60 Minutes & Burt Rutan!

[john_316]

I thought this show tonight was pretty good and I also thought it put some spotlights on space this year. Overall I thought it was a good show.<br /><br />Though I still think the big companies should take a page out of Rutans book and possibly design their own lil Spaceshipones and such. They might also generate some more capital for themselves rather than giving all the money to VirginGalactic. Not to push them out of business but this would greatly push the space race foward to affordability and routine access to space for the comman man not just the wealthy...<br /><br /><br />I still think an X-34/X-40 variant could be built and launched just like SS1 and do the same and even better things. Mini-spaceplane comeback....<br /><br />***Note***<br />USAF: Take Note that 747 configurations could launch 2 man space crew in spaceplane vehicles to drop precision guided munitions on bad guys from CONUS on 24 hours notice if such craft were built for USAF.... Possibly why DARPA took over X-34/X-40 project...... Hmmmmmmm....<br /><br />I like that idea....<br /> <br />**I edited to include X-40. Ooooops**

 

[mikejz]

It was a repeat

 

[vt_hokie]

The optimism they express seems almost naive to me given the serious issues that SpaceShipOne had which almost killed Mike Melville at least once. I think Pete Siebold had some issues during one of the earlier test flights as well, if I remember correctly from the Discovery Channel program that I have on DVD (very well done, btw - I highly recommend it). And not to be left out, Brian Binnie had the landing gear strut fail due to a hard landing.<br /><br />What happens if a catastrophic accident happens early on and kills some of the first test pilots, or even worse, some of the first paying passengers? Will the fledgling industry be set back several years? Are they perhaps rushing things a bit?<br /><br />I don't want to be overly negative, but I'm just playing devil's advocate. Perhaps more caution and more awareness that there will be loss of life is in order. That being said, I have great respect for those who are pursuing these ambitious goals. They're doing a heck of a lot more for spaceflight than I am, obviously! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[nolirogari]

You can do things to advance the cause of spaceflight (private or NASA). Make plans to attend X Cup in New Mexico this fall. Although the short-sighted may poo-poo private ventures and space tourist plans, anyone wanting to advance the cause has simply to advance the ideas. Shoot up rather than shoot down. A little bit of inspiration goes a long way. You can do a lot more in spaceflight than ya' think, I'll bet.<br /><br />Oh and in my cynical opinion- don't worry about explosions and deaths of operators... look what it's done for NASCAR over the years

 

[drwayne]

You make a good point.<br /><br />In walking around the outdoor missile museum at White Sands, one is struck by the number of ideas and designs that were tried out in the early days of rocketry. It gives the impression of a certain amount of "trial and error" - but the trys did not cost as much and there weren't nearly as many bean counters looking over the shoulders of those doing the trying.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Keep in mind that Edwards AFB was named after a dead test pilot. There are facilities across the country named after dead astronauts and test pilots. So long as test vehicle launch go-nogo decisions are not made by corporate flunkies who are only interested in the next quarterly report and stock price, we'll be okay. They can be as bad as pencil pushing bureaurats focused on the next election or budget cycle...

 

[steve82]

"What happens if a catastrophic accident happens early on and kills some of the first test pilots, or even worse, some of the first paying passengers?"<br /><br />It would be the end of Virgin Galactic's venture. While it's easy to beat our breasts and toot the horn for progress and how mankind needs to take risks, yada yada, if there is a catastrophic accident with paying passengers the lawyers will get involved and the program will shut down for a few years while the lawsuits bounce around the courts. Unless Branson has the deepest pockets in the Galaxy, he'll be out of the spaceflight business.

