Jump to content

Talk:SpaceShipTwo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Explosion' should not be part of this article.

[edit]

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)[reply]

citation 8

[edit]

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

development

[edit]

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


Altitude

[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notes on Rutan presentations at EAA Oshkosh

[edit]

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)[reply]

Inaccurate article title

[edit]

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)[reply]

Yes, I agree with this point also. The article should be entitled The Spaceship Company SpaceShipTwo. I know that this may be confusing for people who are not familiar with the subject. A compromise, so to speak, would be to name the article SpaceShipTwo. Unlike the 747 for Boeing, and the a380 for Airbus, where several uses of 747 and 380 may exist, there appears to be no ambiguity with the name SpaceShipTwo. Ga2re2t (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I disagree. The naming convention should reflect the standard convention for aircraft, which includes the manufacturer of record. Currently that is Scaled Composites, who have been contracted to build the first aircraft/spacecraft (I use the term "aircraft" because it will carry a standard aircraft registration number, just like SS1 did). For comparison, look at the first WK2 - per the FAA registration record, here, the manufacturer is Scaled Composites. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with AKRadecki. Scaled Composite is doing the design and development of SS2, and the construction of at least the first (first used as a prototype, then later perhaps as commercial passenger) bird no. 1. As I understand it, The Spaceship Company is both a legal construct (for owning some part of the total SS2 technology; Mojave Aerospace Ventures owns some/all of the SS1 technology) and also may own some of the capital intensive manufacturing equipment for turning out SS2 nos. 2 through 5. TSC will also market the sales of whatever technology is developed, including potentially additional SS2's. So I believe keeping the current article is the correct thing to do, at least until some definitive info comes along that says this understanding has changed. N2e (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, those interested can check out this podcast at http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/files/folders/burt_rutan_280708/entry17949.aspx in which Flight International Technology Editor Rob Coppinger interviews Burt. He discusses the difference between SC and TSC as well as who is contracted to do what.

Crew numbers

[edit]

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)[reply]

more nitpicking

[edit]

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

Pressure Suits

[edit]

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

Where did you guys find the FAA registration number?

[edit]

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.

SpaceShipTwo's registration number painted on its tail is/was N33955. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the first one is/was N339SS refer http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=339SS MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you're right. The White Knight Two is N348MS, according to https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/528272397817118720/photo/1 C. Scott Ananian (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cite has vanished

[edit]

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)[reply]

As of February 2010, the citation in the article (Ref no. 15 as of 2010-02-25) is a live link (with URL = http://www.zeenews.com/news339112.html). N2e (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VSS Voyager

[edit]

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

Overlap with Virgin Galactic

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]

explosion at the test site

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Correct Name is Spirit of Steve Fossett

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Resemblance to Soviet Design

[edit]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

July 2009

[edit]

July 2009 is mentioned in the intro as a future event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharth9200 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skyhook docking?

[edit]

Is this ship designed to be capable of docking to a rotating orbital tether or skyhook (the poor man's version of a space elevator) so as to be capable of entering deep space once that structure is built? Wnt (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that this talk page isn't a forum, so questions posed here should be about the article and not a general forum for discussion. I will say that no current craft is designed to dock with any kind of spece elevator or related tech as there are no specifications yet for them to be designed to. That's not to say there won't be at some point, but not anytime soon. aremisasling (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should make the question more general: right now, the article doesn't say anything about how SpaceShipTwo attaches to its carrier aircraft, and no attachment point is shown on the technical schematic. Have you seen any information about that - how much force and torque it can handle, and (for my curiosity) whether setting up the connection requires special pre-launch preparation or whether it could be made with another object in space? Also, how did they arrange things so that after the carrier aircraft disengages, the surface is verifiably smooth and sturdy enough for reentry? Wnt (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any info on it. However, the WK2 is slotted to be the first stage carrier craft for rocket based space and atmospheric tests, so I'd presume there little to no modification necessary to a payload craft in order to join with WK2. Photos from its recent relase don't show any kind of mechanism on SS2 for attachment so my best guess is that it's a system centered around the WK2. As there's no stated goal for any kind of recapture even by WK2, I'd say it's a safe bet there's no capability to attach to a sky hook. You may be better off dropping an email to scaled or virgin. You'd be surprised how many space companies are more than happy to inform space watchers of their programs (Blue Origin a notable exception). aremisasling (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Docking is far more difficult than separating. The difficult bit isn't the mechanics of joining the two craft together, it is the precision required to get the crafts close enough together without them crashing into each other. There is no reason to have given SS2 or WK2 the ability to do those kind of precision movements, so I think we can safely assume they can't do them. --Tango (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new pix?

