Slashdot Log In
First Image of Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Jun 23, 2008 09:16 AM
from the do-you-see-what-i-see dept.
from the do-you-see-what-i-see dept.
mtargettuk writes "First image of Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo structure:
Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo is under construction at Scaled Composites in Mojave, California and Flightglobal has obtained what appears to be the first image of its cockpit section."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
UH... (Score:2, Funny)
Virgin Cockpit. dur hur hur hur.
Re:UH... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:UH... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's funny because the Slut plane is actually a Sabena plane. In the 1990s Sabena slept with Air France, with KLM, with BA and finally got a deadly disease from Swissair (who sunk Sabena to delay their own downfall)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:UH... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:UH... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are the mods all drunk? Who modded this informative?
Well, maybe it is
Parent
Who knew? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who knew? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Informative)
"The masses" in this context are people who can afford to pay six figures for a joyride to take them to a tenth of the delta-V needed for orbit in an vehicle design that physically cannot scale to orbit.
Meanwhile, actual orbital vehicle development continues. The massive Falcon 9 has not only completed its one engine firing [spacex.com], its two engine firing [youtube.com], and its three engine firing [youtube.com], all flawlessly, but also it's five engine firing [spacex.com]. Only one more static firing is scheduled before launch (all nine engines). The smaller Falcon 1, which would have easily reached orbit in its last test flight but for either the lack of a bump *or* the presence of an upper-stage baffle, now is designed both to prevent the bump *and* now has an upper-stage baffle. It will be launching within the next month [blogspot.com] with its first payload, and the Falcon 9 should launch by the end of the year [spacex.com]. The Falcon series represents a two to three fold price cut per kilogram compared to similar sized launch vehicles after almost half a century of price stagnation.
But hey, by all means, Slashdot is free to continue largely ignoring them (dedicating roughly the same number of articles to SpaceShipTwo, of which only minimal info has been released yet [google.com] as the entire Falcon series through its history [google.com]) and to keep reporting on every last detail from this unscaleable joyride.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're hardly comparable are they! Slashdot readers are far more interested in something which will take PEOPLE into space, rather than yet another satellite lifter that's only interesting because it's cheaper to make.
Apart from anything, SpaceShipOne/Two just simply looks WAY cooler! I know that's not a very good reason, but it probably IS a reason.
I think most people are interested in feeling like they're going into space, zero-G, black sky, take some pics, then coming back again safely. You don't need a
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Informative)
They're hardly comparable are they! Slashdot readers are far more interested in something which will take PEOPLE into space, rather than yet another satellite lifter that's only interesting because it's cheaper to make.
Apparently you've never heard of the Dragon [spacex.com]. The Falcon series is designed to lift cargo *and* people to orbit. Unlike the shuttle, they made the wise (IMHO) decision to not require people to be on every liftoff; you include people when you want to lift people, and not otherwise. The first Dragon flight is scheduled for early next year. Both Falcon and Dragon have passed every NASA COTS review so far (example [space-travel.com]).
Also, once again, the old fallacy of "being in space is roughly equivalent to being in orbit" rears its ugly head. Sadly, this happens in pretty much every thread about SS1/SS2.
Apart from anything, SpaceShipOne/Two just simply looks WAY cooler!
You hit the nail on the head.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking... Virgin are building Citadel Station now?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I realise you put humans on as a payload, but theoretically you could do that with an Ariane rocket. The interesting bit therefore, is not the Falcon rocket but the Dragon payload. Even though it's cheaper, I would expect that the cost of launching the Falcon *massively* exceeds the cost of a flight in SpaceShipTwo?
SpaceShipTwo is also closer to people's dream of just going to a normal airport to take a trip into space. You don't really need a dedicated Cape Canaveral style space port for SpaceShipTwo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one gives a shit about engine tests. Call us back when the Falcon 9 actually puts some passengers into space (and "in theory" doesn't count).
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Informative)
1) Falcon 9 is far closer to "completing a successful test flight" than SpaceShipTwo. It has completed four static test firings, compared to a resounding zero for SS2.
2) No, it is not a "cargo rocket"; it's designed for either cargo *or* the Dragon spacecraft, which is scheduled to launch in Q1 of next year. You see, back in the real world of orbital rocketry, there's this little thing called "staging" that you have to deal with. And no, the tiny bit of extra altitude and speed from the White Knight hardly counts. In real, orbital rocketry, you can't generally afford to be hauling around the mass of what got you there.
will put space within reach
Count "2" for the number of times that "space" and "orbit" have been predictably treated as though they're roughly equivalent, when they're not even close.
which has already PROVEN its viability with several successful test flights.
