WhiteKnightTwo scheduled to rollout in July, fly in September

While much of the attention surrounding Virgin Galactic's race to space tourism has surrounded its SpaceShipTwo, word has come that carrier ship WhiteKnightTwo will rollout in late July, and after some ground tests, take to the skies by September. With this rollout come some new details about the composite, twin-boom mothership, which Virgin Galactic is selling as an "open architecture" that they are clearly open to pimping for other applications. Says Prez Will Whitehorn, "WhiteKnightTwo is the world's most advanced payload carrier. It has the best fuel efficiency of any aircraft ever built in history. It is the world's first 100% carbon composite aircraft." They are even looking into using WhiteKnightTwo as a forest fire water bomber with its payload capacity. Nonetheless, we care because the giant ship that will carry rich people to space at $200,000 a pop is going to be flying by September. Press passes please?

[Das Boot @ Jun 10th 2008 9:28AM]

Sweet, i'll finally be able to visit Uranus, its suppose to be warm this time of year.

[RossM @ Jun 10th 2008 9:32AM]

The weather forecast says strong winds

[Lito @ Jun 10th 2008 10:24AM]

I hear it's about 4 degrees warmer than anything else around it.

[Paul @ Jun 10th 2008 11:01AM]

I hear it can be like a swamp from time to time.

[OneLove @ Jun 10th 2008 12:18PM]

I wish I was rich and crazy too. (...ok just rich).

[ratnikh @ Jun 10th 2008 5:15PM]

Be careful... using super-powerful telescopes, scientists have discovered a very large ring of debris around Uranus.

Also, they have determined that Uranus is very gassy, but still plan to plunge a probe into its murky depths to learn more.

Ok, I'm done.

[Longhorn @ Jun 10th 2008 9:33AM]

$200,000 a pop, not $20,000.

[Flashpoint @ Jun 10th 2008 9:38AM]

And the Space Shuttle can't be fixed or redesigned why???????

[A-Deca @ Jun 10th 2008 9:53AM]

Because the space shuttle (factoring in development and maintenance costs) costs on average 1.3 BILLION dollars... per launch!

The space shuttle has two major flaws that keep it from being a competitive launch platform:

1. Not reusable: only parts of the shuttle are reusable, and even those have extremely high maintenance costs (solid rocket boosters need to be fished out of the ocean, tiles need to be substituted on the shuttle itself)

2. extremely complex (and outdated) technology that keeps the shuttle from flying as often as it was desired (originally it was thought that 1 flight per week could be achieved).

The shuttle was supposed to deliver cheap and frequent earth to orbit and it has failed in that mission: that is why NASA is going back to the original apollo approach with the upcoming new family of launch vehicles (I forget the name right now).

Andrea

[brad @ Jun 10th 2008 9:55AM]

who said it cant?

[Jacob @ Jun 10th 2008 11:10AM]

This is totally separate from NASA and our government.

I had never heard the 1.3 billion dollar figure, but here's something for you to think about: the entire SpaceShipOne program (with WhiteKnightOne) cost only $30 million to develop.

I go to AirVenture in OshKosh every year that I can. A couple years back I was able to listen to Burt Rutan (the mastermind behind these ships) talk about NASA and SpaceShipOne. They wanted to either buy or license the design in order to train their astronauts. Rutan told them that they could get in line for seats like everyone else.

[bwl @ Jun 10th 2008 11:18AM]

Orion is the new program i believe

[Mike D @ Jun 10th 2008 11:30AM]

@ Jacob Unless they signed an exclusive agreement with virgin galactic it seems kind of stupid to tell a potential customer to go to their customers for help

[fanman @ Jun 10th 2008 11:56AM]

It looks smaller in the picture...

[STIEN @ Jun 10th 2008 11:57AM]

@Flashpoint
Who in their right mind would want to ride in one of the old shuttles. No one pay to do it. Now if you pay them, then they would. So basically, tell people if they wanna go to space, become an astronaut.

@Jacob
I live about 15mi away from the EAA grounds. I like to go just to see them drop the bombs. he he he...

[Ben @ Jun 10th 2008 9:41AM]

That's one hell of a mullet Sir Richard Branson is rocking

[Ken @ Jun 10th 2008 10:25AM]

That man can do whatever the F**K he wants!

