Virgin Galactic SpaceShip Two crashed?

[Einion Yrth]

Thankyou4calling said:

Einion Yrth said:

He's wrong, there's quite a lot. It just doesn't lie around in ponds.

Here we go!

Are you seriously saying there's water on the moon?

Google is your friend, or maybe in this case not. Yes there is water on the moon. There is even some suspicion that it may exist as ice at the poles. Your ignorance of the subject, oddly, does not make you right.

[jammy_basturd]

[Talksteer]

jammy_basturd said:

Thankyou4calling said:

jammy_basturd said:

You seem to be very ignorant to the advances that space travel have made that have filtered down into healthcare and everyday life.

Pens that write upside down, SatNav and Sky TV.

Water filters, memory foam, aural thermometers, scratch-resistant glass, LEDs, mine detection systems.

More here http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits....

All of which would be cheaper to develop if the money spent on the space race was spent on general R&D.

NASA strategy in the space race was described as being like trying to get a baby in one month by shagging 9 women.

The impacts for commercial spaceflight of this crash is I think are not particularly great. NASA is seeing significant cost savings on the ISS resupply contract and as it is dual source the recent failure should effect it that much.

Notably spacex is planning to land the first stage of a falcon booster next month. If they can demonstrate this and return the second stage that will have a substantial impact on the cost of access to space.

The virgin spaceship 2 isn't really on any technology road map to lowering the cost of space access.

[Scuffers]

Talksteer said:

The virgin spaceship 2 isn't really on any technology road map to lowering the cost of space access.

Not quite..

Its launch vehicle white knight is being used to launch small satellites too..

[MintSprint]

Talksteer said:

The virgin spaceship 2 isn't really on any technology road map to lowering the cost of space access.

The biggest failing of the NASA Mercury/Apollo program, arguably, was that it followed a very well planned and well funded road map straight up a blind alley.

Road maps aren't always all they're cracked up to be.

And giving your average geek outfit several $billion to spend on 'general research and development' is slightly less productive than just telling them to blow it on coke and hookers: research has to have a clear objective, even if it doesn't always deliver predictable outcomes.

[hidetheelephants]

menousername said:

For those in the know...

Are the energy sources these rockets are fued by fossil fuels or some sort of renewable source?

If fossil, what fuel(s) will replace them to keep space travel going when they run out? What feasible energy sources are being engineered?

Producing hydrogen is easy enough, from there you just synthesise the liquid fuel of your choice.

[Scuffers]

hidetheelephants said:

menousername said:

For those in the know...

Are the energy sources these rockets are fued by fossil fuels or some sort of renewable source?

If fossil, what fuel(s) will replace them to keep space travel going when they run out? What feasible energy sources are being engineered?

Producing hydrogen is easy enough, from there you just synthesise the liquid fuel of your choice.

Shame they're not using hydrogen then...

[Talksteer]

Scuffers said:

Talksteer said:

The virgin spaceship 2 isn't really on any technology road map to lowering the cost of space access.

Not quite..

Its launch vehicle white knight is being used to launch small satellites too..

Not exactly revolutionary and a drop in the ocean compared to the other US commercial space access companies.

[Scuffers]

Talksteer said:

Not exactly revolutionary and a drop in the ocean compared to the other US commercial space access companies.

True, but apparently it's cheaper and can launch them at 60,000 ft.

[Talksteer]

MintSprint said:

Talksteer said:

The virgin spaceship 2 isn't really on any technology road map to lowering the cost of space access.

The biggest failing of the NASA Mercury/Apollo program, arguably, was that it followed a very well planned and well funded road map straight up a blind alley.

Road maps aren't always all they're cracked up to be.

And giving your average geek outfit several $billion to spend on 'general research and development' is slightly less productive than just telling them to blow it on coke and hookers: research has to have a clear objective, even if it doesn't always deliver predictable outcomes.

I wasn't suggesting giving R&D money away to any old general research but just suggesting that the spin offs from manned spaceflight are pretty low in comparison to the cost and that if you had targeted R&D at some more important initial problems you would have got a better research/economic outcome and also spin offs.

NASA is actually pretty good at unmanned space science but projects like the shuttle were terrible on virtually every level.

[hidetheelephants]

Scuffers said:

hidetheelephants said:

menousername said:

For those in the know...

Are the energy sources these rockets are fued by fossil fuels or some sort of renewable source?

If fossil, what fuel(s) will replace them to keep space travel going when they run out? What feasible energy sources are being engineered?

Producing hydrogen is easy enough, from there you just synthesise the liquid fuel of your choice.

Shame they're not using hydrogen then...

I didn't say they were.

[eccles]

Scuffers said:

Talksteer said:

Not exactly revolutionary and a drop in the ocean compared to the other US commercial space access companies.

True, but apparently it's cheaper and can launch them at 60,000 ft.

I helped convert that aircraft in Cambridge. Was quite a few years ago now, and it's likely to be the last Tristar flying by the time it goes out of service.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Suborbital fights were done before with the B-52 mother-ship/X-15 combo.

[Einion Yrth]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Suborbital fights were done before with the B-52 mother-ship/X-15 combo.

Remind me, how many paying passengers did the X15 carry again?

[Thankyou4calling]

Einion Yrth said:

Remind me, how many paying passengers did the X15 carry again?

Same number as Virgin Galactic.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Einion Yrth said:

Remind me, how many paying passengers did the X15 carry again?

Having a passenger seat(s), has nothing to do with the technological development of the system, which is the point.
How many passengers does a satellite launch system have?
Fool.

[Scuffers]

more to the point, just how much does running a B52 cost?

White Knight 2 has been designed specifically for this job, and as such is way cheaper to operate.

to the point that Nasa have started some tests with their X-37.

[sjn2004]

Einion Yrth said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Suborbital fights were done before with the B-52 mother-ship/X-15 combo.

Remind me, how many paying passengers did the X15 carry again?

But it worked...and that was 60 yrs ago. I guess it all started with the Komet during WWII.

[MartG]

sjn2004 said:

Einion Yrth said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Suborbital fights were done before with the B-52 mother-ship/X-15 combo.

Remind me, how many paying passengers did the X15 carry again?

But it worked...and that was 60 yrs ago. I guess it all started with the Komet during WWII.

It didn't always work - Mike Adams was killed in an X-15 crash

[sjn2004]

MartG said:

sjn2004 said:

Einion Yrth said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Suborbital fights were done before with the B-52 mother-ship/X-15 combo.

Remind me, how many paying passengers did the X15 carry again?

But it worked...and that was 60 yrs ago. I guess it all started with the Komet during WWII.

It didn't always work - Mike Adams was killed in an X-15 crash

They did get into space though...