NASA Charters Flights Aboard Virgin's SpaceShipTwo 76
Zothecula writes "Although Virgin Galactic is generally known as a space tourism company, it sees research experiments as a future mission segment and significant business opportunity. To this end, the company has signed a contract with NASA to provide up to three charter flights on its SpaceShipTwo suborbital spaceplane. The deal follows the curtain closing on the Space Shuttle program earlier this year and is part of NASA's Flight Opportunities Program, which is charged with providing reduced-gravity environments for research experiments while encouraging the emerging commercial space industry."
In related news, a 68,000-sq. ft. facility has opened in California that will assist in the assembly of SpaceShipTwo spaceplanes.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Before clicking, I misread "flight" for "fight". I was kinda hoping for a story about a zero-gravity fist fight between 2 astronauts.
Meh. Wouldn't be near as popular as that woman driving cross-country in a diaper trying to kidnap a fellow astronaut. That was pure gold (unless you were in NASA PR, where it was a most definite nightmare.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
We are so sorry. Does Tentacle fight work better?
When they Ask, Where were you. (Score:2, Insightful)
When they ask, what was the moment that the US gave up. This will be the moment we remember. NASA having to charter flights to space, from a Private Company. When was it that, We the People, finally Deep Throated Corporations. It was then.
Our priorities as a nation are completely screwed up.
Re:When they Ask, Where were you. (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA chartered flights to low earth orbit. NASA built a spacecraft that's going to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt. Oh, and another one that's going closest to the sun. And robots to scoot around Mars for years at a time. And a telescope (Kepler) that's found hundreds of exoplanets already. Just for starters.
If you want a bigger better NASA then call your congresspeople and support their budget.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Amen. NASA doesn't build its own trucks either. This just isn't a big deal.
Re:When they Ask, Where were you. (Score:5, Informative)
NASA chartered flights to low earth orbit.
And in this case, they didn't even do that; they just chartered ballistic zero-G flights. These SS2 flights replace/supplement the vomit comet, not any of NASA's actual space flight. The fact that the Shuttle was recently retired has nothing to do with this deal at all, and was just a red-herring/troll that should have been cut from the summary.
Re: (Score:3)
While they may be doing things that normally would take place on the KC-135 (aka the "Vomit Comet") that NASA has operated in the past, it mainly is being used to replace the sounding rocket research.... which often went to the same altitudes which SS2 is expected to be reaching.
The use of SS2 offers a number of advantages, most significant is that it is simply cheaper than sounding rockets, and furthermore the principle investigator (or somebody working for the investigator) can even ride along with the ex
Re: (Score:2)
While they may be doing things that normally would take place on the KC-135 (aka the "Vomit Comet") that NASA has operated in the past, it mainly is being used to replace the sounding rocket research.... which often went to the same altitudes which SS2 is expected to be reaching.
And its not much good for that, either. Basically it's only good for experiments that can operate in an oxygen nitrogen environment pressurized at a bit less than one atmosphere. Basically biology experiments. Unless you're going to send up a vacuum chamber complete with pumps, that is. With a person aboard and with significant aerodynamic forces throughout the ride, I wouldn't think its stable enough for most microgravity experiments.
I believe cost per mass is pretty good at $2500/kg for 590kg, but
Re: (Score:2)
NASA chartered flights to low earth orbit.
No. Spaceship two is not orbital. It's suborbital.
Re: (Score:3)
This will be the moment we remember. NASA having to charter flights to space, from a Private Company.
NASA routinely buys flights to space from private companies; who do you think launches all those Mars rovers? There's no good reason why they shouldn't do the same for manned flights.
Re: (Score:2)
Money money money money, MONEY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sVUvpdT-NY [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Why? Because we've finally decided that space travel, exploration, and research should be possible by private enterprise rather than exclusive to the government and military. Seriously, we should have started doing this in the 1950's.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, we should have started doing this in the 1950's.
We have been. Thanks for noticing.
Re:When they Ask, Where were you. (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh.
Okay, first of all, NASA has been using commercial companies to construct it's rockets for a long time now. The Space Shuttle? Yeah, that was made by Boeing and Lockheed Martin (among others), so it's not like corporations haven't been making basically everything we've put into space already. Same with the Saturn V and I presume most if not all other launch vehicles. They've just been costing us even more because of the combination of government and corporate incompetence (basically, anytime the government contracts out part of it's work to corporations like NASA did, you end up with overpriced and delayed projects. As proof: I offer the entire defense department and it's massive swollen budget. And NASA itself, in part.)
