VgGalactic press release thread

[8900]

VgGalactic press release announcement is near (in a few days)
Let's open a new thread on it

[space_dreamer]

Do you think it will be about Wight Knight Two or Space Ship Two?

I hope it’s an unveiling of WK2 and not an announcement of a delay.

[daj24]

I remember reading that it is expected they will unveil scaled models of both vehicles.

At the very least.

[docmordrid]

The Telegraph (UK newspaper) is reporting SS2's design will be unveiled tomorrow, 1-23-08, in New York.

Link....

[8900]

Hopefully tests will begin this year =]
2008 will be exciting year for space

[meiza]

Liveblogging by Flightglobal's Rob Coppinger:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/

[Andy USA]

8900 - 22/1/2008  12:09 AM

Hopefully tests will begin this year =]
2008 will be exciting year for space

Will be anyway, without any PR from Paris Hilton's suborbital joyride.

[kenny008]

The press release is out:

http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/

[Launch Fan]

Andy USA - 23/1/2008  9:14 AM

8900 - 22/1/2008  12:09 AM

Hopefully tests will begin this year =]
2008 will be exciting year for space

Will be anyway, without any PR from Paris Hilton's suborbital joyride.

Agreed.

[eeergo]

Wow, its nominal reentry profile will be 6 gs! I don't know if Paris Hilton will like that

[ApolloLee]

Well, certainly not a carbon-copy of Spaceship One and White Knight II ... at least on the surface. In fact, at least nose-on, Spaceship Two looks much more like a conventional aircraft than Spaceship One did. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this make testing a little more extensive than previously thought?

And not to get Star Wars references into it, but let me be the first to mention the resemblance of White Knight II to the Cloud City Pod Cars... or at least to the real-world F-82 Twin Mustang...

[daver]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23433757-details/Book+a+space+now+on+out+of+this+world+tourist+flight/article.do
Guess its time to book a flight.


Not having any luck getting the link to work :angry:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/
article-23433757-details/Book+a+space+now+on+out+of+this+world+tourist+flight/article.do

If you copy the two lines above and paste them in your browser it will work.

[ckiki lwai]

White knight sure looks special, would both fuselages have a cockpit or would there be only one cockpit with the other one just having windows for aesthetic purposes?

Oh and I also like the Virgin Galactic girl

[PurduesUSAFguy]

Space Ship two reminds me quite a bit of the X-20.

I'd love to see how/if/when Rutan can parlay his work on SSI/II into an orbital system.

[JMS]

The Virgin site seems to be overwhelmed at the moment.
Apparently quite a bit of interest...

[Jason]

PurduesUSAFguy - 23/1/2008  1:05 PM

Space Ship two reminds me quite a bit of the X-20.

.

Kind of looks like a Sabreliner also.

[collectSPACE]

ckiki lwai - 23/1/2008  11:36 AM

White knight sure looks special, would both fuselages have a cockpit or would there be only one cockpit with the other one just having windows for aesthetic purposes?

According to SPACE.com:

Family members of passengers or other space tourists can watch a SpaceShipTwo launch from inside a WhiteKnightTwo cabin, each of which sits just 25 feet (7.6) meters from the center-mounted spaceship.

[kevin-rf]

looking at the pics, it looks like only one of the twin hulls is full of windows, maybe the passenger cabin in White Knight Two only has windows?

[Rusty_Barton]

Here's an article on the BBC website with illustrations and a video.

Virgin unveils spaceship designs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7205445.stm

More story links:
Virgin Galactic models SpaceShipTwo
http://content.zdnet.com/2346-10532_22-184522-1.html


PICTURES: Virgin Galactic unveils Dyna-Soar style SpaceShipTwo design and twin-fuselage White Knight II configuration
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/23/221031/pictures-virgin-galactic-unveils-dyna-soar-style-spaceshiptwo-design-and-twin-fuselage-white-knight.html

[daver]

Rusty_Barton - 23/1/2008 1:38 PM

Here's an article on the BBC website with illustrations.

Virgin unveils spaceship designs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7205445.stm

The article says $200,000.00 dollars per person.
With 6 paying customers per flight = $1.2 million
They have 200 seats sold = 33 flights booked = $39,600,000.00 minus expenses.

Going to try and fix my earlier link.   I couldn't edit the last post anymore, guess there is a 3 strike limit. LOL

[docmordrid]

Functionality aside, they're pretty ladies...all 3 of 'em

I managed to get most of the press kit down and peruse the images.  A bit of the original 787 wing tips, a bit of Gulf Stream and a whole lot of Rutan...especially in WK2.  

Read somewhere (it's been a busy day) that they're working with companies who want to use WK2's wing.  Sounds like a side benefit for their bottom line.

[Blackstar]

[Blackstar]

[sitharus]

If you want some propaganda watch the Galactic Video (About 3/4 of the way down http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/, 238MB video). I really liked the bit where they went all environmental, saying how the Shuttle's SRBs are horrible polluting things, whereas they are much better and smaller. Someone should point out to them the huge differences between the systems...

[Chris Bergin]

sitharus - 23/1/2008  10:17 PM

I really liked the bit where they went all environmental, saying how the Shuttle's SRBs are horrible polluting things, whereas they are much better and smaller. Someone should point out to them the huge differences between the systems...

