Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jr2 on January 26, 2008, 05:05:25 pm

Title: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: jr2 on January 26, 2008, 05:05:25 pm
Here (http://www.dancewithshadows.com/tech/spaceshiptwo.asp).

(http://i25.tinypic.com/i23xck.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: redsniper on January 26, 2008, 08:00:05 pm
Quote
100 tickets were initially made available at a cost of $200000 each. After the first 100, the price will drop to $100000 and after the first year, it will drop to $20000.
That's still hella expensive, but feasible. :cool:
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Dark RevenantX on January 26, 2008, 08:16:56 pm
A good way to get the rich off Earth.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: BloodEagle on January 26, 2008, 09:08:17 pm
Five minutes? .... .... Seriously?

$20,000/(5)60 s =~ $67.00 per second.

Multiply that number by however many people are going to be on the flight.

Now kill yourself.  ;7
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Goober5000 on January 26, 2008, 10:12:23 pm
Ooh.  Bonus points if you can name all the aircraft on the top left without looking them up. :)

Spoiler:
SpaceShipTwo
SpaceShipOne
Lunar Module
Boeing 747
Bell X-1 (first aircraft to exceed Mach 1)
Spirit of St. Louis
Wright Flyer
Otto Lilienthal's glider

And yes, I did all those from memory... though I had to think for a while before I remembered Lilienthal's name :D
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: redsniper on January 27, 2008, 12:02:11 am
Five minutes? .... .... Seriously?

$20,000/(5)60 s =~ $67.00 per second.

Multiply that number by however many people are going to be on the flight.

Now kill yourself.  ;7
Yeah, but you get what you pay for. That's five minutes IN FRAKING OUTER SPACE!!!
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Kosh on January 27, 2008, 02:23:35 am
Too bad it can't go beyond low earth orbit, parked there along with our space program.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: BloodEagle on January 27, 2008, 02:25:41 am
Too bad it can't go beyond low earth orbit, parked there along with our space program.

QFT.  :lol:
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: redsniper on January 27, 2008, 02:25:53 am
Yeah really. Moon vacation would rock so much harder.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Dysko on January 27, 2008, 02:33:44 am
Ooh.  Bonus points if you can name all the aircraft on the top left without looking them up. :)
:D
Uhm...

Spoiler:
Space Ship Two
Space Ship One
Lunar Exploration Module (or whatever LEM meant...)
Boeing 747
Bell X-1
Cessna C172 (I think, not very sure)
Wright Flyer
Icarus' wings, from the Greek legend

EDIT: d'oh! Cessna C172 and Icarus' wings are wrong! :(
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: WMCoolmon on January 27, 2008, 03:45:55 am
Quote
The ship in development has been christened VSS Enterprise. The name is an acknowledgement to the USS Enterprise from the Star Trek television series.

This really turned me off, actually. All of the previous "Enterprises" were military ships, save for the Shuttle, which was named Enterprise by request. It seems to cheapen the legacy somewhat for a private enterprise (pun not really intended) to christen a ship Enterprise, when it's not really going anywhere or doing anything new, other than providing entertainment for the wealthy and powerful.

That being said, I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would love the idea of going into space on a ship called Enterprise. And maybe that's partly why it disappoints me, because it feels so much like it was strongly influenced by publicity and economical reasons. Just another pop culture reference.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Black Wolf on January 27, 2008, 04:12:22 am
Ooh.  Bonus points if you can name all the aircraft on the top left without looking them up. :)

Spoiler:
SpaceShipTwo
SpaceShipOne
Lunar Module
Boeing 747
Bell X-1 (first aircraft to exceed Mach 1)
Spirit of St. Louis
Wright Flyer
Otto Lilienthal's glider

And yes, I did all those from memory... though I had to think for a while before I remembered Lilienthal's name :D

Got them all except number three (fom the bottom). And I'm claiming the last one (I got the same as Dysko) unless you can prove us wrong  :p

As for the article, I agree on the name. So many more appropriate things they could have called it. That said, Space Ship 3 looks like it's going to kick arse. Orbital flight and docking with space stations. How long before private enterprise decides Mars tourism is the next loical step?
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Dysko on January 27, 2008, 06:38:57 am
The last aircraft doesn't have a tail in the picture. Goob's solution had a tail (just google a picture of it). Me and BW win :P

BTW, I REALLY hope passengers will have an anti-G suit for re-enter... AFAIK, the average person without military training and anti-G equipment can sustain a max of 3 G before he/she loses consciousness. A 6 G re-enter may be too much if those G were maintained for more than some seconds.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: FreeSpaceFreak on January 27, 2008, 06:44:17 am
I've heard that the current SpaceShips don't go into orbit, not even into LEO. You'd need much higher velocities, which makes the re-entry rather compicated. That's the reason the Space Shuttle needs heat tiles, and SS2 doesn't.
Hence, it'll be a giant leap to SS3. Where did you get that from? I never heard of those plans before.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: TrashMan on January 27, 2008, 07:36:57 am
Quote
The ship in development has been christened VSS Enterprise. The name is an acknowledgement to the USS Enterprise from the Star Trek television series.

