Talk:Virgin Galactic

message: Has it been confirmed that the second ship, Voyager, is named after the Star Trek vessel? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere else. It's certainly possible, but it's also possible Branson named it after the space probe. 23skidoo 13:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 70.51.10.202 (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question re: Voyager

message: The logo needs to be updated to reflect the new "iris" logo. - RealGrouchy 17:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Logo

message: This section reads like an ad. Should it be removed? Alex Nisnevich 05:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Advancing Mankind"

message: I'm sorry but I can't seem to find the source for the number of employees.  Can someone verify the number of employees for me please?  Along with names and titles.  Thanks.
 Cygnus 20:00 - 2006 11 05
The article says 823 - this is hype for publicity I guess. Surely it should be deleted. Rustygecko (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Employees

message: :Image:New Galactic Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:New Galactic Logo.jpg

message: :Image:New Galactic Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:New Galactic Logo.jpg

message: It should be noted the UN has declared all outer space as world-owned.  Thus if we begin to see private companies in space, a conflict is present.  Capitalists argue they can do a better job than government and that money is the best motive.  On the other side is the argument that outer space is not a place for private enrichment.  Some capitalists have suggested that agencies such as NASA should get out of space and leave it to them for 'commercial development'.Ykral (talk)
: Space is not "world-owned". Planetary bodies other than Earth can't be owned due to a UN treaty, just as it is the case for Antarctica. "Space" itself isn't owned by anyone. There are treaties to use it, just as there are treaties to use the airspace for commercial airline travels. There is no conflict here between private companies or between private and public companies, just as there is no conflict for airline operators although they have to adhere to international and national rules about the airspace they fly in. NASA has nothing to do with sub-orbital spaceflight in any event. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And to be perfectly clear, even the space treaties that are widely accepted only stated that nations could not exercise national sovereignty over space; it is not the case that no part of or resource from space can be privately owned.  Both the Soviet/Russian and the United States have treated there resource samples from space as if they were private property. N2e (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Space as a public asset

message: Considering there is no website (from google searches) should a page be created?  Perhaps they are in the process of developing a website.  And also if concluded that a page should be created then possibly a link on this page under the heading Spacecraft with the other relevant links?--Medic463 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Should a new Wiki page for TSC Aerospace be created

message: At $200.000 per trip do they break even? Does anyone have any ideas about the economy of this thing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.189.40 (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: Is the estimated time of 6 minutes of weightlessness realistic? A simple calculation (please correct if wrong) suggests that roughly 3 minutes is more likely. For simplicity assume the gravitational pull is a=9m/s^2
(a horizontal speed of 1000m/s has only a tiny effect on that). I think I've read somewhere the ship reaches a vertical speed of 400m/s, since I'm not certain give it 500m/s at the end of the burn. So we have
* 55s from end of burn till reaching peak altitude (\tfrac{500m/s}{a})
* 125s from peak altitude of 110km down to 40km in free fall (\sqrt{\tfrac{2*70000m}{a}})
Assuming one feels the drag of the atmosphere at a hight of about 40km.
So 3 minutes maximum of free fall in total. How do they reach 6 minutes?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.11.232 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Time of weightlessness

message: This site: [Fox] has a Fox News' article about a new spacecraft from this company.Agre22 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fox News' site

message: The results for "barring any problems arising in the test campaign" come up with several non-wiki results.  Someone did some copy and pasting. 69.243.146.145 (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some of this seems familiar, just so you guys know.

message: There is a brief update here:  .  I have no time to update the article just now.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: VG update

message: The article currently says "The spacecraft will reach around Mach 3 (1000 m/s), which is faster than current fighter jets are capable of attaining". I'm probably being quite anal here, but the MiG-25 although usually not flown faster than mach 2.8 can actually go up to mach 3.2 if you're willing to wear out it's engines, and actually has been recorded as flying that fast in the 1970s. -OOPSIE- (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Faster than a fighter?

