Burt Rutan and the CEV

g_sat · May 24, 2006

A few weeks ago, Burt Rutan reportedly bashed NASA and the CEV. Does anyone recall what his position was? Has he mentioned an idea (or the existance of one he's working on) that would be better suited for this countries next space vehicle? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

j05h · May 24, 2006

Mr. Rutan had an extensive speech. My notes have him saying his goal is to walk on the moon in his lifetime. He wants to go. He said the CEV is stamping out innovation, that the lion's share of taxpayer money should encourage risk and breakthrough, that the Apollo engineers were gods compared to the modern program. He said that Mike Griffin is running an archeology/training program. I'll get my notes typed in sometime. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

j05h · May 25, 2006

> Everyone has an opinion and an AH. I happen to not agree with many of Burts opinions however I have a great deal of respect for him as aaircraft designer. AH? Is that an anatomy reference? I often agree w/ Mr. Rutan, but find him a tad acerbic. He gets cred where a lot of space geeks fail: he actually builds stuff. I watched him rip some hippies at ISDC, they wanted to talk about the sociological effects of spaceflight and Star Trek, and he's like "That's a TV show, I don't watch TV, or read science fiction." LOL Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

edawg · May 25, 2006

he stirrs things up,thats needed in the space community...

g_sat · May 25, 2006

Cuts right to the point he does. I somewhat agree with his words. Did he mention a plan of his own? I mean, suborbital for the privat sector is a huge milestone, but has he said anything about an orbital plan? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

j05h · May 25, 2006

> Did he mention a plan of his own? I mean, suborbital for the privat sector is a huge milestone, but has he said anything about an orbital plan? Yes, he said he wants to walk on the moon, in his lifetime. Not as ashes, not some government worker, not a robot proxy, but himself. That helps spur the enthusiasm. j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

qso1 · May 26, 2006

IMO, if anyone can get private citizens to orbit, its Rutan. If he is unable to, this indicates to me the technology and cost are still beyond our abilities collectively as a society. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

tap_sa · May 26, 2006

"If he is unable to, this indicates to me the technology and cost are still beyond our abilities collectively as a society." To me it indicates that it is quite natural for true space flight to be beyond the capabilities of aircraft engineer who's domain is making small funny shaped composite airplanes.

spacefire · May 26, 2006

The domain of flight was supposed to be inaccessible to a couple of guys making bicycles after the mighty US govt failed to get their plane off the ground. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

tap_sa · May 26, 2006

So? Now mighty US govt can get their rockets off the ground. So can mighty airspace companies. And smaller companies are on the verge of joining the club. All Rutan did was build small funny shaped composite airplane, attach a rocket built by others to it and drop it from another small funny shaped composite airplane. And for that he's the alt.space Von Braun for great many people. If he's going to send people into orbit he's got to start doing something else than building small funny shaped composite airplanes.

j05h · May 26, 2006

> All Rutan did was build small funny shaped composite airplane, attach a rocket built by others to it and drop it from another small funny shaped composite airplane. And for that he's the alt.space Von Braun for great many people. If he's going to send people into orbit he's got to start doing something else than building small funny shaped composite airplanes. In many ways, I agree with you. Burt Rutan is an incredibly talented designer, yet is already running into limitations because of his technology base. I've said before that I don't think his designs will be the first private US passenger-to-orbit craft. While he and Sir Richard are developing "small funny shaped composite airplanes" with rocket engines for tourists, other parties (SpaceX, t/space, SpaceHab, etc) are going full-bore for orbital access. While some of that money comes from NASA (COTS, CEV), most of it is private funding, and they all have said they a work ing on nearterm orbital passenger craft. Rutan isn't even working on orbital vehicles, except as a t/space consultant (for CXV). I think the first private passenger craft in orbit will be a SpaceX Falcon IX with a Dragon capsule on top, sometime around mid-2009. It will rendevouz but not dock with whatever Bigelow module is in orbit. It will be closely followed by two America's Space Prize flights to the same destination. I really like the variable wing that Mr. Rutan designed for SS1. However, I don't see something like that as a terribly useful design for LEO reentry. So, you can enter upside-down and it's metastable. Carefree descent, even with the flight computers crashed. Great. I still don't see where they are going to find the materials to keep that clever wing from burning off coming from LEO. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