 

[spacester]

Um, those passengers will all be signing waivers up the wazoo in the weeks and months leading up to the flight, you're saying those waivers will not be effective in their legal mission? It works for roller coaster operators, doesn't it? (I don't know, I'm just asking)<br /><br />The public and legal reaction to private space flight disasters is commonly assumed to be the same reaction as to Government space disasters. I find this to be an invalid supposition.<br /><br />So some of the heirs will be filing injunctions, and these will be approved because . . . ? <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

It doesn't matter if the suits are successful - the mere act of filing them can tie Virgin Galactic up in the Courts for years.

 

[space_tycoon]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Are they perhaps rushing things a bit? <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> Nope. I think it's moving along at just the right pace. <br /><br />If anything, it's been a agonizingly long journey just to get to this point. <br /><br />My two cents. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Well if the suits tie you up in court and shut you down until it's resolved, then the suits win. That means your waivers failed in their legal mission. You lose, you're on the ropes at best.<br /><br />Now if the suits don't shut you down, and your lawyers are able to deal with things at a reasonable cost level, then you win and the suits will have failed in their legal mission.<br /><br />It just seems to me that a company that had years to develop their legal strategy and is backed by a Billionaire has the advantage over the disgruntled heirs that find themselves pulled into the space flight business untrained. They are gonna need some darn fine lawyers, and when they go to hire someone, they are gonna be told that the waivers are going to be pretty difficult to deal with. They'll be looking to settle.<br /><br />I see it as just another cost of doing business, and if you're clever enough to outsmart the rocket equation for profit, you're clever enough to cover the legal thing with waivers that work. For starters, they need to be good enough to withstand a filing for a temporary injunction.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

While space tourism won't be as safe as commercial air travel, that's not the industry we should compare it to, safety-wise. Rather it should be compared to such industries at sky diving, bungie jumping, scuba diving, skiing and other extreme sports. If a fatality of a paying customer was a doomsday scenario from a legal perspective, none of these activities would be available. <br /><br />Rather the risk is that a few fatal accidents will raise the perceived risk level to the point that people are no longer willing to try it.

 

[mlorrey]

doesn't matter if passengers die, it matters if spectators or others do....

 

[john_316]

Well the risk is there. But driving your car in wintery road conditions is a risk too. Especially in the northeast on a cold winterday/night with ice and snow.<br /><br />But do you think Mr Branson and others such as Mr Allen wouldnt take risks? I mean the corporations they ran/run and were apart of took risks and still do. They however were not bottle fed by the taxpayer money 100% like some of the corporations I do still admire.<br /><br />Hell I took a risk by putting on the uniform. And thats volunteering and not making the cash that Virgin or Microsoft make and risking my life in the process...<br /><br />They have space insurance and I do believe that someone will come up with strictlly space travel insurance. Who know perhaps Lloyds of London, Prudentual, State Farm, perhaps even Safe-Auto.... LOL<br /><br />Oh by the way....<br /><br />Burt is right! we need private enterprise to take over the LEO enviroment. Thats would allow NASA to do its real job.<br /><br />I think Congress should redo NASA's charter to allow NASA to make a profit just like the US Postal Service. Allow NASA to get the ball rolling and then allow others to lease some of the items they put in place. <br /><br />Example: Build a mini moon base then lease it out. Lease the ISS out as well. Or allow government subsities.<br /><br />Say if takes 20 billion to make the moonbase and available rockets. Charge 25-35 billion to lease out to who ever. Make your money back or at least 60-80% of it anyways.<br /><br />I can think of more ideas....<br /><br />Dont get me started (I want paid for them)......<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[dragon04]

I'm sorry. I am going to sound terrible for what I'm about to say, but Mr Rutan is the K Mart of space travel. He puts together some goofy looking planes, gives people a short zero Gee experience, and everyone calls him a space pioneer.<br /><br />When private interests can send a ship to the moon, I'll be impressed. Until then, so what?<br /><br />"Virgin Galactic" smells like a scam. Sub-orbital flights are nothing. I don't see how revisiting 40 year old abilities is anything special. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[john_316]