A private company that does everything on it's own is likely to be far (far far) more efficient. Virgin Galactic has already shown this. It's succeed or die for them, while for Boeing (for instance), failure just means more money and a delay. I haven't a clue how you arrived at the conclusion you did. If anything, this makes us less dependent on an individual company. If Virgin fails, we go somewhere else. Free market, bitch. It wasn't a free market before.
Oh, and BTW the other option on the table was to go to the Russians. I'll take an American company long before the Russian government. In a competition of greed and corruption, Russia won about 50 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure the space shuttle was built by Rockwell.
They have forever. (Score:2)
They have been purchasing airplanes from private companies to perform low gravity training/experiments [wikipedia.org] for decades. First they used a Convair C-131 then a Boeing KC-135 then a McDonnell Douglas C-9, and now a Scaled Composites SpaceShipTwo. Building airplanes isn't in NASA's mission or goals, so I don't see why using an existing commercial solution is any different than using commercial toilet paper in their offices.
Re: (Score:2)
The KC-135 was a plane that NASA themselves owned and the pilots flying the planes were on the NASA payroll. Zero-G Corporation has signed a contract with NASA to do some flights using Zero-G's airplanes that normally would have been done the original Vomit Comet, so I agree this isn't exactly new even if you consider that the company who they are contracting out has other business on the side besides NASA. The KC-135 plane was dedicated exclusively to NASA, and when Ron Howard wanted to film Apollo 13 on
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think built their rockets in the past?
Re: (Score:1)
NASA is a contractor agency which has a large R&D wing. Generally, NASA doesn't build rockets anymore. Rockets have been assembled by maybe by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, but there are contacts out to others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_contractors [wikipedia.org]
While NASA should receive *more* funding for bleeding edge R&D, like permanent moon base and then Mars, a lot of the money is sent to NASA contractors and subcontractors and subsubcontractors. NASA leverages commercial opportunities and have b
Re: (Score:2)
When they ask, what was the moment that the US gave up. This will be the moment we remember. NASA having to charter flights to space, from a Private Company. When was it that, We the People, finally Deep Throated Corporations. It was then.
Our priorities as a nation are completely screwed up.
You're saying it would be better if we put out bids to private companies to build us an identical space ship?
As a tax payer, I would prefer to pay for the use of a space vehicle, rather than the ownership of the space vehicle. NASA' should concentrate research, not shuttle maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
When they ask, what was the moment that the US gave up. This will be the moment we remember. NASA having to charter flights to space, from a Private Company. When was it that, We the People, finally Deep Throated Corporations. It was then.
Our priorities as a nation are completely screwed up.
You're saying it would be better if we put out bids to private companies to build us an identical space ship?
As a tax payer, I would prefer to pay for the use of a space vehicle, rather than the ownership of the space vehicle. NASA' should concentrate research, not shuttle maintenance.
d'oh-- "NASA should concentrate ON research".
Feels better...but is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Richard Branson is going to be taking his family up on the inaugural (for regular commercial service) flight of his spacecraft, I think he has a vested interest in making sure the thing will work very well before NASA astronauts get on board. They aren't going into low-earth orbit, but merely re-creating the original Freedom 7 flight profile that Alan Shepard did back in 1961. They are going to get past the Kármán line, however, and certainly be in what will be on the fringe of
Re: (Score:2)
Spacecraft are not airplanes - yet. Virgin might change that, but I'm still skeptical until I see reliable 1-2 day turnarounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Virgin is suggesting they may even have multiple flights in the same day, and the original Spaceship One had about a 1 week turn around as a specific requirement to win the original X-Prize.
The one problem Scaled Composites has been having is getting their engine to work within the flight performance. It sounds like [scaled.com] they may have that bug licked, but I'm not sure what system they are using. From the summary, it looks like Scaled Composites hasn't settled down on a specific fuel/oxidizer combination yet ei
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between this and usual military contract outs or prior NASA contract outs is this. NASA in the past would come up with something and ask a contractor to build it for them, especially a bespoke product (think the Shuttle).
In this instance, NASA are doing the equivalent of buying airline tickets.
And in today's news... (Score:3)
In today's news, the nation which sent a man to the moon, but can no longer put a man into orbit, is buying tickets on stunt-planes to recreate the Mercury suborbital missions.
Apparently, we're back in 1961. 50 years of "progress".
Re: (Score:2)
There will not be space colonies, McDonald's on the Moon or bungalows on Mars. Get over it.
Yes there will, unless some catastrophe wipes out the human race.
