Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space United States Businesses

U.S. Okays Virgin Galactic Plans 188

Posted by Zonk from the everything-good-starts-in-wisconsin dept.
Aron writes "Space.com reports that the U.S. Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has approved collaboration of technical details between Scaled Composites of Mojave, California and Virgin Galactic of the United Kingdom to build passenger-carrying suborbital spaceliners. The next suborbital ship will be a nine person vessel." From the article: "Details about the new company were unveiled at the Experimental Aircraft Association's (EAA) AirVenture air show held July 25-31 in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The Spaceship Company will build a fleet of commercial suborbital spaceships and launch aircraft. Scaled Composites is to be under contract for research and development testing, as well as certification of a 9-person SpaceShipTwo (SS2) design, and a White Knight Two (WK2) mothership to be called Eve."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Okays Virgin Galactic Plans More

U.S. Okays Virgin Galactic Plans

Comments Filter:

  • Judging from the headline... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gardyloo ( 512791 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @04:42PM (#13334029)
    ...finally, News for Nerds!
    • Geeks in Space [slashdot.org], anyone? Only this time, send them up in real space.

      (And make sure as hell that CowboyNeal is wearing a tinfoil hat up there, cause if he doesn't, the space rays will turn him into a child-eating monster -- just like it happened to Andrei Chikatilo, the Russian cosmonaut)

      • "Real space"? If you count suborbital as real space simply because it's a near vaccuum, then yes. Otherwise, no, not even close [daughtersoftiresias.org]. :)

        To all of the people who want to cheer on private enterprise as far as space goes, you're barking up the wrong tree. Boeing and Lockheed, for example, have been producing real, orbital rockets for ages. For smaller companies, there's Orbital's Pegasus and SeaLaunch's Zenit, both built on existing tech but custom developed. For upcoming, look to the mostly-from-scratch Falc
        • To all of the people who want to cheer on private enterprise as far as space goes, you're barking up the wrong tree. Boeing and Lockheed, for example, have been producing real, orbital rockets for ages

          Now hang on, have they had an original idea since 1970? Or if they have, was the poor sod who came up with it able to get the draft past the marketing wall? I may be experiencing a cynic atttack at the moment, but I can't believe either of those firms would ever let a simple, cheap idea get past the account

        • And which of these private orbital spacecraft carry people?

          • If you think that that developing a *pressurized cabin* is harder than (or even comparable to) developing an *orbital rocket*, I've got some swampland I'd like to sell you.
        • throw current launch prices for a loop

          Maybe that's not the right tack [launchloop.com] either...
      • Geeks in Space? No. Virgins in space.
        Oh, wait...
    • I'm pretty sure they can scale up a sub-orbital craft without many major engineering issues... but what i would like to know is their plans-goals for their "Orbital" craft. Thats when the fun begins. !!! Just waiting... for my one way trip !!!
      • Well, the plans begin with "new engines of a completely different types and far greater complexity", continues on to "new fuel tanks of completely different types", which causes the "completely new body" requirements, and it goes from there.

        The ISP is too low and the mass too high to scale up anywhere close to orbital. They're going to have to start over if they actually want to go orbital, and take on a far, far more expensive and difficult challenge.
        • You forgot the real biggie, "figure out how to design a reusable space plane that can withstand the heat of reentry and which is light enough to launch cheaply", compared to that the new engine is childs play, remember that as cool as Rutan's stunt was it only worked because the plane did not get high enough for reentry to be a big deal.

  • Sending Slashdot virgins to space (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @04:43PM (#13334040)
    Oh yeah baby, I'm going next!

  • From the size of that black hole in the center... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...it's pretty clear our galaxy is lying about being a virgin.

  • First off... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Before we hear about the blabbering crap that this is going to spell the death knell for NASA, please do remember these "spaceships" are only able to go a fraction up into space that shuttles do and even a smaller amount of payload. All you yapping around how commercial spacecraft are just around the corner (not this sightseeing stuff) really need to understand scales of economy.

    • Re:First off... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @05:16PM (#13334331) Homepage
      Ah....

      But if you launch... say 500 lbs to space at $100/lb and compare that to 50,000 lbs to space at $10,000/lb.... that changes a lot of scales of econonomy as well. Likewise, SS2 is supposed to go up higher, therefore narrowing the gap to orbit.

      You don't need to do everything the shuttle does to revolutionize space travel. In fact, it's probably easier if you don't try to.

      • Re:First off... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by taustin ( 171655 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @05:34PM (#13334469) Homepage Journal
        You don't need to do everything the shuttle does to revolutionize space travel. In fact, it's probably easier if you don't try to.