Yep, they keep banging on about comparing themselves to the shuttle. I think an e-mail might be warranted.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Chris Bergin - 23/1/2008  5:26 PM

sitharus - 23/1/2008  10:17 PM

I really liked the bit where they went all environmental, saying how the Shuttle's SRBs are horrible polluting things, whereas they are much better and smaller. Someone should point out to them the huge differences between the systems...

Yep, they keep banging on about comparing themselves to the shuttle. I think an e-mail might be warranted.

Q:  The Shuttle pushes up to seven crew and 24000 kg to orbit, how much does virgin put in orbit. oh wait wait...

I do support Virgin and their push for commercial spaceflight, but it would be more accurate to compare Spaceship two with the x-15 or mercury/Redstone than the shuttle.  Demonstrate rendezvous, in orbit repair, docking, orbital maneuvering, heck even show me orbital flight before comparing to shuttle.  A donkey cart is safer and more environmentally friendly than a tank, but that does not mean it is just as impressive.

[Chris Bergin]

I'm asking her (VG PAO) why they are comparing a Tuk Tuk to an 18 wheeler truck

[meiza]

Could someone knowledgeable in the composite business explain about the build process?
http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Photographs/SpaceShipTwo%20Construction/SpaceShipTwo%20Construction.%20wing%20assembly.jpg
What's the black material? And the yellow section?

[Namechange User]

The Virgin airlines put out how much CO2 through their engines each day?  I realize that this is Virgin GALACTIC but as long as they are goiing to draw conclusions from comparing apples to oranges......

[nacnud]

Well virgin is looking into biofuels for their aircraft, but claiming that SS2 is green is a bit of a stretch. You may as well claim that it's a carbon sink because is it made for carbon fibre...

[vt_hokie]

Sure has changed a lot from the early concept drawings!

[nacnud]

Yep, but were those early drawings ever accurate? IIRC they came with a big disclaimer saying that they were only showing the concept in general.

[docmordrid]

That's correct.  The only thing that was concrete in that pre-release was the interior.

[A_M_Swallow]

Chris Bergin - 23/1/2008  10:26 PM

sitharus - 23/1/2008  10:17 PM

I really liked the bit where they went all environmental, saying how the Shuttle's SRBs are horrible polluting things, whereas they are much better and smaller. Someone should point out to them the huge differences between the systems...

Yep, they keep banging on about comparing themselves to the shuttle. I think an e-mail might be warranted.

A better comparison would be with Concorde.  Both fly high and fast but do not go into space.  Although this aircraft may be able to fly across the Pacific, say Tokyo to Los Angeles.

[meiza]

It doesn't have anywhere NEAR the performance to fly from Tokyo to Los Angeles, that's much over 5000 km. This does 100 km hops. It probably couldn't fly form New York to Chicago.

[A_M_Swallow]

meiza - 24/1/2008  3:42 AM

It doesn't have anywhere NEAR the performance to fly from Tokyo to Los Angeles, that's much over 5000 km. This does 100 km hops. It probably couldn't fly form New York to Chicago.

That sounds more like the height rather than the length of the flight.  
"During their G Force acclimatization program, the participants were spun to 3.5GZ (head to toe) and 6GX (front to back) to simulate the actual flight profile of SpaceShipTwo during a 110km (68 miles) apogee sub-orbital space flight."

Going back to an older press release
http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Press%20Releases/European%20Virgin%20Galactic%20ASA%20Release%2013JUN07.pdf
"a sensational spaceflight lasting over two hours." and "Traveling at almost 3,000 miles an hour ..."
2 * 3,000 / 2 = 3,000 miles (approx)

The tourist flights are probably in a circle.

edit - it is accelerating so it is half the distance.

[Comga]

A_M_Swallow - 23/1/2008  10:15 PM
Going back to an older press release
"a sensational spaceflight lasting over two hours." and "Traveling at almost 3,000 miles an hour ..."
2 * 3,000 = 6,000 miles (approx)

Bad approximations.  It doesn't maintain 3000 mph for more than a tiny fraction of the two hours.
There was a graph of altitude, velocity, acceleration and a few more data in Aviation Week back in '04 IIRC.  If you, or anyone, could find that, you would see.

Maximum range is an interesting problem, but it is not likely to be significant.  If SS2 were to rocket  out of the atmosphere at, say, 45 degrees, it would be going about 2000 mph laterally but would cut its peak altitude and free-fall duration, and so would travel at this speed for perhaps three minutes.  2000 mph * 1/20 hr = 100 miles (very approx, as you say)

[Comga]

PurduesUSAFguy - 23/1/2008  11:05 AMI'd love to see how/if/when Rutan can parlay his work on SSI/II into an orbital system.

Has anyone found in the release the loaded mass of SS2?  It would be interesting to compare it to a Pegasus and the proposed t-Space Quickreach.  The release does mention using White Knight 2 for this kind of operation.

[CuddlyRocket]

Branson needs to stress the environmental aspects of the design, as private space-flights are already drawing flak as polluting joy-rides for the rich. It's undoubtedly unfair to compare it to the STS, but it's also undoubtedly true that it will be much less polluting than the latter!

Intersting that they're already thinking of different markets for the system. I'm sure there'll be a demand for experimental use (especially if the experimenters get to go up with their experiments!). Not mentioned so far (probably after flight testing), though sure to come, is commerical advertising and sponsorship deals, which must be worth millions. Given the figures, this is not insignificant.

