Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Virgin Galactic's White Knight II to roll out in May
www.flightglobal.com ^ | 29/01/08 | Rob Coppinger

Posted on 01/29/2008 10:44:28 AM PST by Freeport

Virgin Galactic expects Scaled Composites to roll out its SpaceShipTwo (SS2) carrier aircraft White Knight II (WK2) in early May for ground tests.

Construction of the four-engine, twin-fuselage prototype is 80% complete at Scaled's Mojave, California facility, said Virgin Galactic at the New York unveiling of SS2 and WK2 on 23 January.

The WK2 will have an all-carbonfibre airframe with a 42.7m (140ft) wingspan, 23.7m overall length and a tail height of 4.5m. Powered by four Pratt & Whitney Canada PW308 turbofans, the aircraft will have a range, carrying its SS2 payload, of more than 4,200km (2,270nm).

"First flight will be during the summer", and will follow a period of ground-testing, says the space tourism company's commercial director Stephen Attenborough.

Scaled's engineers had been hoping to make WK2 ready to fly at the AirVenture show in Oshkosh in July, but that is now "unlikely", says Attenborough.

Because the WK2's two fuselages will share a common cabin design with the SS2 suborbital vehicle, the carrier aircraft will be used for pilot and passenger training for the spaceship's flights.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Technical
KEYWORDS: spaceshipii; virgingalactic; whiteknightii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: trenton1776

WK2 goes 60K SS1 will take you up to 90..


61 posted on 01/29/2008 1:15:14 PM PST by N3WBI3 (Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
Maybe but its unfair to state the so certainly. When SS1 and SS2 do is reach suborbital velocities and thus suborbital altitudes. The requires *far less* energy than orbital flight..

Not to mention ... NASA and the USAF already achieved this feat nearly 50 years ago....


62 posted on 01/29/2008 1:16:32 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

What was the ceiling on that guy?


63 posted on 01/29/2008 1:19:26 PM PST by N3WBI3 (Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
And how many accidents has NASA had in the past 30 years?

Quite a few ... but then again, they were making stuff up as they went along. And they have a pretty solid process in place to learn from their mistakes, and to try to prevent mistakes before they happen.

There is really no excuse for the sorts of accidents that hit Scaled Composites or the Falcon X launch. Those were basic operations. Common sense, not to mention plenty of lessons learned from NASA, DoD, and industry, were available to prevent what happened.

64 posted on 01/29/2008 1:23:03 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3

The pilots got their astronauts’ wings, if that’s what you’re asking.


65 posted on 01/29/2008 1:23:31 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT

Yup —once again the private sector leads the way.....


66 posted on 01/29/2008 1:24:51 PM PST by duckbutt ( If you let a smile be your umbrella, then most likely your butt will get soaking wet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: patton
Allright, I agree with the way you said that - the government develops the new technologies, and then forgets to use them, to sum it up.

Sounds like the story of Xerox PARC.

67 posted on 01/29/2008 1:26:39 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Never heard of it - details?


68 posted on 01/29/2008 1:30:21 PM PST by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
The X15 had a fairly limited fuel supply, and flights were generally profiled either to maximize speed or maximize altitude.

Highest altitude ever reached was Flight 91: 67 miles alt, 3794 mph

Fastest flight was Flight 188: 36.3 miles alt, 4519 mph.

69 posted on 01/29/2008 1:31:12 PM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: duckbutt
Tell it to these guys:


70 posted on 01/29/2008 1:34:02 PM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
a business case that I think is probably based more on wishes than any realistic assessment of the customer base.

Richard Branson is behind turning this into a business. He has a pretty good track record.

71 posted on 01/29/2008 1:34:47 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
they were making stuff up as they went along.

Umm Challenger was not 'making stuff up' nor was columbia

"And they have a pretty solid process in place to learn from their mistakes, and to try to prevent mistakes before they happen."

Right and the private companies must not care about working out or learning from mistakes..

There is really no excuse for the sorts of accidents that hit Scaled Composites or the Falcon X launch.

