First Flight For SpaceShipTwo 190
mknewman writes "Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo rocket plane took to the air for the first time this [Monday] morning from California's Mojave Air and Space Port. The craft, which has been christened the VSS Enterprise, remained firmly attached to its WhiteKnightTwo carrier airplane throughout the nearly three-hour test flight. It will take many months of further tests before SpaceShipTwo actually goes into outer space. Nevertheless, today's outing marks an important milestone along a path that could take paying passengers to the final frontier as early as 2011 or 2012."
Space with no space (Score:3, Insightful)
I spent my honeymoon in Hawaii. I don't think I ever left the hotel room, much less the hotel.
It was enjoyable, but did I really enjoy Hawaii?
Re:Space with no space (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Being in a space suite is as close as we'll ever come to enjoying a 1 on 1 with good ole father space.
From what I hear, these guys are going to be offering basically one small chair per person, and maybe a little floating around room. I think expecting an entire suite to yourself is a bit much at this stage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I wasn't referring to Virgin Galactic when mentioning the space suites.
A space suite would be very nice, while a space suit would be bordering on cosy, or possibly claustrophobic.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF, none of you geeks has filked lyrics for "A Spacesuit Built for Two" yet?!!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, when you look at this proposed space suite [wikipedia.org] isn't it conceptually just a large space suit?
Considering that module has the same interior volume as 1/3rd of the ISS, I'd have to say no.
On the other hand, the BA-330 might allow you to do something like the Battle Room of Ender's Game [wikipedia.org] Even on a more modest scale than the novel, that would be something genuinely unique as an experience. Certainly floating in a room large enough that you can't touch the walls would be an amazing experience.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just highlighting the closest method while still being alive . . .
and the closest method while being dead is . . . ? I'm thinking canons and space cremation!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uuum, you can easily survive outer space while completely nude, for at least 30 seconds. It was already done, and NASA even has a FAQ about it. (In short: Keep your mouth OPEN and everything DRY, or you will burst and freeze. But if done right, you only get a swelling of your fingers and face, which returns to normal in a couple of hours. Btw: Radiation is the main problem.)
Which makes some seemingly unrealistic movies pretty realistic and cool.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to add that you WILL vacate your bowels and your bladder - in other words you will be crapping and pissing yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Being in a space suite is as close as we'll ever come to enjoying a 1 on 1 with good ole father space.
A space en-suite, perhaps? With a nice space opera playing on the monolith - perhaps some Ligeti.
Re:Space with no space (Score:4, Funny)
For an extra $50k, I am sure they would be willing to push you out into open space.
Who wants to start the collection?
Re:Space with no space (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder what the probability is that a passing spacecraft would rescue you after 30 seconds exposed to vacuum?
Re:Space with no space (Score:5, Funny)
2 to the negative power of a phone number.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel really screwed with my 978 area code... what terrible odds.
Re: (Score:2)
? It's 1 then?
0 qualifies as a phone number with many carriers and will get you an operator.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It really is the biggest perk of working as a telephone operator...
Re: (Score:2)
We just need to chuck a few trillion people out of space ships...
Re: (Score:2)
For an extra $50k, I am sure they would be willing to push you out into open space.
Who wants to start the collection?
Hell, they'll do it for free. Just sign right here on this life insurance policy.
Re:Space with no space (Score:4, Insightful)
Space experience (Score:2)
Take a deep breath and smell the beautiful vacuum. Can you see it?
Re: (Score:2)
I spent my honeymoon in Hawaii. I don't think I ever left the hotel room, much less the hotel.
It was enjoyable, but did I really enjoy Hawaii?
Well, it sounds like you did...;-)
Next up, 'private' flights for those wishing to join the '68 mile-high' club?
(At least that's how high they're claiming it will go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_two [wikipedia.org])
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a shame that the SS2 only gets you to zero-g for a small amount of time, i would love to do a couple or orbits (say 3 orbits, 5 hour flight time)
Indeed, unfortunately it's a whole different ballgame technically to go orbital than just straight up and fall down again, far greater stresses on the vehicle that's needed to be taken into consideration. :-)
Hoping that if SS2 takes of economically then matbe SS3 will do proper orbital flights
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
that's what i am hoping, although i dont know if the take-off mode (horizontal air launch) will work for achieving orbit. If it doesnt work, then SS3 would need to be a conventional straight up rocket, which will hamper R&D, since virgin has done zilch in that area
Re: (Score:2)
True that,
hmmm, maybe next step is to go suborbital and combine travel and pleasure. do intercontinental flights within the hours and with around 25 minutes of freefall, that would still be an incredible experience
Re: (Score:2)
If branson is devoting the same focus and resources to virgin galactic as he has to my broadband, take your own pressure suit and parachute.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. After you inflate her, give her some Rohypnol.