Just the first stage of Falcon 1 gave more delta-V in a single launch than all of SS1's flights combined. It was only the second stage that failed, and really, it only "failed" in that the engine shut down early due to a slosh, which has been corrected in two different ways. Even the payload separated normally.
You're comparing a Segway with an EV1 here. The flight envelope of SS1 and SS2 isn't even remotely, slightly, trivially comparable to that of the Falcon series.
Parent
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and by the way, please elaborate on the proven viability [universetoday.com] of SS2.
For years, I was warning people that Scaled was playing fast and loose with safety. I wrote this in 2006 [daughtersoftiresias.org] (and updated with the latter link in early 2007, before the accident):
"Rutan, on the other hand, nearly killed his test pilot by launching in high wind shear conditions, and launching before resolving the cause of wild rolls at rocket ignition. With just a small handful of flights. On a task that is incredibly easy compared to reaching orbit. Some view the rocketplane tourism industry as a disaster waiting to happen. [spacedaily.com]"
I would rather have been proven wrong.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Blowing up wealthy passengers isn't exactly an attractive business model, no matter what waivers you make them sign. And if the current disregard toward safety continues, that's exactly what's going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. (Score:2)
As to Spacex, yeah, they SHOULD end up in a pretty good position. I am hopeful that the next launch is a real winner. It would be nice to see. But I will point out that they ran the 5 engine test for only 15 seconds. Seems to me that they need to have a full launch time or more to re
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You KNOW that they are not going to use the same engine for SS3
SS3 is vaporware. It's probably had about as much design work done on it as a spacecraft I designed a while back. And if they don't start taking safety more seriously and end up killing paying passengers just once, it'll stand just as much of a chance of actually being built.
For any SS3 to actually work, they would have to literally start over. On virtually everything. Almost nothing they've developed and almost none of the experience they de
Better link (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/06/spaceshiptwo-cockpit-composite.html
-V
Link protected (Score:5, Informative)
The link in the article appears to be protected against offsite linking. If you want to view its contents, make sure you open it in a new window. If the site detects Slashdot, you will be redirected to the sitemap.
That being said, I'm not sure if it's worth bothering. The photo is a sneaky shot of a component of the airframe. Specifically the nose-cone and forward portion of the craft. It's gray in color. Really, if you've seen an airplane before, you'll be just about as impressed.
So unless you're a competitor looking to derive secrets about SpaceShipTwo's construction, just move along. There's nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I clicked the link and got the article fine.
I am in Japan - I wonder if they are IP sniffing... (that's like - P sniffing, but your own... )
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So unless you're a competitor looking to derive secrets about SpaceShipTwo's construction, just move along. There's nothing to see here.
Have you ever wondered whether Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic were serious about this thing? Or how much that accident [spacetoday.net] almost a year ago set back things? Well this is a data point that indicates some construction (or "bending of metal") is going on. Peeks like this help us understand the progress of another otherwise secretive business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
looks like Darth Vader's personal fighter (Score:4, Informative)
So where..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of plane is it? (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory quotations:
Excuse me sir, there's been a little problem in the cockpit...
The cockpit...what is it?
It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilots sit, but that's not important right now.
You ever been in a cockpit before?
I've never been up in a plane before.
You ever seen a grown man naked?
Re: (Score:2)
Joey, do you like gladiator movies?
Re: (Score:2)
And Leon's getting larger.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what to make of that...
Re:What kind of plane is it? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm deadly serious. And don't call me Shirley.
Parent
Put the image in the post ! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the First Image (Score:4, Funny)
Farmer Joe's Truck? (Score:2)
Did they borrow farmer Joe's truck?
It's a bit disappointing to see such a high tech thing moved by the same truck that moved crates of oranges only days before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I think it's a smart move. It's a little known fact that private space exploration has failed to take off because most companies are still trying to come up with sufficiently futuristic-looking methods of moving spacecraft parts around before they can start work on the actual going into space bit.
While few doubt that Virgin will eventually need to come up with some sort of overly-aerodynamic truck design propelled by some sort of weird blue jets that cause it to both hover and move in any direc
Re:Farmer Joe's Truck? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I couldn't help but hear the ST:Enterprise theme song when looking at that picture and thinking (jokes about Enterprise quality aside) *this* is what should be happening.
What a heap of junk! (Score:3, Funny)
Cheers,
Ian
NOT the first photos of SS2 (Score:2)
Re:Don't click that link (Score:5, Informative)
And after only 4 comments, it's already slashdotted.
Searching on Google suggests the url was probably correct. The google cache link is here [64.233.183.104]
In case the image doesn't show up (google cache still loads images from origin site), here it is on imageshack [imageshack.us]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
<blushing>oops...</blushing>
Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
You're blushing about a typo, when your sig is about crushing a child's testicles?? :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)