I think that headline is NSFW, subby.

bow chick a bow bow

Will this be called the 'King Missile'?

Yes, but did it have a happy ending?

*spiderman-weirdestboner.jpg*

That's hot.

CRITICAL STOP ERROR 0x0054FB2E INNUENDO PUN BUFFER OVERFLOW

POOR IMPULSE CONTROL

Headline on TFA sucks though...

You can't "pollute" space, at least not with air pollutants. You can cram it full of space junk, but there is not atmosphere in space to pollute and no ecosystem. Everything eventually burns up in a sun or an atmosphere, or just settles on a moon's surface, where it is nowhere near as dangerous as the environment itself... It's why nuke plants on the moon would work so well, as well as spaceship construction(Along with the low-G environment), if we could just figure out a safe affordable way to get the power to Earth...

Bravo, subby.

reads headline, gets shocked look Did I just get laid or something?

Well, Butte does have a rather large hole.

Mikey1969: Headline on TFA sucks though...

You can't "pollute" space, at least not with air pollutants. You can cram it full of space junk, but there is not atmosphere in space to pollute and no ecosystem. Everything eventually burns up in a sun or an atmosphere, or just settles on a moon's surface, where it is nowhere near as dangerous as the environment itself... It's why nuke plants on the moon would work so well, as well as spaceship construction(Along with the low-G environment), if we could just figure out a safe affordable way to get the power to Earth...

I believe that they're referring to atmospheric pollution generated by burning tons of aluminum perchlorate in a traditional solid fuel rocket. At least, that's my best guess. The article reads like little more than a press release from the company.

My fart propels me to great height.

Lol, whut? You can't pollute space. You can pollute Earth's atmosphere.

It's called non-toxic propellants (and their engines). There are a few space companies working on them right now in Mojave, CA.

I like the people I know at Virgin, and I mostly like what they are doing across the board, but I would like to hear more about Masten, Xcor, and others. Virgin isn't the only commercial space company doing cool stuff.

roger_lamothe: My fart propels me to great height.



'I.....I don't believe it.'

Fish in a Barrel: I believe that they're referring to atmospheric pollution generated by burning tons of aluminum perchlorate in a traditional solid fuel rocket.

Yeah. That's probably it, but they need to write better, if you ask me.

Fish in a Barrel: At least, that's my best guess. The article reads like little more than a press release from the company.

Not as bad as livescience.com, IMHO, that site sucks ass, it's either a waste of time, written for people whose grasp of science stops at 'Mythbusters', or it's nothing more than paid shilling for some corporate entity. Every once in awhile, they have a decent article, but I flat out refuse to click on a LiveScience link, and only do it by accident now.

I need a shower now

Look, are you insinuating something?

StrikitRich: Will this be called the 'King Missile'?

Here it comes! Here it comes! Get ready, biatch, here I come!

Butte Montana spaceport. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Fish in a Barrel: Mikey1969: Headline on TFA sucks though...

You can't "pollute" space, at least not with air pollutants. You can cram it full of space junk, but there is not atmosphere in space to pollute and no ecosystem. Everything eventually burns up in a sun or an atmosphere, or just settles on a moon's surface, where it is nowhere near as dangerous as the environment itself... It's why nuke plants on the moon would work so well, as well as spaceship construction(Along with the low-G environment), if we could just figure out a safe affordable way to get the power to Earth...

I believe that they're referring to atmospheric pollution generated by burning tons of aluminum perchlorate in a traditional solid fuel rocket. At least, that's my best guess. The article reads like little more than a press release from the company.

I think that's all it was.

A quick background for the uninitiated: The Spaceship one project was started by Rutan and Paul Allen. Sir Richard bought in late (he was funding Fossetts round the world jet at the time, a PR ad for using biofuel in his airliners). He wanted a larger ship to use as another PR tool for Virgin. "First space airliner" has a nice ring to it, after all.
Somewhere along the line, some well meaning idiot asked if the noxious gas from hybrid rockets didn't go against Virgins pro-eco image.
SS1 wasn't made to be environmentally friendly, and SS2 is a direct upscale of it.

Looking to all the damage not-done to the everglades from the fallout of the shuttle program, I don't see why anyone should care. The fumes aren't good for you but they are dispersed among few launches and over a wide area. So this public relations bit is to fix something that wasn't really a problem.

...And it may be a moot point anyway, because after the Stratolaunch announcement it was rumored that SS2 will be converted to liquid fuel. Which will make it more of a gas&go rocket and probably cheaper to operate.