I believe that it will fly, and with private investors such as Rutan and Branson, their determination will see these problems through

In the previous post, Alan, someone was asking about flying teachers - May I suggest all teachers check out Teachers in Space - http://www.teachersinspace.org/

the FAA hasn't chimed in yet, eh?
can't wait...these guys are setting the ground rules...which will affect every space based action taken for decades...watch 'em like hawks...

looks like Burt has totally revamped design of WK2 and spaceship 2.  This will definitely delay program.  But they don't know what caused explosion last summer.  I bet first commercial flights not until 2012 -- if they're lucky.

So interesting how a company is eager to take people's money and not being able to deliver. Yes, it would be nice if "common Joe" could travel in an airplane high enough to be "weightless", but the average person can not afford the cost.

When do people understand that only the wealthy can afford such a short trip. And what do they gain? Not much! And will it help them be better people and have something to share with us "common people"?

I don't associate with the very wealthy who could pay for a few minutes "in space" and would rather see them help others with their "wealth".

Something I've been wondering for a long time vis-a-vis the hybrid engine accident.  For SS1 the engine was built by SpaceDev.  Is the test engine for SS2 that blew up also a SpaceDev engine or is it being built by one of SpaceDev's competitors or is Scaled Composites doing the engine development themselves?

Such a limited vision David.

When air travel started, was the "common Joe" flying? No. The weathy were paying pilots to "barn-storm" them around for an adventure flight. This is a very similar start. The wealthy will invest in it, get it started, and the price will drop. New innovations will be developed, these new innovations will lead to "Point to point" suborbital space flight going from Florida to Australia in a few hours as opposed to 20.

And who are you to judge what the wealthy do with their money? I bet many of them donate large sums of money to many worthwhile causes.

Oh I forgot to post my opinions as to when this will fly...

I believe the mothership will begin it's flight testing this year, but the bulk of it will bein 2009. In 2009 the spaceship will likely go through it's captive carry and drop testing phases to test the aerodynamics of the spaceplane. 2010 or 2011 may be the year it rockets into space depending on what the situation is with the rocket engine design.

I am tired of hearing all the negative comments on this. Yes it is expensive but but so was the first flight across the atlantic. Most of the critics probably enjoy the fruits of that expense and effort, every day.

I agree David... Instead of spending that money on minutes of flight in space why can't people use it to help others for years...

Propose taking space shuttle round trip to Mars,

144 days !   - 67,000,000 miles/hr !

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/14705

Now that's Traveling !!!!

David Melcher --

I think everyone posting here understands that "only the wealthy can afford such a short trip". What do they gain? The gain is subjective: those willing to go gain enough of an experience to justify paying $200,000, those who do not care about a suborbital flight will not buy it even if they can afford it.

As for "would be nice if common Joe could travel in an airplane high enough to be weightless" -- once upon a time air travel was a luxury. An automobile was a luxury  -- and a dangerous and unreliable one at that. Indoor plumbing used to be a luxury for the rich. Once the market is uncovered and competition sets in, prices drop. And if you think space tourism is useless even if affordable, consider that ALL space activities will benefit from lowered launch costs. Russian Space Agency charges $20-30 million to send a passanger to ISS. If someone can do that at tenth of this price, it is still very expensive, but it also means unmanned payloads can be sent up at a tenth of current price. Imagine how much oceanography would cost if the only seagoing ships in existence were government-owned, and built one of a kind. Instead, marine scientists utilize technology developed for mercantile, and often frivolous reasons.

David...it wasnt too long ago that flying in an airplane was beyond the "common joe".

To the above comment, arguing that the "wealthy" should spend their money helping others instead of flying on the SS2 is a fallacious argument.  Your own post is evidence that you either own a computer or can afford access to one, making you "rich" compared to millions of people around the world. By your own logic, why aren't you using that same "wealth" to help others rather than posting comments on a blog?  

You're not making any sense David.  "eager to take people's money and not being able to deliver"??  We're looking at Virgin Galactic (privately owned) and Tier One (privately owned)  and Scaled Composites (originally privately owned and bought by Northrum Grumman  6 months ago).  You're personal biases color your post in lieu of facts.  

Now... rather,  how do YOU want to spend THEIR money?  

I believe Rutan, and Branson, (and Paul Allen)  have the where-withal and the drive to succeed.  First only the well-off could fly in airplanes.  First only the well-off could afford to sail in boats..... It doesn't remain that way.  

