SpaceShip Two, XCOR Lynx Prepare For Powered Flights

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceShip Two, XCOR Lynx Prepare For Powered Flights

Posted by timothy on Thursday September 20, 2012 @08:04AM from the hope-it-all-goes-to-plan dept.

RocketAcademy writes "Virgin Galactic's SpaceShip Two is in the final stages of preparation for powered flight. The suborbital spacecraft, built by Scaled Composites, has successfully completed airspeed, angle-of-attack, center-of-gravity, and structural tests during unpowered glide flights. It is now on track for powered glide flights by the end of this year. Meanwhile, in the hangar next door, XCOR Aerospace continues to work on the Lynx spacecraft, expected to begin powered flight tests early next year. Some exclusive photos provide a sneak peak at things to come." Also to watch for in the world of private space launches, next month (possibly as early as the 8th), SpaceX has another launch scheduled to reach the ISS.

16 of 77 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

"powered glide flights" by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-09-20 08:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
1. Re:"powered glide flights" by RocketAcademy · 2012-09-20 08:22 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, that was a typo, but technically it is correct. The powered segment of the flight will be powered by a glide back to landing.
2. Re:"powered glide flights" by uigrad_2000 · 2012-09-20 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  Nevermind... it does say that. Clearly the word "glide" in that sentence should have been omitted.
  
  --
  Free unix account: freeshell.org
3. Re:"powered glide flights" by Moofie · 2012-09-20 08:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "The powered segment of the flight will be powered by a glide..."
  Surely you meant "The powered segment of the flight will be followed by a glide..."
  
  --
  Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
4. Re:"powered glide flights" by OhSoLaMeow · 2012-09-20 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  to compliment their earlier unpowered glide flights
  
  Wow, that was a REALLY GREAT unpowered glide flight!!
  
  --
  They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
5. Re:"powered glide flights" by Immerman · 2012-09-20 12:02 · Score: 2
  
  And both can be technically accurate - a powered glide would seem to describe a flight plan in which the craft is basically in a glide but the engines are on standby to provide any minor adjustments or emergency thrust necessary.
  An "underwater flotation test" would likely be termed a "buoyancy test" in most circumstances, but the former might be more informative if you're discussing a craft intended to float on the "surface" of a sharp density gradient such as between two non-mixing thermal masses or an underwater oil spill or something.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Privatization Working? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-09-20 08:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Have you been paying attention the last 20 years? Shit, the Republicans in Congress are trying to cut funding for weather satellites.
Re:Privatization Working? by Urza9814 · 2012-09-20 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yea, they're doing well because they've gotten the benefits of _both_ the dollars "poured into public spaceflight" AND the private subsidies. What, you think they're reinventing the rocket from the ground up?
NASA is the only R&D shop working for the public benefit. And now that they've done the hard work, we're going to now start funneling our tax dollars into private corporations for them to make private profit off of public funding. "Privatizing profits and socializing debt" indeed...
to control costs by mosb1000 · 2012-09-20 09:00 · Score: 2

Why the fuck are companies allowed to take public funds to build private profit?
Because people who have a stake in what they're building have an incentive to do it right. For example, compare the cost a Falcon 9 launch to an Atlas V. Both were developed and built with public funds (admittedly, only a portion of Falcon 9 was publicly funded) and have similar capabilities, yet Falcon 9 costs 1/3 as much to build and launch. With no profit motive, ULA has no reason to look for ways to control costs with the Atlas 5. In fact, the more ULA spends, the more they make.
1. Re:to control costs by Higgs+Boozin · 2012-09-20 09:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Interesting comparison considering the RD-180 engines under the Atlas V were also publicly funded (paid in rubles, not dollars) and were already fully developed by the time they were chosen for the Atlas. One wonders why the whole rocket ends up being so expensive. Russians make great engines at bargain basement prices...maybe we should have had them build the whole rocket.
2. Re:to control costs by mosb1000 · 2012-09-20 15:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  SpaceX quotes their launch price for the Falcon 9 at $54 Million. All the sources I can find for the Atlas V put the launch cost at $138 Million. Though I couldn't find a price listed on their website, which is really understandable if you think about it.
3. Re:to control costs by mosb1000 · 2012-09-20 17:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The engine for instance, do they have a casting and forging facility to build the fuel pumps and valves? Do they build their own integrated circuits that goes into the control computers? Do they build their own sensors and servos from a delivery of beach sand and metal ingots? All these components come from subcontractors.
  No, they don't. Those parts are purchased from vendors the same way you or I might purchase a valve or some screws from a hardware store.
  Space X buys what they can "off the shelf". They make whatever else they can, and the subcontract out the rest. If you can't trust them about their business model, who can you trust?! You're basically speculating about how things must be with no guiding principle other than "their rockets must be more expensive than they claim."
  
  Now II don't see Lockheed, Boeing, Arianespace exiting the launch business do you?
  SpaceX has been winning contracts left and right. Of course, they've only ever launched 3 Falcon 9 rockets, and their capacity is still increasing to meet demand, so if you need something launched in the next few years you can't use SpaceX (they're all booked up). But in the future, if SpaceX is able to ramp up production and get a reasonable success rate with their rockets they most certainly will put all the other launchers out of business.
Re:Privatization Working? by Spy+Handler · 2012-09-20 09:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Subsidy does not mean what you think it means. Protip: government agency buying desktops from Dell is not a subsidy. Even though Dell is "building private profit" with your tax dollars.
Re:Privatization Working? by 0123456 · 2012-09-20 09:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yea, they're doing well because they've gotten the benefits of _both_ the dollars "poured into public spaceflight" AND the private subsidies. What, you think they're reinventing the rocket from the ground up?
NASA spent about the same to put a fake upper stage on a shuttle SRB and launch it into the sea as SpaceX did to develop a brand new rocket engine and two rockets and launch them into space.
Re:Privatization Working? by 0123456 · 2012-09-20 09:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Last I looked, Republicans were pushing the Senate Launch System while Democrats were pushing for NASA to buy private sector launch services to ISS. Numerous people have commented on what an absurd reversal that is.
Re:Privatization Working? by RocketAcademy · 2012-09-20 12:57 · Score: 2

NASA is the only R&D shop working for the public benefit.
Really? That would come as a bit surprise to DARPA, NIST, etc. Do you know who invented the Internet? Not to mention all the universities, astronomical observatories, private foundations, etc. What "public benefit" do you think NASA should be working for, if you never want the results to be "funneled" to the public?