I think Branson has a good chance of creating the world's first commercial space-line, which should ensure his place in history!

I think this is the route by which (relatively) low-cost LEO access will eventually come. Once in place, the drive will always be to reduce the unit cost and lengthen the experience. I don't know the range of SS2 in cross-country mode (though you can glide quite a way if you start 100 miles up, and the carrier craft wouldn't go round in circles whilst reaching launch height), but at some point in development the cost/range/time of flight equation will produce a marketable advantage over aircraft.

[Jim]

CuddlyRocket - 24/1/2008  5:46 AM

 I don't know the range of SS2 in cross-country mode (though you can glide quite a way if you start 100 miles up, and the carrier craft wouldn't go round in circles whilst reaching launch height), but at some point in development the cost/range/time of flight equation will produce a marketable advantage over aircraft.

Few hundred miles.     It doesn't glide during entry.   I doubt it is viable for long range.  It would need to be a magnitude larger for distance

[8900]

Has the shape of SS2 being finalized this time?
I think yes because there are photos showing actual hardware construction.....

[meiza]

Uh, it takes 3 hours because of the very slow ascent with the subsonic White Knight II carrier. The Spaceshiptwo flight can be counted in minutes.

The 100 km VERTICAL hop doesn't travel much horizontally (which is also intentional). Even if launched at an angle (with a lower apogee) it would only travel a few hundred kilometers. And there's the whole cocking and configuration issue. It can't fly very fast or in dense air and have much lift at the same time. Even if one quickly tried to optimize the spaceshiptwo design for maximum range with the existing powerplant, it would still suck.
New York to Chicago is 1000 km. New York to Paris is 6000 km. And Los Angeles to Tokyo across the Pacific is 9000 km. A 100 km vertical hopper is as far from these intercontinental ranges as a rowboat from a ferry.

[todd5ski]

Looks good. I hope they can get the mother ship finished and flight tested this year, maybe get as far as the drop testing/ gliding of the spaceship. I read they need to wait for the rocket engine itself until the cause of the accident is finialized.

As for the vertical hop, they would likely have to remove 4 of the 6 passenger seats for more fuel, and even strap on a couple of booster rockets on the wings. Even then they might not have enough.

[William Barton]

Interestingly, one of the idiot talking heads on Fox News was ridiculing the whole enterprise as a "flight to nowhere," and said, "If I go to all the trouble to travel in space, I want to go to a planet."

[marshallsplace]

In the BBC article Branson says "The fact that this system will have the capability to launch small payloads and satellites at low cost is hugely important,"

How does he intend to do this? does he know something we don't  

[aero313]

CuddlyRocket - 24/1/2008  5:46 AM

Branson needs to stress the environmental aspects of the design, as private space-flights are already drawing flak as polluting joy-rides for the rich.

"Environmental aspects"  Right, because burning rubber is SOOO environmentally friendly.

It's undoubtedly unfair to compare it to the STS, but it's also undoubtedly true that it will be much less polluting than the latter!

A moped is less polluting than a Mack truck.  What's your point?

Intersting that they're already thinking of different markets for the system.

Yeah, because the small satellite market has been such a moneymaker for everyone involved.  I especially like the quote about taking heat out of the planet by putting servers in orbit.  I guess it takes no energy to beam data back and forth from the ground.

[clongton]

William Barton - 24/1/2008  10:30 AM

Interestingly, one of the idiot talking heads on Fox News was ridiculing the whole enterprise as a "flight to nowhere," and said, "If I go to all the trouble to travel in space, I want to go to a planet."

Typical far right idiotic group talk. What are they going to do when their talking head goes away next January? Nobody to tell them what to think.

[todd5ski]

aero313 - 24/1/2008  10:04 AM



Yeah, because the small satellite market has been such a moneymaker for everyone involved.  

It will depend on the costs to launch from the WhiteKnight 2 mothership compared with the current costs of launching small satelites. It will also depend on the demand for small satelites.

[kevin-rf]

todd5ski - 24/1/2008  12:19 PM

aero313 - 24/1/2008  10:04 AM



Yeah, because the small satellite market has been such a moneymaker for everyone involved.  

It will depend on the costs to launch from the WhiteKnight 2 mothership compared with the current costs of launching small satelites. It will also depend on the demand for small satelites.

So you launch a peagasus from white knight 2 instead of orbitals tri-star. You save how much?

[jongoff]

Comga,

Has anyone found in the release the loaded mass of SS2?  It would be interesting to compare it to a Pegasus and the proposed t-Space Quickreach.  The release does mention using White Knight 2 for this kind of operation.

I've been curious about such things myself (particularly due to my recent interest in Air-Launched RLVs), so I did a little digging.  What I found wasn't as enlightening as I hoped, but here's what I have:

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2008/01/mass-confusion-and-white-knight-2.html

Short version:
Will Whitehorn has publicly given the payload capacity of WK2 on two different occasions (one in at a presentation at Oshkosh this year, and one to Rob Coppinger of Flight Global).  Unfortunately the two numbers don't match.  One was 30,000lb, one was ~30 tons (or tonnes)...While he may have been talking about different numbers both times (for instance maybe ~30 tonnes is the max carrying capacity, while 30klb is the carrying capacity needed for SS2), it's more likely that he just misspoke one of these times.  Alas, I fear the smaller number is the right one.  If so, it wouldn't be able to do much more than microsat launches, which as Aero313 put it, doesn't really look like that lucrative of a market.

