E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Luke Colby / Virgin Galactic
Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo rocket plane glides over its Mojave test range in California with its rocket motor components installed for the first time.
Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo rocket plane has gone through more than 20 unpowered glide test flights, but today's test was special: It marked the first free flight during which the actual rocket motor components were installed.
"It was also the first flight with thermal protection applied to the spaceship's leading edges," the company said in today's status report. "It followed an equally successful test flight last Friday which saw SpaceShipTwo fly in this configuration, but remain mated to its WhiteKnight carrier aircraft."
Virgin Galactic said all the objectives of both flights were successfully met. At least two more such glide flights are expected to take place before the spacecraft's builders move on to the next phase of testing: powered flights, which call for the plane to fire up the hybrid rocket engine for its ascent.
SpaceShipTwo is being developed at California's Mojave Air and Space Port, with the aim of beginning passenger spaceflights as early as next year. The multimillion-dollar project follows up on the flights of SpaceShipTwo's predecessor, SpaceShipOne, which won the $10 million Ansari X Prize for private-sector spaceflight in 2004.
The new plane's hybrid rocket motor, built by Sierra Nevada Corp., is powered by a rubber-based fuel and nitrous oxide — much like SpaceShipOne's engine was. Virgin Galactic said the propellant tanks were installed on SpaceShipTwo for the latest tests, but did not indicate that the tanks were fueled up ... yet.
SpaceShipTwo's flight profile calls for the plane to ride on the WhiteKnight mothership to an altitude of 50,000 feet, then drop away and light up the rocket. That blast would power the craft to a height beyond 62 miles — giving up to six passengers a few minutes of weightlessness and a great view of the curving Earth beneath the black sky of space. The plane would then re-enter the atmosphere and glide back down to a runway landing.
Although the test program is being conducted in California, Virgin Galactic's business plan calls for commercial spaceflights to originate from Spaceport America in New Mexico. In recent months, some observers have questioned whether the $209 million New Mexico space project will match initial expectations on the economic development front. Spaceport officials insist, however, that the futuristic-looking facility will be ready for Virgin Galactic as well as other tenants.
Virgin Galactic was founded by British billionaire Richard Branson. The company says more than 500 people, including celebrities such as Ashton Kutcher, have signed up for the $200,000 suborbital space tour.
More about the commercial space race:
- Golden Spike wants to fly you to the moon ... for $1.4 billion
- Blue Origin's spaceship prototype aces pad-escape test
- Virgin Galactic's future at Spaceport America is uncertain
- Gallery: Ten players in the commercial space race
- Cosmic Log archive on the new space race
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Congrats on the successful testing of SpaceShip Two.
I wonder if SpaceShip Three will actually achieve orbit?
There's talk to that effect, but it'll be quite a while before we know what Virgin Galactic/Scaled Composites' real plans are...
I wonder if the first powered flight will include the phrase "Let's light this candle" - looking forward to continued progress in their flight tests.
Spaceship 3 will be a suborbital point to point spaceplane. This was stated several years ago by Virgin Galactic.
That's right, I remember now, but point to point would be great, too.
Maybe SpaceShip Four will be orbital.
I want to spend my kids inheritance on a ticket to that ride.
Don't you dare. They'll hate you forever. But if they do already then , be my guest !
don't tell the man what to do with his money mo-pho if going on this flight will help his happiness then I'm sure that his kids would want him to do it but you'd never understand that because you think that trying money at women in the clubs so that they give you jsut an ounce of attention is the best use that money possibly has so don't go trying to preach to other people until you clean your own crap up you simpletowne.
@hater "you think that trying money at women in the clubs so that they give you jsut an ounce of attention is the best use that money possibly has so don't go trying to preach to other people until you clean your own crap up you simpletowne."
The day I listen to an idiot that can't write is the day I will leave these threads phoever.
hard to state much here more than the obvious...that's a lotta engineering, as for engines, maybe they oughta look back to brittan and see what the skylon has instore for them......getting the right engines is oh so crucial to a space plane....
Skylon is still theoretical at this point and has no funding. Only limited test of partial engine components have taken place.
Billionaires playing with their money while precious lives are starving for subsistence.
I agree, but it helps keep the species moving forward, which "might well be" better in the long run.
This is more like a carnival ride. It will be interesting to see if this concept is expanded on or abandoned due to lack of interest.
While I agree billionaires often play with their money, like Acosmet said.. .this is different. Big leaps can bring big innovations which help everyone.
Now, the executives in U.S. companies are a different story... hording and wasting while "the rest of us" do the actual work. I have no problem with anyone being richly rewarded for innovation and hard work, but most of these guys wouldn't know either if they stared them in the face.
If they can build a craft that can attain true orbit, they could be the people movers to the ISS and other stations, and SpaceX's Dragon could be the cargo ship.
Pardon my ignorance... What did they accomplish to win the XPrize? That wasn't "true" orbit?
"Precious lives". Yeah, sure. People who live in an age of technological wonders and historical prosperity, yet can't even provide for themselves. And you'd like to see money diverted from aerospace and shifted to take care of them?
Bull. Go take your poverty crusade to people who aren't pushing the boundaries of human technology and leading the way to the future.
Cognito.
The xprize that they won was just to make the trip into space which is 100 k or 62 miles.
