Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
NASA Space Science

XCOR Aerospace Plans a Florida Base For Lynx Suborbital Spacecraft 19

Posted by timothy
from the lured-by-the-snakes-and-lizards dept.
New submitter RocketAcademy writes "With the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex as a backdrop, XCOR Aerospace has announced its intentions to establish an operational base for the Lynx spacecraft in Florida. Plans call for XCOR to begin initial operations from a Florida location in 2014 with the Lynx Mark I prototype. As market demand dictates, XCOR may also establish a manufacturing and assembly center for the production vehicle, designated Lynx Mark II."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XCOR Aerospace Plans a Florida Base For Lynx Suborbital Spacecraft

Comments Filter:
  • Florida's a good spot for them. There are no mountains for them to crash in to. Nice flat spaces to make very long runways. In fact, there might be a runway of unusual size that the government isn't using very much that they can use. Also, a handy supply of alligators to turn into a reptilian zombie worker army.

  • by MrEricSir (398214) on Thursday August 23, 2012 @05:07PM (#41101453) Homepage

    Isn't it time we upgraded our spacecraft to use modern GUI browsers?

    • by peragrin (659227)

      do you want to die just because flash crashed?

      I will stick with text based only for spacecraft GUI's for a while still.

  • ...is the favoritest word of these dick waving space morons

    btw believe it or not i'm a (pragmatic) space enthusiast
    • by khallow (566160)
      On your sig:

      just because we call them "laws of physics" doesn't mean the physical universe is always going to obey them

      it's worth keeping in mind that we call "laws of physics" that not because we expect the physical universe to obey rules we made up, but because the universe obeys them. If the universe should end up having more complex structure to it than we currently expect, then the new models will become the new "laws of physics", to stay that way unless something better in turn comes along.

      • by crutchy (1949900)

        because the universe obeys them

        assumption is the mother of all fuck ups

        the problem occurs when physicists (and anyone gullible enough to believe them) claim that perpetual motion is impossible because of the laws of thermodynamics, or that nothing can possibly travel faster than the speed of light because of relativity

        the laws of physics are useful, but they aren't meant to become a source of religious faith

        • The laws of physics aren't like the laws of <insert country here> - the laws of physics are inviolable. Plus, they're not a source of religious faith, based on the simple fact that the laws of physics have centuries of evidence to support them.
          • by crutchy (1949900)

            the laws of physics have centuries of evidence to support them

            ...under the limited conditions in which they were tested

          • by crutchy (1949900)
            christians and muslims etc truly believe their beliefs to be inviolable too... i would never ask you to give up on your faith in the laws of physics... i just don't personally share the belief that they are inviolable... just as scientists once believed that the world was flat, so too will the current "laws" of physics be tested in new ways and new beliefs will be developed to fill our gaps in understanding (such as string theory etc)
        • by khallow (566160)
          There's no assumption here, crutchy. They are called "laws of physics" because we observe the universe obeying them.

          the problem occurs when physicists (and anyone gullible enough to believe them) claim that perpetual motion is impossible because of the laws of thermodynamics, or that nothing can possibly travel faster than the speed of light because of relativity

          That is quite accurate except for your characterization of it as a "problem". That is one of the points to models, to be used to make predictions. And I might add here, there is actual evidence against perpetual motion and faster than light speeds. The former that perpetual motion requires a closed system with either no energy loss (something that has never been observed, but could in theory

  • Very vague news release. Anyone could say the same things.

    The only interesting part is where this group has removed an astronaut-candidate (not?) due to 1: letting a student post pictures of her in lingerie and 2: assaulting/attacking/biting someone and being arrested.

EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER

Working...