~Jon

[JMS]

meiza - 23/1/2008  4:57 PM

Could someone knowledgeable in the composite business explain about the build process?
http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Photographs/SpaceShipTwo%20Construction/SpaceShipTwo%20Construction.%20wing%20assembly.jpg
What's the black material? And the yellow section?

The "black" dark grey material in the fuselage and spar structure is carbon fiber.
The yellow structure appears to be a part of the construction stand/cradle.
Have a look at this picture for a different view.
http://tinyurl.com/36bppd

[meiza]

JMS - 24/1/2008  6:22 PM

meiza - 23/1/2008  4:57 PM

Could someone knowledgeable in the composite business explain about the build process?
http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Photographs/SpaceShipTwo%20Construction/SpaceShipTwo%20Construction.%20wing%20assembly.jpg
What's the black material? And the yellow section?

The "black" dark grey material in the fuselage and spar structure is carbon fiber.
The yellow structure appears to be a part of the construction stand/cradle.
Have a look at this picture for a different view.
http://tinyurl.com/36bppd

I meant the mid section of the fuselage, which is not black like the rest of the vehicle. It seems the oxidizer tank should be right there.

The more I look at this, it seems like the fuselage halves are "real stuff" but the duct tape was used just to mount them together for a fit test and photo shoot. There must be a reason that these were not done in one piece. There probably wasn't a big enough autoclave for that and the winding would have been more complicated.

[JMS]

meiza - 24/1/2008  1:25 PM

I meant the mid section of the fuselage, which is not black like the rest of the vehicle.

I don't have an answer for what the different material is mid fuselage.
My best bet is that that material is overlaying the same carbon fiber structure as the rest of the fuselage, though. Perhaps for thermal reasons if that is indeed where the oxidizer tank is located.
If you zoom in on the High Res picture, that area does appear to be a raised overlay application.

I would also venture a guess that it's possible the nose section is produced in two pieces because that area might need to be accessed for routine instrumentation maintenance.
It appears from looking at the rest of the structure that SC's autoclave is large enough to produce the nose section in one piece if that were desirable.

Perhaps someone here can answer those questions definitively.

[CuddlyRocket]

Jim - 24/1/2008  12:49 PM

CuddlyRocket - 24/1/2008  5:46 AM

...but at some point in development the cost/range/time of flight equation will produce a marketable advantage over aircraft.

...I doubt it is viable for long range.  It would need to be a magnitude larger for distance

I was unclear. I was thinking of development of the series of successors to SS2.

aero313 - 24/1/2008  4:04 PM

"Environmental aspects"  Right, because burning rubber is SOOO environmentally friendly.

No, which is why he needs to address the environmental aspects, including that one!

A moped is less polluting than a Mack truck.  What's your point?

Although the average member of the public would be well aware of the difference in levels of pollution between a moped and a truck, they'll be much less aware of the difference between SS2 and the STS. All they'lll remember is that SS2 is much less polluting than the STS - which is true if Branson gets pulled up on it. (Granted it's misleading, but he'd simply express surprise that anyone wasn't aware of that.)

Yeah, because the small satellite market has been such a moneymaker for everyone involved.

If it doesn't make money, they won't do it. If it does, they will. The point is that Virgin Galactic is acting as a commercial entity, seeking to leverage its assets into any available business opportunity.

I especially like the quote about taking heat out of the planet by putting servers in orbit.  I guess it takes no energy to beam data back and forth from the ground.

Not much, a few hundred watts. Certainly a lot less than the energy used by the servers themselves. The maths is fairly trivial.

I'm not sure of the economic, as opposed to environmental, rationale. But I doubt this is actually in the business plan. It's just Branson making the company seem as green as possible (to address those environmental concerns).

[todd5ski]

kevin-rf - 24/1/2008  11:40 AM

todd5ski - 24/1/2008  12:19 PM

aero313 - 24/1/2008  10:04 AM



Yeah, because the small satellite market has been such a moneymaker for everyone involved.  

It will depend on the costs to launch from the WhiteKnight 2 mothership compared with the current costs of launching small satelites. It will also depend on the demand for small satelites.

So you launch a peagasus from white knight 2 instead of orbitals tri-star. You save how much?

No idea. It is possible they have their own rocket which may be cheaper?

[meiza]

JMS - 24/1/2008  8:08 PM

meiza - 24/1/2008  1:25 PM

I meant the mid section of the fuselage, which is not black like the rest of the vehicle.

I don't have an answer for what the different material is mid fuselage.
My best bet is that that material is overlaying the same carbon fiber structure as the rest of the fuselage, though. Perhaps for thermal reasons if that is indeed where the oxidizer tank is located.
If you zoom in on the High Res picture, that area does appear to be a raised overlay application.

I would also venture a guess that it's possible the nose section is produced in two pieces because that area might need to be accessed for routine instrumentation maintenance.
It appears from looking at the rest of the structure that SC's autoclave is large enough to produce the nose section in one piece if that were desirable.

Perhaps someone here can answer those questions definitively.

