Talk:SpaceShipTwo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Difficulties in getting regulatory approval from the FAA

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)

More delays, apparently driven by hybrid engine problems

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)

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

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)

New development, No edge of space anymore

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)

SpaceShipTwo is a class, not an individual vehicle

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)

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)

Sources

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)

Competition with NS

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

Edits

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Yes, please take that to Talk:Right-wing politics. - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

And the sources should be, of course, really neutral sources. Alright, thank you. --TheHeroWolf (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

SpaceShipTwo Is Not One Vehicle

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

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

Reachable altitude

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for finding that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

VSS Unity PF05

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

Numbers 3 and 4 replaced by Spaceship III?

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)