qso1 · May 26, 2006

Tap_Sa: To me it indicates that it is quite natural for true space flight to be beyond the capabilities of aircraft engineer who's domain is making small funny shaped composite airplanes...BTW, I like the descriptive. Me: I don't personally know Mr Rutan and while I realize he makes small funny shaped composite aircraft. I do not know what other talents he may or may not have. This particular talent with Small Funny Shaped Composite Aircraft (SFSCA) should not be underestimated. Hope you don't mind me condensing your description to an acronym. Of all the great scientists, engineers, designers, rocket experts, and anyone I didn't cover. I don't recall any of the experts predicting that there would be a man in space in 2004 and that he got there in a SFSCA. In addition, those experts I mentioned, they are the collective talent I was referring to. The Rutans of the world are few and far between. But even they or he may not be able to pull off inexpensive access to LEO and if that becomes the case. It may be time to look at entirely new methods and technologies to do this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · May 26, 2006

JO5H: I really like the variable wing that Mr. Rutan designed for SS1. However, I don't see something like that as a terribly useful design for LEO reentry. So, you can enter upside-down and it's metastable. Carefree descent, even with the flight computers crashed. Great. I still don't see where they are going to find the materials to keep that clever wing from burning off coming from LEO. Me: Keep in mind, no aerospace experts foresaw the "X" prize design Rutan and his team developed prior to his revealing it. However, I tend to agree with you that they probably won't be able to do the wing thing material wise but there again, unless you know something I don't, his LEO design (SS-2 I think) will probably be substantially different than his SS-1 and may actually be closer to conventional thinking or maybe he will suprise the world again. I'll be suprised if he breaks the cost barrier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

tap_sa · May 26, 2006

"is LEO design (SS-2 I think) will probably be substantially different than his SS-1" SS-2 is going to be scaled up SS-1 with room for more passengers. Otherwise it's just yet another suborbital SFSCA <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> There have been rumours of orbital SS-3 but that's going to take a lot more than just scaling up SS-2 a little bit. The best chance for Rutan to get into space in his 'own' craft is to secure funding for t/Space to complete CXV. As a general note; SS1 didn't happen because Rutan invented something wonderful to enable it technically. It happened because demand and funding appeared in the forms of X-Prize and Paul Allen. I agree with Josh that the first private space flight happens probably with Falcon IX. It might carry t/Space CXV capsule though. Making a spacecraft and launch vehicle are two separate big problems and dividing them to separate alt.space companies might help to ensure overall success. To me even the brief failed flight of Falcon-1 was much bigger step towards private manned flights than SS1 hops. F-1's goal is true orbit and it might have made it if it wasn't for stupid process error. Expensive but important lesson for SpaceX that sometimes laid-back IT-industry attitude must give in for draconian procedures. Btw about Rutan's talent, I don't doubt his aircraft engineering capabilities and surely he could turn himself into Musk II and develope an orbital launcher ... but in ISDC'06 when rapping NASA he called for more risky and innovative-prone approaches to get to space but said in pretty plain words that he himself don't know what those new ways would be. IMO cheap LEO access will happen with existing technology, it just takes some space-Ford to manufacture space Model T cheaper than we are used to. Whether Musk is that guy remains to be seen.

