Virgin Galactic reveals SpaceShipTwo, plans commercial space flights in 2011
By Darren Murph 
posted December 7th 2009 1:57PM
posted December 7th 2009 1:57PM
P.S. - Peek that MSNBC link for the unveiling shots!
posted December 7th 2009 1:57PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
@iPhoneMessenger
U dutch?
Can't wait to get my ticket
@victorstuber
I'm going to save my money until they do LEO flights.
@victorstuber
Ticket to virgin island?
@victorstuber I agree, but am also a little terrified of being the first space tourist to die on a trip.
I hope I'm alive when commercial flights into space are affordable and available for everyone.
@werty1432k
Yeah, same here.
I'm really disliking how this privatization of space is commercializing it and catering only to the very wealthy that can afford it.
If the future is in space, then it should accessible to everyone regardless of your socioeconomic background.
Sadly, this might be the future where we're headed where a lot of the technology that would benefit us and better our lives will only be catered to those that have money. And, those that don't, will be left behind and continue to slip more and more into poverty. Thus, the disparity between the rich and poor will continue to ever widen.
The future is going to be pretty bleak.
@werty1432k
When sailing was first created only the wealthy or people working directly under were able to set sail. Same with airplanes. History repeats itself it'll be maybe 5-10 years max that it's exclusive to the rich until the middle-class can take advantage of it.
@(Unverified) I hope your right and I see where your going with that theory but I think it will probably be more than 5 - 10 years.
@werty1432k
Meh if movies and the internet tought me anything we're all fucked in 2012 anyway... =P
@octoberasian Nothings changed...new tech has always cost more and always been for the upper end of the market for decades. It simply costs too much and is too difficult to build something like this at a consumer price point when first released.
Given time more players will enter the market and they will be able to build the aircraft cheaper as they start covering the initial R&D costs. At that point prices to ride should start to drop.
Given this is a relatively new means of transport I say let the rich guys be the guinea pigs for me.
@octoberasian
"If the future is in space, then it should accessible to everyone regardless of your socioeconomic background."
Yeah! Screw Capitalism!! Why should companies be able to recoup the hundreds of millions they've spent on R&D... We should FORCE them to let EVERYONE go for free!!
Yeah!! Hooray for COMMUNISM!!
@octoberasian Give me a break...if everyone went to space for no damned reason other than it being cool then it'd just be a giant waste of both money and fuel. How exactly are we supposed to magically get spaceships without someone ponying up the insanely high R&D costs?
It's like Concorde flights-they were awesome since you could get from New York to London in like 2 hours but they cost an arm and a leg and frankly there was no legitimate reason for everyone to be able to afford a ticket just to ride it for kicks while burning a ton more fuel.
I do hope that the price comes down someday, but this is not something where you can rail against capitalism since governments of any sort have nothing to gain from everyone going to space for 5 minutes.
@octoberasian Either you were being sarcastic or you are just stupid.
Either way you are just stupid.
"you kid"?
@PATRICKmcnicholl typo
Funny, I thought Engadget was going gangster
Time to enlist in that pilot training program. This is the beginning Starflleet.
Why do the pilots get PAID to do this. That's got to be the best job ever.
Also, how the hell would you go about getting the licenses and permits to leave the atmosphere...
@MJGAMER 1991 XBL
You work with the Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
No, seriously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Commercial_Space_Transportation
@MJGAMER 1991 XBL
No need to leave the atmosphere. The 'launch' permits are to ensure that any flight plans take into account possible dangerous risks to people and property on the ground, or other aircraft aloft, and are minimized as much as possible.
The FAA registers these as private test or demonstration flights, not commercial transportation to a different destination. As such, the operator (Virgin), other than verifying both vehicles meet experimental aircraft safety standards, doesn't have to meet any special "space flight" or altitude regulations. The operators themselves are solely liable for passenger risks.
recession antidote
@Uncontrol My thoughts EXACTLY
Richard Branson RULES
@banduril5
True enough, but don't forget to give Burt Rutan his due.
engadget effect....the site is down.
@BigCharlie
Yeah really. I just want to see more pictures of it and yet the whole site crashed
@BigCharlie Doesn't bode well for the craft if they can't even keep a website up, does it?