They had to go and name it Enterprise... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They had to go and name it Enterprise... (Score:5, Funny)
Please see this post [slashdot.org] for the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
It is like one of those time travel conundrums - did we name it Enterprise because we saw the future, or was the future influenced by what we named it here in the present?
Does it really matter? I mean, they could make a movie that everybody has seen and loved that explains how the time line was altered and how the ship came to be known as Enterprise, but everybody will still bitch about how some guy made the whole thing up.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Even more problematic -- now they have to go back and change all the Star Trek movies and episodes, where some cast member explains "all these vessels were named Enterprise". I know it happened in ST:TMP, and probably in at least one Next Gen episode...
They'll have to CGI in some other spaceships into the display. Heck, Star Trek violated it's own continuity by naming the NX-01 'Enterprise', when the NX-01 wasn't visible in the display in ST:TMP.
Ah... nevermind! It's just a frickin' TV show.
Space sickness? (Score:4, Informative)
So how many people are going to pay $200K to ride in this thing, and then ask for their money back because they spent the flight puking their guts out?
I mean, for the same cash, I could rent a MiG-29 for a couple days and have a hell of a time.
http://www.flyfighterjet.com/ [flyfighterjet.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just like on Zero-G flights, spaceflight participants are informed of both the risks and the likely side effects of their trip before flying. They're required to sign a legally binding document which states that they understand and accept those risks. Legislation has been passed to ensure that these agreements are sufficient to defeat any subsequent tort action. As such, they can ask as much as they like.
Or, to put it another way: plenty of people are interested in flying under these conditions, if you'r
Re: (Score:2)
So how many people are going to pay $200K to ride in this thing, and then ask for their money back because they spent the flight puking their guts out?
None, because iiiiiiin spaaaaaaaace! even being sick is awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
So how many people are going to pay $200K to ride in this thing, and then ask for their money back because they spent the flight puking their guts out?
So what? They aren't going to get the money back, because that is the experience they knowingly signed up for.
Link to marketing video (Score:4, Informative)
YouTube link [youtube.com].
Could design-by-committee achieved this? (Score:2)
I know next to nothing about the aerospace industry (hope someone more knowledgeable will opine), but it seems to me Burt Rutan [wikipedia.org] and his ilk produce these wonderful machines faster, and at lower cost, than the big boys with their big design committees can.
--
Where are the canards, btw?
Re: (Score:2)
True. If they launch in 2011, you could say that it took private industry 50 years to recreate what NASA did.
Re: (Score:2)
What Rutan is doing is impressive, but it is nowhere near what "the big boys with their big design committees" were doing fifty years ago. SpaceShips One and Two are piggybacking on decades of NASA and other government space research. This is a good thing; it's exactly how technology transfer is supposed to work. Just understand it for what it is.
Better headline (Score:3, Funny)
A much better headline for the article would have been "Virgin spaceship gets its cherry popped".
Re:Better headline (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, the cherry will be popped when it actually gets up into space. This is more like a first kiss, with no tongue.
One small step for man... (Score:5, Insightful)
1960's - humankind put people into space and then put them around and then on the Moon.
1970's - humankind stopped bothering putting them on the Moon, but did put them in high orbit - Skylab
1980's - humankind dumped Skylab into the sea (and Western Australia) but brought in the shuttle
1990's - humankind used the Shuttle to get people into low earth orbit and started to build the International Space Station
2000's - humankind decides to retire Shuttle and considers retiring the ISS
2010's - humankind lifts people to the edge of the atmosphere.
At this rate by the time I'm retired, humankind will have set its sights for the top of the stairs. It may make it - but only if its risk-free.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get this all in perspective. I was born in the mid 1960's.
1960's - humankind put people into space and then put them around and then on the Moon.
1970's - humankind stopped bothering putting them on the Moon, but did put them in high orbit - Skylab
1980's - humankind dumped Skylab into the sea (and Western Australia) but brought in the shuttle
1990's - humankind used the Shuttle to get people into low earth orbit and started to build the International Space Station
2000's - humankind decides to retire Shuttle and considers retiring the ISS
2010's - humankind lifts people to the edge of the atmosphere.