The Economist says the oxidizer tank is made of flexible glass fibre. That's what we are seeing here. Carbon fiber doesn't stretch much.
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10566293

Another change in the design of the spaceship is the insertion of a flexible glass-fibre section into its composite structure. This will allow the rocket's oxidiser tank to expand when it is full. All these changes mean that when SpaceShipTwo does begin flight tests, the programme will last at least a year before paying customers can take to the skies.

[JMS]

meiza - 24/1/2008  3:31 PM

The Economist says the oxidizer tank is made of flexible glass fibre. That's what we are seeing here. Carbon fiber doesn't stretch much.
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10566293

Very interesting... I wonder how it's material strength compares to the carbon fiber.

[A_M_Swallow]

JMS - 24/1/2008  10:11 PM

meiza - 24/1/2008  3:31 PM

The Economist says the oxidizer tank is made of flexible glass fibre. That's what we are seeing here. Carbon fiber doesn't stretch much.
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10566293

Very interesting... I wonder how it's material strength compares to the carbon fiber.

An advert for a polyester / fibre glass
http://www.trojanproducts.co.uk/aboutus/grp/grp_more_b.htm
"The ultimate tensile strength of a freshly drawn single glass filament (diameter 9-15 microns) is about 3.5 GPa."
Claims the tensile strength of Polyester / glass roving is up to 800 MPa.

Carbon fibre data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fiber

[meiza]

It's somewhat weaker.

I wonder though, in structural engineering having material flex discontinuities introduces point loads.

I guess they still had to make it essentially monocoque to save mass. Probably the ox tank touches the fuselage wall at every point and since its pressure varies so much it has to be able to flex and thus the wall and tank materials have to be the same to stretch the same amount.

But this means that if the fuselage is stiff CF then when you push from the nose up, the load is felt at the tank. Perhaps not. You can design the hull to flex somwhat.

[A_M_Swallow]

The big advantage of glass fibre when making the oxygen tank is that silica (SiO2) does not burn.

[Vfor]

Anyone familiar with Kevlar composites recognizes them on sight.
 
http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Photographs/SpaceShipTwo%20Construction/SpaceShipTwo%20Construction.%20wing%20assembly.jpg

In this construction photo of SpaceShipTwo, you can see where although the crew cabin and tailcone are carbon fiber the center section is Kevlar.

Is that their big plan for dealing with the explosion potential of nitrous oxide because they have no clue what kind caused the July 2007 explosion or any idea what to do about it?

[Blackstar]

CuddlyRocket - 24/1/2008  4:46 AM
Intersting that they're already thinking of different markets for the system. I'm sure there'll be a demand for experimental use (especially if the experimenters get to go up with their experiments!).

It would be interesting to compare it to sounding rockets.  Is its flight time and altitude similar to a sounding rocket, and what's the price comparison?  Makes me wonder if it could eventually be a good choice for NASA and DoD sounding rockets.  I think there's a lot of variables to look at, including the fact that it could carry larger payloads and recover them (not always possible with current payloads).

[Vfor]

Blackstar - 24/1/2008  8:39 PM

CuddlyRocket - 24/1/2008  4:46 AM
Intersting that they're already thinking of different markets for the system. I'm sure there'll be a demand for experimental use (especially if the experimenters get to go up with their experiments!).

It would be interesting to compare it to sounding rockets.  Is its flight time and altitude similar to a sounding rocket, and what's the price comparison?  Makes me wonder if it could eventually be a good choice for NASA and DoD sounding rockets.  I think there's a lot of variables to look at, including the fact that it could carry larger payloads and recover them (not always possible with current payloads).

One application that springs to mind is as a testbed for high altitude emergency egress equipment (ejection seats and space suits), picking up where Joe Kittinger left off.

[Vfor]

meiza - 23/1/2008  4:57 PM

Could someone knowledgeable in the composite business explain about the build process?
http://www.virgingalactic.com/pressftp/content/Photographs/SpaceShipTwo%20Construction/SpaceShipTwo%20Construction.%20wing%20assembly.jpg
What's the black material? And the yellow section?

Black is carbon fiber. Yellow is Kevlar.

The question is, why are they making the section that houses the oxidizer tank out of Kevlar instead of carbon fiber?

[meiza]

Vfor, it was explained a few posts up from here. The oxidizer tank stretches so the fuselage must be of the same material to stretch too, and they say it's glass fibre in the Economist article.

[Vfor]

meiza - 25/1/2008  2:58 AM

Vfor, it was explained a few posts up from here. The oxidizer tank stretches so the fuselage must be of the same material to stretch too, and they say it's glass fibre in the Economist article.

The photos show a Kevlar fuselage section, not fiberglass. If there is an expansion issue, you just build the fuselage big enough in the first place to accomodate the expanded oxidizer tank. Since you can do that just as well with carbon fiber, why are they building that fuselage section out of bulletproof Kevlar?

[meiza]

Ah Vfor, the plot thickens... Maybe it's Kevlar overlay on glass fiber. Kevlar is very stretchy so it should have no problem.
Here's what a glass fiber tank looks like
http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2003_05_25/tankcoupling.jpg

Why they don't have separate structures? That's a good question. Maybe that could be a bit less mass efficient. I presume now the ox tank is attached to the body and the fuel/chamber/throat/nozzle is attached to the tank. Could even dampen vibrations. But the afterbody is attached to the tank as well. I don't know about the aft part of the wing.
That could create tensions. Maybe the tank only bulges radially.
A weird design decision.

