coach - 9/2/2007 1:54 PMGood luck to them. How many total space tourism companies (and wannabees) are there now? Off the top of my head...Virgin GalacticRocketplane/KistlerArmadillo AerospaceCanadian ArrowBlue OriginSpaceDevBenson AerospaceHave I missed any obvious ones? I would have never thought it 10 years ago.Coach
gladiator1332 - 10/2/2007 6:54 PMHere is a great shot of the Rocketplane XP, not sure if this is a mock-up or the real thing.
stefan1138 - 13/2/2007 3:27 PMSo it will be very interesting to see who will be sending the first suborbital tourists. My bet goes on SpaceDev/Benson (but only my personal feeling).For me Rocketplane has the best looking vehicle though.
Jim- 13/2/2007 12:38 PMQuotestefan1138 - 13/2/2007 3:27 PMSo it will be very interesting to see who will be sending the firstsuborbital tourists. My bet goes on SpaceDev/Benson (but only mypersonal feeling).For me Rocketplane has the best looking vehicle though.Huh??? It will be Virgin Galatic with Spaceship 2
stefan1138 - 13/2/2007 3:27 PMSo it will be very interesting to see who will be sending the firstsuborbital tourists. My bet goes on SpaceDev/Benson (but only mypersonal feeling).For me Rocketplane has the best looking vehicle though.
imcub - 13/2/2007 3:08 PMQuoteJim- 13/2/2007 12:38 PMQuotestefan1138 - 13/2/2007 3:27 PMSo it will be very interesting to see who will be sending the firstsuborbital tourists. My bet goes on SpaceDev/Benson (but only mypersonal feeling).For me Rocketplane has the best looking vehicle though.Huh??? It will be Virgin Galatic with Spaceship 2Spaceship2 is how I see it too ... anyone else have a space flight demonstrated prototype?
GF3 - 23/2/2007 12:27 PMGO Rocketplane. Glad to see such good responses to our vehicle
gladiator1332 - 3/3/2007 7:14 PMQuoteGF3 - 23/2/2007 12:27 PMGO Rocketplane. Glad to see such good responses to our vehicleIt really is a beautiful vehicle. And I love the idea of the business jet derived design. I'm in college right now and in flight training, and I hope to get a job as a corporate pilot when out of school, so I simply love biz-jets....it is great to see one being used a basis for a spacecraft. GF3, are you allowed to share any progress and any other info on the XP with us?
meiza - 6/3/2007 7:45 AMGF3, would it be possible to get a Q&A with some Rocketplane engineers?
stefan1138 - 10/3/2007 7:38 AMSorry, a bit off topic, if Rockteplane is successfull, would it be (economically) practical to convert an even bigger aircraft from jet to suborbital spaceship (for example a small airliner like a CRJ or even a B737)?Stefan
bad_astra - 10/3/2007 11:21 AMQuotestefan1138 - 10/3/2007 7:38 AMSorry, a bit off topic, if Rockteplane is successfull, would it be (economically) practical to convert an even bigger aircraft from jet to suborbital spaceship (for example a small airliner like a CRJ or even a B737)?Stefan Maybe a Concorde?
GF3 - 6/3/2007 3:20 PMQuotemeiza - 6/3/2007 7:45 AMGF3, would it be possible to get a Q&A with some Rocketplane engineers?Its possible. We setup a web cast 3 weeks back with Microsoft for the Vanishing point game. We had a few engineers and the Dave Faulkner take part in it. I will see what I can do. Right now I can tell you we can do it but it depends on time. Everyone is pretty busy lately so when I can get some people to free up some time we can do it.
bad_astra - 10/3/2007 1:03 PMI can't see any use for a very large suborbital. The market for $200,000 joyrides is never going to be that great, and isn't going to be composed of the type of people who enjoy sitting in coach.