So how many space tourists are visiting LEO at the moment there dragon04?<br /><br />Not very many and the ones that do are going to the ISS for 20 million a pop.<br /><br />The Shuttle ran circles around the earth since the 80s and how many years was that picture coming closer to going back to the moon. Everyone knows it requires Heavy Lift to do a moon shot with a lander but not so for just a space ride to there circle it and come back. <br /><br />Trust me if we wouldnt have lost Columbia and had these foam problems the shuttle would still be doing LEO unto 2030 at least or until they did experience a problem then.<br /><br />There are still alot of people who have there minds set in LEO for no other reason than to launch satellites and make money doing ONLY that.<br /><br />Why not let the civilian sector take a shot at it and if it pays off everyone concerned makes out.<br /><br />It was a challenge to get to the moon to begin with. So its going to be another challenge to get back there and back hear again safely. <br /><br />The moon is not the ultimate goal like alot think. Its the stepping stone for another future administration to say well we are on the moon permenately now so lets go ahead and head on out to Mars.<br /><br />Might as well start colonizing space. I think by 2050 we will have a respectable LEO/GEO space plane that can carry crews and cargo and we could have a reliable Nuclear Mars Transverse Vehicle for trips out and back.<br /><br />The moon is going to be a Miners paradise in the near future. My estimate is 2035 for a moon mining and refining facility operation. And privately funded as well....<br /><br />So take that....<br /><br />Oh buy the way how much is a short orbital flight cost at the moment for just any old person wanting to experience it? <br /><br />Scam huh? A couple of pilots did if for less than Dennis Tito did it for. And oh my goodness 2007-2008 isnt too far from now is it... <br /><br />If it was truely a scam I think they would have made some

 

[nibb31]

Establishing a base on the moon or on mars is good for science and exploration.<br /><br />Colonization is something different altogether. We don't build deep sea colonies or Antarctica colonies although it is cheaper to get there and less hostile than the moon or mars. Why? because it is still costly and there isn't much there.<br /><br />Why would building a colony on mars or on the moon be any more profitable than building colonies under the sea or in Antarctica?

 

[cuddlyrocket]

That is a good point.<br /><br />I can see only two scenarios that would produce a colony on the Moon or Mars. The first is the 'minority group escaping oppression or wishing to start a new kind of society' scenario. The kind that sent the colonists on the Mayflower. The problem is the expense.<br /><br />The second, and much more likely, is that a profitable business is developed first, and the colony gradually grows up around it - to provide services - until it becomes bigger than the original business. Similar to the development of Las Vegas - first came the casinos, then services to people who worked in the casinos, then services to those who provided the services, and then people taking advantage of the population and skills etc.<br /><br />The two possible businesses so far are Helium-3 mining and tourism on the Moon, although precious metal mining in the asteroid belt might be economical.

 

[mlorrey]

"I'm sorry. I am going to sound terrible for what I'm about to say, but Mr Rutan is the K Mart of space travel. He puts together some goofy looking planes, gives people a short zero Gee experience, and everyone calls him a space pioneer. <br /><br />When private interests can send a ship to the moon, I'll be impressed. Until then, so what? <br /><br />"Virgin Galactic" smells like a scam. Sub-orbital flights are nothing. I don't see how revisiting 40 year old abilities is anything special. "<br /><br />And people like you will say the same thing when private groups reach the moon, "Oh, the government did that way back in 1969, that isn't anything new or pioneering." Gimme a break.<br /><br />Columbus was on a government mission. He brought death slavery, and misery to millions. The Pilgrims were on a private venture, and built a great nation. There is a reason one group is called the Conquistadores, while the other is called the Colonists.

 

[ldyaidan]

Amen! If NASA were allowed to become a for profit venture, instead of tied up in gov red tape and politics, they would be much better for it. If they would even have a "civilian branch" where people can make contributions to the program it would be an improvement. Look at all the different organizations out there that want to go to space, and are trying to do it themselves. Take all this energy, support, and money, and allow it to be funneled into NASA's programs. Those interested in Mars can contribute to the Mars program, those interested in ISS or the moon can do the same. Where those overlap, all the better. But, all of those resources would be funneled into one place, and I think we finally have someone in charge at NASA to make the most of those resources, if we'd let him do it.<br /><br />Rae

 

[josh_simonson]

>Why would building a colony on mars or on the moon be any more profitable than building colonies under the sea or in Antarctica? <br /><br />It's illegal to set up a colony in antarctica, but people lived there before this was the case. As far as under the sea goes, it's far easier to live on top of the sea, and many folk actually do live on boats.

 

[mlorrey]

Actually, tourist companies make huge bucks on selling antarctic tourism junkets to the National Geographic/Audobon/Smithsonian membership set, so claims that antarctica isn't profitable just isn't true. There are lots of resources there that are off limits by treaty, though that is coming up for review by the UN. That being said, the fisheries around Antarctica are highly profitable and feed a large percent of the human race.<br /><br />A colony on the lunar surface can be simlarly profitable: <br /><br />-as a source of LOX for chemical rockets and dual-mode nuclear rockets (lox injection)<br />- metals for space structures<br />- silica for solar panels, electronics, and other glass applications.<br /><br />Virtually anything that costs you $5-$20k/lb too much to make it worthwhile in orbit can be produced on the moon and shipped anywhere in the solar system for much less. The lunar surface will be the Taiwan of the solar system, compared to manufacturing on Earth. Being deep in a gravity well is an immediate trade disadvantage.

 

[josh_simonson]

>The lunar surface will be the Taiwan of the solar system<br /><br />Dang, now the chinese will be double-hot to get there. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[holmec]

>the serious issues that SpaceShipOne had which almost killed Mike Melville at least once.<<br /><br />Hmm the only danger Mike was in was where the trim was stuck. It got unstuck, and I'm sure a correction was made in the design. Please note that SpaceShipOne is a research plane. The whole thing is dangerous. But the outcome will be SpaceShipTwo with proven technologies.<br /><br />If you are refering to the time SpaceShipOne tumbled 29 times, then I have to say the tumble was slow, and the feather of the craft would stop it automatically. There was never any danger there. Now with a gemini capsule that tumbled way back when there was deep concern because on reentry the capsule has no self righting mechanism other than nav controlle thrusters. SpaceShipOne doesn't use thursters to straighten itself out for reentry.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>I'm sorry. I am going to sound terrible for what I'm about to say, but Mr Rutan is the K Mart of space travel. He puts together some goofy looking planes, gives people a short zero Gee experience, and everyone calls him a space pioneer.<br /><br />When private interests can send a ship to the moon, I'll be impressed. Until then, so what?<br /><br />"Virgin Galactic" smells like a scam. Sub-orbital flights are nothing. I don't see how revisiting 40 year old abilities is anything special.<br /><<br /><br />Here is what you can do. When the first passengers of Virgin Galactic come down, interview them and see if their money was well spent. You also might want to take a ride yourself and tell us if your impression is "so what".<br /><br />Sure this is 40 year old ability for NASA. This is new territory for private citizens. Getting to space is the first step. I suppose you were not at all impressed with the Wright brother's flight at Kitty Hawk. But it seems to be pretty good for a couple of bicycle makers to do where others have failed and governments didn't dare try.<br /><br />Also its no small potatoes that SpaceShipOne is the first 3 seat space system that is 100% reusable (correction due to prodings by josh_simonson which were duely noted). And its the first one to do two sub orbit flights within two weeks. No other space craft can claim this. No government has accoplished this. All government spacecraft have some parts to construct before a single launch, even the Shuttle. You think this is not impressive. But getting out and back in of the atmoshpere is the most dangerous and complicated part of spaceflight. The rest of the flight is just taking time , keeping yourself alive, and navigating.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>