This really turned me off, actually. All of the previous "Enterprises" were military ships, save for the Shuttle, which was named Enterprise by request. It seems to cheapen the legacy somewhat for a private enterprise (pun not really intended) to christen a ship Enterprise, when it's not really going anywhere or doing anything new, other than providing entertainment for the wealthy and powerful.

They did it to draw in Trekkies. The sad thing is - it will probably work :rolleyes:
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Goober5000 on January 27, 2008, 11:41:11 am
And I'm claiming the last one (I got the same as Dysko) unless you can prove us wrong  :p
That may be.  I just figured that all of them would be real-life machines that represented a technological breakthrough of some sort.  That choice isn't exactly real-life. :p
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: IceFire on January 27, 2008, 12:02:40 pm
I think this is great.  NASA has dropped the ball for quite a while over manned spaceflight and achieving space flight at lower costs.  They have the big heavy hitter options but nothing in between and it seems that the now successive SpaceShip series offers some of that work on getting in between at reasonable costs.  Slow steady progress...maybe in 20 years someone will have a very cost effective solution at getting into space.  I just figure the more minds working on it the better :)
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Dark RevenantX on January 27, 2008, 01:38:21 pm
Breed a ****load of telekinetics and have them move the ship up with their minds while piloting.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Col. Fishguts on January 27, 2008, 05:01:19 pm
I think this is great.  NASA has dropped the ball for quite a while over manned spaceflight and achieving space flight at lower costs.  They have the big heavy hitter options but nothing in between and it seems that the now successive SpaceShip series offers some of that work on getting in between at reasonable costs.  Slow steady progress...maybe in 20 years someone will have a very cost effective solution at getting into space.  I just figure the more minds working on it the better :)

Exactly, the SpaceShip series could very well evolve into a working example of the original Sänger concept, which envisioned a fully reusable two-component launch system.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Kosh on January 27, 2008, 06:42:37 pm
It also would be helpful if we found a better propulsion system than simple rockets. Sure they can get you into orbit, but in doing so they require you to use massive amounts of fuel so you don't really have anything other than momentum to carry you to another planet.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Rictor on January 27, 2008, 07:58:52 pm
Looks awesome, but call me when SpaceShipThree rolls out. I want real space, not sub-orbital.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Nuke on January 27, 2008, 09:07:32 pm
the difference between orbit and the edge of space is merely velocity. if space ship one had a second stage to get it to speed, im sure it could orbit, though it probibly would fall apart in a high speed reentry. the space shuttle has to burn its engines for a good 20 minutes to achieve orbital velocity, and all it gets out of it is leo.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: karajorma on January 28, 2008, 05:41:15 am
Quote
The ship in development has been christened VSS Enterprise. The name is an acknowledgement to the USS Enterprise from the Star Trek television series.

This really turned me off, actually. All of the previous "Enterprises" were military ships, save for the Shuttle, which was named Enterprise by request. It seems to cheapen the legacy somewhat for a private enterprise (pun not really intended) to christen a ship Enterprise, when it's not really going anywhere or doing anything new, other than providing entertainment for the wealthy and powerful.

What they aren't mentioning is that they're painting the word Free in front of the name thereby making it valid. :)
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: jdjtcagle on January 28, 2008, 09:21:05 am
That's pretty cool!
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 28, 2008, 09:23:31 am

This really turned me off, actually. All of the previous "Enterprises" were military ships, save for the Shuttle, which was named Enterprise by request. It seems to cheapen the legacy somewhat for a private enterprise (pun not really intended) to christen a ship Enterprise, when it's not really going anywhere or doing anything new, other than providing entertainment for the wealthy and powerful.


Actually it is doing (going to do) something very new.
Enabling private persons to go into space on a private carrier is unprecedented.
there is very much the possibility that it'll popularise manned space-travel once again, as it now becomes in reach of people who have the "modest" sum of $200.000 available -a whole lot less than what the Russians ask!.
If succesfull, and there's little reason to assume it won't be, it isn't a big leap to expect the jet-set demanding a bigger thrill, i.e. longer flights, higher flights, longer stays... Think rudimentary space-hotels.
So in time, the name "enterprise" may most definately be very aptly chosen.

And remember, civilian airtravel was once beyond the common man-women too, due to being far too expensive.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Flaser on January 28, 2008, 10:36:05 pm
Another thing, I'd keep an eye on: The Skylon Vehicle
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_overview.html
(http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/images/skylon/orbital_640.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: redsniper on January 28, 2008, 11:03:31 pm
Cylon Vehicle?
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: jr2 on January 29, 2008, 03:25:34 am
I've heard that the current SpaceShips don't go into orbit, not even into LEO. You'd need much higher velocities, which makes the re-entry rather compicated. That's the reason the Space Shuttle needs heat tiles, and SS2 doesn't.
Hence, it'll be a giant leap to SS3. Where did you get that from? I never heard of those plans before.

www.stumbleupon.com FTW
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Admiral_Stones on January 29, 2008, 03:45:32 am
Which industry branch did Virgin not infiltrate? C'mon, Virgin Cola, Virgin Airlines, Virgin Music...
And now Space Tourism.
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: Nuke on January 29, 2008, 04:13:08 am
admit it, virgin's a whore :D
Title: Re: SpaceShipTwo
Post by: WMCoolmon on January 29, 2008, 04:31:54 am
admit it, virgin's a whore :D

My God. It's full of wit. :eek: