Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Virgin Galactic to Build Space Port in New Mexico

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Dec 14, 2005 07:26 AM
from the area-fifty-two dept.
aapold writes "Virgin Galactic today announced plans to build a $225 million space port in southern New Mexico. Richard Branson will meet with governor Bill Richardson Wednesday to unveil the plans. Virgin Galactic is the company leveraging Spaceship One which, as reported by Slashdot, claimed the Ansari X prize for commercial space flight."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Space Race 2.0 has Begun 96 comments
An anonymous reader writes "MSNBC has a story about a second company starting up to compete with Virgin Galactic. Both are planning on operating passenger sub-orbital flights. Will this new Space Race usher in more new technologies into our daily lives, like the previous one? Will the competition to go higher/faster lead to orbital tourism?" From the article: "The company that helped put three millionaires into orbit has teamed up with Russia's Federal Space Agency and the financial backers of the $10 million Ansari X Prize to develop a new breed of suborbital passenger spaceship. Thursday's announcement by Virginia-based Space Adventures herald the entry of new international players in the commercial space race -- a race that is expected to enter a critical phase in the next year or two."
[+] Spaceport Singapore 13 comments
FleaPlus writes "In addition to last week's news of a spaceport in the UAE, Space Adventures has announced that they will also be building a spaceport in Singapore by 2009. The spaceport will offer flights on a variety of vehicles, such as a Russian-built suborbital spaceplane, fighter jets, and Vomit Comet-style weightless parabolas. Space Adventures will be competing with other fully-funded suborbital spaceflight companies, such as Virgin Galactic and Rocketplane."
[+] SpaceX Developing Orbital Crew Capsule 122 comments
iamlucky13 writes "Private aerospace firm SpaceX has revealed that it has secretly been working on a crew and cargo vehicle since late 2004. Development of the capsule, named Dragon, has so far been funded by SpaceX and its partners, which includes the Canadian company that built the robotic arm for the International Space Station. Dragon would be launched atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 and dock at the ISS with assistance of the robotic arm. While SpaceX founder Elon Musk is prepared to complete development of the capsule with his own resources, SpaceX is seeking funding from NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, which makes up to $500 million available through 2010 for private spacecraft development."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Exciting times (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Orgazmus (761208) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @07:28AM (#14255092)
    This is really exciting times. A private spaceport is emerging, and the "real" exploration of space can begin.
    I cant wait until my first moon-vacation ;D
    • Re:Exciting times (Score:4, Insightful)

      by binaryDigit (557647) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @07:35AM (#14255115)
      and the "real" exploration of space can begin.

      I think you meant to say "the real exploitation of space can begin". Think high velocity spacecraft junk is a problem now, wait till you have disposable camera wrappers and discarded "Welcome to Space!" flyers zooming around up there.
      • Who cares? It's not like space trash is going to remain in stable orbit all by itself - eventually, it'll hit the atmosphere and burn up.

        There's also nothing wrong with exploiting space. It's not like it's a person who you're taking advantage of. It is a resource, nothing more.

        -Erwos
                • Yes, but this isn't like water pollution. We're throwing several orders of magnitude less crap into several orders of magnitude more volume. This is one of those cases where you don't have to deal in absolutes like "we will eventually fill it, we said the same about pollution" - at our current rate, filling it is the least of our worries.

                  Basically, by the time that we have enough industry that creating space pollution is a serious problem, we should have the technology to start thinking about junk removal
      • wait till you have disposable camera wrappers and discarded "Welcome to Space!" flyers zooming around up there.

        Then the spacecraft operators will need to inform their customers to keep their hands and feet inside the spaceship at all times and keep all doors and windows securely fastened.
    • This brings a Star Wars quote to mind... "Mos Eisley spaceport: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."

      Sheesh! There are some people who have way too much money.
      They'll be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes!
      Yeah!, them and those wasters who post to slashdot!

      Bugger.
      • The Las Cruces landscape looks like Mos Eisley. It's desert, has adobe huts. Go to a used car lot and you'll even find scum and villany. Throw in a second sun and you woudn't be able to tell the difference.
    • A high altitidue balloon based launch platform .

      Imagine a platform at 160,000 feet, that uses a mass driver to toss cargo into low orbit .

      High altitude ballons could carry the cargo to the platform 30 miles above the earth .

      NASA has already done a small scale version of this :

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/02082 7063353.htm [sciencedaily.com]

      It would be a huge and complex task, but imagine a giant platform with many ballons in case one
      fails, and a magnetic mass driver near the center to toss cargo into low orbit
      • Hardly (Score:3, Informative)

        Nasa has sent balloons into high orbit, without mass drivers.

        AND, people at MIT have built mass drivers, and used them on terra firma! And other people have thought about using them on the moon.

        That's what your links say. Oh, and an offhand comment, that "SSI is conducting a feasibility study on the use of an aerostatically supported mass driver for terrestrial launch of bulk payloads." Just that sentence, nothing more.

        The reaction force from the launch would be enormous, though--F=m*a, so take whatever
        • Re:Hardly (Score:3, Interesting)

          Doesn't sound too bad until you think about an aerostatically supported platform trying to launch things into predictable orbits while oscillating all over the place from the reaction force of the launches.

          Very precise-hitting missiles are known to be launchable from hunks of steel flying miles above the earth. Once launched, in other words, the rocket can correct itself even if the platform oscillated and stumbled because of the launch.

          Who would staff a platform at an altitude of 30 miles? How would yo

  • I'm trying to think of the long-term implications of having a space-port. You have noise pollution, traffic problems, and money that the populace argues would be better spent elsewhere, say, Africa, or Brixton, UK.

    The commercial opportunities must far outweigh those potential problems.
    • They do. Cheap travel into space means opportunities in metallurgy, mining, medicine, and tourism, just to name a few industries. New Mexico isn't England, it's large, sparse, with a lot of area that, simply put, isn't easily inhabitable, thus mitigating a lot of the pollution problems that come with any large industrial venture. Traffic is not a very major problem as well; the area already has a freeway bisecting it that could handle a few thousand more people in terms of traffic with no problem. New Mexic
    • by m93 (684512) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @07:47AM (#14255173)
      I tried putting one in my town on SimCity, and it did nothing but cause problems.
    • The commercial opportunities must far outweigh those potential problems.

      No kidding. Branson's investement is pretty much a no brainer. Estimates of price per ticket are at around $200,000 dollars a seat, times seven passengers is $1.4 million dollars in cash per flight.

      Branson's in the airline business already. I'm not sure about the specifics of it, but I seriously doubt that there are any regular commercial flights out there that pull in $1.4 million dollars per trip. Even those that come close would be 747 type aircraft that probably cost as much to run as SpaceShipTwo will anyway. Can we get some figures here?

      Now I would have said that Branson's best bet was to set up shop in some middle of nowhere location, to dodge regulations. But the fact that he's setting up shop inside the US shows that he's serious about doing things professionally. Nonetheless I expect customers will be expected to sign off in the event of an accident.

      As to potential customers. Does anyone seriously suggest that Branson won't be able to find people willing to spend $200,000 on a trip into orbit. There are thousands of people who spend ten times that on a boat. I think he'll manage to fill a plane once a week at least.

      Step 1: Wait for private group to develop initial technology.
      Step 2: Buy group and its technology.
      Step 3: Scale up development
      Step 4: Charge suckers $200,000 per flight AND satisfy them
      Step 3: PROFIT!!
    • by AnswerIs42 (622520) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @08:19AM (#14255312) Homepage
      I lived in Las Cruces, NM for a few years. So let me put it this way...

      noise pollution : No one is going to notice.. well, no HUMAN is going to notice. Between TorC (as everyone calls is) and Las Cruces.. there is a whole lot of NOTHING. Just miles and miles and miles of desert. Well, there are a couple of very small communities if you stay next to the interstate.

      traffic problems : Non issue there is hardly any traffic now.. the road would be a little busier because peopel would have to live in TorC or Las Cruces that is a plus for both cities.

      money that the populace argues would be better spent elsewhere : HAH! I take it you have never seen the area... Go 4 minutes outside the city limits of Las Cruces and you are IN the third world country within the USA. This will pump millions of MUCH NEEDED money into the area.

      They have been waiting 10+ years for this. It is nice to see it finally happening. One section of Las Cruces even split off a few years back (~ '96-'97).. became incorperated and called temselves "spaceport City" because they were dead sure that a spaceport would be built by '99. By late '98 and early '99 they were out of money (they had to make a lot of improvements to fit the terms of becoming a city) and the residents dumped the idea and voted to become a 'burb of Las Cruces again and forget the whole incorperation thing.

      • NM (Score:5, Informative)

        by jbeaupre (752124) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @10:36AM (#14256245)
        He's dead on. I grew up in NM and went to school in Cruces. The state loves the strange (go to Sante Fe some day) and the dangerous (Los Alamos, Sandia, White Sands). A space port? It's in the blood. The first liquid fueled rocket by Goddard was launched in Roswell, V2's were tested at White Sands, and in general, people love to launch and blow stuff up. You've got a thousand PhD types blowing the crap out of anything they can get their hands on. If they'd put it on cable, it'd be the top red-neck channel. A friend even got college credit in explosives while working at Sandia. The biggest disappointment for locals will be that the spaceships won't blow up. "Another dud!"

        As for 3rd world, a couple of interesting facts (which might be outdated). NM has the highest school dropout rate and the highest PhD per capita. AND the bordor patrol has a station NORTH of Las Cruces. Putting it south of there would interfer with international commuters.
      • by adamanthaea (723150) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @10:49AM (#14256375)
        Agreed. There is practically nothing between TorC and Cruces. Heck, there is practically nothing between Socorro and TorC for that matter. If they had to ditch the craft they could try putting it in one of the lakes instead of the desert. For that matter, there's practically nothing to the east until you get past White Sands to Alamogordo and basically nothing at all in New Mexico to the west and still not much until you cross into Arizona and eventually get to Phoenix. And traffic on I-25? You've gotta be kidding me. You can drive for a long time between Cruces and Albuquerque and have whole sections where the only car you can see on the road is the one you're in. The biggest bottleneck would be that Border Patrol checkpoint north of Cruces and maybe they couldn't easily expand the highway through that S-curve south of TorC and crossing that canyon north of TorC (Nogal?). What's kinda funny is that there have been signs on I-25 for years now at the approximate spot. "Future Site of the New Mexico Spaceport." I just figured it was some local pipe-dream. Still, I'll believe it when I see it. New Mexico has a history of losing companies that started there.
    • Lots of job opportunities for the local population. Someone has to work there to keep the place running. Specialists would move to the area to work there as well meaning new housing developments etc so more growth in construction, retail stores in the area etc. Then if it really takes off your state/area could become the space capital of the world which would could easily be worth billions (trillions?). If you have the real estate to spare I would think it would be worth the investment.
  • Careful there.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by c0dedude (587568) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @07:32AM (#14255105)
    Remember, the CEOs of tech companies failed to constrain costs in the late 1990s, and we know what happened to them. Be very careful in spending. Consider whether this port is absolutly necesssary.
    • by tpgp (48001) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @07:40AM (#14255142) Homepage
      Remember, the CEOs of tech companies failed to constrain costs in the late 1990s, and we know what happened to them. Be very careful in spending. Consider whether this port is absolutly necesssary.

      Two points:

      1) They have a practical source of income - with the first two million allready accounted for

      2) "Tech companies" did not fail to constrain costs in the late 1990s, internet startups failed to have viable business plans. There is a big difference.
      • 2) "Tech companies" did not fail to constrain costs in the late 1990s, internet startups failed to have viable business plans. There is a big difference.

        What's not viable about selling dimes for nickels and making up the loss in volume?

    • Re:Careful there.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Mike1024 (184871) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @08:30AM (#14255355)
      Remember, the CEOs of tech companies failed to constrain costs in the late 1990s, and we know what happened to them. Be very careful in spending. Consider whether this port is absolutly necesssary.

      Of course, Branson [wikipedia.org] is a businessman with a successful track record [wikipedia.org], and his personal fortune of approximately $5,300 million [wikipedia.org] would allow him to absorb the complete failure of this $225 million spaceport (although obviously no-one would want to lose that much money).

      Michael
  • Hmm (Score:3, Funny)

    by TallMatthew (919136) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @07:35AM (#14255114)
    Virgin Galactic said it had chosen New Mexico as the site for its headquarters because of its steady climate, free airspace, low population density and high altitude. All those factors can significantly reduce the cost of the space flight program.

    Low population density significantly reduces the cost of the space flight program? I guess they're assuming there will be some bourgeois shrapnel flying around.