        You do, however, have to be able to achieve orbit, and return in one piece.

        Rutan's technology simply isn't capable of it. Not enough delta-vee. In other words, the fuel they use can't launch it's own weight in to orbit.

        Orbit takes about ten times as much energy per pound as the parabolic flight they did with SS1.

        Plus, they technology they used to build the air frame could not possibly withstand the heat or mechanical stress of reentry at orbital speeds. It'd disintegrate on impact with the upper atmosphere.

        They've got a long way to go for orbital capability.
        • Ah, but I'm not talking about taking the SS1 and "scaling it up" to reach orbit. I'm talking about progressively larger orbital launch vehicles as a "side effect" of Virgin Galactic.

          I have a vauge feeling that it's cheaper to get a tank full of kerosine than it is to get the equivelent energy's worth of a rubber hybrid rocket core. Even though SS2 doesn't go to orbit, at some point along the way, it's going to start to make a lot more sense for them to invest in a set of liquid-fueled rocket engines, assu
        • they technology they used to build the air frame could not possibly withstand the heat or mechanical stress of reentry at orbital speeds. It'd disintegrate on impact with the upper atmosphere.

          I often hear that complaint, but I always wonder about it. The atmosphere gradually thins as altitude increases right? Is it necessary to reenter as fast as the shuttle? Can you slowly decrease the altitude and use the thin atmosphere to slowly loose velocity? Perhaps use the geometry of the vehicle to generate lift

      • Re:First off... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @05:39PM (#13334502) Homepage
        narrowing the gap to orbit

        *Not even close*. SS2 is going to 135-140km straight vertical. About 90% of the energy of a craft in orbit is horizontal, and the other 10% verticle; the minimum LEO orbit is around 250km. You do the math.

        Listing price per pound on something that goes nowhere useful and doesn't even come close to scaling to somewhere useful is pretty pointless.
        • Wow, I really can't spell today...

          I shuold porff raed more otfen.
        • Just out of curiosity, is there any value in considering re-use of any of the mothballed SR-71 technology to claw back some of that horizontal component? Those suckers can move. How would they compare to the SC mothership? Swords to ploughshares...
          • The SR-71s weren't nicely preserved, so it wouldn't be very likely that anybody would be able to get them back operational again. Same problem as resurecting any other piece of antiquated equipment -- even though we've got the plans and we may even still have the hardware, spares aren't easy to find, and if you don't sit down and properly preserve parts, they'll rot away.

            The last time they tried to launch something off of a SR-71, it didn't end so well. Supersonic seperation is harder than you'd think.
            • I have also heard that we no longer have the plans for the SR-71; apparently, they were burned so the Soviets (or maybe the Republicans) wouldn't get them. Several pages listed on this Google search [google.com] mention that the plans, dies, etc. were ordered destroyed in 1968.

    • Re:First off... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by webjonesin ( 453397 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @06:19PM (#13334815)
      You might want to consider what they accomplished...

      For a budget of about $20 million, they did three missions that approximately matched what Alan Shepard did. And...they got to keep the whole rocket.

      And you really need to understand the human spirit...NASA ain't going away, but neither are the dreamers.

      • Re:First off... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Zorgoth ( 68241 )
        They did something amazing and my hat is off to them, however, it is silly to compare that to Alan Shepard. Technological difference besides Shepard went to 116 statute miles (according to Nasa) above the earth and Scaled Composites made just under 64 statute miles (according to Scaled's press release). Twice as high is quite a difference.

  • Texas has the best chance (Score:5, Informative)

    by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @04:49PM (#13334098) Homepage Journal
    From TFA:
    The location to produce the fleet of rocket planes is very likely to be Mojave, California. ?That?s where we expect to be in production,? Whitehorn said, although the takeoff site of Virgin Galactic?s public space trips is a different matter. ... ?We are already in discussion with a number of states in the United States,? Whitehorn said

    When they say "a number of states", I think the number is close to 1. Texas has laws on the books establishing "Spaceport Development Corporations" with the authority to levy taxes, and the three locations [state.tx.us] that have established these SDCs all have big advantages over anyplace else in the US:

    * One is in the middle of nowhere, for early testing (which might include Things Blowing Up).

    * One is an hour away from Houston, for when suborbital and orbital commercial flights become routine.

    * One is not-too-far away and offers launching above water, for flights after "experimental" but before "routine".