[Vfor]

meiza - 25/1/2008  7:35 AM

Ah Vfor, the plot thickens... Maybe it's Kevlar overlay on glass fiber. Kevlar is very stretchy so it should have no problem.
Here's what a glass fiber tank looks like
http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2003_05_25/tankcoupling.jpg

Why they don't have separate structures? That's a good question. Maybe that could be a bit less mass efficient. I presume now the ox tank is attached to the body and the fuel/chamber/throat/nozzle is attached to the tank. Could even dampen vibrations. But the afterbody is attached to the tank as well. I don't know about the aft part of the wing.
That could create tensions. Maybe the tank only bulges radially.
A weird design decision.

As for the plot thickening, maybe the reason they're using Kevlar is because they haven't found a solution to the problem of nitrous oxide self-detonating (because there isn't one), so instead of sacrificing money and schedule to a redesign that replaces nitrous oxide with an oxidizer that doesn't explode they're attempting to make their current system workable by armoring SpaceShipTwo with Kevlar.

[aero313]

CuddlyRocket - 24/1/2008  4:10 PM
...It's just Branson making the company seem as green as possible (to address those environmental concerns).

That was my point - make the company SEEM green, as opposed to actually reducing emissions.  Sort of like the automakers who strive for the PERCEPTION of quality, instead of just building a quality product.

[JMS]

Don't you guys think you're being a bit tough on Richard?

[8900]

Vfor - 26/1/2008  6:28 AM

As for the plot thickening, maybe the reason they're using Kevlar is because they haven't found a solution to the problem of nitrous oxide self-detonating (because there isn't one), so instead of sacrificing money and schedule to a redesign that replaces nitrous oxide with an oxidizer that doesn't explode they're attempting to make their current system workable by armoring SpaceShipTwo with Kevlar.

NO oxidizer in completely safe
LOx can explode, N2O4 is even much more dangerous, H2O2 is better but still, it is dangerous
the oxidizer itself is not the problem, the problem is can we improve the procedure to handle
it so that it can be used rather safely
trying to re-creating the explosion scene should be useful in determining the root cause
Given correct precautions and procedures, even the most dangerous N2O4 can be handled safely
Kevlar shield is backup, so that even in worse case scenario explosion did occur, the SS2 can
have a better chance to survive

[HMXHMX]

Uh, LOX can't explode.

Having used many tons of H2O2 I can say with some assurance it can sure act like an explosive even if it doesn't meet the textbook definition of one.

Nitrous most certainly can detonate, though initiation is challenging.  It is a monopropellant, like hydrazine, which can also detonate.

There is no "Kevlar shield" on SS2.  It is not a shield; that is a misperception.  And even if it were, a review of the July accident site shows it would be of no value whatever if the main propellant tank goes high order.

[Vfor]

HMXHMX - 25/1/2008  10:30 PM

Uh, LOX can't explode.

Having used many tons of H2O2 I can say with some assurance it can sure act like an explosive even if it doesn't meet the textbook definition of one.

Nitrous most certainly can detonate, though initiation is challenging.  It is a monopropellant, like hydrazine, which can also detonate.

There is no "Kevlar shield" on SS2.  It is not a shield; that is a misperception.  And even if it were, a review of the July accident site shows it would be of no value whatever if the main propellant tank goes high order.

Let's hope traps designed to prevent detonation waves from propagating back to the main tank are installed and are effective.

[jabe]

from space.com
scary the similarity of design

[Comga]

jongoff - 24/1/2008  11:02 AM

Comga,

Has anyone found in the release the loaded mass of SS2?  It would be interesting to compare it to a Pegasus and the proposed t-Space Quickreach.  The release does mention using White Knight 2 for this kind of operation.

I've been curious about such things myself (particularly due to my recent interest in Air-Launched RLVs), so I did a little digging.  What I found wasn't as enlightening as I hoped, but here's what I have:
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2008/01/mass-confusion-and-white-knight-2.html
Short version:
Will Whitehorn has publicly given the payload capacity of WK2 on two different occasions (one in at a presentation at Oshkosh this year, and one to Rob Coppinger of Flight Global).  Unfortunately the two numbers don't match.  One was 30,000lb, one was ~30 tons (or tonnes)..... Alas, I fear the smaller number is the right one.  If so, it wouldn't be able to do much more than microsat launches, which as Aero313 put it, doesn't really look like that lucrative of a market.
~Jon

Your own link to Rob Coppinger's Flight Global blog, Hyperbola, http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/01/white-knight-ii-could-launch-o.html
is adamant about the 13,600 kg / 30,000 lb capacity.  This can be compared to the Pegasus XL, which has a mass of 23,130 kg.  Although the launch altitude would be higher, 60 kft vs 40 kft IIRC, it would be hard to maintain the same relative performance, which would result in something like 200 kg to LEO.   This is pretty small, microsats, as you say, the range of co-manifested secondary satellites, and pretty far from any established market, as you also said.  

Burt Rutan is not "on a mission" like Elon Musk.  Unless someone pays, he won't build.  

Launching payloads from WKII seems like more silliness like VG's environmental sensitivity.
Perhaps we can save the planet by launching 200 kg servers to a LEO belt, where they will be powered by environmentally benign solar cells. :bleh:

On the other hand, there will be science done from SS2.

[8900]

Let's talk about the design
Who think the newly unveiled design is more "cool" than the original concept?