j05h · May 26, 2006

SS2 is going to be the production version of SS1, similiar suborbital flight profile with several minutes of freefall at the top. SS2 will use the feathering wings for reentry. An SS3 or similiar would be the orbital vehicle. Rutan's shuttlecock design is definitely unique and very innovative. It was a distinct unknown before he brought the near-complete craft public. His previous hints had been a teardrop capsule launched from Proteus, SS1 still shows that heritage but with style. He might come up with something new and unique for orbital flights, we'll have to wait and see. I think the simplicity and elegance of simple, well-built rockets-and-capsules have a long way to go before becoming extinct via funny little composite airplanes. SpaceX's Dragon could fly people to orbit (theoretically) for several million dollars, for example. j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

qso1 · May 27, 2006

As always, you bring up interesting and valid points, I respect your knowledge in these areas but there are some points I sort of disagree with or just wanted to expand on so here goes. Tap_Sa: SS-2 is going to be scaled up SS-1 with room for more passengers.... Me: My bad, I meant SS-3 or whatever he calls his orbital craft. Tap_Sa: SS1 didn't happen because Rutan invented something wonderful to enable it technically. It happened because demand and funding appeared in the forms of X-Prize and Paul Allen. Me: The wing and re-entry method were part of what convinced the "X" prize and Allen to fund Rutan. They could just as easily have funded Roton but didn't. I would expect they shopped a bit before deciding on Rutan and of all the prospects, Rutan made the most convincing presentation and had actual experience with designs albiet aircraft to boot. While I was writing my book in 1999-2000. I looked at the various commercial prospects that had websites. At that time, even I could tell non appeared very serious and today, I cannot find any of their sites. Musk and Rutans activities were not known to me then. The minute Rutan threw his hat in the ring, I knew to take him serious even though when I saw his prototype carrier craft, the one preceeding the White Knight, I wondered how he was going to get a vehicle to space. Bottom line, I shopped the various contenders before deciding what to write about them so surely Diamandis and Allen did the same considering their stakes and that they are smarter and richer than I. Tap_Sa: I agree with Josh that the first private space flight happens probably with Falcon IX. It might carry t/Space CXV capsule though. Making a spacecraft and launch vehicle are two separate big problems and dividing them to separate alt.space companies might help to ensure overall success. Me: I agree, in this manner, they would be following NASAs approach, capsules are easies <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · May 27, 2006

JO5H: SS2 is going to be the production version of SS1, similiar suborbital flight profile with several minutes of freefall at the top. SS2 will use the feathering wings for reentry. An SS3 or similiar would be the orbital vehicle. Me: Thanks for setting me straight on that, as Tap_Sa also did. I screwed the pooch on that one LOL. I was thinking SS-3 but didn't realize he'd already called his orbital vehicle by that designation. JO5H: Rutan's shuttlecock design is definitely unique and very innovative. It was a distinct unknown before he brought the near-complete craft public. His previous hints had been a teardrop capsule launched from Proteus, SS1 still shows that heritage but with style. He might come up with something new and unique for orbital flights, we'll have to wait and see. Me: I totally agree, in fact, your comment on his previous teardrop announcement ties in with my reply to Tap_Sas comment on his not knowing how he was going to accomplish beating NASA while using risky approaches. Rutan stated even he didn't know how he'd do it but given his mislead on the SS-1, I suspect he knows how he's going to beat NASA. Now he just has to prove it or like you said, wait and see. JO5H: I think the simplicity and elegance of simple, well-built rockets-and-capsules have a long way to go before becoming extinct via funny little composite airplanes. SpaceX's Dragon could fly people to orbit (theoretically) for several million dollars, for example. Me: From a tech standpoint, yes...but neither approach has proven it has what it takes to beat the cost barrier. The one untried thing there is turning the operation into one in which private industry takes all the risks with their own money, taking the relative safety of government funding out of the equation. There are still a few drawbacks to tried and true well built rockets for example. A big one is flight rate. No Delta or larger rocket I'm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