    For further reference, this Houston Chronicle [chron.com] article name-drops about everyone remotely involved in a private space project, from Amazon's Jeff Bezos to Carmack to Armadillo/Id Guy John Carmack.
    • we've been building tubes to carry people up to high altitudes for years, have rail connections, and a high number of people who understand British humor and can spell colour and centre correctly.

      Think of Boeing, the Space Needle, and some award winning billionaires who already sent rockets to space.

      And we don't mind travelling to British possessions for the space launch either, as we have tons (metric) of people who go to the UK frequently.

      • its gotta be in the south (Score:4, Informative)

        by rebelcool ( 247749 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @05:43PM (#13334538)
        the closer to the equator you are, the less energy you need to expend to get into space as you can use the earth's rotational velocity to propel you up there. So you have less fuel or more cargo. Some commercial launches take this to its extreme and launch off converted oil platforms in the ocean, which are towed to the equator by tugboats.

        Of course, there are other considerations. Nasa uses cape canaveral because not only is it very far south, its surrounded by water on 3 sides meaning launch mishaps are less likely to damage anything. And the water location means barges can deliver components too big for truck or rail to deliver, like booster engines and fuel tanks.

        The weather is also a factor. Mojave is popular because the weather there is pretty boring and its sparse land.

        • Re:its gotta be in the south (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          >>the closer to the equator you are, the less energy you need to expend to get into space as you can use the earth's rotational velocity to propel you up there.

          This is meaningful only for attaining orbit - not for suborbital hops.

        • Re:its gotta be in the south (Score:4, Interesting)

          by afidel ( 530433 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @07:52PM (#13335521)
          Actually the Shuttle's SRB's are sized to fit on rails, and there's an interesting tale relating that back to ancient times:

          American railroad tracks are 56.5" wide (the "gauge") because the English built the first railroads in America and they use that width. Why do they use that width? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used. Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that were used for building wagons which used that wheel spacing.

          Why did wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Because older wagon ruts throughout England used that spacing, and if they changed it, wagon wheels would break falling into or being forced out of the old ruts, which were 56.5" wide.

          The old ruts were that size because the roads were built by the Romans, who arrived in England in 54 BC and left about 400 AD. Their wagons, and their chariots before their wagons, used that spacing, and that spacing was used all over Europe and wherever Rome conquered, because their wagons used the identical wheel base everywhere. So the modern railroad track width derives from the Roman chariot.

          Why was the Roman chariot track width 56.5"? Because that was the width of a chariot that would equal the width of two "standard" Roman horses. Specifications and bureaucracies live forever!

          Such curious dimensions continue today. A space shuttle sitting on its launch pad has two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs, made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory had to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is just wide enough to accomodate a railroad car, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses' behinds, (and we now know why) so the booster rockets were made to fit.

          The major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined by the width of a horse's ass, and the political necessity of building different components in different states (the third ass in the tale being the boobs in Washington).
        • the closer to the equator you are, the less energy you need to expend to get into space as you can use the earth's rotational velocity to propel you up there. So you have less fuel or more cargo

          You've got part of the story. The real deal is that the minimum energy required to get into an orbit with inclination (x) comes when you launch from the LATITUDE of x, thus taking off due east.

          Failing that, launching from some latitude LESS THAN the desired inclination, and launching at the angle (above a line paral
      • Here for example : http://ast.faa.gov/linfo_vsite/maps/detail.cfm?Fac _ID=58>Moses Lake Spaceport

    • Fat chance. Try the Mojave desert. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @05:06PM (#13334255) Journal
      Mojave is where they did all the R&D. Mojave is a spaceport already. It would make sense to open up shop there. There are other spaceports already in existance - Oklahoma spaceport has been in existance for six years now.

      Burt Rutan gave a speech at an AIAA conference and one prototype trajectory he gave showed launching over the Pacific ocean and landing in Mojave. Lots of pretty scenery (ocean and desert) lots of good abort options, and you wind up where the hangar is.

      -everphilski-

    • Re:Texas has the best chance (Score:4, Interesting)

      by pavon ( 30274 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @05:17PM (#13334343)
      Yeah, as much as I would like to see this stuff happening in New Mexico, I think this space port plan that Richardson is putting forth is not going to succeed. While southern New Mexico has tons of empty space, which is great for the risk factor, it is in the middle of the middle of nowhere. There are several other places in the US that have big baren deserts or open oceans that are much nearer to large population centers. Places like south-east California, surrounding Houston, any coastal area (provided weather is not a concern).

      Personally I think that Mojave is going to be the fist hub. A huge portion of your target market is right there is Southern California. Scaled already has relationships with all the regulatory people that could help or hurt them. They will probably expand to multiple sites after things get off the ground, but it just makes sense to start right where they are.