[MKremer]

I know Rutan designs mostly for "form follows function", but these new designs strike me as being more 'traditional' than the original WK/SS1 designs. (WK - fusilage/tailplane design, wing-mounted engines ; SS2 - fusilage design with elongated nose)

[AntiKev]

Vfor - 25/1/2008  6:28 PM
As for the plot thickening, maybe the reason they're using Kevlar is because they haven't found a solution to the problem of nitrous oxide self-detonating (because there isn't one), so instead of sacrificing money and schedule to a redesign that replaces nitrous oxide with an oxidizer that doesn't explode they're attempting to make their current system workable by armoring SpaceShipTwo with Kevlar.

It also looks like that area is where the main spar pass through is.  The kevlar could help with bending loads transferred to the fuselage from the wing spar.

[Rob in KC]

8900 - 28/1/2008  8:18 AM

Let's talk about the design
Who think the newly unveiled design is more "cool" than the original concept?

There's nothing cool about this. It's a suborbital joyride.

[antonioe]

Rob in KC - 28/1/2008 9:50 AM

8900 - 28/1/2008 8:18 AM Let's talk about the design Who think the newly unveiled design is more "cool" than the original concept?

There's nothing cool about this. It's a suborbital joyride.

Well, I think it is very cool.  I will sign up for a ride if I find I can afford it.  At $20K I'd buy a ticket right now.  At $50K I would have to think hard about it.  At $100K, I can't afford it.

I know - alas! - I'll never be able to afford a ride to orbit.  But black sky, Mach 3.5 and 100 km will let me die in peace.

[vt_hokie]

Same here, I think it's pretty cool!  I may not be able to afford to go myself, but I look forward to watching the flights as they begin testing the vehicle!

[kevin-rf]

antonioe - 28/1/2008  11:03 AM

Well, I think it is very cool.  I will sign up for a ride if I find I can afford it.  At $20K I'd buy a ticket right now.  At $50K I would have to think hard about it.  At $100K, I can't afford it.

I know - alas! - I'll never be able to afford a ride to orbit.  But black sky, Mach 3.5 and 100 km will let me die in peace.

You could always take the approach of "If we where to ever launch a pegasus from white knight 2, we would need to make sure the enviroment is up to our standards."

Good luck and let me know how far you get with that ...

I still think your Major Kong approach to riding a pegasus is your best bet.

[antonioe]

kevin-rf - 28/1/2008 2:13 PM  You could always take the approach of "If we where to ever launch a pegasus from white knight 2, we would need to make sure the enviroment is up to our standards." Good luck and let me know how far you get with that ...

Hey, it worked for the B-52, it should work for WK2!!! (except that the B-52 had ejection seats and cool USAF oxygen masks and WK2 has neither - so there).

I still think your Major Kong approach to riding a pegasus is your best bet.

The day we finalized the fairing dimensions for Pegasus (1988?) DWT asked me to sketch it real-size on a 4'x8' whiteboard I had in my office.  He then outlined a chair and a human figure sitting on it WITHIN the fairing envelope.  He then added glasses that made the figure look suspiciously like me.  I asked him if that was a hint that he wanted to get rid of his Chief Engineer.

He settled with handing me a ten-gallon hat the day (two days, actually) before the first Pegasus flight...

[kevin-rf]

antonioe - 30/1/2008  6:26 PM

The day we finalized the fairing dimensions for Pegasus (1988?) DWT asked me to sketch it real-size on a 4'x8' whiteboard I had in my office.  He then outlined a chair and a human figure sitting on it WITHIN the fairing envelope.  He then added glasses that made the figure look suspiciously like me.  I asked him if that was a hint that he wanted to get rid of his Chief Engineer.

He settled with handing me a ten-gallon hat the day (two days, actually) before the first Pegasus flight...

I suspect the real story behind this is you turn to DWT as the B-52 pilots are almost done going through the pre-flight check list and ask, "You got the hat right". To which someone sheepishly replies, "yeah, this is just for a photo right", "Sure" you reply, grab the hat jump on top of the Pegasus frantically waiving to the pilots to gun it, while security wrestles you to the ground and back into your ejection seat.

I can clearly see the security guards in the thumbnail using Richard Hoagland image processing software  :cool:

Enjoy your flight on white knight 2

[antonioe]

(holding sides to avoid bursting with laughter) - OK, OK, enough of that - back to the thread...

[Lampyridae]

8900 - 28/1/2008  11:18 PM

Let's talk about the design
Who think the newly unveiled design is more "cool" than the original concept?

The long nose is interesting. For heating issues, it makes sense to round off the nose. It looks like the nose design borrows a lot from the X-15. Lookswise, it's a lot cooler than the 1940s rocketship / Bell X-1 look of SS1.

[Lampyridae]

antonioe - 31/1/2008  11:36 AM

(holding sides to avoid bursting with laughter) - OK, OK, enough of that - back to the thread...

If you could come up with a pressure suit and a MOOSE system, and then stick yourself in the nosecone of a Pegasus, I'm pretty sure you could make it to space for an orbit or two. At $30 mil a ride, it's a bit cheaper than what the Russians charge. Although the experience would be somewhat less luxurious than the ISS or Soyuz.

Maybe you could talk your bosses into giving you spare room on a Taurus II liftoff? You might have to camp out for a couple of days inside the payload shroud in a sweaty pressure suit, but hey, that's economy class for you...

