1. G. Warren | 06.26.08

Is that pilot +2 passengers ? I think you need a few more friends talk about it after, & a bit longer.

2. Tom N | 06.26.08

I will believe it when I see it. Considering the amount of fuel required to get Spaceship one to 200,000 ft, I can’t believe the Lynx ship can take off and land without a booster of some kind.

Another concern is the landing speed and the landing system. It seems too lightweight to handle a high speed landing from space.

Good luck!

Tom

3. Sheliaer | 06.26.08

While the plan may be sound and fascinating,it’s also quite sad and shameful when you think about it for 3 reasons,
the cost is prohibitive to most;
the cost of today’s fuel makes it even more restrictive;
it’s shameful that a private company can build and offer this sevice to the public while our government, having worked on space travel for more than 40 years can’t even follow thru with a guarantee that a multibillion dollar craft designed and built by the “best minds” in the world, can’t always get theirs off the ground and / or get the passengers back alive, let alone the entire craft.

4. Mike Massee | 06.26.08

I can answer two questions at once:

It has room for a pilot and a single spaceflight participant, who sits up front with the pilot for more of an interactive fighter jet like experience, similar to the MiG-29 rides currently given in Russia. This in comparison to more of a passive ‘passenger’ feel on other craft.

SpaceShipOne is a larger, heavier craft, having been designed to meet the goals of the X-Prize competition, which stipulated capacity for three persons. Dropping the additional person and adding our rocket propellant piston pump technology greatly reduces the weight due to the use of lightweight unpressurized composite tanks. There is also an efficiency gain (and per flight cost savings) in using LOX/Kerosene vs. a hybrid fuel motor.

Our cryogenically compatible composite material allows us to build a LOX tank that is integral with the fuselage, allowing for a further weight savings. Many small things add up to the lack of a need for a carrier aircraft.

5. John T. Selak | 06.26.08

Sheila:

Flying on airplanes used to only be available to the very rich. The more airlines flew and the farther they advanced their efficiency, the farther the price dropped, until the price was within the reach of you and I. You have to fly a lot for the price to come down, because the fixed costs of development and overhead are the same no matter how much you fly.

In airline terms, the commercial space industry is in the era of the Wright brothers. There is a lot of margin for the price to come down to the cost of a first class airline ticket for a suborbital hop. Fuel cost is a small part of the equation if you are using the right propulsion system. (reusable rocket engines)

In regards to your comment about government vs. private industry, the government has no incentive to compete. There is no incentive to lower costs or accelerate schedules, and they are not in the business of giving you and I flights to space, and they never will be. There are some very talented people at NASA, but many parts of it are essentially a jobs program to keep the ’standing army’ employed in various congressional districts. Some folks like to quip that the space program was our way showing the Russians that we could do communism better than they could. And we did, for that fleeting moment when we touched the moon. Then we fell back to earth and never went back.

Government has often paved the way for private industry, the internet evolved from a DARPA program started in the 1960s. Then as now, it is time to turn over the space race to private industry.

NASA should be in the business of far term space exploration - things that have no immediate commercial impact but open up the boundaries for future industry and exploration. JPL and their programs are the best example of useful exploration for the pure love of knowledge and learning, with long term benefit to mankind. The Space Station on the other hand is a boondoggle and needs to go away. NASA is not utilizing funds efficiently by running a Low Earth Orbit transportation service with orbiters that were designed as test articles, not to run regular service in the shape they are now.

–John

6. Matt | 06.26.08

“…it’s shameful that a private company can build and offer this sevice to the public while our government, having worked on space travel for more than 40 years can’t even follow thru with a guarantee…”

I have yet to see a small private company, employing a few bright minds, invent and finance anything that can boost a payload of any size into orbit.

You’re talking about two different objectives. NASA works to inject payloads of science into space with astronauts to deploy or install them…NOT to pack 50 millionaires in the shuttle payload bay on a sightseeing tour.

And to believe that the private company’s space lauch program will have a 0% accident rate when no lauches have even taken place is absurd. There WILL be accidents and deaths. That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done though. Private space programs will be a viable and even vital part of the US Economy within the next 50 years…IMO.

Regards,

Matt in Omaha

7. Tony Webb near KSC | 06.27.08

“Government has often paved the way for private industry, the internet evolved from a DARPA program started in the 1960s. Then as now, it is time to turn over the space race to private industry.”

NASA has inspired the world to reach for the stars. I concur that the privatization of space will build a new industry for the USA and open the door for the masses to make the journey to space.

XCOR Aerospace has assembled a team of brilliant minds and angel investors (like Paul Allan did for Scale) around the nation should show their support for XCOR’s Lynx project.

Keep up the great work for leading the USA into the space tourism industry!

8. Charles Phillips | 06.27.08

For Xcor: would it be possible to airdrop the Lynx from WhiteKnight 2? That would give you additional time in microgravity.

Hopefully, the commercial sector will eventually be able to launch people into orbit, and not just into a suborbital trajectory!!

And maybe one day a commercial launch can get to the Station.

Sigh.

9. Feldman | 06.29.08

These people are touring OUR property, because outer space belongs to all earthlings. Any profits from outer space (and that includes space tourism) should be put in trust for humanity.

10. Josh W | 06.29.08

Hear hear, Feldman. It is a shame that the Moon Treaty, which codifies this principle under international law to a greater extant than the Outer Space Treaty, has not been ratified by major spacefaring nations.

11. Caius | 07.10.08

I think this innovation is good for all of us and the planet. Remember it was the first photograph of the Earth seen from the moon that started people thinking about the environmential seriously for the first time. The more people that see the Earth from space the better, especially if they are people of power and means, as these are the people that can do good (or bad) on a larger scale than most. What may begins as a joy ride for someone may turn into a life’s mission to look after this wonderful home that we have been given. I think for most it will be a humbling experience and for others it will be a life changing event. Have a look at Burt Rutan’s talk on TED .com as he really hits the spot as to why this kind of innovation has to come from the private sector.

1. Гаишникам продлили «халяву» - Росбалт.RU | 07.03.08