Talk:VSS Unity

Virgin Galactic Spirit of Steve Fossett

In this article [1] from the SanFran Sentinel, it says that the first Virgin Galactic White Knight Two will be called "Spirit of Steve Fossett"... (also in CBS SanFran [2]) So that would mean that the spaceplane in this article is _still_ called "VSS Voyager", and not VSS Spirit of Steve Fossett. 70.55.86.160 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:VSS Spirit of Steve Fossett#Requested move. Andrewa (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Spaceshiptwo final.jpg

The image Image:Spaceshiptwo final.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek References

Is it worth mentioning that the VSS Enterprise and Voyager are likely references to Star Trek: Enterprise and Voyager?--Faillord adam (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.moneyweek.com/file/2333/space-tourism.html

  Triggered by \bmoneyweek\.(?:co\.za|com|net)\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Photos?

Now that photos have been released for SpaceShipTwo#2, can we use some of them? (hopefully they are license compatible with fair-use) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

How expensive

- will it be? --Itu (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the touristic flights? Currently, 250.000 USD per person are planned. Formerly, only 200.000 were planned, so the cost can change according to inflation. If the program will become a success of course, as currently it looks not so good for Virgin Galactic. But how expensive the vehicle itself is I don't know. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, i meant the spaceship. --Itu (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Total cost is not disclosed. The entire program from start could maybe be mid-hundreds of millions $US. An individual spaceship could be low hundreds; depends on if you include development costs / R&D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronrosano (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting number would be the cost losing/rebuilding a spaceship. So, without development costs. --Itu (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

To build one spaceship, it's cost of paying several hundred engineers & others working full time for 2 or 3 years + materials; a common occurrence in the aerospace industry. My understanding is that the lost spaceship was insured, and that the VG received proceeds soon after the loss. --ronrosano (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your layout is not an answer. Remember i asked for 1. a number, 2. not for developing costs(while a number would be welcome). 3. Claiming that something was insured does not answer how much it is to rebuild it, and of course the point of interest is how much is it worth? --Itu (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Glider?

I recently noticed that both VSS Enterprise and the Space Shuttle orbiter are members of the category, Category:Glider_aircraft. Both vehicles, of course, have rocket engines on board that are used for part of their flight, and both require other components (carrier aircraft or fuel tank and solid rocket boosters) to actually begin flight. Yet they both end up flying as gliders as they land. Hence, I understood, their inclusion in this category. I looked back a few years (to 2015) and both were still in that category then, so it isn't a recent change; I am not sure who put them in this category, but that does not really matter. For consistency, I thought that VSS Unity should be in the same category by whatever inclusion criteria allow both VSS Enterprise and the Space Shuttle orbiter to be in the category. I understand from recent edits that Ahunt and MilborneOne may have a different perspective on this. Would anyone like to discuss whether the present subject, VSS Unity, should be in the Category:Glider_aircraft category? Thank you, Fanyavizuri (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Unity is classed as an un-powered glider by the FAA (perhaps it just ignores the rocket bit). MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Just about all heavier-than-air aircraft can glide, except perhaps fixed-pitch helicopters. Almost all fixed wing aircraft land from a glide, too, but that doesn't make a B-747 with its throttles back a glider. The category is for aircraft intended primarily as gliders, not for any aircraft that can glide. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You both make great points. MilborneOne points out that something that Unity and Enterprise had/have in common is an FAA registration as a glider. Here is Enterprise's old entry [3]; here is Unity's current one [4]. That distinguishes them from Ahunt's example, unless there is some B-747 with an FAA registration that is particularly unusual in this way. Here is what I take to be a typical registration of a 747 - not a glider [5]. Unity, as well as (previously) the Shuttle Orbiter and VSS Enterprise, are also distinguished from typical aircraft: while, as Ahunt rightly points out, just about all airplanes can glide if needed, these three vehicles have planned gliding as a portion of every flight. I am not especially adamant that these be called gliders; rather I am interested in the categorization scheme being consistent. I would be happy to go with the FAA designation here, and thereby include Unity in the glider category. I am also happy to go with precedent, and leave the shuttle orbiter and VSS Enterprise in the categories they have occupied for several years. Of course, obviously, all three also have rocket portions of flight. What do you think in light of this discussion, Ahunt and MilborneOne ? Thank you again, Fanyavizuri (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I do conceded that if we are going with WP:RS that the FAA has thrown a wrench into my arguments. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the care and thought that you both put into this. Shall I go ahead with putting it in the Glider category then, recognizing that if there were ever more than three vehicles in it, something like "Rocket glider" might be more appropriate? Fanyavizuri (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense to me. I guess we should stipulate in any future arguments that a reliable source will carry the day. - Ahunt (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Done and done! Fanyavizuri (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Photos?

Since Unity has been displayed in public and tested in public, we should add some more photos if possible. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

We need a freely-licenced image, do you have one? - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you check Flickr?

• {{CC-by-2.0}} [6]

I suspect there should be others there. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

That is good that they licence them that way, although the photos aren't really great for this article, more just promoting Landrover. Not finding anything better I used that one you suggested. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons deleted it. Commons: File: "VSS Unity roll-out 20 February 2016.jpg" I suspect the admin on Commons doesn't understand what Jaguar Land Rover is doing. The deletion claim is bad Flickr owner, but the Flickr owner is the company itself, and the violation claim is violation of the company's copyright, which is the owner of the Flickr account. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. They seem to have flagged that Flicker account as unreliable for some reason. I simply went by the CC 2.0 licence on the posted page, but they seems to think it was an unauthorized post. I have learned long ago that there are some admin issues over on commons not worth fighting. - Ahunt (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently being located at the same address isn't enough evidence that LR-MENA and JLR are the same corporation for COMMONS -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, the problems on commons are such that I only normally post my own photos there. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)