I think all the people working on SS2 will manage to get it up there around 2011. don't worry guys. don't rush. keep going, we can be paitent...or some of us can.

I wonder if having Northrop Grumman aboard puts the private industry concept to rest.
Let's face it, it's the military.
Rutan's been all Gov't since his test pilot days.  All the Aramid Fibre construction advances made by Scaled have been Gov't/DuPont sponsored since day one.
Find some old pics of NASA guys trying to build the model of one of the proposed space shuttle rescue vehicles...X-38, maybe...
I've worked in better equipped, more skill oriented fiber glass fabrication operations in back yard boat shops...yet, NASA had the pics online...apparently figuring that noone who was interested would be knowledgeable RE fibre construction, and would never notice the glaring flaws.
Amazingly, Scaled, Branson, et al appeared in time to save the day, and develop the techniques under the guise of free enterprise.
Plastic Shuttles...c'mon Kids...whom is kidding whom here.
As someone mentioned, Branson could fly just as high in his balloon...SpaceShipTwo...hooey!
It's a cramped, dangerously untested, plastic rocketplane...which may do better at high altitude flight than Yeager's X-15...maybe!
Ask Branson how he justifies the use of all that fuel...not just the craft itself...the whole shootin' match is Petro Chem at it finest...why would the VirginEarthChallenge guy be developing an industry totally based upon Petro Chemicals?
YIPES!

"So interesting how a company is eager to take people's money and not being able to deliver."

  Can you spell out your reasons for thinking that?

"Yes, it would be nice if "common Joe" could travel in an airplane high enough to be "weightless", but the average person can not afford the cost."

  Right. I can't (and I suspect you can't) afford other exotic travel destinations like Antarctica or thew Himalayas. Indeed, I can't even afford Hawaii. What's your point? Must a product or service be off the shelf from Wal-Mart before *anyone* can have it?

"When do people understand that only the wealthy can afford such a short trip."

  Again, why does that matter? No one ever billed this as something *everyone* can afford. Indeed, there is no such thing.

"And what do they gain? Not much!"

  The same thing that travel to most other exotic destinations do. An experience they can get nowhere else. (And don't bring up amusement park rides, or movie special effects as substitutes. We all know the difference [or should, if we don't]. Someone's movies of Hawaii, the Grand Canyon or a parachute jump are *not* the same as experiencing it one's self.)

"And will it help them be better people and have something to share with us "common people"?

  Was that the idea? Someone misinformed you. Heads up:

  It's
  A
  Cool
  Experience.

  One that someone is willing to provide for a price, and others are wiling to pay for. This is nothing more than a very special case of something you see all around you, every day. Don't believe me? Ask any operator of a theme park, ocenarium, museum, tour boat (up to and including cruise ships) operator, helicopter tour operator, organised hiking, skiing, camping, climbing...etc. All that's happening here, is that suborbital space is being added to that list.

  And remember, the Russians already added *orbital* space, years ago, starting with Dennis Tito. Consider this a somewhat lesser experience for those willing or able to spend somewhat less than 20 million+ USD. Heaven forbid Tito and others did something that those with Virgin Galactic-level incomes couldn't afford...

"I don't associate with the very wealthy who could pay for a few minutes "in space" and would rather see them help others with their "wealth".

  Nor do they require your permission.

  And how do you know that they don't also do the charitable things you seem to think they should do with the money, instead? It's no secret that Bill Gates pumps much bucks into such organizatiions. Would you deny him a ride as well?

  What percentage of your (AFTER TAX!) money do you believe someone should give charitably, before you get to do something you want to do (even if it's your idea of doo expensive), just because you believe you'll enjoy it?

  Do you give that percentage?

  Were my pockets deep enough, I'd take one of these flights in a heartbeat. And I do not begrudge anyone who *can* afford it in the slightest, merely because they have the *same* desire, but a bigger income than I...

  And is that not the reason ANY of us earn money? To increase the range of needs AND wants we can satisfy?

  (Besides, as with so many other technologies, if there are no big-spending 'early adopters,' there never will be a market that can grow, and justify more developments that *could* bring it down into my possible reach.)

I'd rather see the super rich investing their own personal money into things that may benefit us all in the future..and Branson and Burtan ARE doing that!  Some millionaires/billionares blow $100 million on an art object that doesn't do any good for anyone...but space technology ALWAYS leads to new medications, lighter-better-"greener" technologies that end up helping all of us in the future.  Hooray for Branson, Paul Allen, Burtan for putting their own personal money that may end up working to help all of us..and not just the short ride that some folks are whining about.  Plenty of "common joe's" save and save to go on a trip up Mt. Everest costing them $60,000 (Postman from Seattle for example). How they earn the money is their business and how they spend it is there business.  Nothing becomes MY business unless it is our government wasting money on frivilous junk.  Let the private industry do as much as possible to develop the technologies of tomorrow.  