tap_sa · May 27, 2006

"The wing and re-entry method were part of what convinced the "X" prize and Allen to fund Rutan. They could just as easily have funded Roton but didn't. I would expect they shopped a bit before deciding on Rutan and of all the prospects, Rutan made the most convincing presentation and had actual experience with designs albiet aircraft to boot. While I was writing my book in 1999-2000. I looked at the various commercial prospects that had websites. At that time, even I could tell non appeared very serious and today, I cannot find any of their sites. Musk and Rutans activities were not known to me then. The minute Rutan threw his hat in the ring, I knew to take him serious even though when I saw his prototype carrier craft, the one preceeding the White Knight, I wondered how he was going to get a vehicle to space. Bottom line, I shopped the various contenders before deciding what to write about them so surely Diamandis and Allen did the same considering their stakes and that they are smarter and richer than I. " I don't think X-Prize/Diamandis funded SS1 in anyway. It would be rather strange and biased if a contest holder financially supports certain contestant, wouldn't it? AFAIK Diamandis was busy trying to gather the price purse and keep the organisation funded. Otherwise can't much argue with what you wrote. Rutan's plan was a winner from the beginning. Doing 100km suborbital hop enables one to take so much advantage of the atmosphere that the task is more about aircraft than spacecraft engineering, and that's where Rutan's professional expertise put everyone else to shame, with their increasingly strange propeller-head designs. But it's nice that at least a few of the players may get into flying status too. And it was a shame that Roton did not get the chance to fly in it's final configuration. I guess it kept changing too much in time to convince any deep pocketed investor. IMO the rotary wing/bas

vulture2 · May 27, 2006

The variable geometry tail of SpaceShip One was an adaption of a method that Rutan had seen for recovery of gasoline-powered model airplanes in the days before radio control. I saw the same thing, but it would never have ocurred to me it could be used in a real aircraft, let alone a spacecraft. That is genius. Virtually every Rutan design from the Vari-Viggen and Long-EZ to the round-the-world flights was innovative and advanced technology in aerodynamics, structure, and even propulsion. Rutan's company was working for NASA on the X-34 before NASA cancelled it. Rutan would have flown the vehicle at his own cost, but NASA wouldn't give it to him. Human spaceflight with expendable rockets is much to expensive to be practical. The reason the Shuttle is so expensive is NOT because it is reusable; it is because critical elements of the design were never tested in flight before the design was finalized, and cost estimates were very inaccurate as a result. Experience with the X-15, SpaceShip One, and reusable technology demonstrators like the X-33, X-34, and X-37 could have allowed the technology for a practical, fully reusable orbital craft, probably two-stage, to be developed. That is the only way any one other than a small corps of government employees and a handful of millionairs will be able to fly in space.

tap_sa · May 27, 2006

"A big one is flight rate. ... Payloads are part of the problem here as well. " Yes, payloads are the problem, they dictate the flight rate. IIRC the EELV manufactures scaled their plants to churn out nearly 50 core booster and related upper stages per year, and would have no problem launching that many even from single pad. They'd shed tears of joy even if getting steady stream of launch contracts for every three weeks. But launch business today is very limited and not showing much growth. To get things rolling there's need for both cheaper launchers and new markets for to utilize them. My personal opinion is that picosats (CubeSats) would offer existing niche-market for new, cheapo picolauncher which could be developed with budget measured only in a few millions tops. The miniscule scale would make it easier to attain unprecedented flight rate (weekly or even higher). US alone has dozens of universities that might want to have annual course involving designing, building and launching a picosat. Current situation is that price is not prohibitive but launch opportunities are. OK price is prohibitive for a cubesat builder to buy dedicated launch, they all cost millions minimum, but every now and then there opens a cheap (~$40,000 ) slot on launch of picosat cluster piggybacking on some Russian ICBM convert or something similar. Offer hassle-free dedicated picosat launch service $40k a pop with the 48 hour delivery time you mentioned and customers will come through the windows. (Did anyone buy that/open their chequebook, or do I have to hone the pitch a bit more? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />)

scottb50 · May 27, 2006

That sounds curiously just what Spacexx wants to do. The Falcon 1 could take 12 100 pound picosats just as easily as one 1200 pound payload. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · May 27, 2006

