Talk:Scaled Composites White Knight Two

6 or 7 passengers?

I read elsewhere on-line that SpaceShipTwo holds 6 passengers and 2 crew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.67.12 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. This CNN article says 6 passengers (and 2 crew). --- ScramJones 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)]

The same article also refers to it as "WhiteKnightTwo" (rather than "White Knight Two") and says it's slightly larger than a 757, not the same size. --- ScramJones 19:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)]

During the WK2 rollout, Branson said that SS2 has room for up to 11, but that they were only putting 8 in it because he didn't think anyone would want an aisle seat!. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Excited!

File:White Knight Two.png

Something like this...

Man I can't wait till they release the designs for these crafts.. I think WK2 will look a bit like the P-38 Lightning, but there's little guessing in what SS2 will look like. Are twin hulls even heard of in planes? — Jack · talk · 03:45, Sunday, 26 August 2007

Well, seem like your suggestion wasn´t even close to the real thing? RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, I'd say I was pretty close; twin hulls, middle wing arc to carry SS2, number of jet engines, and everything! Slight errors with the tail and position of the jets, but I went with what I had — Jack · talk · 23:35, Monday, 25 February 2008

Spirit of Steve Fossett

In this article [1] from the SanFran Sentinel, it says that the first Virgin Galactic WK2 will be called "Spirit of Steve Fossett"... 70.55.86.160 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, the article from Time (2007-10-10) does not specify which half of the design will be named after Steve Fossett:

…a unique aircraft we are now building to launch people, payload and science into outer space next year. We plan to name it Spirit of Steve Fossett in his honor.

Whereas the article from the San Francisco Sentinel (2007-10-10) is more specific in that it will be the first Scaled Composites White Knight Two mother ship that is named "Spirit of Steve Fossett":

He added that the first flight will likely take off from the Mojave desert, carried up into the atmosphere from a mother ship he plans on naming “The Spirit of Steve Fossett,” after the explorer who went missing a month ago during a flight in Nevada.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 18:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Galactic Spirit of Steve Fossett should be created as a redirect or an article. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the WK2 names are the wrong way around. Reports of the launch on 23rd January 2008 talk about the first WK2 being named Eve and the new Virgin Galactic animation has Eve as the name shown on WK2. Note that this animation was released 3 months after the quote from Richard Branson about using Steve Fossett's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.184.201 (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollout

Very nice-looking aircraft. Reminds me of a pair of Citation Mustangs with the wings glued together, only a lot sleeker. Incidentally, if some kind soul would be willing to fix the hash I made of the N Number addition, I'd appreciate it. Still not good with Wikicode, and did try several previews - that's the best I could get. Sorry :( gloin (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming Style

First, should the aircraft be called "White Knight 2" as one poster wrote, or White Knight Two as another did, or without the italics, or without spacing or italics as per Scaled Composites' rollout press release, "WhiteKnightTwo?"

Also, if someone would like to enlighten me on the official Wikipedia line viz. Briticisms in spelling (fibre vs. fiber, etc.), I'd be obliged. gloin (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be White Knight Two, spelled out, because that's what the manufacturer is calling it. It is also without italics, as it is the model name (we don't italicize P-51 Mustang or F-16 Fighting Falcon). The actual name of each plane, such as Eve, however, does get italicized, just like ships' names do. As for all one word or spaced, Scaled seems to be using both. I'll go back through my press packs and the other lit I have and see if there's a majority method. By the way, within Scaled, it's generally referred to as Tritops, rather than White Knight Two. Burt commented on that during his presentation, but I don't know if that qualifies as a proper source. As for the form of English, the convention here is to use US spelling for articles about US subjects, and British spelling for British subjects. So since it's a US built aircraft, registered in the US and will operated in the US, and since VG is aligned with Virgin America, it should have US spelling. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

As promised above, I've gone through all the VG, VA and SC documents, and they pretty much uniformly refer to the aircraft as WhiteKnightTwo, all one word. The one exception is a pamphlet that refers to the aircraft as a VirginMotherShip. With this in mind, I propose renaming the article (and changing the text within it) Scaled Composites WhiteKnightTwo. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No objections, so renaming was completed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal (2008)

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

There's a proposal to merge VMS Eve into Scaled Composites WhiteKnightTwo. I can't find a discussion for this, so I'll create it. I'm for this measure- I think they should be merged. tedder (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT MERGE