At this rate by the time I'm retired, humankind will have set its sights for the top of the stairs. It may make it - but only if its risk-free.
Very true. I was born at the end of the '60s, and missed most of the fun. I still lived in hope humankind will do something just as great someday, and looked for the USA for it. Seems to me that we'll have to look elsewhere - the US is only interested to put rich dudes into LEO. Fuck that.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is only interested to put rich dudes into LEO. Fuck that.
Well, I am all for it.
Oh, we are bringing them back? Fuck that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mention Skylab and forget about a 15 year experiment with a space station before the ISS [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just off the top of my head, here are a few firsts from the Americans:
*First man in to travel to space and land in the space capsule. (Al Shepard --Gagarin parachuted to his landing)
*First rendezvous in space.
*First docking in space.
*First manned ship to leave Earth orbit.
*First manned ship to orbit the Moon.
The Russian
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The propaganda machine doesn't care about books (the general public doesn't read enough of them for anyone to care). It's film and TV that matter. And in that field you'll be VERY hard-pressed to find anything that mentions the Soviet space program in anything more than passing (if at all). "The Right Stuff" gives Sputnik about 30 seconds (guess Cosmonauts didn't have the right stuff), "From the Earth to the Moon" pretty much ignores them altogether (hey, where could they find the time to fit them in with a
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that 'humankind' was a euphemism for 'The USA'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One small step for man... (Score:4, Informative)
Skylab was in Low Earth Orbit. It never got more than 275 miles from Earth. It would have been better to say:
1970's - humankind gave up on going farther from Earth than LEO.
Re: (Score:2)
Before, messages traveled hand to hand via couriers. Eventually we replaced much of it with the telegraph, faxes and Internet where only the message is going but the people stay put. We didn't stop exploring space, neither did we stop bringing the knowledge home. I have seen far more of Mars via the Mars rovers than I ever saw of the moon from the moon landing. We have gone from 0 to ~443 known exoplanets in the last 15 years. We have sent many probes to places humans surely could not survive and that'd be
Re: (Score:2)
12 eh? Try 35.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.. all those figures were completely misquoted by the media. Every private astronaut who has flown through Space Adventures has paid between 30 and 35 million to Energia.. Dennis Tito (because of his previous failed attempts with Mircorp) and Greg Olson (because of his health issues) have paid between 50 and 55 million. And none of these figures include the travel to and from Star City, or the time they've had to take off work for training there - which is quite significant, when you consider that it
Getting Spaceship Two to escape velocity (Score:2, Interesting)
The high cost to the human race's colonization of space is caused by the complexity and danger of reaching and leaving escape velocity within the earth's atmosphere.
The Space Shuttle turned out to be an expensive dangerous white elephant, the reason the Shuttle was so expensive is, because of its complexity with millions of different manufactured parts and the requirement to drag the fuel needed to reach escape velocity up from the surface of the earth.
There is another route, we can reach the vacuum of spac
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no. We don't do escape speed "within the earth's atmosphere". Never have, and doubt we ever will (it would take a continuous 62 gravities acceleration to reach escape speed before we left the atmosphere).
The high cost to the human race's colonization of space is mostly limited by the need for an enormous amount of upfront costs - we need
Gerry Anderson celebrates! (Score:2)
If only Derek Meddings were alive today. Take a look at that first picture in the linked article (from the underside), and tell me that's not something straight out of Thunderbirds or UFO, or Captian Scarlet...
Anyone who's ever looked at the Mechanical Designs of the Gerry Anderson shows always thought they were elegant, and yet, somehow unpractical or unworkable has now been shown that the design work over in England was waaaaay ahead of their time.
Either that, or Burt Rutan is the biggest Thunderb
Re: (Score:2)
Rich Person's Toy (Score:2)
Me smells a sales pitch.
Yup. Impressive. But still "just" a rich person's toy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Impressive. But still "just" a rich person's toy.
As was the car, the television, the mobile phone, and a bunch of other stuff that we now take for granted. If people with money to spare didn't go out and keep the market ticking over when nobody else could afford them, the market would have developed a lot more slowly.
Having said that, I think there is more novelty than utility in a trip to outer space.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to want to fly from London to LA in 90 minutes. And no market for the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Concorde isn't flying in part due to the so-called security screenings in airports (I'll concede that point) and because it was simply getting old. With the crash of the Concorde in France, the needed changes to make the vehicle safer and to bring it up to date simply weren't economical.