      Regardless, unless other states really drag their feet, or are completely inflexable regarding taxes, I don't think NM has much of a chance of becoming a staging ground for commercial space flight.
    • When they say "a number of states", I think the number is close to 1.

      I am too amost sure that the number is closer to one than to fifty.
    • And afternoon thunderstorms pretty much everyday for a good part of the year.

      I admit I am highly biased against Houston :~) Stepped off a plane in early august and about passed out. And heat is a big deal for gliders.

      And regarding working with an existing space port, there is no way in hell Rutan would do it. I just can't see it happening. Why? Because he doesn't build anything that NEEDS that kind of infrastructure. So a good chunk of his space rent would be paying for things that he wouldn't use.

      Anyway, I

  • OKs technology exchange, not flight plans (Score:5, Informative)

    by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @04:50PM (#13334110) Homepage Journal
    Since Virgin Galactic isn't a US company, the Department of Defense has a say in whether Scaled Composites can send them certain technological information, under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (the same rules that make those crypto t-shirts "munitions").

    It's not surprising that they passed, since VG is a British company, and the Brits are the good guys. Presumably some guarantees have been made that this isn't going to turn into plans for cruise missiles for Iranians.

    So they haven't been given the go-ahead to fly, just to begin collaboration. They still have to come up with the actual spacecraft, and then there's a whole new set of approvals before they can fly the things.

  • At last? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Poromenos1 ( 830658 )
    I believe that getting private companies in the space race will be beneficial in the end. It's better if you have many people experimenting on something than just having one person. It just remains to see what will happen.

  • Virgins in space (Score:5, Funny)

    by multi-flavor-geek ( 586005 ) <textonly&cpinternet,com> on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @04:51PM (#13334112) Homepage Journal
    So, who is going to be the first member of the sixty mile high club?

  • What I want (Score:5, Interesting)

    by varmittang ( 849469 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @04:52PM (#13334127)
    Is to actually go some place. Fly from NY to Paris in a matter of and hour. Not just to go up, OOOOO, AAAAAA, the stars, weightlessness, then come back down to the place I just left. I want to actually travel if I end up going into space.
    • Would be great. The baggage allowances will probably be horribly low (as in ~= none), though. But a credit card, passport and toothbrush are all you need anyway :) Then just take a nice business class commercial airplane back to carry all the stuff you bought back home.

    • Re:What I want (Score:4, Informative)

      by demachina ( 71715 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @06:52PM (#13335059)
      Then maybe this [transformspace.com] would be more your style. Its the design for the CXV, a proposed crew transfer vehicle to to get 4 people to and from LEO and the ISS, also being worked on by Scaled Composites along with Transformational Space. Currently its under a small NASA contract, that is a lesser known little brother to the CEV, though you can tell this is intended to be the orbital successor to SpaceShipOne and they want to use it for private space travel. I'm hoping they can scrape together the funds to make it a reality.

      They've drop tested a 23% scale model launch stack at Mojave, and dropped tested the capsule parachute system off Crescent City, CA.

      The Airforce is funding the Falcon two stage launch vehicle under its QuickReach program. Its fuled by LOX and Propane. Its a VAPAK pressure fed system with no expensive turbopumps. You heat the fuel and build up pressure in the tank instead of using pumps. This isn't viable for launch for sea level but works great for air launches.

      So of course this craft is also air launched like SpaceShipOne for a lot of reasons listed on the web site. A big challenge is they need either a very large new version of White Knight or a used 747 with major changes to the landing gear to accomadate slinging the spacecraft underneath it.

      The capsule is based on scaled up version of the well proven Discover/Corona capsules used 400+ times to return film from spy satellites. The capsule is reusable with minor refurbishment between launches. It uses 2 layers of SIRCA thermal tiles developed at NASA Ames. It ocean lands with parachutes like Apollo, partially since this make it possible to safely land on 2/3rds of the Earth's surface in an emergency.

    • Is to actually go some place. Fly from NY to Paris in a matter of and hour. Not just to go up, OOOOO, AAAAAA, the stars, weightlessness, then come back down to the place I just left. I want to actually travel if I end up going into space.

      Of course you do. That's what we all want.

      But we'll never get there until a bunch of rich folks fork over a couple-of-hundred grand on what you just described. Hopefully, once commercial companies figure out how to do it, we'll all get those kind of flights.

      It'll probably

  • Hmm, space travel. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Graviteh ( 907587 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @04:55PM (#13334155)
    "And on the right, you will see foam flying off."

