Talk:Scaled Composites SpaceShipTwo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scaled Composites SpaceShipTwo article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 'Explosion' should not be part of this article.

The section about the explosion is not about SpaceShip Two, the topic of this article. This section should be deleted or moved to the article about Scaled Composites. Agree? Dalebert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] citation 8

Citation 8 is a dead link.84.60.11.87 12:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] development

Does anyone know how the development of spaceship two is going? What kind of problems are they having to overcome?


[edit] Altitude

By 2009 how high will spaceshiptwo realy fly? How high would it have to go to reach orbit?


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.104.8 (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

My understanding is SpaceShipTwo will reach a maximum altitude of about 160 km (100 mi). This is one definition of the edge of space. It's above practically all of the atmosphere and (I believe) high enough to see the curvature of the earth. As to orbit, the question is not just how high, but how fast. SS2 will reach about 1/6 of orbital speed. It was never intended as an orbital craft. -Dmh 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dmh, SpaceShipTwo will reach an altitude of 110 km. A defintion of the edge of space is 100 km, not 100 mi. --Xenan (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the definition of the edge of space is either 100km (in Europe for example) or 60mi (in United States). ColdCase (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on Rutan presentations at EAA Oshkosh

A commenter over on slashdot attended Rutan's talk at EAA Oshkosh, where he gave many more details on SpaceShipTwo. It may be a good idea to integrate some of these details into the article. --NeuronExMachina 06:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate article title

Nitpick: strictly speaking, it's NOT the "Scaled Composites" SpaceShipTwo. SS2 is being constructed by The Spaceship Company, which is a joint venture between Scaled and Virgin Group, licensing the Tier One technology from Paul Allen's Mojave Aerospace Ventures [1]

ShimaKatase 19:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crew numbers

Frankly, I don't believe the 6 passengers + 12 crew statement. It's completely at odds with everything else which has been published about SS2.

ShimaKatase 13:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more nitpicking

how is space ship 1,2,3 comparable to X-15 and X-38? Spaceship 1,2,3 are sub orbital Multi stage comertialy developed rockets that competed in the X prize, and are trying there hand at a comertial ventur with Virgin. X-15 was a hypersonic research vehical of NASA, and X-38 is a proposed Single Stage to ""Orbit"" Space plane. I sugest that other comertially Developed space planes are sited here, such as Skylon and the like

[edit] Pressure Suits

The pressure suit part is vague. Shuttle astronauts do wear pressure suits on ascent and reentry (see the Advanced Crew Escape Suit entry), but work in shirtsleeves while on orbit

[edit] Where did you guys find the FAA registration number?

I have not seen any information that is sourced otherwise, but currently N400K is assigned to James M. Kirviva. Now granted there could be a transfer of registration numbers in the future but unless that has been varified by some source I am not seeing it. This plane is a 1979 Cessna A185F not a 2007 VSS Enterprise. http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=400K

The article cited the reg number as N400K, but that number is registered to a single engine cessna, so I removed it.

[edit] Cite has vanished

The CNN article titled "Rich Chinese buying tickets to space" has vanished. I found what appears to be a partial copy of the article. -- KarlHallowell 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VSS Voyager

Has the old reference expired? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.205.44.134 (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Overlap with Virgin Galactic

  • The statement here that 65,000 people applied for the first 100 tickets must be taken with a (large) grain of salt. The Virgin Galactic article goes into detail about such claims. It's clear that about 7000 people responded to a web survey that they would be interested in putting down a deposit. It's not at all clear (according to that page) how many actually did so. This discussion pertains to the company, not the craft, and as such should be limited to that page.
  • Conversely, that page discusses the speed and propulsion of the craft and the feathering mechanism. That discussion should be here.

-Dmh 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] explosion at the test site

This must be related to the development of this site. I'm thinking commercialization of this plane will be delayed by a couple of years. Read more here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6918540.stm Lithdoc 04:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

10,000 pounds or 10,000 PSI? I suspect that the latter might be correct. LorenzoB 16:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's theoretically possible, but I highly doubt it. Typical storage pressure for nitrous is around 30-60 bar (450-900 psi).WolfKeeper 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Scaled Composites found to be "at fault" for the explosion, fined by California authorities: http://www.space.com/news/080118-scaled-accident-citations.html 76.66.2.239 (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Name is Spirit of Steve Fossett

The new name of SpaceShipTwo is "Spirit of Steve Fossett." I made this edit but someone removed it because I didn't include the source. Here is the source of this name change if someone knows how to add the reference link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670216,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs)

I don't see that. It looks like Branson is talking about White Knight Two. If it's a development of Virgin Global Flyer, it'd have to be WK2, and not SS2. 70.51.10.202 (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
In this article [2] from the SanFran Sentinel, it says that the first Virgin Galactic WK2 will be called "Spirit of Steve Fossett"... (also in CBS SanFran [3]) 70.55.86.160 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The only quote that specifies if the Fossett name is intended for a space ship or a mother ship says mother ship.[4] I have corrected all of the related pages I have found and requested a related move. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resemblance to Soviet Design

...and the Soviet design may be an elaboration on the X-20 DynaSoar orbiter, which SpaceShipTwo also resembles. 68.40.182.88 (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This section needs improvement. It sounds opinionated, references someone's blog, and is a questionable argument. Not to minimize the accomplishments of Alex Panchenko (nor even to dismiss the concept outright, with some manner of evidence), but aircraft design is evolutionary and dictated by physics and aerodynamics. Common solutions are to be expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.179.74 (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understnad this correctly: The Su-24 is not a copy of the F-111, nor the Tu-144 of the Concorde, not the Il-62 of the VC-10, nor the Buran of the Space Shuttle Orbiter. However, a designer known for creating dozens of unique designs couldn't possible have come up with this one on his own? My answer to that is Bull: the Tu-4 "Bull", a direct copy of the B-29. It's far easier to believe that something that has happended can happen again, than to beleive that something that has never happened will happen. (Or something like that!) The basic concept is far older than the Soviet design, but there's little evidence that any copying has occured at all. - BillCJ (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)