Talk:Virgin Galactic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Too many concepts - too few names[edit]

As with Tier One, we have far more concepts here than names. Here are the concepts I'd like names for, and the names so far:

  • Richard Branson's company: "Virgin Galactic". This one seems uncontroversial.
  • The VG/MAV project to develop and fly five-passenger suborbital tourist craft. I'm looking for a name analogous to "Tier One", and haven't seen one so far.
  • The design of the suborbital tourist craft. I'm looking for a name analogous to "Boeing 747". So far it looks like the craft is to be named "Virgin SpaceShip", by analogy with "SpaceShipOne". However, it's possible that "Virgin SpaceShip" instead refers to all Virgin Galactic spacecraft, including later designs not yet announced. That latter theory fits nicely with the name prefix "VSS", which will presumably be applied to all Virgin Galactic spacecraft. Incidentally, I'm not sure whether "SpaceShipOne" refers to the design or to the (currently sole) instance of that design.
  • The design of the launcher for the suborbital tourist craft. This design is a scaled-up version of White Knight. I haven't seen any hint of a name for this yet.

Any comments? 195.167.169.36 10:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VSS - Virgin SpaceShip, either refers to the SpaceShipOne derivative, or to all Virgin Galactic spacecraft. The first of which though, is definitely named Enterprise, so unlike the SpaceShipOne confusion on whether the type and that particular spaceship have the same name is not an issue. I hazard that SSO refers only to that particular spaceship and not all Tier One spaceship components. (it would make sense). I hazard that VSS actually is the moniker used for all Virgin Galactic spacecraft, whether SSO derived or not, because it'll make more sense. VSS Richard Branson derived from Armadillo Aerospace stuff (for example) combined with VSS Enterprise, would match ship naming convention...
Humour: VSS Virgin, VSS Indefatigable, VSS La Pucelle, VSS Blossom...

They probably don't know themselves yet. Just as SpaceShipOne refers to both the design and the craft itself. (See Voyager et al. only one was built, so only one name was needed :) Nicholas 16:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there any confirmation that the pilots forming the first cadre for SS2 are British? I feel damn proud if they are, in a world where the superpowers hold most of the space cards (even the private industrial ones, and even though Branson is a Brit)! TheManwithNoName 21:14, 17 Apr 2006 (GMT)

Here are some equivalencies:
  • American Airlines, British Airways, Virgin Galactic
  • Short haul flights, long haul flights, suborbital flights
  • Boeing 747, Airbus 380, The Spacehip Company SpaceShipTwo
  • The Spaceship Company's WhiteKnightTwo does not seem to have an equivalent in the airline industry. In the aerospace industry there are several equivalents such as the external fuel tank on NASA's Space Shuttle and the Orbital Carrier Aircraft (OCA) used to launch Orbital Science's Pegasus rocket.
Ga2re2t (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: Voyager[edit]

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)

sources
70.51.10.202 (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The logo needs to be updated to reflect the new "iris" logo. - RealGrouchy 17:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Launch logo December 2005 logo

"Advancing Mankind"[edit]

This section reads like an ad. Should it be removed? Alex Nisnevich 05:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Much as I personally agree with the claims this section makes it is very POV. Martin Leng 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so excited about the prospects for this sort of thing and I admire the boldness of Virgin Galactic as a commercial enterprise, but that's a little over the top for an encyclopedia. AbstractClass 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think is should be kept in, as when we turn to Wiki to find answers, it's great that they are there, no matter how brief, in time this topic will be extended as more develops with the Galactic topic. Thirteen28 02:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Employees[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:New Galactic Logo.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:New Galactic Logo.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

VSS Voyager / Spirit of Steve Fossett[edit]

In this article [1] from the SanFran Sentinel, it says that the first Virgin Galactic WK2 will be called "Spirit of Steve Fossett"... (also in CBS SanFran [2]) So the second SS2 is still called VSS Voyager then... 70.55.86.160 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

UK company?[edit]

I see that an anonymous user added the claim that Virgin Galactic is a "UK" company (with this edit). I looked at the company's website and found no proof of such a claim. They seem to be based in the U.S. I'm removing the change, but if anyone has more definitie info, I'm sure we'd all like to know about it. --Eliyahu S Talk 11:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wholly owned subsidary of Virgin Group, which is a UK company. See here for a reference. Ga2re2t (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try--Dead link. Bottom line: Designed & built by American's, run by American's (former NASA Administrators). Give it up Ga2re2t--it's an American LLC, not a UK Ltd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.56 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One could have learned how to use the internet archive