[aero313]

Lampyridae - 30/1/2008  10:42 PM

8900 - 28/1/2008  11:18 PM

Let's talk about the design
Who think the newly unveiled design is more "cool" than the original concept?

The long nose is interesting. For heating issues, it makes sense to round off the nose. It looks like the nose design borrows a lot from the X-15. Lookswise, it's a lot cooler than the 1940s rocketship / Bell X-1 look of SS1.

Uh, what "heating" issues?  Keep in mind that SSI only needed paint and a little RTV for thermal control.

[antonioe]

Lampyridae - 30/1/2008 9:42 PM The long nose is interesting. For heating issues, it makes sense to round off the nose. It looks like the nose design borrows a lot from the X-15. Lookswise, it's a lot cooler than the 1940s rocketship / Bell X-1 look of SS1.

(Speaking with an unfair advantage) Don't also forget the need, very frequent, to locate subsystems and subsystems elements very far ahead in the fuselage, sometimes for c.g. control.

[gladiator1332]

Rob in KC - 28/1/2008  10:50 AM

8900 - 28/1/2008  8:18 AM

Let's talk about the design
Who think the newly unveiled design is more "cool" than the original concept?

There's nothing cool about this. It's a suborbital joyride.

Nothing cool about this? This is just about the coolest space related design I have seen in recent years. And the sweet part is, this thing will actually fly.

The suborbital joyride is going to help pay the bills, but think of all the science that will result from this vehicle. I was beginning to dread that when the Shuttle retires in 2010, we were going to forget about winged spacecraft.
This vehicle can help develop and will most likely lead to a cheaper winged orbital spacecraft.

Ares I / V and Orion are exciting, but look how depressing things are over in that court. This announement gives us something to get excited about again. I remember the SS1 flights and all the excitement about spaceflight it caused. This is going to do it again once flight tests and actual flights begin.

[A_M_Swallow]

CuddlyRocket - 24/1/2008  10:46 AM
{snip}

I think this is the route by which (relatively) low-cost LEO access will eventually come. Once in place, the drive will always be to reduce the unit cost and lengthen the experience. I don't know the range of SS2 in cross-country mode (though you can glide quite a way if you start 100 miles up, and the carrier craft wouldn't go round in circles whilst reaching launch height), but at some point in development the cost/range/time of flight equation will produce a marketable advantage over aircraft.

Virgin Galactic mentioned long range journeys and small satellite launch to "New Scientist".
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726415.600

[8900]

gladiator1332 - 2/2/2008  6:10 AM

Nothing cool about this? This is just about the coolest space related design I have seen in recent years. And the sweet part is, this thing will actually fly.

The suborbital joyride is going to help pay the bills, but think of all the science that will result from this vehicle. I was beginning to dread that when the Shuttle retires in 2010, we were going to forget about winged spacecraft.
This vehicle can help develop and will most likely lead to a cheaper winged orbital spacecraft.

Ares I / V and Orion are exciting, but look how depressing things are over in that court. This announement gives us something to get excited about again. I remember the SS1 flights and all the excitement about spaceflight it caused. This is going to do it again once flight tests and actual flights begin.

When one day, people talk about space travel, and think that
"There's nothing cool about this, I can go next Christmas holiday"
That means space tourism becomes very successful
because someone said before: the most successful technology is the technology that
you don't realize it is a high-tech thing at all
But that day is definitely not today, so, from today's point of view, it's very cool :cool:

besides, anyone subscribed to newscientist magazine? plz post the full article here

[meiza]

How do the intercity trips become fast if WK2 takes so long to climb? Perhaps launch already at 10 km height and approve lower performance... (If the hybrid motor can take that). And I still have my doubts about the range.

And could it fly a low trajectory without the shuttlecock configuration? What do the thermal loads look like?

[A_M_Swallow]

8900 - 3/2/2008  5:54 AM
besides, anyone subscribed to newscientist magazine? plz post the full article here

That particular "New Scientist" article is under restricted distribution, which is why I did not copy the paragraph across.
Someone will have to ask at the next press conference.

It sounds like VirginAtlantic plans to keep the mother-ship but will use a larger "spaceship".

[Spiff]

There was a fairly elaborate news item this morning on dutch news radio (Radio 1) about a company marketing Virgin Galactic tickets in the Benelux. They're calling themselves a 'travel agency for space travel.' I tried to find the feed on the net somewhere but failed. It was in Dutch anyway, so most people here wouldn't have been able to understand. Below are some of the things mentioned (and are interesting enough to mention here)

- VG already sold 260 tickets worldwide
- VG will 'launch' WK2/SS2 in July this year (I suppose they mean 'rollout' )
- Planning on a space port in the Dutch Antilles (Might just be the 'this is dutch radio' angle)

Most of the rest was what we already knew for a long time. $200k per ticket, might go down, 2 planes/5 spaceships, 110km suborbital, yadayadayada. The usual stuff.

Their website: www.yourgalaxy.eu obviously shows the VG affiliation, but they are also talking about simpler 0-g flights and other spaceflight related things. They are having a press conference at space-expo (the space museum near ESTEC) today about their activities for VG. So I'll see if I can find some press releases about that in the coming days.

[coach]

Burt Rutan steps down as President of Scaled.

http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=689137521710

Coach

[docmordrid]

Not surprised given his heart troubles....