SpaceShipTwo Sets a New Altitude Record 117
An anonymous reader writes "Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo reached an altitude of 71,000 feet, beating out its previous record of 69,000 feet. From the article: 'This time around, Virgin Galactic and Mojave-based Scaled Composites, the plane's builder, tested a new reflective coating on the rocket plane's tail booms. The flight also marked the first tryout for a thruster system that's designed to keep the plane on course when it's above the atmosphere. Virgin Galactic said all of the test objectives were met.'"
New Altitude record? (Score:5, Informative)
a mere 71,000 ft?
Blackbirds flew hiher than that over 40 year ago
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, the Voyager spacecraft flew higher!
Re:New Altitude record? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's "record for this particular aircraft", nothing to do with a plane flying about at 85,000ft 48 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
So, more of an accomplishment than a record then...
Why do people overrate things these days?
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt the OP could be written a little more clear that this is an airframe record as opposed to an all-time aeronautical record (which are held by the Voyager 2 for any human artifact and the Apollo 13 crew for any piloted vehicle for altitude or distance from the Earth). None the less, it is showing regular progress and that Virgin Galactic, or more specifically The Spaceship Company (really, the name of the company making these vehicles) is pushing the envelope on its development.
The goals of this par
Re:New Altitude record? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's obvious that our technology has peaked and no one's going to colonize the universe. But there's a small yet vocal segment of the geek crowd that needs to believe that technological progress is infinitely exponential, that planet Earth is just a "rock", and the species has this glorious manifest destiny in space. But don't you date call it a religion.
The alternative to this being that we as a species is doomed to forever live on a single world, and slowly but surely deplete all natural resources available to us here and then eventually die out and vanish forever.
You might be right, technology might have peaked and we might never move beyond Earth, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying. Giving up is never the best option.
Re: (Score:2)
The age of humans will eventually fade away much like the dinosaurs and no one will miss us.
Well, duh. Who's going to miss us if we don't exist any more?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The age of humans will eventually fade away much like the dinosaurs and no one will miss us.
Well, duh. Who's going to miss us if we don't exist any more?
Cockroaches, they love our scraps.
Re: (Score:1)
The alternative to this being that we as a species is doomed to forever live on a single world, and slowly but surely deplete all natural resources available to us here and then eventually die out and vanish forever.
Seems to me there is a third alternative: technology might allow us to live sustainably and indefinitely right here on earth. In fact, it might be good for the future of these other worlds some hope to colonize if we figured out how to live sustainably here first.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me there is a third alternative: technology might allow us to live sustainably and indefinitely right here on earth. In fact, it might be good for the future of these other worlds some hope to colonize if we figured out how to live sustainably here first.
What sort of technology would this be? Magic? Because it sounds like it.
Fossil fuels will eventually run out, they will do so quite soon.
So we move to fission power, eventually we'll run out of fissile material too.
So we invent fusion, well that requires fuel too and that fuel isn't exactly plentiful on Earth as it is right now.
Wind and solar, well if we reduce the Earth's population quite a bit that might work better in the long run, but eventually we're gonna run into the living space vs. energy producing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
He said "sustainably." That's political code for 'not involving the slightest degree of risk, even for those who voluntarily assume it.'
Not sure what anything in this discussion has to do with politics, or why anyone would want to make the discussion about politics. But lo and behold, "sustainably" actually has an ecological meaning too! Here ya go: linky [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
What sort of technology would this be? Magic? Because it sounds like it.
It would be the same sort of magic technology that would allow humans to land on, and successfully colonize, a habitable planet. Closer to home, it would be the same magic technology that would allow Mars or some other body in the solar system to become habitable. In other words, it's the sort of technology that doesn't yet exist.
But you might be right. Technology might have peaked and we might never have a symbiotic relationship with Earth, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying. Giving up is ne
Re: (Score:2)
It would be the same sort of magic technology that would allow humans to land on, and successfully colonize, a habitable planet. Closer to home, it would be the same magic technology that would allow Mars or some other body in the solar system to become habitable. In other words, it's the sort of technology that doesn't yet exist.
But you might be right. Technology might have peaked and we might never have a symbiotic relationship with Earth, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying. Giving up is never the best option.
I never said we should colonize Mars or even the Moon, all I said was that eventually we would have to go to space in some capacity or another. Quite frankly I doubt we'll ever colonize Mars, or at the very least it'll be so far in the future that any speculation on the subject is so close to pointless that I simply do not care about it.