As for the cost of this...if you read the Virgin and associated website...cost for a flight is predicted to drop to below $20,000 per passenger within the first few years.  That is not totally out of reach for the common Joe who puts some pennies away for a trip of a life time.  $60,000 for Everest or 3 trips on the space flight..personally I'd go to Everest and likely have a higher chance of dying there than on the space flight, but the Everest trip would last longer....but I'll sure go on the space trip once it drops under $10,000 a pop.-CRNA Grad student.

I'm anxious for the big test rides.

40 to 45 spaceships? 100,000 passengers? I suspect they wildly overestmated the market. There are not anywhere near that many people who are both willing and able to shell out the equivalent of a new home for a short thrill ride up and back, and far far fewer willing to do it more than once - "been there, done that".
Also, the coming fiscal debt crisis (9 trillion and growing!) will mean a huge tax burden on the ultra-rich, making them much less willing to indulge in such extravagances.
If Virgin Galactic were to keep it modest, planning a very limited market, they might make a go of it. Unfortunately, they are now thinking way too big, and are headed for bankruptcy when the pool of clients dries up.

The Scaled Composites accident brings back memories of Apollo 1.  An oxidizer like Nitrous Oxide is considered safe without a fuel or ignition source.  However, in an oxidizer rich environment (oxygen in Apollo 1 and Nitrous Oxide at Scaled), things that don't burn or explode in normal air can do so with terrible consequences.  

The flow test accident had to have combined the nitrous oxide with a material that explosively combusted in an oxidizer rich environment.  If there was an electrical device (tool, light, etc) in the vicinity, it served as the ignition source.  I doubt that anyone has experience with large amounts of free flowing nitrous oxide.  Sadly, Scaled has discovered one such interaction with a tragic loss of life.  

The engine design is probably fundamentally sound.  They just need to better understand how N02 can interact with surrounding materials to prevent another disaster.  Rutan's approach to design and development is also sound, he and his folks just need to be more speculative about unknowns gotchas.

I'm always amused by the constant comparisons of our stage of space travel to that of air travel.  It's a horrible simile and they are not the same thing at all.  Air travel was simply a new form of transportation taking you to the same places.  Yes there were novel engineering challenges, but there was no doubt that people wanted to travel around the world, since it was already being done.

Space travel is best compared to early ancient seafaring cultures that not only had to build a new mode of transportation (ships), but had to figure out what the destination was, and then convince people that it was worth going there.  In many cases, they simply went to the horizon and back which is the same thing being done here.  Assume that space travel will proceed with fits and starts, there will be triumphs and losses along the way, and funding will always be an issue.  However, there will always be the wealthy, the adventurous, and the curious who will continue pushing forward simply because it is there.  They don't care about opinions and predictions, they do it because they choose to.  Eventually the pieces will all fall into place and there will be both a place to go and a way to get there.  It may take decades or centuries, patience is key.

CM - Your assuming that flights aboard SpaceshipTwo will remain in the $200,000 range.  The truth is, there is every reason to suspect that price will come down, and come down fast.  Rutan or Branson has openly talked about a $50,000 price tag, and one of their potential competitors, Armadillo Aerospace, expects (and has shown why they expect) to be able to fly people for roughly $10,000 a ticket.  

Inexpensive space flight is invaluable. Eventually mankind must expand into outer space. Colonization, via orbital habitats, is the only viable solution to the planet's finite surface area. Human population growth is not going to stabilize, nor will the planet's ability to support life magically increase. Rutan and others are the hope of mankind.
Up and Out, Go we MUST!

