Talk:VSS Enterprise

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

FAA Registration Number[edit]

The article cited the reg number as N400K, but that number is registered to a single engine Cessna, so I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.140.129 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 2007 January 8

The promotional images at Virgin Galactic's website now show a registration number of N33955. —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
N339SS [1] should redirect here. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing fictional spaceship[edit]

That was probably added by a Trekkie... anyway, the Space Shuttle Enterprise is real, the VSS Enterprise is real, but Star Trek's Enterprise is not. I think the last one has no right to stay in the list. Where do I find a guid on how to remove an item from a list like that? Devil Master (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Space Ship 2 Jan 2008.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Space Ship 2 Jan 2008.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. --05:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of the William Shatner paragraph[edit]

I question the relevance of the paragraph of information about William Shatner to an article on the first article, the development ship, of a series of space craft of the design type SpaceShipTwo. Does anyone have a good argument of why this is sufficiently noteworthy to be in the article? And if so, why this article and not the SpaceShipTwo article, since it is by no means clear that article one (VSS Enterprise) would be the only passenger-carrying craft when the commercial operation eventually gets underway? Failing to find a sufficient notability, I'll plan to remove it from the article in a few weeks. N2e (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The craft is called "Enterprise", and William Shatner was offered to ride on the first flight. It doesn't get much more notable than that. The name "Enterprise" is synonymous with futuristic space travel, and Shatner, playing as Cpt. Kirk is the most famous leader of a vessel with that name. 67.183.16.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Pictures[edit]

The spacecraft has been unveiled, new photos are needed. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PW-308[edit]

PW-308 is not a rocket motor, this turbofan engine will be only be use as the main engine of the mother ship of the 'spaceship' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.73.100 (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek References[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that the VSS Enterprise and Voyager are likely references to Star Trek: Enterprise and Voyager?--Faillord adam (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if there are sources which state that unfortunately :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in VSS Enterprise[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of VSS Enterprise's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Fg20091027ww2":

  • From SpaceShipTwo: Will Whitehorn (2009-10-27). International Astronautical Congress 2009: Civilian Access to Space (video, comments at c. 20:00). Daejeon, Korea: Flightglobal Hyperbola, Rob Coppinger.
  • From Virgin Galactic: Will Whitehorn (2009-10-27). International Astronautical Congress 2009: Civilian Access to Space (video, comments at c. 22:00). Daejeon, Korea: Flightglobal Hyperbola, Rob Coppinger.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"List of test flights"[edit]

Is there a reason why the table is in reverse chronological order instead of regular chronological order? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the details for the Nov 11th flight from? No mention on the scaled composites website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.142.32 (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got confused by this too. Especially as the article for VMS Eve has its own "Flights" table in regular chronological order. At the very least, the two articles should have their tables in the same order. Perhaps someone from WikiProject_Spaceflight can advise on the correct convention for test flight lists. Big Mac (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Shatner and VSS Enterprise[edit]

this article uses an incorrect quote and is misleading. I corrected the quote, cited the article it came from, and some jerk reverted my changes and told me it was wrong and in violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super veritas (talk • contribs) 01:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who reverted your addition. I assume good faith on your part, and I'll explain why I reverted in a bit, as I enhance this comment. But let me suggest that the policy we will follow here is WP:BRD. You made a Bold edit. That is good, and is encouraged on Wikipedia. I have some questions about it, so I Reverted it. Next, we should Discuss it on the Talk page, along with any other editors who are working on or monitoring this article. I'll say more in a bit. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale for the revert: very simply, I don't believe there is anything wrong with the quotation you added, from the source you added it from. I haven't checked that source yet, but I assume it is a correct quotation, and a correct source citation.
However, it does not instantly follow that the other quotation is an "incorrect quote" or "is misleading"; or that it should be removed in favor of the quotation you provided. I will have to check that reference as well, but since it was a different (ostensibly older, although I don't believe you added a date of the source material in your quotation). As you made the change, the article title was identical, but the URL was quite different. So I would want to go back and check if indeed the Daily Mail did an older article, and then they have more recently written a different article.
If that older article exists, then it may be appropriate to have both comments in the Wikipedia article, and discuss how the story has been reported at different times.
If indeed, there is only one source article, and the Daily Mail has just changed it's URL to that article, then we can discuss that further after we both go back and research the situation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if both sources exist, it may be good to show how Branson tried to play it, and follow it with the quote from Shatner, showing the back and forth between them Here is the quote from Shatner: 'He wanted me to go up and pay for it and I said: "Hey, you pay me and I’ll go up. I’ll risk my life for a large sum of money." But he didn’t pick me up on my offer.' Here is the article it came from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2426546/William-Shatner-turns-Virgin-Galactic-space-flight-invitation.html Super veritas (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we are both on the same page now as to approach. I don't have time to do the research on this article today, but will try to get back here soon, look at both sources, and see what I think. I'll put that on this Talk page. If you do the same, then we can discuss how to best make the article better in a day or two. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The VSS Enterprise's name is an acknowledgement of the USS Enterprise from the Star Trek television series.[4] Entrepreneur Richard Branson, head of Virgin Galactic, offered William Shatner, the actor who portrayed Captain Kirk in the original Star Trek series, a ride into space on the inaugural space launch of the VSS Enterprise, and claims he turned it down because of a fear of air travel. 'He actually said he's frightened of airline travel - which is slightly disillusioning. Captain Kirk is scared of flying,' the Sun quoted Sir Richard as saying. Shatner says it is because Branson wants to promote Shatner's trip but expects him to pay for the ride. 'He wanted me to go up and pay for it and I said: "Hey, you pay me and I’ll go up. I’ll risk my life for a large sum of money." But he didn’t pick me up on my offer.'