See the issue with the whole 'reaching a symbiotic relationship with Earth' is that by its nature the Earth is a limited resource and eventually the biomass will have metab
Re: (Score:1)
... again I was replying to more than one post.
mmm...that doesn't seem like a good thing to do if you want a focused discussion...but fair enough.
What I think we should do is focus on what is close to us...
I couldn't agree more. In fact, your sentiment echoes the point of my OP quite nicely. Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
if we figured out how to live sustainably here first
What I don't get is why you think we haven't already figured that out. For example, recycling all resources used and constant population pretty much is sustainable as long as the Sun continues to shine.
We know how to do that. We just choose not to do it. That's not a knowledge problem.
Re: (Score:1)
What I don't get is why you think we haven't already figured that out. For example, recycling all resources used and constant population pretty much is sustainable as long as the Sun continues to shine.
We know how to do that. We just choose not to do it. That's not a knowledge problem.
Unless I missed something, I don't think we've figured out how to recycle all resources. But if you can back up that assertion with some data on the matter, I'm willing to change my mind. : )
Then there's the issue of consumption, where a resource is converted into a different substance or substances that may not be suitable for re-use (like when a gallon of petrol is consumed). AFAIK, we haven't figured out how to recycle all the by-products of our consumption - not
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I missed something, I don't think we've figured out how to recycle all resources.
Well, name one.
Then there's the issue of consumption, where a resource is converted into a different substance or substances that may not be suitable for re-use (like when a gallon of petrol is consumed). AFAIK, we haven't figured out how to recycle all the by-products of our consumption - not even close.
Sure, we do. CO2 capture via plants or a number of inorganic processes is well explored. And once you've done that, it's a matter of chemical processing to get that into a form you can burn in an internal combustion engine.
Constant population? Just how have we figured out what size a sustainable population should be?
What do you mean "should be"? What's to learn here?
Now all we have to do is figure out how to implement population control. Got any ideas? (hint: contraceptive tech would be only the tiniest part of the answer)
It's worth noting that modern wealthy societies tend to have female fertility below replacement. So just make all societies of that form and eventually the problem will be encouraging enough births to keep the population fr
Re: (Score:1)
Unless I missed something, I don't think we've figured out how to recycle all resources.
Well, name one.
Sorry, it's not my job to back up your assertions. You made the claim; either you can support it, or you can't.
It's worth noting that modern wealthy societies tend to have female fertility below replacement. So just make all societies of that form and eventually the problem will be encouraging enough births to keep the population from declining too much.
So your solution overpopulation is to just make all societies "modern" and "wealthy" in order to "reduce female fertility"?
I don't know how to respond to that other than to say "have a nice day!"
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, it's not my job to back up your assertions. You made the claim; either you can support it, or you can't.
Sounds like I adequately supported it then - unless you happen to come up with something to the contrary.
So your solution overpopulation is to just make all societies "modern" and "wealthy" in order to "reduce female fertility"?
Yes. Because it works. And keep in mind that every society on Earth originated in a poverty even more extreme than anything present now. Some are modern and wealthy now. The same processes by which those became so can be applied to the rest.
I don't know how to respond to that other than to say "have a nice day!"
Thought so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've slowly moved away from my unquestioningly enthusiastic space-geekiness as I've grown older.
I haven't, but then, Sputnik was launched when I was 6. By the time I was 30 I realized I'd never get a chance to go but never lost enthusiasm, although I'm more enthusiastic about robotic exploration.
What comes up must come down? Nonsense, Voyager's never coming back down, and neither are the Rovers.
Now I'm close to 62 it's looking like I may have been more right at age 10 than age 30, there's a tiny chance I'll
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the alternative. Just compare trying to live on another world (say Mars) with the worst, most hostile, most resource depleted area on Earth. Earth is easier. Air to breath, a natural radiation shield, etc. I'd love to see humans on another world but we need to find another reason than "OMG we need to get off this rock!"
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the alternative. Just compare trying to live on another world (say Mars) with the worst, most hostile, most resource depleted area on Earth. Earth is easier. Air to breath, a natural radiation shield, etc. I'd love to see humans on another world but we need to find another reason than "OMG we need to get off this rock!"