simonbp - 11/3/2007 6:02 PMQuotebad_astra - 10/3/2007 1:03 PMI can't see any use for a very large suborbital. The market for $200,000 joyrides is never going to be that great, and isn't going to be composed of the type of people who enjoy sitting in coach.The market is for trans-atlantic and -pacific flights, replacing the 0.8 mach airliners of today. If you can get a sub-orbital passenger/mail flight for only slightly more than an airliner flight, the market for very large suborbital aerospacecraft will open right up. The problem is finding a way to get there...Simon
zealot - 13/3/2007 5:23 AMthe cost of arianne 5 launch, cant remember what was the exact payload mass, but i guess it must have been comparable to that of arianne. there were different options considered, some of them not very realistic, this one was deemed realistic. here'swhat it looked like: sometihing like two arianne 5 core stages, with the engines adapted for reusability, lying side by side, with a cylindrical cargo bay, also more or less A5 sized, lying on top, crossection would look something like a clover leaf. all that 'wrapped' in a lifting body craft. (by the way, they decided core stage is too large for parachute recovery, so all designs were winged or lifting bodies). It would take of horizontally from coururoa and land somewhere across the atlantic. which, I guess, would mean a logistical nightmare of getting it back. the non reusable orbital stage would be ejected at the top of the arc, through the hatch IN THE BACK of the cargo bay. the paper was from the nineties, 94 or so and the plan was to start implementing it in...wait for it... 2007. but i found their another quite recent paper, which i didnt even bother to read, dealing with the same stuff. in other words, they only order them to keep their guys employed, just like nasa. but that doesnt mean that the findings are wrong.now, since rocketplane is now working with kistler, i think using the experience from XP to stuff some K1 engines and other systems up an airliner's or cargo's butt is the logical next step. and you could, after landing, just turn it round and cruise back to lounch site like a normal jet, so better than ariane project. rocketplane man, what say you?
zealot - 13/3/2007 3:43 PMScrew FAA, go abroad. There must be a country with more cooperative attitude, and after all the beauty of most of the new space systems is that they are easily 'portable', that definitely includes you.That thing with the media looks like a sentence too far, unless you can back it up.As for the 'who first' ranking, what about this: public.blueorigin.com/index.html -impressive, huh?
zealot - 13/3/2007 1:43 PMScrew FAA, go abroad. There must be a country with more cooperative attitude, and after all the beauty of most of the new space systems is that they are easily 'portable', that definitely includes you.
zealot - 13/3/2007 6:23 AMthe cost of arianne 5 launch, cant remember what was the exact payload mass, but i guess it must have been comparable to that of arianne. there were different options considered, some of them not very realistic, this one was deemed realistic. here'swhat it looked like: sometihing like two arianne 5 core stages, with the engines adapted for reusability, lying side by side, with a cylindrical cargo bay, also more or less A5 sized, lying on top, crossection would look something like a clover leaf. all that 'wrapped' in a lifting body craft. (by the way, they decided core stage is too large for parachute recovery, so all designs were winged or lifting bodies). It would take of horizontally from coururoa and land somewhere across the atlantic. which, I guess, would mean a logistical nightmare of getting it back. the non reusable orbital stage would be ejected at the top of the arc, through the hatch IN THE BACK of the cargo bay. the paper was from the nineties, 94 or so and the plan was to start implementing it in...wait for it... 2007. but i found their another quite recent paper, which i didnt even bother to read, dealing with the same stuff. in other words, they only order them to keep their guys employed, just like nasa. but that doesnt mean that the findings are wrong.now, since rocketplane is now working with kistler, i think using the experience from XP to stuff some K1 engines and other systems up an airliner's or cargo's butt is the logical next step. and you could, after landing, just turn it round and cruise back to lounch site like a normal jet, so better than ariane project. rocketplane man, what say you?
zealot - 13/3/2007 5:43 PMScrew FAA, go abroad. There must be a country with more cooperative attitude, and after all the beauty of most of the new space systems is that they are easily 'portable', that definitely includes you.That thing with the media looks like a sentence too far, unless you can back it up.As for the 'who first' ranking, what about this: public.blueorigin.com/index.html -impressive, huh?
Jim - 14/3/2007 4:39 PMQuotezealot - 13/3/2007 5:43 PMScrew FAA, go abroad. There must be a country with more cooperative attitude, and after all the beauty of most of the new space systems is that they are easily 'portable', that definitely includes you.That thing with the media looks like a sentence too far, unless you can back it up.As for the 'who first' ranking, what about this: public.blueorigin.com/index.html -impressive, huh?Great idea and you can never fly it in the US. Great business decision, make your largest market unavailable
gladiator1332 - 14/3/2007 5:40 PMQuoteJim - 14/3/2007 4:39 PMQuotezealot - 13/3/2007 5:43 PMScrew FAA, go abroad. There must be a country with more cooperative attitude, and after all the beauty of most of the new space systems is that they are easily 'portable', that definitely includes you.That thing with the media looks like a sentence too far, unless you can back it up.As for the 'who first' ranking, what about this: public.blueorigin.com/index.html -impressive, huh?Great idea and you can never fly it in the US. Great business decision, make your largest market unavailableI agree with Jim, you can't say screw you to the FAA. While the rules in place do make it difficult for the Rocketplane XP to operate from point to point, you have to remember, right now the airlines hold the priority at the major airports. Until point to point space travel becomes more popular, airports will become spaceports. For now, however, there is no way that the FAA will budge on this, and it is better for Rocketplane to work around it and operate out of established spaceports.
gladiator1332 - 14/3/2007 12:03 PMI'm thinking of an idea for orbital (and I'm sure the great people at Rocketplane are doing the same)...why not launch it piggyback on the K1. Not only is this good for orbital tourism, but it would be used for sub-orbital as well. The military was also looking at similar idea with a X-37 like vehicle mounted piggyback on a DC-X like launcher.And for those interested, here is an interview that the Space Review Conducted awhile back:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/343/1 Still would like to have a Q & A on here if it is possible. But we know everybody at RP is really busy right now...keep up the good work guys, and we're pulling for you all!
AntiKev - 15/3/2007 12:48 PMSo now you want to put a big, draggy heat shield out in front, not only that, on a locking gimbal? Just purpose-build a spacecraft if you want to go to space.
GF3 - 13/3/2007 9:34 AM why do you think we aren't mentioned in the media at all?? Our competitors realize this and pay to keep us out.
I would love to learn how to do that!
Obviously, experience with the Japanese system will be extremely useful when the time comes to use SpaceX’s or similar COTS-derived systems.
zealot - 15/3/2007 7:21 PMQuoteAntiKev - 15/3/2007 12:48 PMSo now you want to put a big, draggy heat shield out in front, not only that, on a locking gimbal? Just purpose-build a spacecraft if you want to go to space.Well, that told me.I did say it's a half-baked idea, my engineering knowledge is on the discovery channel level, plus heaps of zeal and enthusiasm. As for aerodynamics, i was inspired by the AWACS radar. That flies, so I tought, maybe? Why do you think gimbal makes it worse? If a hinge was built within the aerodynamic structure of the shield, it should be fairly streamlined. And perhaps you could even get some lift out of it by tilting it at the right angle? Anyway, you wouldn't need the complicated shielding that a winged craft like the shuttle requires, so maybe it could be even considerd for the purpose built space-planes. The discussion here was about XP, which is a converted aircraft, and about using that experience to convert larger aircrafts. If you think that's a generally bad idea, objection noted. Now let's see what comes out of it in practice. I'm not going to pretend to know how it's going to end.
GF3 - 16/3/2007 10:29 AMits quite easy actually.... You have to talk to like the associated press and when they are doing article that would have you and your competitors in it for some money they can leave them out.for example you will get a sentence like this.QuoteObviously, experience with the Japanese system will be extremely useful when the time comes to use SpaceX’s or similar COTS-derived systems.But I am not making accusations at any specific company. I don't know who does this type of strategy. But this is a dead subject, its a alternate way for the media to make a little extra money.
AntiKev - 16/3/2007 11:05 AMThis thing would not even be in the ballpark of the AWACS dome. This has to cover the ENTIRE structure of the vehicle. So even something as small as a Learjet would require the ENTIRE wingspan to be covered. You're better off to invest in heat-shield material for the airframe and a strengthened wing spar. You want to swing this huge hemispherical shield about while flying at mach 0.9 or some such, so you need a hydraulic system to go with it. Then you need the gimbal to lock, and you're now balancing the entire mass of an airliner and betting that the gimbal won't fail under the stresses. As far as getting lift from it, yeah you'll get lift, but DEFINATELY not enough to counteract the drag. Not to mention the absurdity of the whole idea. Sorry, I don't mean to shoot you down as harsh as I'm sounding, but this has half-baked written all over it. But in writing this response I'm not 100% sure that I have your concept understood as well as I think I do.
gladiator1332 - 1/4/2007 8:14 AM I was wondering, is the decision to move Rocketplane XP ops to Hawaii final? Why not just use the Shuttle Landing Facility...as of 2010 there won't be any use for it, why not turn it into a Commercial Spaceplane Landing Facility. Virgin Galactic could also put this to use and open up an East Coast operation in addition to their West Coast operation.
I was under the impression that Rocketplane XP would operate out of Oklahoma, when did they change to Hawaii?
Danderman - 1/4/2007 11:39 AMQuotegladiator1332 - 1/4/2007 8:14 AM I was wondering, is the decision to move Rocketplane XP ops to Hawaii final? Why not just use the Shuttle Landing Facility...as of 2010 there won't be any use for it, why not turn it into a Commercial Spaceplane Landing Facility. Virgin Galactic could also put this to use and open up an East Coast operation in addition to their West Coast operation.I was under the impression that Rocketplane XP would operate out of Oklahoma, when did they change to Hawaii?
ianmga - 1/4/2007 6:09 PMQuoteDanderman - 1/4/2007 11:39 AMQuotegladiator1332 - 1/4/2007 8:14 AM I was wondering, is the decision to move Rocketplane XP ops to Hawaii final? Why not just use the Shuttle Landing Facility...as of 2010 there won't be any use for it, why not turn it into a Commercial Spaceplane Landing Facility. Virgin Galactic could also put this to use and open up an East Coast operation in addition to their West Coast operation.I was under the impression that Rocketplane XP would operate out of Oklahoma, when did they change to Hawaii? Maybe Rocketplane Kistler out of Oklahoma, Rocketplane XP out of Hawaii?
bad_astra - 3/4/2007 5:39 PMIs Mitchell Burnside Clapp still working with Rocketplane?
chicco - 4/4/2007 11:46 AMI believe that safety of passengers will play a key role in the development of suborbital space tourism market.Some suborbital players are building their spacecarfts with built-in safety modules or escape systems (Blue Origin, Canadian Arrow just to name few of them).What about Rocketplan XP? Is there any specific safety modules present on the XP (maybe I'm too curioius...)?
GF3 - 16/3/2007 4:29 PMits quite easy actually.... You have to talk to like the associated press and when they are doing article that would have you and your competitors in it for some money they can leave them out.for example you will get a sentence like this.QuoteObviously, experience with the Japanese system will be extremely useful when the time comes to use SpaceX’s or similar COTS-derived systems.But I am not making accusations at any specific company. I don't know who does this type of strategy. But this is a dead subject, its a alternate way for the media to make a little extra money.
bad_astra - 5/4/2007 10:15 AMAP usually just uses local reports. I don't think there's a big wire service conspiracy to shut Rocketplane out. Fact is, SpaceX has built hardware. They rolled a Falcoln 1 through DC. They've also been updating those of us on the mailing list for years. Armadillo keeps people up to date monthly on their progress and they compete. Whereas Kistler's been sitting at something% complete for years and not once have I ever seen any progress updates, videos or anything more then full scale mockups of Rocketplane hardware. Reporters (as someone that lives with a reporter, I hear this quite often) want to do stories about things that exist. That's what gets readers interested. With Blue Origin, I think the opposite has been true until recently. People were interested because everyone knew a lot of money was being thrown at something, but what that thing was exactly wasn't clear. Now that they are flying hardware that just makes it that more interesting. I think if you asked any of fans, for instance, of Armadillo (and I certainly am one) you'd find we're slightly nuts for Carmack's efforts not because they are done part time in a shop. Keeping up to date get's you emotionally commited by proxy. There's more groups doing that than anyone knows about, it's because they keep people up to date about things they are actually doing, failures and successes. I understand if Rocketplane Kistler doesn't want to discuss what it's done so far or what it's currently doing. I understand that completely, but it would be silly to assume that the press is avoiding RpK. They just don't have anything to talk about.
kevin-rf - 5/4/2007 9:56 AMMusk has the whole public relations thing down pat. He is an internet 'success' story that was part of a household product name 'PayPal' that the press is familiar with. He chose a simple name SpaceX. He shoots off his mouth more than he should. Unless you are a hardcore space reporter you have never heard of Rocketplane XP, or Kistler, or rPK. A tech reporter has heard of PayPal and maybe Elon Musk. Your problem is writers like to add a human interest side to things and his story is familiar and easy to write. I'm not suggesting you start generating press for press's sake, but you guys should have really played up how small space is. Like when your sister modeled with Branson. Not to late, that pic. in GQ (or equiv.) with a human interest story of who is who and what a small world it is. Another thing you could do is give a few reporters a personal tour in hopes of generating some good articles in the likes of pop sci., time, wired, wall street journal, ect.Think about it, the wall street jornal has an article about alpaca farming on the font page today...
We have a little philosophy here that we don't release everything new on our progress.
GF3 - 5/4/2007 11:07 AMPop Sci. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/40c1bb3e575bc010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html We were just in a recent article in Wired as well. Nothing like the Pop Sci.We have a little philosophy here that we don't release everything new on our progress. We will be having a HUGE roll out in New York in September so be ready for that. But again we don't like to release everything new because then when you change stuff its very public and makes you look like your not working in the right direction but in reality that is how evolution works.I agree with the ideas you are having and you will be starting to see much more of us in the press coming up here.
GF3 - 5/4/2007 11:07 AMQuotekevin-rf - 5/4/2007 9:56 AMMusk has the whole public relations thing down pat. He is an internet 'success' story that was part of a household product name 'PayPal' that the press is familiar with. He chose a simple name SpaceX. He shoots off his mouth more than he should. Unless you are a hardcore space reporter you have never heard of Rocketplane XP, or Kistler, or rPK. A tech reporter has heard of PayPal and maybe Elon Musk. Your problem is writers like to add a human interest side to things and his story is familiar and easy to write. I'm not suggesting you start generating press for press's sake, but you guys should have really played up how small space is. Like when your sister modeled with Branson. Not to late, that pic. in GQ (or equiv.) with a human interest story of who is who and what a small world it is. Another thing you could do is give a few reporters a personal tour in hopes of generating some good articles in the likes of pop sci., time, wired, wall street journal, ect.Think about it, the wall street jornal has an article about alpaca farming on the font page today...Pop Sci. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/40c1bb3e575bc010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html We were just in a recent article in Wired as well. Nothing like the Pop Sci.We have a little philosophy here that we don't release everything new on our progress. We will be having a HUGE roll out in New York in September so be ready for that. But again we don't like to release everything new because then when you change stuff its very public and makes you look like your not working in the right direction but in reality that is how evolution works.I agree with the ideas you are having and you will be starting to see much more of us in the press coming up here.
gladiator1332 - 6/4/2007 8:56 AMQuoteGF3 - 5/4/2007 11:07 AMQuotekevin-rf - 5/4/2007 9:56 AMMusk has the whole public relations thing down pat. He is an internet 'success' story that was part of a household product name 'PayPal' that the press is familiar with. He chose a simple name SpaceX. He shoots off his mouth more than he should. Unless you are a hardcore space reporter you have never heard of Rocketplane XP, or Kistler, or rPK. A tech reporter has heard of PayPal and maybe Elon Musk. Your problem is writers like to add a human interest side to things and his story is familiar and easy to write. I'm not suggesting you start generating press for press's sake, but you guys should have really played up how small space is. Like when your sister modeled with Branson. Not to late, that pic. in GQ (or equiv.) with a human interest story of who is who and what a small world it is. Another thing you could do is give a few reporters a personal tour in hopes of generating some good articles in the likes of pop sci., time, wired, wall street journal, ect.Think about it, the wall street jornal has an article about alpaca farming on the font page today...Pop Sci. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/40c1bb3e575bc010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html We were just in a recent article in Wired as well. Nothing like the Pop Sci.We have a little philosophy here that we don't release everything new on our progress. We will be having a HUGE roll out in New York in September so be ready for that. But again we don't like to release everything new because then when you change stuff its very public and makes you look like your not working in the right direction but in reality that is how evolution works.I agree with the ideas you are having and you will be starting to see much more of us in the press coming up here.I am looking forward to the roll out. I understand the need for keeping things quiet, but I hope we get to hear the full story of the design process someday. One thing that is truly interesting about Project Orion is that we are watching Ares I go from paper to reality. We didn't get to see Space Ship One being built and tested until the Discovery Channel Special. Only then was I able to truly understand how great of an accomplishment SS1 was. For now secrecy is ok, but someday I hope we see how Rocketplane was built and tested.
GF3 - 6/4/2007 10:24 AMQuotegladiator1332 - 6/4/2007 8:56 AMQuoteGF3 - 5/4/2007 11:07 AMQuotekevin-rf - 5/4/2007 9:56 AMMusk has the whole public relations thing down pat. He is an internet 'success' story that was part of a household product name 'PayPal' that the press is familiar with. He chose a simple name SpaceX. He shoots off his mouth more than he should. Unless you are a hardcore space reporter you have never heard of Rocketplane XP, or Kistler, or rPK. A tech reporter has heard of PayPal and maybe Elon Musk. Your problem is writers like to add a human interest side to things and his story is familiar and easy to write. I'm not suggesting you start generating press for press's sake, but you guys should have really played up how small space is. Like when your sister modeled with Branson. Not to late, that pic. in GQ (or equiv.) with a human interest story of who is who and what a small world it is. Another thing you could do is give a few reporters a personal tour in hopes of generating some good articles in the likes of pop sci., time, wired, wall street journal, ect.Think about it, the wall street jornal has an article about alpaca farming on the font page today...Pop Sci. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/40c1bb3e575bc010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html We were just in a recent article in Wired as well. Nothing like the Pop Sci.We have a little philosophy here that we don't release everything new on our progress. We will be having a HUGE roll out in New York in September so be ready for that. But again we don't like to release everything new because then when you change stuff its very public and makes you look like your not working in the right direction but in reality that is how evolution works.I agree with the ideas you are having and you will be starting to see much more of us in the press coming up here.I am looking forward to the roll out. I understand the need for keeping things quiet, but I hope we get to hear the full story of the design process someday. One thing that is truly interesting about Project Orion is that we are watching Ares I go from paper to reality. We didn't get to see Space Ship One being built and tested until the Discovery Channel Special. Only then was I able to truly understand how great of an accomplishment SS1 was. For now secrecy is ok, but someday I hope we see how Rocketplane was built and tested.I am sure this will happen.
