Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

XCOR Aerospace Plans a Florida Base For Lynx Suborbital Spacecraft

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the lured-by-the-snakes-and-lizards dept.

NASA 19

New submitter RocketAcademy writes "With the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex as a backdrop, XCOR Aerospace has announced its intentions to establish an operational base for the Lynx spacecraft in Florida. Plans call for XCOR to begin initial operations from a Florida location in 2014 with the Lynx Mark I prototype. As market demand dictates, XCOR may also establish a manufacturing and assembly center for the production vehicle, designated Lynx Mark II."

cancel ×

19 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frost in ur piss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41101415)

first eskimo

Good spot (1)

Schaffner (183973) | more than 2 years ago | (#41101443)

Florida's a good spot for them. There are no mountains for them to crash in to. Nice flat spaces to make very long runways. In fact, there might be a runway of unusual size that the government isn't using very much that they can use. Also, a handy supply of alligators to turn into a reptilian zombie worker army.

Re:Good spot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41101567)

Actually it's Senior Citizens who will be co-opted by the Aliens.

Runway of Unusual Size? (4, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41101635)

R.O.U.S.? I don't think they exist.

Lynx? (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#41101453)

Isn't it time we upgraded our spacecraft to use modern GUI browsers?

Re:Lynx? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#41101937)

do you want to die just because flash crashed?

I will stick with text based only for spacecraft GUI's for a while still.

CAREFUL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41101457)

Watch out for zombies!

plans... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#41101961)

...is the favoritest word of these dick waving space morons

btw believe it or not i'm a (pragmatic) space enthusiast

Re:plans... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#41102621)

On your sig:

just because we call them "laws of physics" doesn't mean the physical universe is always going to obey them

it's worth keeping in mind that we call "laws of physics" that not because we expect the physical universe to obey rules we made up, but because the universe obeys them. If the universe should end up having more complex structure to it than we currently expect, then the new models will become the new "laws of physics", to stay that way unless something better in turn comes along.

Re:plans... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#41106613)

because the universe obeys them

assumption is the mother of all fuck ups

the problem occurs when physicists (and anyone gullible enough to believe them) claim that perpetual motion is impossible because of the laws of thermodynamics, or that nothing can possibly travel faster than the speed of light because of relativity

the laws of physics are useful, but they aren't meant to become a source of religious faith

Re:plans... (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 2 years ago | (#41107291)

The laws of physics aren't like the laws of <insert country here> - the laws of physics are inviolable. Plus, they're not a source of religious faith, based on the simple fact that the laws of physics have centuries of evidence to support them.

Re:plans... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#41116975)

the laws of physics have centuries of evidence to support them

...under the limited conditions in which they were tested

Re:plans... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118395)

christians and muslims etc truly believe their beliefs to be inviolable too... i would never ask you to give up on your faith in the laws of physics... i just don't personally share the belief that they are inviolable... just as scientists once believed that the world was flat, so too will the current "laws" of physics be tested in new ways and new beliefs will be developed to fill our gaps in understanding (such as string theory etc)

Re:plans... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121869)

There's no assumption here, crutchy. They are called "laws of physics" because we observe the universe obeying them.

the problem occurs when physicists (and anyone gullible enough to believe them) claim that perpetual motion is impossible because of the laws of thermodynamics, or that nothing can possibly travel faster than the speed of light because of relativity

That is quite accurate except for your characterization of it as a "problem". That is one of the points to models, to be used to make predictions. And I might add here, there is actual evidence against perpetual motion and faster than light speeds. The former that perpetual motion requires a closed system with either no energy loss (something that has never been observed, but could in theory exist) or a closed system that actually gains energy (in which case, we'd have to explain why the universe hasn't yet been torn apart by energy release from that process).

In the latter case, we have yet to see FTL phenomena.

But sure, we can lazily assert that things could change or not be as we thought they are. But until you show a situation where the models don't work, then there's little point to the exercise.

Suborbital Spacecraft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41102437)

Like a 747?

Interesting... but stupid (1)

sackbut (1922510) | more than 2 years ago | (#41103917)

Very vague news release. Anyone could say the same things.

The only interesting part is where this group has removed an astronaut-candidate (not?) due to 1: letting a student post pictures of her in lingerie and 2: assaulting/attacking/biting someone and being arrested.

Re:Interesting... but stupid (1)

sackbut (1922510) | more than 2 years ago | (#41103945)

And why is the submitter the website hosting this 'news'?

Flight to No Where (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41104517)

I support space development, but this is expensive trip that goes up befiefly and down. Its dumb. Wake me up when they actually get people into orbit do international travel with suborbitals.

Re:Flight to No Where (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#41105651)

I support space development, but this is expensive trip that goes up befiefly and down.

[...]

Wake me up when they actually get people into orbit do international travel with suborbitals.

Well, how does one get to that point? As I recall, the modern jetliner wasn't just built one day. It was dependent on many decades of prior development. In a similar fashion, your sexy applications are going to come from less ambitious activities rather than magically appear out of thin air.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?