Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Virgin Galactic Unveils SpaceShipTwo 129

BoulderDad writes, "Richard Branson presented a mock-up of the new SpaceShipTwo in New York. From the article: 'Future passengers aboard Virgin Galactic spaceliners can look forward to cushioned reclining seats and lots of windows during suborbital flights aboard SpaceShipTwo, a concept interior of which was unveiled by British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson Thursday.' The video is worth watching; the spaceport details are more concept than reality, but the depiction of the phases of space flight is very good."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Virgin Galactic Unveils SpaceShipTwo

Comments Filter:
  • by eln ( 21727 ) * on Thursday September 28, 2006 @02:39PM (#16234003)
    From TFA:

    "If you're going to build a spaceship, you've got to build a green spaceship," Branson said, adding that the carbon dioxide output from a single spaceflight is on par with those of a business class seat aboard commercial aircraft.

    So, they aren't going to pollute much at all. As for being for rich people only, well, that's generally how new technologies work. Commercial air travel was, at the beginning, a luxurious way for the wealthy to travel. New technologies are expensive, and tend to be geared at first toward people who can afford them. As these flights become routine, and as the technology improves (and especially as competition enters the market), prices will fall.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 28, 2006 @02:40PM (#16234035)
    Compared to the CO2 emissions output of, say, 700,000,000 registered motor vechicles world wide?

    Zero.
  • emissions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Thursday September 28, 2006 @02:41PM (#16234057) Journal
    from the article, which you should have read:

    Whitehorn and Branson both said that SpaceShipTwo will rely on a new type of hybrid rocket fuel, one slightly different from the rubber and nitrous oxide mixture that propelled SpaceShipOne into suborbital space three times in 2004.

    "If you're going to build a spaceship, you've got to build a green spaceship," Branson said, adding that the carbon dioxide output from a single spaceflight is on par with those of a business class seat aboard commercial aircraft.

    Whether that is good enough for you, I don't know. I find that to be acceptable.
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday September 28, 2006 @02:47PM (#16234207) Homepage Journal

    So, they aren't going to pollute much at all.

    FTA: Launched from 60,000 feet.

    I don't suppose they're lauching these ships by these energy friendly means [slashdot.org].

    More like they latch this bugger onto a jet, take off with it and then launch the space ship from it. Can't say that sounds as efficient an ordinary old business class jet.

  • by zorkmid ( 115464 ) on Thursday September 28, 2006 @02:52PM (#16234345)
    Passengers will have several minutes of weightlessness during the spaceflight, and then have about 40 seconds to return to their seats

    200K for "several minutes" in space? Sorry, I'll wait until 2010 for Bigelow's space hotel.
  • by amightywind ( 691887 ) on Thursday September 28, 2006 @02:53PM (#16234353) Journal
    So, they aren't going to pollute much at all.

    Flying up to 60,000 ft then riding a rocket spewing nitrogen oxides and carbon/sulfur soot-laced exhaust is not going to pollute more than a ride in a Gulfstream IV? Branson is like most executives today who find it useful to pander to environmentalists. He is lying through his teeth. The early passengers will be in enormous danger if Spaceship I flights are any indication. I wish them well, but I would not be surprised if they lost a ship early on.

  • Re:Orbit? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Thursday September 28, 2006 @03:00PM (#16234515) Homepage

    As for several minutes of weightlessness, you can get
    that from conventional aircraft.

    True, but what you don't get is the blue sky disappearing to be replaced with the blackness of space. I'd also imagine you can see the curvature of the earth quite well from 60 miles up. Weightlessness is kinda cool I'm sure, but I think the selling point for all the millionaires will be the visuals, the G-forces, and of course telling all your too-rich friends that you officially went into space. I imagine if this thing is successfull it could fund the next stage, which would be an orbital vehicle.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 28, 2006 @03:45PM (#16235371)
    The walk-before-run philosophy doesn't make sense to me when it comes to hard science and technology. You don't need to reinvent the wheel to invent the axle. I see no difference between Burt Rutan building a primitive, fragile stratosphere-plane and the Chinese putting a man into orbit. It's work duplication. Instead of standing on the shoulders of giants, people are building wax wings.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday September 28, 2006 @04:21PM (#16236075) Journal
    Funny thing is, that it is things like this that lead to innovations that help our society. Afterall, it is jobs that are needed. As to being a go-cart for the rich and famous, well, it will lead to a go-cart for the upper class, followed by go-carts for the middle class, while the rich and famous will go to the moon followed by rides for the upper class, followed by .....

    All in all, when jobs start here, they will be high paying jobs, not McDonald/Walmart jobs. This combined with Bigelow will lead America and the world into some interesting times.
  • by The Good Reverend ( 84440 ) <.michael. .at. .michris.com.> on Thursday September 28, 2006 @04:28PM (#16236213) Journal
    I agree that far too little is done about global hunger and poverty. The socialist in me thinks rich countries should find ways to help people so they don't suffer. However...

    When was the last time you went out to eat?

    Have you ever spent $20 on a good meal? $40? $100?

    If so, for the price of your one meal, dozens of hungry people could have been fed. Using your logic, I'd say everyone should only eat the least expensive foods they can get their hands on, never have any entertainment expenses (you don't buy games, do you?) and give all of their non-necessity income to the poor.

    Somehow, I don't think you're doing that. And you shouldn't.

    There aren't many good answers for getting around the system and feeding the world's hungry, but "rich people shouldn't spend their money on things they want to buy" is at the bottom of the barrel. Unless you're willing to make the same sacrifices in your everyday life, I wouldn't expect others to - it's really just a drop in the bucket either way.
  • by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 ) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Thursday September 28, 2006 @04:45PM (#16236577) Homepage
    But first, you need to have somewhere to go. After you go through the 1,000 people on the planet that can afford to do this AND want to do this for fun

    I just had an image of a slashdotter from last century saying the same thing to the wright brothers...
  • by seriesrover ( 867969 ) <seriesrover2@yahoo.com> on Thursday September 28, 2006 @04:48PM (#16236629)
    You know, for 80% of people in this world they'd say the exact same thing about people like you with iPods, 'puters, HDTVs, digital cameras etc.


    I'd suggest getting of your high horse and realize that people with a lot of money actual tend to have MORE common sense (not all, most) - you need it to either make it and\or retain it. And besides, its theirs to spend it how they want - to be able to go into space, even for a mere few seconds, would be a trip of lifetime.

  • by raduf ( 307723 ) on Thursday September 28, 2006 @07:32PM (#16238929)
    ... some people will definitely want more. And companies will be way more willing to invest once the business model is proven.

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Working...