The other problem is that the range of the Concorde was incredibly limited. The New York to London route was pretty much near its routine operational flying range, and certainly couldn't get to Los Angeles or South America
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sub-Orbital == Final Frontier? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nonsense. The problem with the space race is that it was unsustainable. There was no way any nation would maintain that kind of spending for an extended period of time. We were spedning around three percent of GDP... for something with intangible payback.
Now, we have the chance at sustainable flights into space. If this actually succeeds, and we have many flights going up every month... and if we actually get more than one company in this game... we will see gradual improvements. Instead of being a money pit, it will be a money generator. And that is where real progress is at.
Re:Sub-Orbital == Final Frontier? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that this exploration was really a way of finding more natural resources to exploit. It is doubtful that any space exploration will get us that in the next several decades.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Doubtful. The Louisianna purchase cost us around $15 Million, and a good part of that was cancelling French debt (so not a hard dollar expenditure). It doubled the size of our nation at that time. Considering out national debt at the time was around 90 Million, 15 million more was a drop in the bucket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please cite a source for the Louisiana Purchase costing 3% of GDP.
And getting back to the original point: This purchase was a way to get more resources to exploit (as well as control ones neighbors... we didn't want the Spanish there). Going to space gets us nothing as far as resources to exploit.
So, whole point to the thread.... governments tend to have very short attention spans for projects that do not have an economic benefit. If we can find a way to make money by visiting space, we will find that we vi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are we opening a trade route? (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole point of funding Columbus was to see if they could open up a new line of trade which would prove very lucrative. It was an investment. If Columbus made it to India, Spain would get back far more than they paid.
Where is the big financial payoff for going into space? If we get to Mars, how is that going to provide a financial windfall for the country that does it?
We don't spend a lot of money on space exploration because the potential ROI is near zero. We should be dumping money into exploring E
Re: (Score:2)
> If we get to Mars, how is that going to provide a financial windfall for the country that does it?
OK instead of the economic benefits of going to space how about sending to space
How about we send choice politicians to Mars? One way/return...
The following domains were available when I last checked:
votethemofftheplanet.org
votethemofftheplanet.com
I'm sure more than a few viewers might be interested in such a reality TV show too
I'd be will
Re: (Score:2)
The moon has about 100x the concentration of Helium3 on earth. Since He3 holds the promise of truly clean fusion power (no radioactive byproducts), it seems pretty likely to be of high value in the next 50 to 100 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sub-Orbital == Final Frontier? (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of being a money pit, it will be a money generator. And that is where real progress is at.
I know everyone here knows this and ponder on the below once in a while but let me say this again in case someone never thought about it..
You notice this whole thread, the money spent, received, progress, the whole construct, is like a tiny little noise on this tiny little round ball of rock. Debating whether spaceflight is "profitable" only makes sense within this ball of rock. Benefiting us rock people, to do more within the confine of the ball.
The Apollo mission, can be seen as PR for the cold war, benefiting the people on the rock. But to our dear astronauts who'd been on the moon, I can confidently guess that the gratitude they have is something beyond which doesn't benefit anyone here. It wasn't money, technology, making your boss more money. It was the pure love and happiness of being "out there". To even start to go to space, and be in space, we must stop thinking about how it'll benefit us down here. There're many things you can do instead of flying to space. Bill Gates' doing some good without spaceflight. Spaceflight opens our minds. It does not buy you a Royale with Cheese.
Ok back to Star Trek TNG :)
Re: (Score:2)
My view is that this is some variation of advocating pyramid projects. That is, the advocate wants to build an expensive, useless thing which allegedly will have some sort of inspirational value which will magically counter the staggering cost.
My view is that requiring space activities to have a concrete,
Re: (Score:2)
Yes sir. And that's the sad position we're in at the moment :)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile back in the real world...
I would summarize and say that all progress has happened for either profit, survival or to impress the opposite sex. The last one only occurs when you have an excess of resources, the first 2 essentially come down to the same thing, can more be extracted from the endeavor than the endeavor cost; i.e. economic viability.
However much you may like the fantasy world of star trek it isn't real life and there is no way we can go out there and stay out there unless it is worthwhi
Re:Sub-Orbital == Final Frontier? (Score:4, Informative)
Intangible payback? Where the heck do you think that money went? Why, into the economy. 400-500,000 people were employed in one way or another by the space program or spinoffs. That's a hell of a lot more effective return on investment than any of the ~10% of the GDP pissed away into "jobs stimulus" in just the last year.