Correct cgtrav, the X prize was about getting a non government craft up to that 62 mile mark twice within two weeks.
CogitoErgo, the X-prize had nothing to do with orbiting the planet. It doesn't hurt to ask. What I want to know is whether or not the craft ever could make an orbit.
SF accountant
That has to be one of the purest expressions of the GOP philosophy I've ever seen. I wish they would just out and run on it..
That said, it is also one of the saddest sentiments I've seen expressed. It is a product of one who does not understand the reality faced by many. There are so many reasons to take care of those less fortunate.. and no they aren't all just "deciding not to work". You tell yourself that to make yourself feel better.
I can find many scenarios that even you could relate to but here's one that the GAO data says is common...
Family... mother, father, two children. Dad works and has income that pays for the house, their needs and wants, and lets them sock away for their kids college years.
Now... Father gets diagnosed with cancer and quickly deteriorates... he looses his job and his health insurance, the wife has to care for him and their two young children so she can't just magically jump into a full time high paying position, even if that was possible. They quickly eat through savings.. take out mortgages... essentially, they go from affluent to poor.
Now of course... he should just "get over" having a terminal disease and get back to work right? Maybe you have a job for his 6 year old?
Cogito, the story you have related may be common, but it is by no means an average story. The majority of people don't fit that bill.
Having said that, it's not really pertinent to the problem here. SFaccountant was reacting to Marine57's idea that billionaires are "playing" while many other Americans are starving.
There is a fundamental ethic question here. Is it the billionaires' responsibility to pay to prevent starvation? Regardless of your politics, this is America, the land of the free, and so the answer to that question must be No. It is not the billionaires responsibility to take care of everyone else.
Yes, there should be social safety nets in place to care for the American people. And we need to find sustainable ways to keep those programs funded. Currently our social safety nets are not sustainably funded, and they are letting far too many Americans through.
But again, I say it is not the rich people's job to spend their money on us. There are avenues they can take if they choose to donate or volunteer or help in some other way. But these things should not be a requirement.
And, I know for a fact that Richard Branson and his Virgin companies all donate to various charities. So, in that regard, Marine57's comment really doesn't fit. It almost seems like Marine57 is making the argument that there should not be billionaires in the world. But with a name like Marine57 I can't really see a Marine make those kind of arguments. After all, who would fight for freedom and then make that argument?
Back to my point.. Human kind should have the freedom to amass as much wealth as possible. And what they do with that money should be left to them, as long as it fits within the legal structure that society has deemed worthwhile to put into place. Now, once a person has amassed some wealth the onus is then on THEM to act ethically. A person SHOULD NOT be forced (and in fact CAN not be forced) to act ethically. The wealthy should want to make the world a better place. Actually, it is usually in their best financial interest to do so. And I would risk arguing that the majority of the super rich people in this world do indeed donate a lot to charities and volunteer organizations and other things that benefit those that need help.
To wrap up, it should not be argued that Billionaires need to support the lower classes. It should be argued that PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF OTHER PEOPLE. The idea that science funding needs to be diverted to help impoverished people is ridiculous. There is more than enough money in this world to take care of people and NOT sacrifice science funding. For starters we could reign in medicare fraud.
Relatively speaking, we have fewer (in percentages) of poor unfortunate people in terrible conditions than we did 200 years ago. 200 years ago was better than 1000 years ago, and so on.
The reason that we've been improving is through discoveries and advances.
If we shut down all of space today, we'd save..... hold on let's do the math:
"the total size of the space industry has been reliably estimated at about $251 billion in 2007"
"The total cost of treating cancer in the U.S. rose from about $95.5 billion in 2000 to $124.6 billion in 2010"
"Number of hospice care discharges with cancer as primary diagnosis: 447,600 (2007)"
"Number of current patients with cancer as primary diagnosis: 58,000 (2007)"
To round things off for quick calculation, I'm going to assume 500,000 people are treated.
"Number of deaths: 567,628"
So... only half of the critical cases are cured.
Let's double the budget and help ALL those people!
That's what?
~$250 billion?
Okay! We've saved half a million people. But now, we no longer have a space program, or any space companies either.
Are we better off? Maybe? I can't make a judgement like that or I'd be mentally ill.
However, the math shows (math is strong!) that if we continue without a space program, we WILL cease to exist in the next 10,000 years. (speaking from a probability standpoint)
So potentially millions, hundreds of millions, or billions will die and suffer as a trade-off.
Do you ever wonder why we do, or don't do something? I am of the camp that would like to think that we did everything for a good reason. We should do things because our children will be better off in the future.
Heck, I'll be proud to die of cancer if it means that your children will establish a world beyond our planet.
The Xprize was about getting to space period. Spaceship 1 and 2 cannot get to orbit. Velocity required for that would be on a scale not achievable by these spacecraft. Instead, both launch in a high arc getting to space for a brief time before flying back to earth. That is called suborbital spaceflight.
Hi all! Just out of curiosity, is it at all possible that this sub-orbital ship will ever become an orbital ship?
No. This ship cannot make the trip, ever.
However!
This ship can be the cornerstone for engine efficiency studies and designs that will lead towards a ship that could make that trip regularly.
Lettuce hope!! Otherwise, our space program will be playing ketchup to the rest of the world, rather than the other way around.