[Bunson @ Jun 10th 2008 11:18AM]

If I was one of the richest men ever I would have a mullet.

[404 @ Jun 10th 2008 9:41AM]

"It is the world's first 100% carbon composite aircraft."

Man, those are gonna be some uncomfortable seats.

[fanman @ Jun 10th 2008 9:50AM]

Imagine the catering...

[Richard Lai @ Jun 10th 2008 9:59AM]

@404: well, it's not like they'll be sat on the seats when they reach space.

[404 @ Jun 10th 2008 10:26AM]

Yeah, but re-entry could be hard on the arse. Ouch.

I'm sure they didn't mean it that way anyway.

[Jacob @ Jun 10th 2008 11:09AM]

WhiteKnightTwo won't actually be going to space. It is only the launch vehicle to drop SpaceShipTwo (which will go to space, and has some very modern-looking seats in the concept photos).

[Richard Lai @ Jun 10th 2008 9:39PM]

@404: good point... It'll be a long glide back home, and I do wonder how hot it will get during re-entry.

[spellprince @ Jun 10th 2008 9:46AM]

I better get a window seat

[Jarno Peschier @ Jun 10th 2008 9:59AM]

Must be some runway width specs that this baby will be needing...

[Ryan Trevisol @ Jun 10th 2008 10:19AM]

The simple solution of course, is Area 51.

[johnzilla @ Jun 10th 2008 10:10AM]

How is anyone going to fit through those tiny little doors?

[Ryan Trevisol @ Jun 10th 2008 10:18AM]

Is this a space vehicle for ANTS??!??! How are we supposed to send people into space when they can't even fit inside the SPACECRAFT!!??!?

[Ken @ Jun 10th 2008 10:26AM]

It needs to be at least three times this big!

[Phil Perman @ Jun 10th 2008 11:36AM]

"Smithers, I've designed a new plane. I call it the Spruce Moose, and it will carry 200 passengers from the New York’s idle-wild airport to the Belgium Congo in 17 minutes!"

"That’s quite a nice model, sir."

Model?

Now, to the plant! We'll take the Spruce Moose! Hop in!
But sir…

I said Get In!

[Phil Perman @ Jun 10th 2008 11:38AM]

"Smithers, I've designed a new plane. I call it the Spruce Moose, and it will carry 200 passengers from the New York’s idle-wild airport to the Belgium Congo in 17 minutes!"

"That’s quite a nice model, sir."

"Model?
Now, to the plant! We'll take the Spruce Moose! Hop in!"

"But sir…"

"I said Get In!"

(Sorry, I ran out of Zoolander quotes, the Simpsons will have to do)

[jaybee @ Jun 10th 2008 10:15AM]

womble noses

[Shane @ Jun 10th 2008 10:21AM]

Yes, but can this albatross fly?

Looks like three conventional plane bodies spliced together in some sort of strange mad science experiment...

Come to think of it, he does look a bit like a mad scientist in that photo...

[johnzilla @ Jun 10th 2008 10:30AM]

You mean a strange mad science experiment like the P-38 Lightning, responsible for over 1,800 WWII kills in the Pacific theater alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning

[Jacob @ Jun 10th 2008 11:14AM]

Yes, it will fly quite well. Here is a photo of its predecessor, WhiteKnightOne carrying SpaceShipOne (the middle part, which falls away):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SpaceShipOne_WhiteKnight.jpg

[Shane @ Jun 10th 2008 1:47PM]

But this is much bigger than the original aircraft, correct?

It just looks like such a massive wingspan with multiple bodies hung from it would fail. Perhaps keeping the weight of the aircraft light is the secret?

[ddub @ Jun 10th 2008 6:59PM]

@Shane

What would cause it to fail? Massive wingspan = more lift. Just more difficult to get off the ground, but it has 4 engines. And the two fueselages are fairly small. And yes, being all composite i'm sure its fairly light.

[bigaldoon @ Jun 11th 2008 3:51AM]

anyone else notice that the planes writing seems to spell "virgina" " :-s

[stefan @ Jun 10th 2008 10:24AM]

why do they name planes like variables?