• Conditional support - for now, since Eve is the only WK2, it doesn't make sense to have two different articles. If and when follow on aircraft are completed, this would need to be revisited, for two reasons: one, there was some clear indication from Rutan that subsequent airframes may have differences from this flight test prototype...and if the differences are significant enough, a separate article for Eve might be warranted. Secondly, separate articles for individual airframes can be justified if those aircraft have done significant things, and given the flight test programs that this will be involved in (Rutan and Branson made it pretty clear that this aircraft will not likely see commercial service) might also justify a separate article. But, those are bridges to be crossed later. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed --bonzi (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support the merge. Rationale: As with Akradecki, this makes sense for Wikipedia in early 2009 where there is, after all, only a single aircraft. If the first a/c of the series, Eve, ever becomes sufficiently unique and separate from the superclass, WhiteKnightTwo, then separate articles could be made at that time. 98.245.26.216 (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support the merge. There is simply not enough material on Eve so far to justify a separate article. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge. One a/c should be in one article. Perhaps with a second section for the first a/c specifics. N2e (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSE MERGE

• Oppose VMS Eve is the first example of the aircraft model, and will be the first commercial space tourist first stage launcher. Why do we have articles on each SS2? The same reason applies to the WK2s. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuetral or Other comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New picture from Eve's maiden flight

VMS Eve Maiden Flight

Hi. I just got the permission from Virgin Galactic to upload this picture in Commons. Really looks great. Could someone put it in the article? --Myself488 (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WKII Designer

Does anyone have a good source that clarifies who did the detailed design for WhiteKnightTwo? Clearly Rutan is involved in the design, particularly at the high-level design level but I can't seem to find a clean source. And who on Rutan's team is the overall design lead for this particular project (while Rutan runs his company and participates in high-level design on many projects)? It seems we should add the name to the aircraft type infobox. N2e (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed in detail at the rollout, and the design team's Lead Engineer, Bob Morgan spoke about the process. Audio of his address can be found at [2] AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Akradecki, those are great links and definitely move Bob Morgan into the list. I'm unclear how the "designer" designation is usually used on Wikipedia inside of the infobox called aircraft type. Bob Morgan is clearly the "Lead Engineer" for WK2 (Part 4 of the audio at the link). But is also seems that Burt Rutan had significant early input, and perhaps, overall supervisory input to the entire process. Should we list them both? N2e (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Burt should definitely be listed. He might not have done the detailed CFD stuff, but the overall design is classic Burt (there are certain features and lines that are almost a signature for Burt's work; email me if you want to discuss more). To a certain extent, the "designer" blank harkens back to the olden days where an aircraft design was principally one person. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes good sense. I'll add both Burt Rutan and Bob Morgan to the infobox. N2e (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I just returned from Airventure 2009 in OshKosh where the WK2 flew. In the August 2009 issue of Sport Aviation is a great article on the WK2, including designer information: For the team at Scaled [Composites, LLC], creating WK2 and the commercial space system has been more than a technological challenge. The project forced Scaled to change its design philosophy and procedures, expand its workforce more than twofold, and even prepare for a post-Rutan future, all while meeting the accelerated development timetable that is a hallmark of Scaled's projects. "Burt is notorious for promising the customer a really aggressive schedule and gambling on the fact that we're going to invent a new manufacturing process that we haven't used before to make that schedule," said Bob Morgan, WK2 project engineer and chief designer. [...] Burt Rutan's new role at Scaled (a year ago he stepped down as president and was named chief technology officer and chairman emeritus) represented perhaps the biggest change for the team. "It's the first major manned plane that I was not the designer of," Rutan said. "The press seems to think I design everything. At one time that was true. I've retired now. I'm almost 66 years old, and I've got to make sure that we develop within our staff other people who learn to do concept design." JalenRawley 21:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

First Photos Inside Virgin Galactic's Mothership Cockpit

FYI, Popular Science has First Photos Inside Virgin Galactic's Mothership Cockpit. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This plane was featured at the annual Airventure in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. On the afternoon of July 31, 2009, WK2 took off from runway 18 (Wittman field) and soared steeply into the cloud-filled sky. The plane needed only about a third of the length of the runway to take-off (from a stopped position.) It circled the airport a few times, before landing northward (runway 36.) The engines were very quiet sounding, yet speeds well in excess of 100 mph were met.KraziTV 03:09, 1 Aug 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.119.200 (talk)

Does the detailed list of test flight data belong in this article? In Wikipedia?