Brett
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to spend money to employ people - ask them to dig canals with toothpicks. It's about just as effective.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct in that too many people on the left seem to think the purpose of stimulus is just to "save/create jobs." But too many people on the right use that to blind themselves and sit comfortable in the idea that the invisible hand will magically solve everything without that pesky gubmint stealin' their tax monies.
The primary benefit of stimulus should be infrastructure. Putting people to work and keynsian multipliers are all just gravy. Unfortunately infrastructure has become is all the more impo
Re:Sub-Orbital == Final Frontier? (Score:5, Insightful)
How so?
It's not like they're shoveling the money out of an airlock, almost every dime of it gets spend stimulating your local/national economy.... Giving tax breaks and the likes to stimulate the economy is supposedly good for the country, but actually paying people to design/build things isn't?
Re: (Score:2)
The "stimulus" of human spaceflight by NASA has probably done more to stunt the growth of the industry than anything else possibly could have.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like they're shoveling the money out of an airlock, almost every dime of it gets spend stimulating your local/national economy
It's like you don't have a clue about economics. That money came from taxes. If the taxes weren't collected, then the money would stimulate the local/national economy. The only difference is that since the Federal government handles the money, we introduce overhead and inefficiency. That means less stimulation than if the spending never occurred in the first place.
There is a color called gray (Score:3, Interesting)
It does actually depend on what the money gets spent on. If a person uses it to buy Japanese cartoon porn then the only local stimulation is to the delivery guys and represents a small percentage of the overall cost--assuming you buy your cartoon porn in sufficient bulk. On the other hand if those tax dollars went to lay the first fiber optic lines, then it was a good investment.
Secondly, this idea that private companies are so much more efficient than government really needs to be proved. I've worked in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly, this idea that private companies are so much more efficient than government really needs to be proved.
Given the current subject, here's a couple of examples. SpaceX's Falcon 9 development has cost somewhere in the neighborhood of half a billion dollars, perhaps a little more now since they've been spending for a bit of time. In that time, they've developed two launch vehicles, the Falcon 1 and the Falcon 9, and three rocket engines, the Merlin (main engine for the Falcons), Kestrel (first engine which also serves as the final stage motor for the Falcon 1), and the Draco (a light engine intended for orbital
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so if we employ people to build a massive statue to our glorious leader that then gets immediately burnt down is it still a waste of money?
Yes because that money and human effort could have been spent on building something that will enhance people's way of life. If you're paying people to design something that has no use, then that is a waste.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sub-Orbital == Final Frontier? (Score:5, Interesting)
In her opinion, government research grants should be spent on fields which do not have immediate commercial value, because companies are likely unwilling to pursue it themselves and also because the future value of a technology is difficult to gauge.
For example, when the transistor was invented, it was impossible to tell that one day they would be miniaturized to the point where handheld computers were available. Any attempt to place a value on the invention of the transistor would have massively undervalued it. Companies in the past may have pursued the approach of funding research for giggles, but the business model today has changed and almost everything needs to have profit making potential.
Now there's no way to definitively determine whether a research field will be valuable in the future, but space exploration is probably one of the ones with a large potential. I say this because of the overlap with the rest of the aerospace industry, applications for telecommuncations and materials research.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. The Apollo program expanded the economy because of all the spin-off technologies that were invented for it, such as surface-mount electronics which your computer would not work without. I've seen estimates between a $7 and $50 return for every $1 invested in NASA in the 60s. It's just like how WWII created all kinds of technologies (radar, microwave ovens, jet engines, etc.) which expanded the economy, except no one had to die in the space program (except for that early Apollo mission, but 3 de
Re:Sub-Orbital == Final Frontier? (Score:4, Informative)
Those same people used to spend about as much on personal computers.. now you have one.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, it's nice to know that hedge-fund managers and all of the C-level officers of Fanny, Freddie, and AIG will get to spend four times my annual salary* for a few minutes in sub-space.
We should placate the whiners by ending all progress in space travel.
Re: (Score:2)
We should placate the whiners by ending all progress in space travel.
Obama's doing his best. But one man can only do so much.
Re: (Score:2)
so in 5 years time when the cost halves and suddenly slightly less rich pricks can afford it, is it still a bad thing?
What about in 10 years time when it becomes cheap enough to set up a new sporting series for a few elitist ultra talented people, (as formula 1 is now) is it still a waste then?
What about in 20 years time when it's cheap enough for a rich middle class person to do as a once in a lifetime thrill, is it pointless then?
Kind of reminds me of sports cars that in the 50s were the plaything of the