[Bunson @ Jun 10th 2008 11:22AM]

I name everything by variables:

I'm typing to you on computerfour.
Meet my offspring, sonone.
Meet my spouse, wifethirtyseven
And this here, this is my wang, peternumbertwo.

[David @ Jun 10th 2008 10:25AM]

Richard Branson = HOT

[Barton @ Jun 10th 2008 10:39AM]

I think someone made a boo-boo.


They taped 3 airplanes together.

[Magallanes @ Jun 10th 2008 11:33AM]

duct tapes is the solution of everything.

[spellprince @ Jun 10th 2008 10:50AM]

Maybe it's only a one person craft, and you just hold on to it.

[D H @ Jun 10th 2008 12:25PM]

This is an engineering nightmare, this looks to me like something designed by someone with no mechanical inclination. I can predict it will break apart in the first heavy cross wind that hits it; As they have only one thin wing connecting between the two fuselage's, so the wing will twist and I don't care how strong the carbon fiber is; sooner or latter its going to break right ware their space pod is.

If they connect the tail wings together it mite work but its atill a rather ungainly contraption and it would be a lot better to use a belly mount on a large aircraft or mount it on top of a large plane like when NASA moves the shuttle around.

The germans tryed a similar contraption in WW2, but I can see this engineer hasn't studyed other engineering dead ends or failures.

There is an old saying "He who doesn't remember history is destined to relive it." Can't rember who said it or the exact wording, but he was a pretty smart man.

As to the shuttle it was made by engineers, probably some of the smartest in the world but they also have no mechanical ability. And much of the engineering was done in other older NASA projects by "Old School" engineers, People who had mechanical ability and went into the right field for them, nowadays people decied to take the wrong paths for their talents and this is why you get these simple things being problems and this is why people die in acedents that never should have happened in the first place.

All they have to do to fix the orbiters tile problem is to cover them with a titanium shell and then the insulating foam won't smash the heat tiles, Duh, its so simple, any mechanicly inclined person would think of it but book learned, computer jockeys have no way to do.

But in todays world, NASA is made of bookworm / computer-neers who are smart as hell, but have no idea how to build things.

Thats why it costs 300billion to send a toy to mars, when if they had some mechanicly inclined people they could have sent a maned mission with rovers and a plane and a permenant structure and had a bunch of money left over

With 300billion you could buy a mine, hell a few of them, a metal smelting plant, a machine shop, a chemical plant, an air field, a control center, an assembly building, a crawler / launch platform, satalight dishes, and pay a bunch of people $50,000 a year for a few years, and had money left over for R&D and publisity and be making huge profits from all the spin off products.

$300 billion is a hell of a lot of money. (300,000,000,000) thats a lot of zeros.

You give me 300 billion and I'll teraform mars, I won't live to see it but in a few hundred years people will be up there living in earth like conditions.

[erichq2 @ Jun 10th 2008 12:35PM]

Are you an aerospace engineer? If not then you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Yes, Rutan's designs are all unconventional, but all of his designs work and have some type of positive claim to fame to them.

But go ahead, keep talking from your ass thinking you know it all.

You probably think physicists just sit there on the shitter smoking maryjane to come up with theories too, huh?

[Corwin @ Jun 10th 2008 1:05PM]

@erichq2:

Well, to be fair... and speaking as a mathematician... that's a fairly accurate view of most physicists' process.

[ddub @ Jun 10th 2008 1:13PM]

I don't have time to get into how dumb all your comments are, but do you really think they just designed the aircraft to make it look cool, like they do with cars. You really have no idea how involved the design process is. Umm, I think they've taken cross winds into account, and that is the least of their worries. As for your piggy back NASA 747 style idea. Umm, the space shuttle doesn't release from the 747 in midair. That's not going to work too well sitting on top of the plane carrying you.

[Ayle @ Jun 10th 2008 1:27PM]

S H U T T H E F U C K U P . . .
Seriously do you have any idea of what the hell you're talking about?
Have you heard of the helios? The thing was built out of carbon fiber and styrofoam(the thing you use to make models) had a bigger wingspan than a 747, weighted only 2000lbs yet didn't break up in flight even though it was made of plastic. Gliders have thin wings yet don't break up in flight even when used for aerobatics.