message: The 2010 plan in the opening section--completed, never completed, what happened?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.224.169 (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be updated 

message: The article would be improved by the addition of a photograph of LauncherOne.  I would imagine that a fair use rationale may exist to use a small version of one of the US news media photos, like from the NewSpace Journal source here.  Adding a .  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LauncherOne needs a photo 

message: In a section entitled Mothership, the article currently states: "The White Knight One and White Knight Two are special aeroplanes functioning as mother-ship and launch-platform for the spacecraft SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo respectively. The motherships are large fixed-wing aircraft. They have two hulls, linked together by a central wing."  
Why are WK1 and SS1 featured so prominently, in an article about Virgin Galactic?  VG did not have anything to do with SpaceShipOne and WhiteKnightOne.  Anyone have a source?  If not, I will remove the disproportionate emphasis on predecessor related designs.  N2e (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no rationale, and no sources, have been offered to support the heavy VG connection to WK1/SS1, I have edited the article and removed the undue emphasis, as well as the photo of WK1.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why all the WK1/SS1 parallel text in a Virgin Galactic article? 

message: This webzine article provides some solid info on Branson's investment in licensing Burt Rutan's airplane and spaceplane technology, as well as his investment in the production of the early aircraft:  "...$14 million to license Rutan's technology and another $95 million to  build five passenger spaceliners over 15 years", Virtuoso Life, p. 4, accessed 2012-09-12.  Might make a good source for improving the article with some info on investment numbers.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branson's investment 

message: * Virgin Galactic hires two new SpaceShipTwo pilots, including former Shuttle astronaut, NewSpace Watch, 7 May 2013.  N2e (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virgin has hired two more pilots 

message: It appears that the ticket price may have changed.
Here's the source:
http://www.virgingalactic.com/booking/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appple (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ticket Price 

message: The SpaceShipThree article states that the project was scaled back to a less ambitious point-to-point exo-atmospheric travel vehicle, instead of an orbital vehicle. Does this also indicate that Tier Two has also been rescoped, and that the orbital project has been pushed to another future "tier" (ie. Tier Three, for want of a better name) ? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  orbital 

message: A few (and very occasional) low-cost seats for media will apparently become available on somewhat of a standby/short-notice basis, typically from late cancellations of other spaceflight participants.  VG CEO made some remarks in November about it, and NewSpace Journal has the story here.  Might warrant mention in the article, either this one or SpaceShipTwo.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low-cost seats for media persons 

message: This article has provided misleading information since its creation in 2006 (when we were promised flights by 2008). The deadline keeps moving - in 2009 it was 2011, and it seems we're always 'two years away' from genuine space flight. In the meantime 50 million dollars or so has been taken from prospective passengers who, presumably, believed the 'within two years spiel' when they paid their $100,000 deposits. 
Is it time to have a proper 'criticism' section that addresses the obvious issues (it's not orbital, it's not 'space' - it's just three minutes of weightless freefall in a modern vomit comet) as well as the financial concerns and that even as late as January 2014 they still do not have a motor capable of delivering what was promised way back in 2005?? 88.106.82.212 (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What project like this doesn't suffer delays? Seems to me like that was always intended as a media sound-bite to say it isn't far away to keep up interest. If customers signed contracts that were clear about timetable or at least that there could be long delays what would customers have to complain about? But to add anything, I think you would have to be sure what was meant by flights within 18 months i.e. was it meant to be 18 months to test flights? WK2 flew for the first time on December 21, 2008 crandles (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Fleet section says
As of 2008, Virgin Galactic plans to have a fleet of two White Knight Two mother ships and five or more SpaceShipTwo tourist suborbital spacecraft. 
SS2 article says 
In October 2010, TSC announced plans to build three WhiteKnightTwo aircraft and five SpaceShipTwo spaceplanes.
"Spacecraft factory to break ground in Mojave". Los Angeles Times. 8 November 2010. Retrieved 9 November 2010.
Is the later 2010 ref right re 3 WK2 motherships? One or other article needs to be corrected.
crandles (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, TSC is not the same entity as Virgin Galactic, so if TSC builds 3, that's not the same as VG operating 3. Probably VG will have three, as of 2010; since that's two years newer. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Fleet 2 or 3 WK2 Motherships?

message: Is Virgin Galactic's Todd Ericson notable enough for an article? WP:SOLDIER and AVBIO apply here.  -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Todd 'Leif' Ericson

message: I came to Wikipedia for one answer. How many of these Virgin planes are there? The answer is not easily found. I read that there are 5 planned but I think the only one built has crashed and that there is one mother ship, which has not crashed.
Consider this suggestion in writing the article. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion for re-write: how many planes? 