And if you'd told Alan Shephard that in fifty years anyone with a moderally well-paid job would be able to buy a ticket to do what he was about to do then he'd consider that progress too.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly do you see it making sense, at all, ever, to eat a Big Mac on the Moon, given that there's absolutely nothing there?
How could anyone possibly believe that the human race will be content to sit on this dirt-ball until the end of time?
First of all, your definition of moderately well paid is optimistic at best.
Most people in decent IT jobs could afford a $200k ticket if they really wanted to go, and Virgin have said they expect that to drop to more like $50k over a few years... save $5k a year for ten years and by then it should buy you a ticket.
I know you're a troll, but you're not even a very good one.
Re:And in today's news... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, there won't, no catastrophe required. The limits of materials, chemical energy sources and physics are well understood. Or have you failed to notice that nothing really has changed as far as our capacity to move mass?? A 747 from 1969 flies at the same height, same speed, using the same chemical fuels as today, and it is built with the same materials. Yes, there were compressor blades made with carbon fiver [sic] in the 1960s already.
You could have said the same thing about horse-drawn carriages in the Middle Ages, and you would have been every bit as wrong. We went from hot-air ballons to the Saturn V in under a century, and now we've plateau'd. Our progress is likely to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary for a while yet, but if you think there is nothing left to discover simply because we haven't seen the same explosive growth in rocket propulsion lately that we saw around the middle of the 20th century, I'd argue that you are either naive or ignorant of history. Just because you can't foresee the next big breakthrough doesn't mean there isn't one.
But you can already go on a Mig, rent a Cessna, etc... Do you do that? Do you know anyone who does?
Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I DO know someone who rents Cessnas (...and Citabrias and Pipers and...). I've rented them for about 950 hours of flight time. I have also rented them to others, and taught some of those same people how to fly them themselves.
It's much more fun than being in a sub-orbital ballistic tin can.
Maybe, maybe not. The best part of flying to me was going some place I had never been before; I love exploring and flying opened up new places to explore. However, quite honestly, it only took a couple of years before hundred-dollar-hamburger runs got boring. I loved spin training, so I imagine acrobatic flight would breathe new life into my enjoyment of flying -- for a while -- but I'm sorry...there's something about touching the edge of space and going some place where only a handful of people in the entire history of the human race have ever gone that is beyond comparison to anything else on earth. YMMV, of course, but I'd forsake flying GA for the rest of my life in a heartbeat for a chance to hitch a ride in one of those "sub-orbital ballistic tin cans".
Re: (Score:2)
In today's news, the nation which sent a man to the moon, but can no longer put a man into orbit, is buying tickets on stunt-planes to recreate the Mercury suborbital missions.
Or, in a less inflammatory tone: ... the nation which sent a man to the moon has continued interested in near earth mechanics and has contracted with a commercial vendor to complete this research in a cost effective manner.
Another definition of progress.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not correct. The SpaceX Dragon capsule launched into LEO and recovered certainly has the ability to put a man into orbit. A human would have survived the previous flight. This can be purchased for the relatively bargain-basement price of 50 M$. I think you'll have a hard time
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close - as SS2 hasn't a fraction of Mercury's performance. What SS2 does is replace something NASA has been using for years - sounding rockets and the Vomit Comet.
Re: (Score:2)
He said mercury SUBORBITAL missions, AKA the redstone powered flight made by alan sheppard. Sheppard hit apogee at 168 KM altitude, SS2 will hit 110, granted it is only two thirs of the way there, but zero-g time is bound to be somewhere in the same ballpark, not to mention sheppard flew a one man capsule, and SS2 can take more people then the shuttle.
Space Tourism is nothing new (Score:2)
Actually, space tourism has been the dominant form of American space flight [in-other-news.com] for more than 20 years.
How do they build that? (Score:2)
How do they build an aircraft hanger like that? Hundreds of feet on a side with no support columns and built by construction guys?
The planes in them seem believable, because they're made out of aerospace grade unobtanium by $50/hr expert machinists. You expect something with a pedigree like that to hold together.
However, the hangers are even bigger, made out of conventional "stuff" by good ole boys or illegals. The tension in the steel at the center of the door must be astounding...
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, it's a cardboard replica. That's why they only have one picture of it.
The conspiracy thickens.
1937 called...... (Score:2)
Re:1937 called...... (Score:4, Funny)
Did you warn them about WWII?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NASA: Space Tourists (Score:1)
What more needs to be said?
Three flights for $4.5 million (Score:3)
NASA employed an army of some 35,000 people to operate the space shuttle. Assuming each worker was paid $60,000 average, and another $40,000 in health benefits, pension, etc (i'm being WAAY conservative here), that amounts to...... well I donno maths but its in the umpteen billions. No wonder Burt Rutan called NASA "a job program, first and foremost".