The comparisons of space travel (even sub-orbital) here with terrestrial/aerial/aquatic travel are completely naive.  There's this little thing called gravity that sets an absolute minimum for the amount of energy (aka fuel, aka money) required to loft a particular amount of mass (aka your butt, mostly :) to a particular altitude.  There's no way to reduce the cost of getting your butt to that altitude (100 km/62.5 statute miles is the agreed-upon definition of the minimum altitude for entering "space") beyond that minimum.  Then, you have to add the weight of the spacecraft and its life-support, propulsion, navigation, control, and (I would hope) emergency systems, not to mention the weight of the fuel itself.  All of those are subject to the laws of physics, too, and there are minima for the mass of each, which is also traded off between functionality and cost.  Some simple calculations will show that the minimum cost per person for a 100km altitude flight is still going to be tens of thousands of dollars in fuel costs, alone.  As NASA and the FAA get their tentacles into the flight safety issues, you can bet your sweet bippy that's going to add significantly to the cost.  Just ask any aircraft manufacturer - certification is one reason why a Cessna that costs $50,000 to build, is priced at $250,000 - the other reason is liability insurance.  When you buy a new aircraft today, you're also buying the ones that have crashed, and that are going to crash during at least the lifetime of your aircraft (and maybe even including your aircraft, which makes the price ultimately higher for you, if you are maimed, or die).  There's already one death associated with the project that was entirely preventable (anyone who doesn't understand what oxidizers do, shouldn't be handling them - I mean, they're making rocket fuel, after all!).

Then, there's the simple economics of opportunity cost - if you shoot your wad on one of these two-hour thrill rides, there's a lot of other things you won't be able to do.  I'm willing to bet anyone here that the vast majority of the money that prospective astronuts would use for this kinda fling has to come out of real estate equity, either borrowed, or from its sale (since 95% of U.S. residents don't have enough money socked away for retirement).  Well, guess what's going on in the real estate market, or what's left of it?  Sales are down up to 90% in some markets, and prices are off upwards of 60%, as foreclosure sales blanket the countryside, and this is only the first year of the ratcheting-up of interest rates on millions of properties nationwide.  As more people begin losing their shirts as they have to sell, or abandon, their homes, it's going to ripple outward and depress the values of the homes of people who have decent mortgages without balloon payments coming due over the next few years.  Add to that the inevitable graying of the population in increasing numbers every year, that have been hoping against hope that the equity in their homes would make up for their lack of saving and investing for retirement, and you're gonna find that the list of people able, not just willing, to go up for a two-hour fling for tens of thousands (much less hundreds of thousands) of dollars (double the price for couples, BTW) has suddenly shrunk to just the Paul Allens, Richard Bransons, et al, of the world.  Of course, if the dollar continues its slide against other currencies, it could become so cheap for foreigners to fly into space, that they'll have to print the in-flight menus in half-a-dozen languages - oh, right, no in-flight meal service on SpaceShip Two, just like on today's domestic airline flights!

It will also be interesting to see what happens to the size of the list of passengers with confirmed tickets will be when, not if, the first space tourist craft is lost.  More regulation, higher costs of compliance and insurance rates, assuming insurance can ever even be obtained for this pursuit (it will be a chicken-and-egg thing - no insurance until a loss history is established, but, a loss history will effectively end the business ... hmmmm).

I'm a pilot and an engineer, and I share the enthusiasm about someday flying into space, but, only if I win megabucks in a lottery.  Engineering is science on a budget and schedule, and space travel is always going to be way more expensive than the dreamers think, due to the aforementioned gravity well problem (and fuel ain't gettin' any cheaper, if you hadn't noticed).  If it hadn't already occurred to you, rich people don't usually get rich just by working hard, they get lucky.  It has nothing to do with how hard anyone works, or how much they dream - there are way more hard-working dreamers than there are lucky winners.  Only eight out of every 1,000 companies started ever makes any big bucks, at the level where the owners (much less the employees) can really afford one of these flights - and 900 of those 1,000 businesses will be gone in five years, along with the jobs "created" (and then destroyed).  Between the real estate meltdown, the inevitable coming recession, and the retirement squeeze, there are going to be a lot fewer prospective astronuts signing up to spend tens, much less hundreds, of thousands of dollars for a two-hour tour, a two-hour tour.

Have a nice day, anyway!
Joe Blow

Joe, this is why Ron Paul needs to be President because he will eliminate NASA and the FAA. Don't belive the media when they say he doesn't have a chance. The media undermines Burt Rutan for the exact same reasons as Ron Paul and they said that commercial space flight would never happen.

Charles Lindbergh would say "good luck and go for it" ,along already being on the passenger waiting list!      

The problem with the Spaceport is that it will never be built and the residents of southern New Mexico have bought into a scheme to drum out tax revenues by foreign investors.  It's a losing proposition that will only conclude in fiasco within the next 8 months.  

I must have contributed thousands of dollars to live aid programs, all it achieved was more babies that grew up and had more babies that are now starving. I hate to say this but if we had let them die then we would have saved another generation from dying. PS I dont give a crap about space either way

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):