[edit]

SS2 VSS Enterprise has been revealed, this article and that article need new photos. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The technical diagram is too small to show detail relevant to the text. Can a higher resolution image be used, but scaled for the page, or a link to a fuller diagram? Billysugger (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that.--Guyver (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010 update on SS2 test flight program

[edit]

NewSpace Journal has a Feb. 19th item with an update on the flight test program. Here is the link. Here is the relevant bit:

Stephen Attenborough provided considerable details about their plans to flight test SpaceShipTwo (SS2). Ground testing will continue until the end of this quarter, he said. The first captive-carry flight, with WhiteKnightTwo (WK2) carrying SS2 aloft but not releasing it, should take place by the end of this quarter. The second quarter of 2010 will be for captive-carry tests flights. The first drop test will be some time in the third quarter. That initial drop test, he said, “will be a pretty interesting moment for all of us on the ground, and a pretty interesting moment for the pilot as well.”

Attenborough said he hoped first powered test flight of SS2 would take place by the end of this year. There would be “a lot” of powered test flights in 2011, he said. His “best case” scenario for beginning commercial operations would be the end of 2011 or the beginning of 2012, adding it would be entirely depending on the progress made during the test flights. “We can’t cut corners” on the test program, he noted.

Not much to mine for the article, but it is good to have an update two months after the big December SS2-unveiling shindig. N2e (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First flight

[edit]

I'm not sure how it should be inserted into the articles here, but fyi the aircraft had its maiden voyage today: http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/vss-enterprises-first-flight/ Xertoz (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is coverage by both the non-space media (Wired) and space media:
With this, we can ensure that additions to the article are well-sourced. N2e (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flightest program

[edit]

Shouldn't the flight test program be in the article VSS Enterprise, with only a summary in this article? Currently there's little mention of what's happening with Enterprise on the Enterprise article itself. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with your point; that is how the White Knight Two / VMS Eve articles are set up. The flight test detail is in the first aircraft article, not the article on the aircraft type. Wikipedia allows you to edit directly. Go ahead, be bold and make the change. N2e (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

criticism: the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS

[edit]

the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS ... http://x.co/Jeb4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.100.159 (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a discussion board. Talk about the article. N2e (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of SpaceShipTwo (only, without the attachment to WK2)

[edit]

This article needs a photo of the article subject: SpaceShipTwo, without without the attachment to White Knight Two. Or at least one editor thinks that the primary photo ought to be of the article subject, alone. Anyone have such a photo? N2e (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any free photos of SpaceShipTwo alone, but Here are some photos of the runway dedication event, with lots of in-flight shots which are under commons:Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0 -- Anxietycello (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upper-atmospheric lightning

[edit]

Will SpaceShipTwo be able to see/be affected by Upper-atmospheric lightning? Will it enable study of the mesosphere? 92.239.222.91 (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landing site/ horizontal travel distance

[edit]

The article says that the craft "will take off from the Mojave Air & Space Port in California during testing" and then "Spaceport America [...] will become the permanent launch site when commercial launches begin", but I don't see it mentioned anywhere where the thing will land. Will it land at the same place it took off from (somehow doing a big circle or something, I suppose), or somewhere miles away, and, in either case, what is the total horizontal distance travelled? Does anyone have this information? It would be good to add it to the article. 86.181.168.5 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

split flight test program to Enterprise article

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{move portions|VSS Enterprise|discuss=Talk:SpaceShipTwo}}