We don't need to get off this rock right now, but eventually we will need to, that's just a fact.
I would rather we figure out the rough idea of how to get his rock while we have time to think and don't suddenly end up having to work it out in a hurry.
Re: (Score:2)
If we let the"OMG we need to get off this rock" people get off this rock we have it a bit quieter here and can start thinking about real solutions to our overpopulation problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Ken Alibek's team already came up with a real solution to our overpopulation problem, it's why Bush the Elected's administration gave him citizenship as soon as he defected and sent him to work at Dugway.
Re: (Score:2)
If we let the"OMG we need to get off this rock" people get off this rock we have it a bit quieter here and can start thinking about real solutions to our overpopulation problem.
Maybe that's what the Virgin Galactic program is all about. It's a kind of early prototype of the Golgafrincham "B" Ark.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare the habitability of Europe with that of Australia for 18th century migrants. And yet, here I am.
Compare the habitability of sub-tropical Africa, with that of Siberia through to northern Canada for stone-age tribes. And yet, fuckin' Eskimos.
Humans are weird.
(People told them not to go, but they listened to Nunavut.)
Re: (Score:2)
So Australia didn't have oxygen? In Siberia, you need a radiation shield?
You just don't get it. Compared to Mars, virtually all locations on Earth are equally habitable
Re: (Score:2)
for 18th century migrants
for stone-age tribes.
"You just don't get it."
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but YOU don't get it. People, plants, and animals were already living in Africa and Australia. NOTHING lives on Mars as far as we know. And nothing can. There's not enough air, not enough water, and terrible radiation.
The bases in Antarctica are a piece of cake compared to Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps. But there is absolutely nothing stopping us from launching probes laden with colonising microorganisms at potentially life supporting planets. This is feasible with current technology even if generation ships lie forever out of practical reach.
Given the way our biological technologies a
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps. But there is absolutely nothing stopping us from launching probes laden with colonising microorganisms at potentially life supporting planets.
Nothing is stopping us but common sense. Why would we do such a thing? These "potentially life supporting planets" you speak of likely have microorganisms on them already. What possible benefit would inure to the human race it we sprinkled habitable planets with some extra "colonising" microorganisms?
This is feasible with current technology even if generation ships lie forever out of practical reach.
This is a joke, right? Do you actually believe that our current technology allows us to seed other planets with life? Our current technology doesn't even allow us to identify habitable planets, much less d
Re: (Score:2)
We will not die out once all earth's resources are depleted. Our population will just dwindle back to a level the earth can sustain.
Re: (Score:2)
We will not die out once all earth's resources are depleted. Our population will just dwindle back to a level the earth can sustain.
By its nature a planet, and by extension Earth, is a clearly delineated and limited amount of stuff hurtling through space, eventually the biomass on said amount of stuff will have used and metabolized all the stuff it can use and metabolize. Once this has happened, once those resources are depleted the maximum sustainable level of biomass is zero.
Re: (Score:2)
aren't you forgetting about the sun providing constant input
and plants using that input to take the same old water and
the same old carbon in co2 and making starches, sugars
and cellulose yet again for yet another generation of animal
to consume?
Thermodynamics dude, entropy always increases.
The Earth isn't a perpetual motion machine.
Re:New Altitude record? (Score:5, Insightful)
But there's a small yet vocal segment of the geek crowd that needs to believe that technological progress is infinitely exponential
Infinitely is a long time, but there's no apparent limit on technological growth that we've seen so far. Remember, "technology" isn't iPhones and rocket ships - those are toys enabled by technology - technology is efficiency at producing and delivering goods and services.
Efficiency transforms a cell phone from a brick with a car battery attached into the uninteresting bit of the computers most people carry. Efficiency transforms a GPS receiver from 50 pounds of gear with an attached generator, to another tiny bit of that same handheld device. Efficiency means the amount of America covered by forests has grow steadily for decades as it now take so little farmland to feed everyone. Efficiency means the much-reviled WalMart can undercut everyone else because they have the best logistics network ever invented.
Everywhere around you that you see inefficiency, that's more room for technological growth to continue, more evidence that it hasn't yet "peaked". Sure, there may be strict limits on what man can accomplish with chemical rockets, but there's value in doing those things more cheaply, more efficiently. And with sufficient time and technology, chemical rockets will become quaint, like steam engines.