    I wonder what the road sign looks like that warns against burning appendages falling from the sky.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)

      Low population density = cheap land. Not to mention plenty of room to grow and fewer legal hurdles, complaining residents, etc. Imagine trying to build a spaceport in Manhattan!
    • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)

      by Billosaur (927319) * <wgrotherNO@SPAMoptonline.net> on Wednesday December 14 2005, @09:06AM (#14255565) Journal
      Low population density significantly reduces the cost of the space flight program? I guess they're assuming there will be some bourgeois shrapnel flying around.

      Actually, that's correct, from the standpoint of safety. They can't afford to immolate too many people if one of these things crashes or explodes for some reason. The area south of T-or-C and north of Las Cruces is sparsely populated, mostly open area, and is bordered to the east by White Sands, and even further east by Roswell. I'm sure Virgin Galactic is hoping to lure the ET contingent. Anyway, they're trying to keep the insurance rates down.

      NASA originally considered the White Sands area for launching the Apollo Saturn V, but decided it was too dangerous, as one Saturn V carried the destructive power of an atomic bomb. They did do engine testing for the Lunar Module and Service Module there.

      And if you drive north of T-or-C to the small town of San Antonio, you can stop at the Owl Bar and Cafe for the best green chile cheeseburgers in all the world. [end shameless plug]

  • Awesome (Score:5, Funny)

    by iamdrscience (541136) <michaelmtripp@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday December 14 2005, @07:35AM (#14255117) Homepage
    The spaceport, to be located some 25 miles south of the town of Truth or Consequences
    That's got to be one of the best names for a town ever. Right up there with Yeehaw Junction, Florida and Ding Dong, Texas.
  • there'll be a rush to buy property in all places that are suitable for launch sites.
    that is on the equator, facing east, and with good infrastructure around ;)

    now is the time to buy ;)
  • Chump Change... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joey_knisch (804995) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @07:37AM (#14255127)
    Compared to NASA.

    They spent $800 million on a new launch center... IN 1962
  • by ch-chuck (9622) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @07:39AM (#14255139) Homepage
    Think of all the money they'll save hiring undocumented workers.
  • its just the set of Space Cadets 2 [channel4.com].
  • So... who's got a truck big enough for a whale?

  • non-orbital (Score:5, Informative)

    by close_wait (697035) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @08:01AM (#14255225)
    For the Nth time: in response to all the inevitable "far cheaper than NASA" posts; this is not an orbital launch - it just goes up to the edge of space, then straight down again. And getting into orbit isn't just going that "little bit extra"; a spacecraft in low earth orbit has about 15 times the potential + kinetic energy of a spacecraft that is at the same height but is just at the top of a vertical up/down loop.
    • Re:non-orbital (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ajpr (921401) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @08:59AM (#14255532)
      I think what they mean is that it is cheaper than an equivalent NASA attempt. NASA doesn't do sub-orbital launches, and therefore any similar launch by NASA would cost a lot more in terms of $ and safety. To get to orbit you can't use the hybrid engines that SpaceShipOne has, there's just not enough kick per unit mass. And the Shuttle only manages to crawl into space because of its solid rocket boosters, that massive tank in between the SRBs (liquid H2/O2 mix) contributes a small % to the overall thrust.

      The technology for sub-orbital flights obviously has been around for a long time. Yet the costs involved for even sub-orbital launches have always been high due them being entirely governmental companies. The X-Prize was setup to find out the cheapest way to get the ordinary person into space, whereas the state space programs have always been about pushing the boundaries of human exploration. The cheapest way is to only go as far as the edge of space to save massively on the thrust and energy requirements. The savings that this makes can then be offset by using a less effective fuel (hybrid), but that has the advantage of being a lot safer. The hybrid engines use fuels that generally are easy to store safely (non of this cryogenic nonsense like the shuttle) and also can be switched off in the event of a malfunction (SRBs once lit burn all the way to the tip).

      People will still have to pay $20 million to the russians to go into space for a few days, so there is still going to be a large gap between those that go sub-orbital and the few that can afford to pay for orbital space access.

  • There are more ways to reduce the costs of this base:
    1. Let discovery channel make a documentary "Megastructures: Building the spaceport" and get paid for it (ofcourse).
    2. Rent the spaceport, still under construction out to the movie: Space comboys II: Now the spaceport is broken, and they have to fix that before a spaceship can land. Ofcourse one of the cowboys is on board to keep it unpredictably longer in robit by burning the furniture in the engines, and to make the impossible landing.
    3. Lots of mov
  • Ugh. PHB-speak ahoy! (Score:5, Informative)

    by meringuoid (568297) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @08:22AM (#14255327)
    Virgin Galactic is the company leveraging Spaceship One which, as reported by Slashdot, claimed the Ansari X prize for commercial space flight.