Space as a public asset[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Should a new Wiki page for TSC Aerospace be created[edit]

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)[reply]

Economy[edit]

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)[reply]

Time of weightlessness[edit]

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 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 ()
  • 125s from peak altitude of 110km down to 40km in free fall ()

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)[reply]

Fox News' site[edit]

This site: [Fox] has a Fox News' article about a new spacecraft from this company.Agre22 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Some of this seems familiar, just so you guys know.[edit]

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)[reply]

VG update[edit]

There is a brief update here: [3]. I have no time to update the article just now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faster than a fighter?[edit]

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)[reply]

The "spacecraft" will reach around Mach 3 - well that was what they claimed on the box.

Commencement of sub-space flights

“A rocket-powered test flight of SpaceShipTwo finally took place on April 29, 2013, with an engine burn of 16 seconds duration. The brief flight began at an altitude of 47,000 feet, and reached a maximum altitude of 55,000 feet. While the SS2 achieved a speed of Mach 1.2 (920 mph), this was less than half the 2,000 mph speed predicted by Richard Branson.”

89.240.216.102 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: Since they tend to overlap, might not the Sections, 'SpaceShipTwo's projected performance' and 'Commencement of sub-space flights' be merged? 89.240.216.102 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be updated[edit]

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)[reply]

LauncherOne needs a photo[edit]

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 {{Photo requested}}. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Why all the WK1/SS1 parallel text in a Virgin Galactic article?[edit]

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)[reply]

 Done 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)[reply]

Branson's investment[edit]

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)[reply]

Virgin has hired two more pilots[edit]

Ticket Price[edit]

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)[reply]

There are no tickets on sale on their website. Rustygecko (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Scaled composites Tier Two[edit]

orbital[edit]

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)[reply]

--Petebutt (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low-cost seats for media persons[edit]

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)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

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)[reply]

Correction - it's even worse than I thought - in September 2004 Branson was saying flights were going to take place 'within 18 months' [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.82.212 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blunder Birds are go for the world's first PR driven 'spacecraft'. A costly and dangerous ego trip that has been given the MSM respect that it does not deserve. So weak and badly designed - why was this cheap toy-on-a-rocket allowed to fly? 78.147.86.25 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-592585/Virgin-offer-holidays-space.html

With this article saying that operations begin in 6 weeks time, is there at least the possibility that this is all a scam? They’ve been taking money and promising flights for so many years that most ticket holders have forgotten they paid. Some ticket holders are dead. Is it a scam? Rustygecko (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet 2 or 3 WK2 Motherships?[edit]

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. [1]

SS2 article says In October 2010, TSC announced plans to build three WhiteKnightTwo aircraft and five SpaceShipTwo spaceplanes.[2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Malik, Tariq (January 23, 2008). "Virgin Galactic Unveils Suborbital Spaceliner Design". SPACE.com. Retrieved January 25, 2008. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "Spacecraft factory to break ground in Mojave". Los Angeles Times. 8 November 2010. Retrieved 9 November 2010.

Todd 'Leif' Ericson[edit]

Is Virgin Galactic's Todd Ericson notable enough for an article? WP:SOLDIER and AVBIO apply here. [4] -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion for re-write: how many planes?[edit]

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)[reply]

Competition with Blue Origin[edit]

According to [5] BONS and VGSS2 are in direct competition to make the first commercial spaceflight -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British or American?[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge Ken Baxter (businessman)[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Strong oppose He may be mentioned at Virgin Galactic, but in now way should he be merged here. It's pointless since he is only tangentially related to Virgin Galactic, and only as much as a list entry with just his name would be all that should ever appear in any Virgin Galactic article. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Virgin Galactic. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Investors section needs clarification[edit]

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)[reply]

SpaceShipTwo is projected to fly to a height of 110 km..[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Remove Boom collaboration section?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

“The company aims to have about 3 launches per month sometime in 2023.[edit]

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)[reply]

Why are SpaceShipOne Flights listed in an article about Virgin Galactic?[edit]

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

Danger, Dead Ahead![edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virgin_Galactic&oldid=1216506326"