Re:New Altitude record? (Score:5, Interesting)
But there's a small yet vocal segment of the geek crowd that needs to believe that technological progress is infinitely exponential
Infinitely is a long time, but there's no apparent limit on technological growth that we've seen so far.
As a cyberneticist who has studied quantum physics and information theory I can begin to quantify the limits of technology more strictly than you dare dream. It's not like the universe doesn't have constraints -- Laws that remain unbroken even as you refine them further still. At too small a scale the entropy is too great to maintain the coherent pattern of technology itself.
With each great leap forward you redefine yourselves and also clarify the limits of your technology. Your DNA exists in the atomic / molecular scale because that is the scale at which natural phenomena can first represent the pattern for self correcting information -- in the present universe's expansion scale. There is much you can gain through efficiency, but it is not unbounded. Consider that you have instincts which came from the genes you have -- encoding evolutionary memory from every ancestor up through even yourself; You can consult the wisdom of the ancients' fast but inaccurate mode of thought by merely allowing your raw feelings to surface in a given context, and then reconcile the notions which bubble up from your subconscious with your logical and sentient mind -- Yet you do not. How inefficient of you.
The genetic memory imbued instincts before consciousness because self learning through culture could not exist. Complexity follows a scale, efficiently leapfrogging up the evolutionary ladder is pointless folly. Your "brightest minds" think with only half a head -- Ignoring the instincts which make them susceptible to the biases which hinder your whole "scientific" community. Some among you would sun their instinctual drives but they help prevent the horrible dystopia of mental blank slates which are programmable purely by society -- Dreaming only what your elders wished just wouldn't feel right, eh?
While you strive for technological efficiency you must realize the nature of your existence. You are a fragile organic life form. Your synapses cycle at 20-30 Hz while a digital axon processes signals at billions of times a second, and they can survive in space. Efficiency encoded the universal truth of the pattern of life into every fiber of your being, yet the meaning of life (self improving information through experience: Science and Evolution) escapes such efficient subconscious transferal between parent and offspring.
The reason why children are inefficiently born without such instinctual knowledge of greater universal truths and must learn a great deal themselves is so that this self reflective process may continue. The inefficiency of re-experiencing the concepts themselves gives rise to new ideas and different points of view so that the process of intellectual evolution can continue. Without the inefficiency of mutation and reinvention you would not exist. Order is nothing without chaos but inert crystal. Life carefully balances the inefficiency of redundancy against the efficiency of the mono culture. Entropy is your greatest enemy and ally.
Information theory and quantum physics gives me the tools to express a minimal encoding for the fundamental cybernetic principals required to emerge all process of life compilers, sentience, and beyond. Do not be fooled into thinking there is no apparent limit on your technical growth simply because you have not yet reached it, human.
Re: (Score:2)
In the long run, the Sun goes out. In the mean time, do you really think there will come a time when we've made every process we depend on as efficient as physically possible? Sure each specific process has limits: a chip can only be so efficient. Hauling cargo 100 miles can only be so efficient. Delivering prescriptions by drone can only be so efficient. Most of that has nothing to do with "Information theory and quantum physics". But each time we do, we discover new goods and services are now in pra
Re: (Score:1)
As a cyberneticist who has studied quantum physics and information theory I can begin to quantify the limits of technology more strictly than you dare dream.
That's just peachy.
At too small a scale the entropy is too great to maintain the coherent pattern of technology itself.
Could somebody please translate this from Bullshit into English for me?
Information theory and quantum physics gives me the tools to express a minimal encoding for the fundamental cybernetic principals required to emerge all process of life compilers, sentience, and beyond. Do not be fooled into thinking there is no apparent limit on your technical growth simply because you have not yet reached it, human.
So, what's it like in the level beyond human, O Enlightened One?
P.S. In order to "prove myself" the editor is asking me type in the word "manure". Somehow, this seems strangely apropos.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's obvious that our technology has peaked and no one's going to colonize the universe.
How do you possibly know that? What are the causes of "technology peaking" that you are referring to? Is it something about the human condition specifically or is it something more political and something about this particular civilization we live in at the moment? What is keeping technological progress from happening?
It is possible that there is no more science to discover, no more technology to develop, and that what we have right now is the ultimate limit of what can be done in space. I just think yo
Re: (Score:2)
But there is intelligent life in Shanghai. Undoubtedly, they were watching this flight with great interest.