    Whatever happened to the verb 'to use'? As in 'Virgin Galactic is the company using Spaceship One'.

    Anyone who uses the word 'leverage' in any context where the concept of newton metres is absent, or as a verb in any context at all, deserves to be slapped about the face with a kipper until they're sorry.

    • Oooh-ooh, maybe I should start to leverage my scientific vocabulary slightly incorrectly. Only then will we gain the amplitude to become managers.

      Let's torque these bugs

      I received a mole of spam this morning.

      I'm hoping my open source app will gain popularity through osmosis.

      I sent the UI to the usability lab for some titration.

      His technical knowledge lead him to become a singularity around the office.

      I could come up with more, but this topic is too volatile.

  • by Cabby (39912) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @08:22AM (#14255328) Homepage
    I see from the The Register [theregister.co.uk] that Philippe Starck is going to design the new base. I wonder if they picked him solely due to his War of the Worlds lookalike lemon squeezer?
  • by The Fun Guy (21791) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @08:33AM (#14255372) Homepage Journal
    The spaceport, to be located some 25 miles south of the town of Truth or Consequences, will be constructed 90 percent underground, with just the runway and supporting structures above ground.

    Some people might think that they are going to all of the trouble and expense of digging out tunnels and pits to construct living quarters, maintenance, etc. is for energy efficiency or something.

    The real reason is more unsavory.

    If you are announcing your intention to build a conventional (above ground) 60,000 square foot multi-building compound, it will be obvious to everyone if you only build the first 5000 square foot building, and leave the rest for when you actually turn a profit. If it's "90 percent underground", then you can just dig out for that first little structure, put a few 5' side tunnels on and install locked doors in front of the dirt. Who can tell the difference? If you slap labels like "Authorized Personnel Only" or "Hazardous Area - Do Not Enter", then you don't have to open the doors for the reporters who come to tour the "spaceport".

    What this means is that they can put up a few sheds and bunkers above ground, build one showcase underground structure to show the reporters and passengers (who come in one or two at a time). Have a few bulldozers and dumptrucks drive around for awhile "building" the rest, then call it a spaceport. That might give them enough time to do a few flights to get the money coming in, then they can actually build the rest of it (probably above ground, with a cover story about how the original underground plans were too expensive). If the project tanks, they walk away without having sunk a lot of money in the thing.

    If you can't see it, it isn't there.
  • . . . won't open until 2078.

    And even then, the alien brothels won't take worthless earth-currency.

    Of course, you could get some house credit by volunteering to have a horny L'CHHHTTTTHhhh plunge her ovipositer into your abdomen. The house doctor can usually dig the eggs out in time. But still, after a few times you get a reputation and . . .

    Oh, sorry, this is a Virgin Spaceport. No red light district. The only bars serve lemonade and alcohol free margaritas.

    Stefan
    • Wonder if this'll get the U.S Govt to put NASA where it should be. I hope so. It's been a LONG time since there was any frontiers pushed - the US Space Programme seems happy just ticking along instead of pushing the boundaries as it did in the 60's and 70's.

      But putting people in space is expensive, dangerous, and also futile, as it takes far too long to actually go anywhere at present. NASA has pushed back the boundaries constantly with the many probes it has sent out since the 60s, which are a much more c

    • Assuming this is not a troll - do you really want your spaceport built in an area below sea level that is prone to hurricanes? And if you read the article, you would see that having the high altitude in New Mexico was another key factor in keeping launch costs down.
      • by CmdrGravy (645153) on Wednesday December 14 2005, @09:40AM (#14255799) Homepage
        That's correct, Virgin Trains are very good as trains go. I have the choice between catching either Centro Trains or Virgin Trains to Derby everyday and Virgin is clearly a better service.

        Centro: litter everywhere, dirty, run down looking, rude/bored and occasionally abusive ticket collectors, no information at all on delays, connections, no shop, no power points, toilets usually filthy

        Virgin: generally clean - they have a cleaner on every train, toilets OK, on board shop, staff generally polite, friendly and cheerfull looking, good information about delays, transfers, connections etc etc

        Richard Branson said he would introduce High Speed trains and no one really believed him but now they are in service and he has pretty much delivered what he promised he would.