This is a starting point. I just used the current dailymail article for the quotes. I left the line about the Sun quoting Branson bc I could not access the article on the Sun.co.uk site because a subscription is requiredSuper veritas (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I finished my research.
  • 6 Sep 2006, Daily Mail article. Shatner is quoted as saying: "I do want to go up but I need guarantees I'll definitely come back." This is the quotation, and citation, that have been in the article for quite some time, since 2008 apparently. There are also some other Shatner quotes given in that article.
  • 20 Sep 2013, Daily Mail article, with a very different title ("Star Trek’s Capt Kirk turns down Branson’s space flight invitation because he’s scared of flying") than the 2006 article title ("Captain Kirk reveals he won't go boldly into space"): Shatner is quoted as saying: " 'He[Branson] wanted me to go up and pay for it and I said: "Hey, you pay me and I’ll go up. I’ll risk my life for a large sum of money." But he didn’t pick me up on my offer.' "
  • So my preliminary conclusion is that Shatner has apparently said both things, at different times, as reported by the Daily Mail, and that the two things don't even necessarily contradict each other. Humans, being human, naturally remember and transcribe from memory different things at differing times about the same incident, whether months or years before.
  • I also conclude that, for the sake of a quality encyclopedia article, Super veritas should not have edited the article, changing only the quotation, leaving the title of the older (2006) Daily Mail article the same when the 2013 article has a different title, and then not leaving the date of the Daily Mail article in the citation meta data. No foul here, I totally assume good faith on your part, but it takes a bit of time for newer editors to learn how to get citations right. So if you're interested in learning, there's plenty of time for that; but I hope this does explain the revert for you. (and also that the revert was, quite possibly, not done by "some jerk" as you said.
  • Having said all that, it's not clear how much of this should go in Wikipedia. The 2013 article also shows that Branson has said some things that might have offended Shatner, or at the very least, might have "gotten his dander up" -- thus, as Wikipedia editors we have to consider whether a public spat between rich/famous celebrities, being used ostensibly as a way to sell newspapers or achieve web hits by a news organization, necessarily merits coverage in Wikipedia. In other words, are the differing statements of an celebrity actor about possibly flying in the VSS Enterprise sufficiently notable to be explicated in a Wikipedia article on VSS Enterprise? I'll stay agnostic on that last one for now, and allow some time for other editors to weigh in.
  • Finally, the Shatner quotation is in currently the article lead, where it apparently has been for some time. Per WP:LEAD, that is probably the wrong place for it. Maybe when we get done deciding on what amount of what Shatner said is relevant for the article, we need to move the entire Shatner thing down into a section titled "Reactions" or something like that.
Hope this is helpful in moving the ball forward on improving the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removing the entire paragraph from this article. It could be viewed as a personal battle between celebrities. I feel it is all or nothing though. If we leave the paragraph, it must be updated to show both sides, the back and forth between them, if it is going to be accurate. If it is to be removed then it should be removed completely.Super veritas (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably take the first sentence of the paragraph in question, and just place it as the first sentence of the next paragraph, then eliminate the remainder of that paragraph

The VSS Enterprise's name is an acknowledgement of the USS Enterprise from the Star Trek television series.[4] The spaceplane also shares its name with NASA's prototype space shuttle, as well as the aircraft.....

Thoughts on doing this?Super veritas (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a not-so-bold edit, and removed those sentences, making the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs into one.Super veritas (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a fine conclusion to the whole matter. It really isn't all that article-worthy that one celeb said no to another celeb/company owner about taking a ride in his (future) spaceplane. It especially did not seem something that fit in the lede.
I hope the exercise was also worthwhile to you in learning a bit more about Wikipedia, and why that first edit with the more-recent celeb-on-celeb kerfluffle wasn't a good long-term-viable edit. Cheers to you. N2e (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VSS Enterprise loss: explosion vs break up[edit]

I have changed the wording under 'Crash' from 'On 31 October 2014, Enterprise exploded over the desert in California' to read 'broke up' instead of 'exploded'. There is currently no evidence from an explosion, all we know is that an anomaly occurred that caused the craft to break up, after apparently flipping over so it was flying backwards. This could have potentially been caused by an explosion but I feel break-up is currently a more appropriate term than explosion. Blueb0g (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I concur. I imagine the article got the other word in it from some early reports, made by folks who were on the ground 12 to 18 miles away from the incident in the high-altitude air. The NTSB press briefing late on 1 Nov 2014 Pacific Time was clear about the in-fight breakup; but nothing was said about an explosion (which is generally defined as a supersonic velocity flame front on the ignition of a fuel/oxygen mixture). So I think your edit was the right way to go. N2e (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on VSS Enterprise. 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) 10:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on VSS Enterprise. 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) 17:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on VSS Enterprise. 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) 04:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the first spacecraft-related accident in which at least one crew member has survived"[edit]

What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13? It was both a spacecraft-related accident and crew members survived (all of them in fact).

Just changed sentence to "This was the first spacecraft-related accident in which part, but not all, of the crew survived." That is, I believe, correct. Gildir (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My guess what was meant that in this case the capsule was destroyed. Apollo 13 though serious, it was not "destroyed". Still your wording is correct. OkayKenji (talk page) 05:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:VSS_Enterprise&oldid=1216440286"