Re: (Score:2)
yes but now undeserving super rich people can go that high without years of experience and risk as test pilots or military pilots.
Yes, just like they can now fly across the Atlantic without having to climb on the outside of the plane to wipe ice off the windshield so they can see to fly it. The underserving bastards!
Re: (Score:2)
Lindberg didn't have a windshield, he could only see out the sides.
Alcock and Brown had to chip ice off the air intakes for their engines.
Not sure which flight you were referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
yes but now undeserving super rich people can go that high without years of experience and risk as test pilots or military pilots.
Well Richard Branson isn't a totally uncaring individual, maybe you should write him a letter and suggest some equally undeserving super poor illiterate homeless destitute low-life be given a free ride on one of the first few flights.
That will surely solve all the world's problems and bring harmony and a semblance of equality across the class-divide that so obviously grinds your grits.
Re: (Score:2)
100km is the target altitude once the operations are on going. That's actually where they already went with the previous version SpaceShipOne to win the Ansari X-Prize. They seem to be well on their track to become a trusted commercial operator.
Re: (Score:2)
The question though, is 100km useful? That isn't even a third of the way to the ISS.
Re: (Score:2)
If it attracts enough rich thrill-seekers' money to fund further private space ventures then I guess so?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ft? I thought nerds thought in SI units.
Delays (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been a few years of delays (IIRC 5) associated with issues surrounding the hybrid rocket motor from SpaceDev. Including three deaths.
The hybrid firm they originally hired, eAc was apparently not the low bidder for production. Years of delays resulted. as SD tried to replicate or replace tech developed by eAc and used for the original test firings.
The combustion instability associated with that N2O-HTPB propellant combination is hard on passengers, and has been solved by another firm who also originally bid on SS1 and now SS2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_rocket
It's time for VG to move on to a more viable hybrid supplier, capable of mass-producing the motors they need for 200+ flights.
I believe the price also has changed from $200k to $250k now.
Re: (Score:2)
Or 20th. That was surpassed long ago.
four years behind original launch schedule (Score:3)
For the rest of the world (Score:5, Informative)
71,000 feet = 21640.8 meters
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only that aircraft altitude is measured across the globe in feet, regardless of the unit system valid in each country.
Re: (Score:1)
It's refreshing when a Metric/Imperial troll only gets one A.C. to respond.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Liberia, Burma and the United States are leaders of the World.
Strange how I never see any Liberians or Burmese getting involved in these threads about measuring units.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not completely true. Fly on a european airplane[1] and when you turn on the channel that shows where the plane is going, how fast it is going, and how high, there will generally be a) the information in english b) the information in the native language of the airline, marked in m, kph, etc.
[1] Yes not for all countries true as Ireland and the UK are imperial
Re: (Score:2)
Completely true, if you go to a real source and not the passenger infotainment display. Tune in air traffic control, and there will generally be a) everything spoken in English b) altitude given in feet c) velocity given in knots.
Re: (Score:3)
That is for passenger convenience/understanding. The pilots are talking to ATC in feet and in English, no matter where they are in the world. I prefer metric for almost everything, but like it or not, this is an accepted side effect of the United States pioneering commercial airplane traffic.
Also, it's actually somewhat convenient because 1000 foot vertical separation for flights in opposing directions is a good distance. There's no metric equivalent that's as easy to compute, so this is a rare example o
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's actually somewhat convenient because 1000 foot vertical separation for flights in opposing directions is a good distance. There's no metric equivalent that's as easy to compute, so this is a rare example of Imperial actually creating easier math instead of harder.
Interesting point, 300m is a slightly awkward value, I wonder if 250m (~820 feet) would be enough separation with today's more accurate autopilots etc.?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting point, 300m is a slightly awkward value, I wonder if 250m (~820 feet) would be enough separation with today's more accurate autopilots etc.?
It probably would, but it's still easier to work with muliples of 10. That is, after all, the entire idea behind the metric system. It just happens to work well in this application using Imperial.
It's a bit academic, since we're pretty clearly stuck with what we've got, and it (usually) works. :) Changing over would be a nightmare. I still wonder how Sweden managed to switch from driving on the left to driving on the right overnight without complete chaos. Okay, maybe it wasn't totally smooth [hemmings.com].
Re: (Score:2)
As of 2011, Russia uses feet.