Umm three astronauts dies in a cabin fire during a nasa test... excuse for that?

72 posted on 01/29/2008 1:36:58 PM PST by N3WBI3 (Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

No I was wondering what the actual altitude was..


73 posted on 01/29/2008 1:37:21 PM PST by N3WBI3 (Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

SS2 will go to 90 miles, thats 23 miles higher than the X-15, It will carry 8 people 6 more than the X-15..


74 posted on 01/29/2008 1:42:02 PM PST by N3WBI3 (Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Tell it to the dead guys, sam. Or better yet, try to convince the dead guys' families.

I will not take that as an intentional callous and foolish an insult as it appears on the screen.

What you really mean is "tell it to the dead guys' lawyers."

Good safety PRACTICE is not the same as good safety CYA DOCUMENTATION.

Documentation is for institutional memory of 'good practice', but paper does not protect you from getting your tie caught in the lathe.

In fact, I see false-sense-of-documentation-security as what precipitated the GEOS? fallover. The people who cranked the table ASSUMED that all the paperwork had been done and the bolts were in the sat...except it was a bad assumption.

It works both ways.

75 posted on 01/29/2008 1:43:39 PM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Repeal the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and open the Land Office to recording of mining and entry claims. Then we can talk.

Too many people forget that idiotic that piece of paper has hamstrung space development for the last 40 years.

76 posted on 01/29/2008 1:46:55 PM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: patton
Never heard of it - details?

Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center. They're the ones who invented the graphical user interface (let Apple have the idea in exchange for a little stock), object-oriented programming, Ethernet (Bob Metcalfe invented it there, left to found 3Com), WYSIWYG word processing, PostScript (John Warnock created its predecessor at PARC, then founded Adobe to start the desktop publishing revolution) and laser printing. I believe laser printing is the only one of those that ever made Xerox significant money.

77 posted on 01/29/2008 1:47:48 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Oh, like those two guys at princeton that invented visicalc.

Well, companies sometimes do stupid things - that is the down side of accepting risk.


78 posted on 01/29/2008 1:51:14 PM PST by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Richard Branson is behind turning this into a business. He has a pretty good track record.

Motorola had a good track record ... before they launched the Iridium venture. Among other things, it turned out that their business case was fundamentally unsound....

Steve McCaw had a good track record, too, and he came up with the bright idea for Teledesic -- the idea was to launch a huge constellation of satellites to create an "internet in the sky." The plan failed for a variety of reasons, not least of which was that Teledesic corp. was impossible to work with -- but had they launched, their business model was so laughably wrong that they'd have failed big, too.

The Iridium system actually works OK, technologically (after years of learning stuff the hard way). But it's not a sound commercial venture. Most folks prefer to use standard cell phones instead.

In Branson's case, the idea is apparently that they'll get lots of folks to line up to ride this thing for something like $10,000 a pop.

At 6 passengers per flight, they'd need to have operating expenses of less than $60,000 just to break even. Considering the infrastructure involved: equipment, expendables, people, insurance, etc., I find it very difficult to believe that they'd break even on a per-flight basis; and I seriously doubt they'd have a customer base wide enough to sustain a company for any length of time.

One more thing: Iridium failed for one main reason: they didn't account for the competition from terrestrial cell phones.

Branson will need to contend with competition from companies like Zero Gravity Corp., which offers 3-4 hour "weightless" flights for $3,500. No, they won't be "in space," but their experience is much more "space-like" than Branson's will be.

79 posted on 01/29/2008 1:54:07 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: patton
Oh, like those two guys at princeton that invented visicalc.

Ah, the first "killer app." He did market it and make money off of it. I even bought a copy back in the day. But back then you couldn't patent software, so other companies used the idea to write much better spreadsheet software than VisiCalc.

PARC just had a habit of inventing cool stuff and then doing practically nothing with it or just completely blowing the capitalization of it. Their employees, however, saw the potential of the technologies and left to capitalize on them.

80 posted on 01/29/2008 2:02:12 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson