TED: Branson's Virgin Galactic up in 2009

By: Stefanie Olsen
Topics: Science

MONTEREY, CALIF.--Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group empire, laid out a timeline for the launch of his Virgin Galactic suborbital spacecraft here at the Technology, Entertainment and Design conference this past weekend.

Even though Virgin Galactic executives have said they expect the company to be first to take a group of tourists into space in 2008, it looks like 2009 is a better bet.

SpaceShipTwo, Virgin Galactic's spacecraft, "will be ready in 12 months. Then we'll do 12 months of extensive testing," Branson said during an interview on stage at the conference. "So in 24 months, people will be able to take a run into space."

(The Virgin Galactic Web site says that the spacecraft will go up in early 2009.)

Among the first 150 passengers will be Superman Returns film director Bryan Singer, an unidentified member of the British royal family, and designer Philippe Starck. Branson commissioned Starck to design the Virgin Galactic logo and some of the interior of SpaceShipTwo. Passengers have reportedly paid as much as $15 million to take a trip into suborbital space for 15 minutes, with five minutes of weightlessness.

Surely the high-profile passengers on the first Virgin Galactic voyage want everything to be in order before taking off. Even Branson, who's known for his risk-taking adventures on balloons and boats, said safety is paramount in development of SpaceShipTwo, which is being built by Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites in Mojave, Calif.

A first-timer at TED, Branson said the confab had been great. He was particularly glad to see actress Goldie Hawn two years after an unfortunate incident they had at a dinner. At the time, Hawn was wearing a large wedding ring that Branson tried on and then couldn't get off his finger. "The next day I had to get it cut off. Apologies to Goldie."

Stefanie Olsen covers technology and science.

6 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by samuelpeix February 4, 2010 2:50 AM EST: Unbelievable. "Los twitteros" sounds like a terribly dangerous gang, but, in facts, it only means "the twitter users", and even the Federal Government has a twitter account. And that, in fact, is a very dangerous criminal organization.; Reply to this comment


by P3epe February 4, 2010 12:47 AM EST: Checkpoints are unconstitutional and violate people's right. We have a right to defend ourselves.; Reply to this comment


by Mekishiko-NoNeko February 3, 2010 11:26 PM EST: If the arguments of official government were partially true, by now they would be fighting against sordid crimes like pederasty and child molesters, because it?s well known for the common citizens that some of those delinquents are protected by local government like the one in Puebla, and some are protected by the Catholic Church, and these are more significant crimes, than a bunch of drunk teenagers twittering about police roadblocks, is a crime so hard that's something worth to legislate about? that's bollocks I say... just a poor way to divert things from the real problems and national issues...like the stupid strategy to fight against drug trafficking?
Just remembering social movements began with this kind of censorship; Reply to this comment


by RaulAlva February 2, 2010 10:26 PM EST: What this note calls "public safety" or similars refers more exactly to "public security" or police office. "public safety" is related to protection from natural or manmade disasters, like fires, earthquakes, floodings, etc. The problem in spanish is that there is only one word for both meanings: seguridad pública for public security. For public safety we in Mexico use to call protección civil (civil protection or civilian safety).; Reply to this comment


by leamsisetroc February 2, 2010 5:50 PM EST: The fact that they could find the marine's family house has nothing to do with Twitter or Facebook. They found it because the government made a public (on TV and the whole show) service for the deceased marine but offered no protection AT ALL for the family (including the president saying their full names on national TV. But not a single policeman escorted them back home.)

It would've been trivial and more accurate for anybody from the gang to follow the family after the bury to see where they lived, rather than try to fish their data from Facebook or Twitter.; Reply to this comment


by Berkeley-SkirtLifter February 2, 2010 5:32 PM EST: ""...argument over whether public safety takes priority over free speech in a country struggling to contain serious social ills.""

Ironic. If the USA didn't have such a huge drug habit, a serious social ill, the Mexican gov't wouldn't be up against such serious social ills.; Reply to this comment