gladiator1332 - 6/4/2007 11:50 AMQuoteGF3 - 6/4/2007 10:24 AMQuotegladiator1332 - 6/4/2007 8:56 AMQuoteGF3 - 5/4/2007 11:07 AMQuotekevin-rf - 5/4/2007 9:56 AMMusk has the whole public relations thing down pat. He is an internet 'success' story that was part of a household product name 'PayPal' that the press is familiar with. He chose a simple name SpaceX. He shoots off his mouth more than he should. Unless you are a hardcore space reporter you have never heard of Rocketplane XP, or Kistler, or rPK. A tech reporter has heard of PayPal and maybe Elon Musk. Your problem is writers like to add a human interest side to things and his story is familiar and easy to write. I'm not suggesting you start generating press for press's sake, but you guys should have really played up how small space is. Like when your sister modeled with Branson. Not to late, that pic. in GQ (or equiv.) with a human interest story of who is who and what a small world it is. Another thing you could do is give a few reporters a personal tour in hopes of generating some good articles in the likes of pop sci., time, wired, wall street journal, ect.Think about it, the wall street jornal has an article about alpaca farming on the font page today...Pop Sci. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/40c1bb3e575bc010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html We were just in a recent article in Wired as well. Nothing like the Pop Sci.We have a little philosophy here that we don't release everything new on our progress. We will be having a HUGE roll out in New York in September so be ready for that. But again we don't like to release everything new because then when you change stuff its very public and makes you look like your not working in the right direction but in reality that is how evolution works.I agree with the ideas you are having and you will be starting to see much more of us in the press coming up here.I am looking forward to the roll out. I understand the need for keeping things quiet, but I hope we get to hear the full story of the design process someday. One thing that is truly interesting about Project Orion is that we are watching Ares I go from paper to reality. We didn't get to see Space Ship One being built and tested until the Discovery Channel Special. Only then was I able to truly understand how great of an accomplishment SS1 was. For now secrecy is ok, but someday I hope we see how Rocketplane was built and tested.I am sure this will happen.Thanks for all of the info you have been able to give to us GF3. Please know no one on here is ridiculing your company, its operations, or the way it is doing things. We are all just extremely interested in what you guys are doing. Maybe it is a good thing that you guys try to stay out of the spotlight. Rutan and Branson may be getting all of the media attention, but that could work for and against them. Every move they are going to make once SpaceShipTwo is rolled out is going to be scrutinized by the media. The media can help you and hurt you. If you have one problem they will immediately begin questioning the safety of the vehicle and private spaceflight in general. Another problem is your common person does not understand how difficult it is to build a spacecraft. When you are in the spotlight and then have to scrub a launch for a small problem you do come under scrutiny. Immediately people begin thinking that you are a farce. Look at all the fire SpaceX had to take after the first Falcon failure. Now hopefully the XP will not have a failure, but as with all programs, there will be bumps along the way. If you keep CNN at bay, there is a chance that the public will not be fed all of the overly-dramatic bull that the media loves to put out.
gladiator1332 - 8/4/2007 2:29 AMGF3,I was wondering, (if you are allowed to answer this), where are you going to get the pilots for the XP? Are they ex-NASA?....ex-Military?...ex-Corporate pilots?
CentEur - 8/4/2007 3:53 PMQuotegladiator1332 - 8/4/2007 2:29 AMGF3,I was wondering, (if you are allowed to answer this), where are you going to get the pilots for the XP? Are they ex-NASA?....ex-Military?...ex-Corporate pilots? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herrington