The flight test program should be split to VSS Enterprise, since Enterprise is the vehicle undergoing the tests. We have a specific article on the particular SS2 being tested, so the information about what its doing should be there. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More in line with WP:AVIATION practices and more sensible would be to spinout flight testing to Flight testing of SpaceShipTwo and fold the other VSS Enterprise stuff into the SpaceShipTwo article. There is some stuff in the VSS Enterprise article, such as the Future section beginning "Virgin Galactic aims to become the world's ... which is already exists in other articles. And WP:Avation guidance on individual aircraft suggests individual aircraft are generally not notable of themselves. Trying to avoid a claim of Crystal Ball against myself here, but should the fleet exoand to five and flights become common then the flight test programme and the individual airframes become less important in the run of things. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a need for a separate article on the flight test program, though I acknowledge that the US Shuttles have such an article Approach and Landing Tests separate from Space Shuttle Enterprise. However, since we have an article on VSS Enterprise, this information should be in that article, if no separate article is created. We don't have as much detailed information on the flight test program for SS2 as we do for the STS OV Enterprise. As this is a manned spaceship, it seems to be treated as how ships individually have articles as well as having class articles, considering how other manned spaceships are done. We have separate articles for each space shuttle, and several pre-shuttle test and prototype components, so it seems that each SS2 would be deserving of separate articles as well, in lieu of other evidence against notability. Certainly there are enough RS covering Enterprise specifically. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposal: move the flight test detail into the article on the specific instance of the spaceplane that is being tested. It can be briefly summarized in this article. N2e (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when the flight test record gets long enough to be cumbersome. When glide testing resumes (Fall 2011?), splitting will probably help. Weak Support for the argument that its already cumbersome. --132.239.165.16 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Quite a bit of technical and program information in the latest Aviation Week

[edit]

A good bit of review of the recent return to flight of SS2 testing following the addition of the larger strake on the tails, and explication of the test program both past and forward (including "reclearing the flight envelope" again now that the modifications have been made to the strakes, etc.), and then the process for powered flight tests later this year, is well-covered in this Aviation Week article SpaceShipTwo Debuts. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a photo of SS2 in powered flight

[edit]

The article needs a photo of SS2 in powered flight, and separated from the mothership WK2. N2e (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Updated Payload User's Guide for suborbital research flights

[edit]

Virgin Galactic has published and released an updated Payload Users’ Guide for research payloads flying on the SpaceShipTwo vehicle. Here's the news article, dated 13 Jun 2013: Virgin Galactic offers updated Payload Users Guide for SS2/WK2, NewSpace Watch. N2e (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulties in getting regulatory approval from the FAA

[edit]

This space media article has interesting background on some of the delay in the SS2 flights at Mojave: VG was not able to get all of the needed regulatory permits issued from the US Federal Government (FAA) when they initially wanted them. FAA Issued Waiver to Scaled Composites for SS2 Flights, Parbolic Arc, 23 Aug 2013. N2e (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More delays, apparently driven by hybrid engine problems

[edit]

This article—Virgin Galactic Now Aiming for Spaceflight in February—published yesterday in Parabolic Arc by space journalist Doug Messier indicates that there will be yet more delays to the SS2 program.

SS2 only made two test flights in 2013, both very short engine firings (16 s and 20 s), and will now not make even the first test flight into space (i.e., above the 100 km altitude Karman line) until Feb 2014. Moreover, the hybrid engine tech developed by Sierra Nevada has, to date, never even done a full-duration engine firing on the ground.

I'm not sure where to put this material in the article. Possibly, the delays have been sufficiently notable, and now multiple times over a few years, that a subsection entitled Program delays might be appropriate in the Development section of the article. What do others think? N2e (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a significant article, dated yesterday, that Virgin remains committed to the hybrid propulsion system for SS2: Virgin Galactic Clarifies Status of SpaceShipTwo Engine, Doug Messier, Parabolic Arc, 17 Oct 2012.