  • This reminds me of the old 'space race' (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Banner ( 17158 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @05:13PM (#13334311) Journal
    Think of it, we have one company now that will soon be selling rides on a sub-orbital craft. How long will it be before a competitor steps up and offers LEO rides?

    If Virgin Galactic makes money at this, you know others will enter the business. I hope this turns into something really cool... and hopefully something I can afford!

    • Re:This reminds me of the old 'space race' (Score:4, Informative)

      by taustin ( 171655 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @05:28PM (#13334423) Homepage Journal
      Think of it, we have one company now that will soon be selling rides on a sub-orbital craft. How long will it be before a competitor steps up and offers LEO rides?

      A long, long while. The technology used on SS1 is utterly incapable of getting anything to orbit. The amount of energy to achieve orbit is about ten times what it took for the parabolic flight SS1 managed. The fuel used simply cannot provide enough thrust to get itself to orbit, much less itself plus a spaceship plus a payload.

      There are also huge differences in the mechanical stresses involved in reentering the atmosphere at suborbital speeds and at orbital speeds. SS1 hitting the atmosphere at orbital speeds, would be confetti in seconds.

      They've got a long way to go.
    • Think of it, we have one company now that will soon be selling rides on a sub-orbital craft. How long will it be before a competitor steps up and offers LEO rides?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX [wikipedia.org]

      While currently focused on the launch of unmanned spacecraft, SpaceX has announced that it plans to pursue a manned commercial space program through the end of the decade. SpaceX seeks to win America's Space Prize, which will award $50 million to the first U.S. company that launches at least 5 astronauts on a p
    • Elon Musk's Falcon V is supposed to be man-rateable, so who knows...
      Of course he still has to launch the first Falcon I, but given the serious contracts he already has in his pocket, he must inspire a lot of confidence in professional circles.

      It won't be anywhere as cheap as a SS1/2 ride, though. And I guess his company won't organize trips itself, but 'merely' sell their rocket and services.

  • Referral URL (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kevmo ( 243736 )
    Why is the URL for Virgin Galactic bounced through Google? It seems that a submitter using Slashdot to get advertising referrals should have been caught by the editors.
    • People continue to use the word "editor". I don't think it means what they think it mean, at least not on /.

    • Re:Referral URL (Score:2, Informative)

      by comwiz56 ( 447651 )
      That link does not appear to be advertisement related in any way. Google randomly rotates certain block of IP addresses to have modified links on their search results so Google can track outgoing hits. It's like that the submitter just Googled for Virgin Galactic URL and didn't bother to notice that he had a modified link.

  • I see how it works... (Score:4, Funny)

    by burtdub ( 903121 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @05:14PM (#13334322)
    They approve it if it's called virgin, not if it's called .xxx

    I'm on to their little game.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Wisconsin Represent! (Score:4, Informative)

      by fgodfrey ( 116175 ) <fgodfrey@bigw.org> on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @05:49PM (#13334582) Homepage
      Well, it's got an airfield with a long enough runway to land most large jets (I've seen 747's, C5's, and the big Russian cargo jets there(*)). Even the Concord was able to land/take off there. The airport isn't that busy so it can basically be dedicated to just the airshow the entire week.

      Besides, given that it's a fly-in, I suspect that part of the appeal to the pilots is that they get to fly someplace to go to it :)

      A complete history can be found here . [airventure.org]

      (*) I grew up in Ripon, WI under the approach route. Having a C5 suddenly go over your house in a location where the largest plane normally going over is a crop duster is quite an experience....
      • Having a C5 suddenly go over your house in a location where the largest plane normally going over is a crop duster is quite an experience..

        Decades ago I worked for Logisticon (in Mountain View iirc). I walked in one morning at 11am (usual starting time) and a moment later I heard someone over the PA system say "There is no cause for alarm.". Just that. (I loved that company). Walked back outside (who wouldn't, after a confidence-inspiring message like that?) to see a B-52 aimed directly at me. After the

  • So... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ENOENT ( 25325 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @05:34PM (#13334466) Homepage Journal
    How long until we can have ballistic 45 minute rides from Los Angeles to Tokyo?
  • Suborbital space ships, the pinnacle so far of this company, who have the gall to call themselves "galactic". Ha!
  • A White Knight called Eve??? Even Monty Python would not sink that low...
  • ... it'd be kinda lame to go up in space and have some fatty blocking your view.
  • I mean, after several HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of people have ridden it, doesn't it cease to be called "Virgin"?

    Or is it like that whole white-wedding-dress thing?

Slashdot Top Deals

Never let someone who says it cannot be done interrupt the person who is doing it.

Close