Rutan and Whitehorn presentation at Oshkosh

50 SS2s? Is there even remotely enough demand for that big of a production run? How many flights can you get out of one of these vehicles? Unless they can cut their ticket price dramatically over time, I'd be surprised if they need more than 4-5 SS2s...I hope they don't end up killing themselves by expanding too fast based on unrealistic expectations...

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at 07/29/09 12:27:48

Indeed. I agree that exceeds most expectations for VG flight demand by a factor of several, but presumably Rutan wouldn't say that unless there were orders for the vehicles. Question is, who else is buying them? DoD/DARPA? NOAA? A Saudi prince who wants his own spaceship? (I can see State having conniptions about the ITAR implications of the latter ;) ).

Posted by Stellvia at 07/29/09 15:15:10

Given the likely nature of VG operations it actually makes more sense then it seems.

VG has always talked about multiple launch sites, New Mexico, the Gulf, Sweden, Singapore, Australia. Assume two WK2 at each location (prime and backup) and you have 10 already. Add in one for testing (the prototype) at Mohave and a floater to replace WK2 being overhauled and you get to 12.

In terms of SS2, as a spacecraft it will take a few days, perhaps a week, to turn around. So if you want to offer daily flights then you will need more SS2 than WK2. Look at the length of time between flights of SS1. I also expect the SS2 will end up needing more frequent overhaul/maintenance then WK2 since its flight profile is more stressful, going to space and surviving a re-entry.

Add it up and a 4 to1 ratio sounds about right. So if you have a pair of WK2 and 8 SS2 at each spaceport and some at the factory for rebuilding/testing and you could quickly get up to 48-50.

Actually this makes VG look more like a real operation, as real operations recognize the need for downtime, repairs, etc. It also explains the need for more capital for VG. In my mind VG just got a lot more real as a viable spaceline.

This also illustrates the difference between viewgraph firms that plan to run a business with 1-2 craft and a professional operation. 1-2 vehicles space tourist operations are more stunts then businesses.

Posted by Spacer at 07/29/09 20:26:35

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Ok here comes a lot of guessing ^_^

50/12 = 4.166 let's say 2 WK2's are for r&d to make that 4.

4 SS2's for each WK2 makes sense since refueling the SS2's take time and effort. If one assumes it takes two days to replace the SS2 propulsion (no sense making it a rush job) then that makes for two launches a day per WK2.

About those 12 WK2's it would not make sense to have only 1 WK2 at a spaceport. 2 WK2's at the same location seems an absolute minimum but 3 sounds much better (and particularly so when considering non-SS2 payloads).

That would give either 12/2 = 6 or 12/3 = 4

So between four and six spaceports. Up to seven could be available within a decade:
- California (operational)
- New Mexico (under construction)
- Sweden (existing, perhaps some minor construction needed)
- UAE (very likely)
- Scotland (existing but requires regulatory framework and perhaps some minor construction)
- Singapore
- Hawaii

Delivering the vehicles to Virgin Galactic will take time.

The main challenge for Virgin galactic is to expand the markets by decreasing price without decreasing capability/quality and one can't do that without volume.

Hard to see how ITAR is supposed to apply to flying civilian vehicles abroad but if it does apply they better hurry up and stop the sale to Virgin Galactic which is not a US company... there won't be any use challenging it after the fact.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at 07/29/09 20:55:31

Oops didn't see Spacer's post before I proofread and submitted.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at 07/29/09 20:56:49

And some of my math is wrong too lol ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at 07/29/09 21:01:28

ITAR absolutely applies to "civilian" vehicles of this type. Exporting an aircraft with a hard-point is covered by ITAR, along with the whole of SS2.

Posted by Gary C Hudson at 07/29/09 23:38:11

Gary,

True, but that is what lawyers are for. And Branson probably has several working on it already, or should have.

Posted by Spacer at 07/29/09 23:46:45

Habitat,

That is ok, just shows great minds think alike :-)

Posted by Spacer at 07/29/09 23:47:27

Well, regardless of who buys them...

...I don't know about you, but the thought of FIFTY shiny new passenger spacecraft lined up in rows on the apron at Mojave kind of brings a lump to my throat ^_^

Outward bound, at last.

Posted by Stellvia at 07/30/09 05:57:10

Habitat,

Just another thought. Weather is going to be a constraint once commercial operations get started, especially in places like Singapore and Scotland. In order to maximize your revenue you want to have as many flights on a good day as possible. Two to three WK2 and eight to twelve SS2 at a site would basically allow for continuous flights from dawn to dusk.

Posted by Spacer at 07/30/09 11:26:42

Thanks for the information Gary (I had no idea ITAR includes planes with hard-points). So how does ITAR deal with for example the partly non-US ownership of The Spaceship Company? Sounds like ITAR has to have been an issue from day one but I don't think I've heard/seen a single thing about ITAR re Scaled Composites/TSC/Virgin Galactic.

Good thinking about the weather Spacer, I didn't think about that.

Fingers crossed Stellvia, would be nice to see them succeed and get to their tier three ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at 07/30/09 16:45:50

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me