory in China.

  30. Stop complaining by yodleboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey, can we stop complaining already? NASA and the rest of the space "industry" has had 50 years to make the geek dream of going into space possible for the (more or less) common man. Sub-orbital still counts as space, although it would seem it's not "enough" space for some.

    NASA's manned program hasn't done much more than allow a select few to pedal circles around the planet since the end of Apollo. Sure, there were some amazing developments and innovations from that, but the act of getting to orbit? Who cares? You did that 50-ish years ago as well. The shuttle should never have gotten off the ground, and certainly should have been mothballed after Challenger. It was obvious by then that the program was vastly more expensive than expected anyway. All those satellites would have still gone up on conventional rockets, and much of the science could have been sent up in automated labs.

    Imagine what 10 or 15 years of the manned spaceflight budget going into finding some other way into orbit might have produced. There have been proposals and ideas for decades, but with the shuttle eating up most of the budget, there was never the funding to really TRY. Sure it may have produced nothing at all (unlikely i think), but we'll never know.

    Not trying to sound like a NASA hater, I love space and spaceflight. What I don't love is trillions of dollars spent to go in circles and make work for the astronaut corps.

    1. Re:Stop complaining by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's cool, bit it's not space. I'm excited buy this, it's great.

      For the Record, NASA never had the mission of finding out how to ferry tourists into space. It's a different goal. A goal that wouldn't even be possible without NASA.

      Your statement about 'automated labs' is a clear indicator of how clueless you are on the real challenges of getting things into space.

      I can tell you what it would have produced: 10-15 year of no space travel.

      It's not the shuttles fault. Once built it is going to be use. It's congress fault for being so short sighted they can't see the long term gains from the space exploration. It's a produc tof the 'cut tax' mentality.

      No one says what should we cut, they just do generic tax cutting. And do you know what? They don't cut pork first, they cut services. They cut things that don't seem to produce anything when in fact they do. It's the same problem with people in general these days. No one appreciates that research is what gives foundations to create products.

      Maxwell laid down the foundation for radio, TV, wi-fi around the same time as the civil war. it took a long time to develop products, but man, look around you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  31. I've seen how this ends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three ships laden with ghouls flying off into the dawn sky.

    Don't tell me this isn't a sign.

  32. Northrop by Cobalt+Jacket · · Score: 2, Informative

    It should be noted that Scaled Composites has been a unit of Northrop Grumman for a couple of years now. With Burt Rutan retiring, it will become more under NGC control. However, NGC does not have a regular rocket launch unit as Boeing and Lockheed does, so there's no reason that NGC will not continue allowing Scaled Composites to prosper.

  33. Re:New Vegas... What about mutants? by inerlogic · · Score: 1

    *emo tear* i am SO glad the first comment is from F:NV :)

  34. Shouldn't it be called 'shipyard' ? by macson_g · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Shouldn't it be called 'shipyard' instead of 'factory'?

  35. Supply Demand by brilanon · · Score: 1

    Why would they have plans on hand for orbital spacecraft, what would those do

    If someone wants to mine the moon this is someone they can go to

    Exciting junk

  36. Utility by PunditGuy · · Score: 1

    I don't want to go straight up and come right back down again. Can't they sub-orbit my ass to Sydney or something useful?

  37. Delusional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like dipping your toe into the Atlantic Ocean and then claiming you've been to Europe. Space Nutters are hopelessly deluded, romantic naive fools. Oh well, keep getting excited over your overgrown fireworks, I'll keep rooting for life extension.

  38. Economic Stimulus by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1
    Hey America (and the rest of the world), if you really want to pull your ass out of a recession fast, then projects like this are imperative. This spaceport isn't simply another, "Oh wow!" factor for the rich and famous. Straight from TFA:

    TSC expects to employ up to 170 people when production is in full swing. It has begun posting job openings on its website for engineers and technicians.

    See that? 170 engineering and technician positions (that's folks that assemble and build things, no college degree required) necessary to operate a production line for three spacecraft. Give this company some money, cross your fingers for success, and next thing you know we will have a whole new industry helping gear our species back out of the economic plunder created in the last few years. If we really want to haul our asses out of a recession, then the answer isn't to throw huge sums of money at every problem that comes along. The answer is to create new industries, new jobs in places where there were no jobs before! (See also, the robotics industry).

    So for those of you that have been complaining about the recession, news like this should make you beam with joy. If the civilian space industry comes along, then there will be a whole new industry which can employ workers at all levels. That's why progress on fronts like deep-sea exploration, robotics development, and space exploration are important. This species has to progress or stagnate and die. The stars are merely one more frontier to progress into.

    1. Re:Economic Stimulus by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we could also spend 50 billion fixing the Katrina disaster, which would create 10's of thousands of jobs. It would have the side benefit of having that area look like cit's in a civilized country.

      Of course, in a country where that part of the country complains the feds aren't helping, and ALSO complains the government is 'too big'* so they vote republican**. Maybe they deserve to live in squalor.

      *what the hell does that even mean?

      **which makes no sense because for 50 years spending has alway gone up signifigantly during pub control. Look it up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Economic Stimulus by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        we could also spend 50 billion fixing the Katrina disaster

        I haven't seen any recent figures, but I do know that federal funding for the cleanup has already cost at least four times that. Heck, here are some figures from 2006.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  39. It'll never work by douglips · · Score: 1

    They can't be serious. Leading experts agree they must first build a SpaceshipFactoryProvider.

    1. Re:It'll never work by Fyzzler · · Score: 1

      They can't be serious. Leading experts agree they must first build a SpaceshipFactoryProvider.

      Your JavaFoo is weak.

      They need a SpaceshipFactoryFactory

      --
      I have one question. If the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is not in charge of Gundam, then who is?
  40. Renegotiate tax breaks and subsidies? by perpenso · · Score: 1

    TFA mentions the factory will produce: - three white-knight IIs - five SpaceshipTwos

    so, what will happen after these 8 builds?

    My first guess is that they will then renegotiate tax breaks and subsidies with the state of California before deciding where to do additional production. California is a pretty hostile place to to production/manufacturing unless you are high profile enough to get a deal and or/waivers from the state.

  41. Yes, except by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    No kidding. There's nothing to distinguish this headline from one a character might see in any scifi novel. The concept of a private company building a factory solely to build spaceships (albeit 60km ones) is staggering.

    Last I heard, these are spaceships only in the very most technical sense. About the same way a Roomba is "a robot." You get what, a few minutes of free fall, and that's it. I don't know about you folks, but that's most emphatically not what I've been thinking of when I thought "space ship" over quite a few decades. It's more the kind of thing I was hoping a long-hop high speed transport would do. And the price... good grief.

    Methinks more waiting is called for.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Yes, except by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Methinks more waiting is called for

      If I wait any longer I will run out of time. So what if Robert Heinlein didn't predict the exact future? Lets be thankful for what we get.

  42. Re:New Vegas... What about mutants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love Fallout New Vegas. They should just call this REPCONN so everyone already knows them.