message: According to  BONS and VGSS2 are in direct competition to make the first commercial spaceflight -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Competition with Blue Origin

message: As there has been some edit warring lately, I'd like the say unless you can provide a source stating otherwise, Virgin Galactic is a U.S. company, not a British one. The HQ is in the US and it is listed as a LLC (rather than a LTD company if it was listed in the UK).Ezrado (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: British or American?

message: Baxter's only real claim to fame is his association with this project, per WP:BLP1E it should be covered here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Ken Baxter (businessman)]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Virgin Galactic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091122222351/http://www.virgingalactic.com:80/jobs/Vehicle%20Production%20Planner.pdf to http://www.virgingalactic.com/jobs/Vehicle%20Production%20Planner.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Virgin Galactic. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430085117/http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic-breaks-speed-of-sound-in-first-rocket-powered-flight-of-spaceshiptwo/ to http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic-breaks-speed-of-sound-in-first-rocket-powered-flight-of-spaceshiptwo/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407135714/http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic-reaches-new-heights-in-third-supersonic-test-flight to http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic-reaches-new-heights-in-third-supersonic-test-flight/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141114104554/http://www.virgingalactic.com/statement-from-virgin-galactic/ to http://www.virgingalactic.com/statement-from-virgin-galactic/
*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/20140526060112/http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic-rocket-motor-milestone/ to http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic-rocket-motor-milestone/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080701131905/http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/news.php to http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/news.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Virgin Galactic. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324175119/http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/vss-enterprises-first-flight/ to http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/vss-enterprises-first-flight/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212225855/http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/the-legend-of-steve-fossett-takes-root/index.html?ex=1349841600&en=45eab0da4e07992c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss to http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/the-legend-of-steve-fossett-takes-root/index.html?ex=1349841600&en=45eab0da4e07992c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616051758/http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/overview.php to http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/overview.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/richard-branson-saudi-arabia-investment-talks-pulls-out-virgin-jamal-khashoggi-missing-journalist-a8580431.html
Branson is not a fan of Khashoggi's disappearance. It's at least worth mentioning given the large stake that they have or had in Virgin Galactic. 
Oldarney2 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investors section needs clarification 

message: should this be updated, or is the 110km still felt to be achievable?  Any explanation for why the performance has been downgraded? Note the unity page makes no mention of projected altitude capability Gjxj (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited to keep history of design goal but also note max reached so far. That seems better than losing design goal. C-randles (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  that is better. I note though that the referenced source for the 110 number doesn't support that at all.  ( I'm guessing the web page changed since it was linked ) Gjxj (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what I did wrong, URL in ref not changed but with other changes now seems to work for me. Let me know if you still can't find the quote I put in the ref. C-randles (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  SpaceShipTwo is projected to fly to a height of 110 km.. 

message: The only sources talking about a collaboration with Boom are from 2016, and since then both companies have been pretty much silent about the prospect. Given that it hasn't seemed to have gone anywhere, should the section be removed, or at least changed to reflect that the collaboration either never happened or has since ceased? SpaceAlex1 (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest that it will remain of modest historical interest, even if it has been canned. I think you would be justified in putting it in the past, along the lines of "In 2016 Virgin/Boom [delete as appropriate] announced a collaboration with Boom/Virgin [ditto], followed by lots of "would"s and "proposed"s and the like. I can see no justification for deleting material supported by reliable sources, just yet. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Boom collaboration section? 

message: Like so many of Branson’s claims, this surely is utter hype. They aren’t going to be flying even 1 per month in 6 weeks time. Should it not be clarified that this was just a publicity stunt? Rustygecko (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “The company aims to have about 3 launches per month sometime in 2023. 

message: Why are SpaceShipOne Flights listed in an article about Virgin Galactic? 
Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are SpaceShipOne Flights listed in an article about Virgin Galactic? 

message: It is space travel Jim - but not as we know it! Given warnings of danger, and safety issues that remain to be addressed - what about having a section called VirginGate - The Dangers?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.177 (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Danger, Dead Ahead!