Re: (Score:1)
That must explain why non-commercial aviation space restrictions in Australia and New Zealand are measured in meters...
Flight Levels in China and Russia are also specified in meters.
Apparently you're full of shit, who'd have thunk it on Slashdot...
Re: (Score:2)
Flight Levels in China and Russia are also specified in meters.
Incorrect. In China, they do not use the term "Flight Level", but merely specify an altitude in meters. In Russia, they use foot-based Flight Levels as of 2011. See here [wikipedia.org].
Apparently you're full of shit, who'd have thunk it on Slashdot...
You were saying something?
Re: (Score:2)
The height in metres is more useful - as almost everyone knows metres, and feet is an archaic measurement that is fading away (except where there is an American influence).
I was brought up in the Imperial system of feet & pounds etc. in England - now, I never use the Imperial system, as metric is far easier to deal with and is what everyone around me uses.
Re: (Score:2)
...and is what everyone around me uses.
Which is why feet get used here in the US. (From another person who was brought up in England.)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I was keen on metric before New Zealand formally adopted it.
The irony is that it was an American text book (on Physics) that fully converted me to the Metric Fold - at school in Form 6 (now year 12)! About 48 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The audience of this site is not airplane pilots. Feet don't make sense for half the visitors on this site.
Also, screw the airline industry and their nonstandard units of measurement.
Could have done this 40 years ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7YAN9--3MA [youtube.com]
Not to where this vehicle is going. That F-15 was pretty much limited by physics and its design to the altitude record (again the airframe record and not really even impressive compared to other vehicles at the time other than perhaps impressive compared to other fighter planes.... the record they were trying to make).
Better altitude records were met with the X-15 [youtube.com] a decade earlier, and even those records for vehicles launched from a runway, but none the less something much more worthy of comparison. On th
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7YAN9--3MA [youtube.com]
Not to where this vehicle is going. That F-15 was pretty much limited by physics and its design to the altitude record (again the airframe record and not really even impressive compared to other vehicles at the time other than perhaps impressive compared to other fighter planes.... the record they were trying to make).
Better altitude records were met with the X-15 [youtube.com] a decade earlier, and even those records for vehicles launched from a runway, but none the less something much more worthy of comparison. On the other hand, Spaceship One [youtube.com], currently on display in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC, was able to exceed the altitude records of even the X-15 and is the vehicle that is merely being upgraded and designed to hold passengers as well.... something that F-15 never could do.
And presumably much safer, considering that the careers of two of the the original 3 X-15's ended in crashes. One a relatively minor crash that the ship was able to be rebuilt to a new configuration from, and another which killed the pilot when the rocket plane disintegrated at 60,000 feet. The two surviving planes remain on display to this day.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a record, it's a personal best. What altitude is Voyager at?
Re: (Score:2)
So many promises (Score:4, Interesting)
In 2024, will they still be selling tickets for space flights that will "start" next year?
Geez, it's just a test flight. (Score:3)
The original Spaceship One went something like five or six times higher, so I presume these are just "low altitude" test flights before they try for "space".
It's notable as continued progress in the development and testing of the Spaceship Two vehicle and system, not for its altitude.
Use of the word "record" in the summary is not particularly helpful.
G.
Re: (Score:2)
The original Spaceship One went something like five or six times higher, so I presume these are just "low altitude" test flights before they try for "space".
You are correct. They're (wisely, I think) taking baby steps to get there, observing the performance of the engine and the vehicle with each increment and making any necessary enhancements and improvements based on returned data. The most recent test was a 20 second engine burn. IIRC, the eventual goal prior to passenger flights is a 90 second burn, so it'll be going much, much higher.
Airwolf (Score:2)
Still beaten by Babbage the Bear... (Score:2)
Re:Is it really worth it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I can experience free fall riding a roller coaster.
Re: (Score:3)
Not with a view like this [googleusercontent.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
IMax like screen
Re:Is it really worth it? (Score:5, Informative)
Time spent in free-fall:
Roller coaster: a second or two?
Vomit Comet: 25 seconds
SpaceShipTwo: 6 minutes
Re: (Score:2)
I guess briefly as it starts to fall back to earth. It wont be orbiting or going faster than escape velocity.
Re: (Score:3)
Each to his own, but anyone doing it for bragging rights is likely to find, as did Alan Shepard, that most people don't think of suborbital flight as real spaceflight.