Now that White Knight Two is making multiple flights each month, and multiple flights per week in the past week(Plans for WK2 at Oshkosh Air Show), a question comes to the fore. Is it really appropriate to have the detailed section with a summary of every test flight in the generic WK2 article? If so, wouldn't VMS Eve, the WP article specifically dedicated to this particular aircraft be more appropriate? Or, should the entire section be summarized and test flight detail be left out of WP altogether? I have an opinion... But what do other editors think? N2e (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on no disagreement, and it does seem that a specific-vehicle flight test program should be associated with the Wikipedia article on that specific instance rather than the class of all aircraft of that model type, I will go ahead and move the detailed flight test section to the VMS Eve article later today. N2e (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of new video and stories about WK2 at Oshkosh

Here and [here. Much additional information can be gleaned from reading more stories from those two news sources. N2e (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Service Ceiling

The service ceiling numbers are inconsistent (as the sources), ranging from 53000ft to 70000ft. Two different numbers, 60000ft and 70000ft, are stated in the design and specification sections, respectively. Do you know which of these is the actual service ceiling altitude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steinarhugi (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

More Design specifics

Which side is it piloted from? (Assunming it doesn't have dual controls). How many crew are there? How is the middle wing reinforced to avoid catastrophic failure and the two fuselages being ripped apart and then plummet to earth? What are the safety features? Capsules? Are parachutes on the aircraft or provided to the those flying. Etc. Etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.104.17 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Very poorly written article

I know very little about the Virgin Galactic program, and I was unable to gain any knowledge from this article. It is really just a collection of short, unexplained "blips" of information. I would try to expand it, but again, I don't know much about this topic. I'm actually surprised Virgin's PR people haven't got a hold of this article yet.... Kind of wish they would. 67.193.243.245 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Scaled is a very private company, they don't like releasing details. Apparently it's like pulling teeth to for Virgin trying to get Scaled to release anything. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WK2 Landing Gear failure during test

On a test flight six weeks ago, WhiteKnightTwo experienced a landing gear failure. I don't believe any mention of this has been made in the article, which is probably okay as it seems to be a relatively minor problem in the grand scheme of things. Nevertheless, I will note here on the Talk page that flight testing has resumed, per this article published today (28 Sep 2010) in Aviation Week. N2e (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Spirit of Steve Fossett

Spirit of Steve Fossett should redirect here as a viable search term (or to Virgin Galactic) 65.94.45.160 (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scaled Composites White Knight Two. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100325031817/http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2010/03/22/2237244.aspx to http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/22/2237244.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scaled Composites White Knight Two. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/11/space-tourism.html,
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128160739/http://newsfromrussia.com/news/science/23-01-2008/103605-spacecraft-0 to http://newsfromrussia.com/news/science/23-01-2008/103605-spacecraft-0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223012414/http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1119231942&channel=627008079 to http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1119231942&channel=627008079

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) 08:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Virgin Galactic White Knight Two with original version of Launcher One

{{subst:DNAU}}

Description: This is the original configuration for LauncherOne while attached to WhiteKnightTwo, that was cancelled in 2015 in favour of a much larger revised version.

URL: https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidgsteadman/7608012352/

License: {{keeplocal}}

• {{Do not move to Commons|reason=US only}}
• {{Non-free aircraft image|LauncherOne|no|image has rationale=yes}}
• {{Non-free aircraft image|WhiteKnightTwo|no|image has rationale=yes}}

Link To License Information:

{{Non-free media data
|Description       = 2012 configuration of WhiteKnightTwo equipped with LauncherOne
|Source            = https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidgsteadman/7608012352/
|Portion           = whole
|Low resolution    = 
}}
{{Non-free media rationale
|Article           = LauncherOne
|Purpose           = Illustrate original configuration of LauncherOne that was cancelled in 2015
|Replaceability    = no, cancelled configuration
}}
{{Non-free media rationale
|Article           = WhiteKnightTwo
|Purpose           = Illustrate original configuration of LauncherOne with WhiteKnightTwo that was cancelled in 2015
|Replaceability    = no, cancelled configuration
}}

Author/Copyright Holder's Name: davidgsteadman

Article To Be Used On/Reason For Upload: LauncherOne / WhiteKnightTwo

67.70.33.184 (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)