it looks like three 'planes glued together.
Virgin Galactic yesterday unveiled its SpaceShipTwo (SS2) passenger-carrying rocketplane in a lavish* ceremony at New Mexico's "Spaceport America". The SS2 roll-out. Pic: Virgin Galactic SS2 rolled out slung under the WhiteKnightTwo mothership, which will eventually carry it aloft to 50,000ft before the pair part company …
Would it be possible to develop this into a kind of temporary shuttle? I'm thinking that it would need some extra juice to get it up to orbital speed (say, 17500mph) and altitude (about 200miles), along with a docking connector. It could then be used to ferry people to/from the ISS.
OK, it wouldn't have the payload capability of the shuttle, but it would (probably) be orders of magnitude cheaper per launch and might suffice when the shuttle fleet is retired.
It would take a *lot* more effort to gain orbit . IIRC about 18,000MPH. SS2 will only just top 2000mph, and that's almost straight up, you have to do the 18,0000 MPH *around* the Earth to gain orbit.
Even if you did get the thing into obit, it wouldn't make it back down again. In fact there would be almost nothing left. Hitting the atmosphere at around 16,000MPH from orbit is a *lot* different to re-entering from one of Space Ship 2's glorified thrill ride hops, which is why the shuttle is covered in all of those ceramic tiles.
I've noticed a pattern. Whenever someone uses the blue scientist face icon, they're about to say something completely retarded, sprinkled with eloquence and numbers that don't reflect reality.
NO it can't go to orbit. It will need extra stage, many millions of dollars per flight and if you did get that thing to orbit, it won't come back in one piece; the heat and headwind of reentry _will_ destroy it.
Normally I get pretty into stuff like this, but this is like calling the Heathrow Express the International. The only thing Galactic about Mister Branson's sub-orbital flyer is that it happens to be on our planet. The name should provide for some good mirth in the history classes.
It's cool as a PoC, and I hope it inspires other ventures with more of a chance of getting me to the Moon, or actually out into orbit for a few days and a bit of zero G mischief.
The VSS Enterprise is strictly sub-orbital in design and application. The airframe could not handle the stresses of de-orbiting (heat from friction, turbulence, etc). Second, the Enterprise doesn't have the room for engines/propellant needed to boost it to orbital velocities. It would also have to be redesigned for additional life support, power, and manuevering. Although a beautiful design, it could not be used to visit the ISS.
>>Why would anybody pay that much money to experience zero G for a few seconds?
It's not a few seconds (you're thinking of simple parabolic descent)
>>Actually it's obvious. It's nothing to do with the experience is it? It's all about bragging rights.
experience->bragging rights (it's all the same, doesn't mean it's not fun at the time), if it cost the same as a funfair then most people would have a go at some point in their lives, but as it's not I'd probably find loads of other things to do with my money.
Besides, is it really space? or are we selling London bridge to the Americans?
@AC : really? - it looks like three 'planes glued together
That's because it. The fuselages are identical on the WhiteKnight and SS2 and it makes perfect sense. WhiteKnight can simulate the flight plan of the SS2 and do it in an identical cockpit layout - perfect for training. Also only one cockpit design makes for simpler and more reliable construction.
@AC : Why? - Why would anybody pay that much money to experience zero G for a few seconds?
Because it's not "a few seconds" - it's 6 minutes of weightlessness.
@AC - Branding frenzy: Let's see the damn thing fly first
It has been you idiot - for the last 6 months - that is what yesturdays announcement was about.
@multipharious : It doesn't even go into space...
Yes it does, space officially starts at 100Km - SS2 reaches 110 Km apogee.
Sheesh - have a bunch of Daily Mail readers suddenly started reading El' Reg?
***"@AC : Why? - Why would anybody pay that much money to experience zero G for a few seconds?
Because it's not "a few seconds" - it's 6 minutes of weightlessness."****
Which is a mere 360 seconds. That's pretty close to "a few" in my book. And those seconds cost around $550 each.
***"@multipharious : It doesn't even go into space...
Yes it does, space officially starts at 100Km - SS2 reaches 110 Km apogee."***
Even though SS2 barely reaches the "official" limit of space. It is incapable of staying there, which is, I would suggest, something you would expect a "space ship" to be able to do. Its like jumping off a table and claiming you can fly.
Or throwing a brick and claiming you've built an aeroplane.
Yes Space Ship 2 is very clever, but it is really only a thrill ride for the (extremely) wealthy, and can never be anything more.
How can 360 just be a 'few' seconds? 6 minutes is a few minutes, but a lot of seconds.
How about 360 degress in a circle, is that just a few degrees? Nah, its as many as you can get, in a circle.
Methinks you are just trying to extricate yourself from a distinct lack of thinking before writing.
What would you suggest a ship that goes in to space be called - whether it can stay there or not? A not-quite-able-to-stay-in-space-ship? Well, doesn't that just roll off the tongue.
As for an expensive thrill ride? Yes, I guess it is. But its also a good start to a fledgling industry, that will, I hope, incrementally improve performance until orbital spaceflight (immensely more difficult), becomes more common place. The WK2 is also being put forward as a launch platform for orbital rockets, for transport etc, so already the project is bearing fruit in other areas.
It does appear the Daily Fail reader are here and taking over.
Please think and read before commenting, if you don't you just look like a moron. Which, if that was your intent, is going well - good work.
One thing to add to Neils accurate precis - WK2 has flown already , SS2 hasn't flown yet. They are about to start testing SS2.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Will be White Knights ability to carry *large* loads up to substantial altitude. This makes it a good launcher for all sorts of rocket or winged vehicles. High altitude launch allows fitting rockets with *very* large expansion nozzles giving quite a good increase in Isp and payload (although not quite eliminating a stage).
Yes Spaceship 2 is a reusable spaceship. It goes to the region above the atmosphere called space, comes back and can be refurbished to go back again.
It is not an *orbital* reusable space ship. That is nothing to do with its design or definitions but of peoples perceptions.
OTOH it is 100x cheaper per passenger flight than an *orbital* spaceship like Soyuz. Then again it has to get rid of roughly 1/58 the kinetic energy of the Soyuz.
While I have no doubt it has been well designed to do its job I don't think for a minute the design can be stretched to orbital. The changes needed are so massive you would junk so much of the vehicle you'd just as well start from a clean sheet.
BTW as people who build composite stuff know once you've done the moulds knocking out 3 identical copies is as simple as 2. Being identical makes it all more symetrical and (I suspect) makes aerodynamic analysis and control a lot easier.
Please remember this is *not* the state of the art.
It is the start of the art.
DOUBLE FAIL: Moderator removes comment pointing out that the first line of this story is completely WRONG.
As I said already. SS2 was built and launched at Mojave in California.
"Spaceport America" is being built in New Mexico.
Why not edit the article to correct the factual inaccuracy instead of censoring the comment that points it out?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021