Contrast that with SpaceX, which employs a few hundred people to run their Falcon program. Now you see why they can do things so much cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
But they also haven't put a single person into, or back out of, orbit.
But they have put more than a few spacecraft into orbit, and brought one of them back in one piece.
It was argued that with the last flight all they would have needed to do is to put somebody in some SCUBA gear with a skin suit and a bean bag and they would have had a great ride. I grant it was a bit of a risk and there certainly could be some improved accommodations including a launch escape system that would be very useful, but the basic vehicle is already built by SpaceX.
As for Virgin Galactic..... they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The original grandparent was talking about SpaceX, who has indeed been able to get to orbital velocities and furthermore even been able to "recover" a vehicle through re-entry.
Yes, I'm completely aware that it is 25x the energy, but that is suggesting it is impossible to get up to to higher speeds and larger rockets to get that fast. The fact that rockets have done it sort of implies it is at least possible, and there is no reason it must be a government agency who can perform that action.
Virgin Galactic i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What in the field of Software Engineering depends heavily on public funds financed from NASA? I'll grant how DARPA and the NSA have done some substantial contributions to the software industry (notably with the internet and cryptographic research from the respective agencies) but NASA?
About the only thing I can think of that was genuinely ground breaking by NASA was the development of time-share computer systems and real-time operating systems done in the 1960's. The Space Shuttle guidance computers devel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll grudgingly acknowledge that NASA was heavily involved with "High Level Language" development, particular in terms of supporting financially some of the early FORTRAN compiler development efforts. Then again the field was so new that almost anything they did would be beneficial.
The problem here is in part that NASA has been resting on their laurels and not really the same agency they were in the 1960's. It would be wonderful if NASA was pushing the envelope and really advancing technology in some mean
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely correct - it's always going to be cheaper to operate a mini van than a full size eighteen wheeler. Your mistake lies in confusing one for the other.
The second A stands for Administration (Score:1)
NASA's job is to implement the laws written by Congress. These laws state that NASA is not supposed to do things with government employees that can be done with private companies. So if a private company can do the job the government should stop doing it and hire it out. This has already happened with the vomit comet. http://www.gozerog.com/
Good News- Private Space (Score:2)
It is good news Private corporations are active in space.
First and foremost- this makes the government somewhat accountable. If the government(s) has(have) a monopoly on space they can get away with activities we may not want them to.
As the technology evolves we will require both public and private activity (new technologies often require the ingenuity of the private sector built on the foundations of the public sector). Ironically- the roles seem reversed here- but I suspect the same will hold true.
As many posters have already said... (Score:2)
Everything NASA has ever flown was manufactured by private contractors. NASA designed a lot of it the contractors designed some of it but built it all.
As other posters have said, almost everything these newbies ( SpaceX, Scaled Composites, etc. ) are flying is all based upon the R&D done by NASA and given freely to these companies.
NASA administered, QA'd, supervised and launched ALL of the vehicles that have put people into orbit or on the moon and brought them home alive with very few exceptions.
Priv
Re: (Score:2)
When it is time to go to MARS or to the nearest star do you really think that private companies are going to fund that?
SpaceX wants to send people to Mars. I don't know about MARS.
Re: (Score:2)
Private companies are now launching Satellites and their record is not nearly as good as NASA's but it is getting there, but again riding on the backs of the R&D done by, wait for it..... YOUR TAX MONEY.
So while all of this is happening, are YOU getting a dividend check? Nope.
Nope! Instead, all the tax money I paid into the Shuttle is finally coming close to getting me what the Shuttle was originally supposed to provide: Cost-effective and routine orbital capabilities.
What IS going to happen is that they are going to follow the current Unfettered Capitalism model of paying the least they can, running safety margins razor thin and making a few people really rich and everyone else getting their jobs off-shored as soon as the technology is stable enough.
I think you're underestimating the implications of a disaster on a manned vessel for these companies. While I agree with your point in principle, it isn't clear to me if pushing against prudent safety measures for the sake of making money off a single launch is going to be more prevalent than pushing against pru
Re: (Score:2)
All good points...
In point of fact what they need to do is take that Saturn V sitting in Houston, carefully take it apart and blue print it as they do. That thing can push 500.000 lbs to LEO.
They need to stop re-inventing the damn wheel and just build the damn thing while there is still some institutional knowledge around. It works, it is proven by many launches and it is a pretty simple beast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)