Outline of the remaining test flights

[edit]

News report: Scaled Composites may have as few as three to five more test flights left before turning the vehicle over to Virgin Galactic. This article—Next Up for SpaceShipTwo: Supersonic Feather Test—provides a pretty decent outline of the remaining test flights before Virgin takes possession. N2e (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New development, No edge of space anymore

[edit]

New development on this project www.ibtimes.co.uk /virgin-galactic-may-not-bring-passengers-into-space-1448266

So, no more Karman line, no 100 km, no edge of space, ... really pity. --JustUser (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceShipTwo is a class, not an individual vehicle

[edit]

Disagree...when the shuttle blew up, there were other shuttles. There is no SST2 now as it is a was. However, there's a planned ship so SS2 was a ship and is a planned design that is supposed to be built. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Whoever is changing the description of SpaceShipTwo to past-tense, please stop. "SpaceShipTwo" is a class of vehicles; VSS Enterprise was lost today, but there's already a second SpaceShipTwo vehicle (VSS Voyager) being constructed. The entire program isn't in the past tense just because of the loss of one vehicle.

To put this in perspective, it would be like changing the Space Shuttle orbiter page to say "the Space Shuttle orbiter was..." as soon as Columbia crashed. There didn't stop being Space Shuttle orbiters. After they were retired, then it was appropriate to change the entire page to past-tense, but not until then. It's the same thing here. There's still a program. There's going to be more SpaceShipTwo vehicles. It's not over yet, at least not until they announce they're ending the program.

Shelbystripes (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Here is a very good piece of long-form journalism that will help improve the article at some point. Lots on the History, of SS2 but also SpaceShipOne, Paul Allen and his investment, Burt Rutan, et al. Apollo, Ansari and the Hobbling Effects of Giant Leaps, Parabolic Arc, 30 Oct 2014. N2e (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Competition with NS

[edit]

According to [5] BONS and VGSS2 are in direct competition to make the first commercial spaceflight -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

Why was Ahunt's change taken, but not mine? Somebody told while reverting my edit, the U.S. wouldn't be the nationality, so I added the UK to them because Richard Branson is British. Now as a result of Ahunt's revert of that and edit, there once again stands, that only the U.S. are the nationality, and nobody reverts it. Seems to be a political intrigue against me. And there shall also stand, that the first SS2 was destroyed, because "number built" (I of course know what it literally means, so watch out for your behavior, with which you seemed to be rofling about me, or not?) is like it would still be a whole vehicle in use or exposed, but the vehicle is destroyed. So please change it by yourself, if you don't accept my changes because of my political orientation! --TheHeroWolf (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing political here, please read WP:AGF. The aircraft was built in the US by a US company for a British customer. That is the same as British Airways ordering a Boeing 747, it doesn't make it a British-built aircraft. As far as listing the aircraft as "destroyed" under "number built", I indicated in my edit summary that the parameters used are explained at Template:Infobox aircraft type. This is a standard WikiProject Aircraft box and the parameters entered here are standardized to give a uniform reader experience. The "number built" is for the the number of aircraft built, not what happened to each one of them. The loss of the first aircraft is fully explained in the text and doesn't belong under "number built". - Ahunt (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think, that I don't know what "number built" literally means? Don't rofl! I have only made an option for the infobox, so that it would be more informative and there everything explained. And I already wrote, that I've previously written again and again kinda "USA" (only), but that was reverted with several excuses, but your change is not reverted. Why not? It seems to be a political intrigue against me, I know, that most of you wikipedians are centre-left pro-US and pro-EU agitators, so you are not willing not accept edits of one, who wants real freedom, right? --TheHeroWolf (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was refering to WP:NOTUSA, which means we don't use the abbreviation USA on WP, for whatever reason (there is one, but it doesm't make any sense to me). You'll note that I reverted to "United States", which is the best form to use on WP. Neither of us have any clue what your political leanings are from the few edits you made on this article, and we really don't need to know either. I don't generally discuss my politicla views on WP, as I prefer make my edits as neutral as possible. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheHeroWolf: You are really off the mark here with your political intrigue. As indicated on my user page I am a Canadian, so don't have a horse in this race. - Ahunt (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then please also change in the article Right-wing politics the introduction. There stands, that right-wing politics would accept or be in favor of "social inequality", which is total nonsense. Please, delete the phrase there, if WP is neutral and not left-wing, because my edits were deleted. Mabye you as administrators, your changes won't be reverted. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither one of us are administrators and I have to admit that I have no clue what you are talking about. I don't see anything about right-wing politics in the introduction to this article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That issue is better discussed on Talk:Right-wing politics, not here, and it has nothing to do with your edits here. Neither of us are admins, and besides, admins may be reverted as with any editor on WP. - BilCat (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, I mean the introduction of the article Right-wing politics. BilCat is right, let's talk it on the article's talk there. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please take that to Talk:Right-wing politics. - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally edit political viewpoint articles on. wP, for reasons of my own. Just try to be civil over there, don't take that article too personally, and try to cite reliable published sources on the talk page to support your changes. You may not achieve your goals immediately, and probably won't, but be patient, and you may be able to build support (consensus) for you changes in time. - BilCat (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the sources should be, of course, really neutral sources. Alright, thank you. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Pilot in command:PIC) vs. co-pilot/first officier