@scjessey
Because the IT guys are also the engineers that designed it?
Let's hurry the fsck up here. We've wasted too much time fighting with each other down here. Time to get out there in the universe and say "Screw you Einstein" then bang hot alien babes.
Is that not what man as dreamt of since he first gazed upon the stars?
Kif, I'm asking you a question.
@Flowah
the only reason i uped you was for saying bang hot alien babes
@Flowah
+1 for the Futurama reference. Branson = Zapp Brannigan? :)
Anyone know how high this thing goes? The 100 km mentioned by MSNBC is not really enough to 'leave the atmosphere'.
@LeJay
Technically the Space Shuttle doesn't leave the atmosphere, if you define the atmosphere as any amount of gas gravitationally trapped by the Earth. Pretty much any place you define as the boundary between the atmosphere and space is going to be arbitrary, but there's a good technical reason to use 100km: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line
@TheOtherJames
That's true, but it does go more than twice that. The drag at 100 km is quite substantial.
I'm a little worried that they painted the areas black to give the impression that it has the same type of protection the Space Shuttle had.
Even if I could afford it, I think I'll pass on this Beta.
@(Unverified)
It was probably done to make it look like the Space Shuttle, but only because that's what people think a spaceship looks like, not to try and fool anybody into thinking it has heat tiles. Anyways if somebody doesn't know enough about these ships to know they don't use or need heat tiles, they probably shouldn't be going up.
@(Unverified) Well thank goodness it doesn't use the same landing method that the Space Shuttle employs...
Um, could it be that it's black underneath to be more visible against the sky to ground spectators during descent?
Ahh just in the nick of time for doomsday. Only the wealthy will escape the pending destruction
And NASA sit there scratching their heads as they take their step into the future by binning the space shuttle and reinventing the 50 year old Apollo spacecraft.
I can see the next Star Trek movie now; the BORG go back in time to prevent Richard Branson from buying his first record, whilst funding NASA's space research programme in the knowledge it'll just go backwards!
Long live Richard Branson ... an inspiring guy!!!
@(Unverified) I think going to the moon is a little more exciting than the space shuttle's trips in and out of orbit. The shuttles are getting old and starting to break anyway.
And what exactly will we do on the moon - we wont get far building anything with the ice cream cone ship NASA plans!
Far better to create a new shuttle capable of orbiting planets like the moon and mars, perhaps with some type of lander in the payload bay. Instead NASA are just doing what they've done 40 years ago instead of reaching for the stars (even if it is only orbiting them!)
@Spiraling Shape "The shuttles are getting old and starting to break anyway."
Pardon?
Old, yes. Starting to break, says who? Got any facts to prove that?
With the increased scrutiny and preparations every flight now goes thru since Columbia, Shuttles are probably safer than they've ever been, including their very first launches.
@(Unverified) Umm, guess what. The shape for the crew return vehicle is that way because it is efficient. Our understanding of physics has not changed much in the last 40 years. If you want to do significant manned exploration you need alot of equipment that doesn't necessarily need to return to earth. So their plan is to minimize the crew return vehicle while increasing their payload lift capability to separately deliver equipment. The shuttle design is inefficient at lifting payload as it has the additional weight of the crew, wing structure, and thermal protection.
Also Branson is just launching people on a parabolic trajectory. Until he cheaply and safely starts putting people into orbit only the short sighted and miss-informed will look to him for the future of manned space exploration. If you want to see real steps into the future write your congressional representatives to fully fund NASA for the relatively small amounts they are asking for because real man rated spaceflight is a hell of alot harder (and more expensive) than these commercial ventures are trying to make it out to be.
@(Unverified)
"planets like the moon"
...um?
@(Unverified)
Branson is just the financier, this is Burt Rutan’s baby. And keep in mind that NASA and the Air Force were doing essentially the same thing using late 1950s tech with the X planes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15
FYI: a balloon is all one ever needed
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Lighter_than_air/Balloons_and_Space/LTA17.htm
I just wish I could live like Richard Branson...must be nice to just say hmm I think I will build my own space ship. The fact he owns his on airline company, record company and private island are cool bonuses! Damn you Richard (shaking angry fist)
/Back to work on the collider
//sarcasm off
@southern78
Your sarcasm is still running; you commented the off statement.