[edit]

Even a co-pilot/first officer holds a pilot license and can act as the "pilot flying" and is very often named "pilot", the statement: While the pilot was faulted for prematurely deploying the ship's feathering mechanism.. is definitely wrong, because it implies the PIC unlocked the mechanism, but it wasn't him. The co-pilot did. (see NTSB Press Release 2015-07-28: Lack of Consideration for Human Factors Led to In-Flight Breakup of SpaceShipTwo). "Pilot" will be changed to "co-pilot". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TK-lion (talk • contribs)

Thanks for bringing that up and fixing it! - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceShipTwo Is Not One Vehicle

[edit]

As far as I understand it SpaceShipTwo is the name of the two vehicles together: the space plane VSS Unity and the "mother ship" VMS Eve. They each have their own name, and together they are SpaceShipTwo.2001:569:75E1:C500:741A:AFBE:1DDE:1BE7 (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)BeeCier[reply]

Where did you find that idea? - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SpaceShipTwo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on SpaceShipTwo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SpaceShipTwo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SpaceShipTwo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reachable altitude

[edit]

According to some media reports, the new VSS Unity cannot reach 100 km anymore. The specifications section rather matches VSS Enterprise than Unity, and this should be clarified. Both sources are outdated, and match only the initially concepted SpaceShipTwo specifications. The second source mentions VSS Unity already, but isn't precise on whether Unity can still reach that altitude or not, it just says "SpaceShipTwo". Sir Branson talks about "264.000 ft" only now, which is the U.S. military definition of the space border, so obviously Unity really cannot get as high as it was originally concepted. The description and specifications should be updated and clarified, they match the old SS2 concept, not VSS Unity. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What media reports? Specs do change during flight testing, but we can really only change on old cited spec with a new cited spec. So we need refs, not rumours, to change this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a report which states that VSS Unity cannot reach the 100 km anymore due to the modifications which make it heavier, and that the 264.000 ft (50 mi/ ~80 km) are now targeted by Virgin Galactic. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VSS Unity PF05

[edit]

There was also one passenger! Source: https://twitter.com/virgingalactic/status/1098997318429241344 --(nob) (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers 3 and 4 replaced by Spaceship III?

[edit]

There are two SpaceShip III in production / testing, the first rolled out 30 March 2021. It seems likely to me that the next two SpaceShipTwo in production referred to in this article have been reclassified as SpaceShip III vehicles but I am not aware of any ref to confirm this. Should/can a note of this possibility be added, maybe something like: "It is unclear whether these two vehicles in construction have been reclassified as SpaceShip III class vehicles." IMHO, if we are not sure if the SpaceShipTwo vehicles exist, then the article should avoid being overly confident that they do exist. So adding something like this seems better than doing nothing. C-randles (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceShipTwo&oldid=1216417309"