Tap_Sa: I don't think X-Prize/Diamandis funded SS1 in anyway. Me: My mistake, sorry. Tap_Sa: And it was a shame that Roton did not get the chance to fly in it's final configuration. Me: Thats for sure, at the time it was starting into its test flight phase, I thought it might actually go somewhwre and as usual. Months later, no more flights, no website updates, and nobody telling the public what happen. I had to guess they dropped out of the effort and more months later confirmed it...lack of funds. Rotary Rocket Corp. hit their own cost barrier. Tap_Sa: I recall reading some article stating that SS1 flight path pretty much maxes out what exposed composite structures can take. Any higher/faster and the resin would start to melt away. Me: I kind of thought that, but I'm no composite expert. I more or less surmised that SS-3 will have to approach re-entry in a more conventional way unless Scaled Composites has come up with something they are holding back on. Tap_Sa: It still takes considerably sum of money to develope a launcher even with existing tech. Me: And its that right there that will test the metal of the private industry efforts to get people to LEO through space tourism. Tap_Sa: To have that many paying customers per flight and with reasonable flight rate ('several' per year) I think the ticket price has to come down from current ~$20M a lot, maybe to $2M/head.... Me: The lollipop analogy says it all, if they want to carry more than around 5-10 people, they need a small winged/lifting body craft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · May 28, 2006

vulture2: Experience with the X-15, SpaceShip One, and reusable technology demonstrators like the X-33, X-34, and X-37 could have allowed the technology for a practical, fully reusable orbital craft, probably two-stage, to be developed. That is the only way any one other than a small corps of government employees and a handful of millionairs will be able to fly in space. Me: I wasn't aware of the radio plane origins of the wing idea and your right, it takes genius to use that idea for a plane going to the edge of space. The advantage of an aircraft designer working on the problem of human spaceflight is that he might do what NASA was unable to, and thats come up with a reasonably inexpensive probably winged RLV. I agree with the human spaceflight being too expensive on expendable rockets. And the experience that you mentioned will definetely be a plus in any future RLV effort. If they could develop a smaller RLV, it might be less expensive. Considering NASA originally specified the shuttle carry 20,000 lbs payload until the Air Force stepped in and said they needed 65,000 lb payload capacity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

tap_sa · May 28, 2006

"The Falcon 1 could take 12 100 pound picosats just as easily as one 1200 pound payload." 100 pounds isn't no longer a picosat. The rough classification; minisat: <1000kg (~2200lbs) microsat: <100kg (~220lbs) nanosat: <10kg (~22lbs) picosat: <1kg (~2.2lbs) Your 100lbs sat falls into microsat category, costing probably at least a million a pop. That high price shrinks potential customer base a lot. The basic 1U form CubeSat is a good example of cheap picosat. As the name suggests it's a cube, 10cm (4") per side and has maximum weight of 1kg. It comes in other forms too, such as 3U which is 10x10x30cm and max weight 3kg, making it fall into nanosat category. One can buy basic CubeSat construction kits for a few thousands dollars.

scottb50 · May 28, 2006

The point being the more satellites taken at a time spreads the cost. The Falcon 1 costs $6.7 million a launch and can carry 1200 pounds. Just under $6,000 per pound or a little more than $13,000 per kilo. If your picosat can plug into a bigger manned Platform once in orbit, where it would draw power, you could do all kinds of things. I'm sure the cost will go down with more business for SpaceX. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Burt Rutan and the CEV

g_sat

Guest

j05h

Guest

j05h

Guest

edawg

Guest

g_sat

Guest

j05h

Guest

qso1

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

spacefire

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

j05h

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

j05h

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

vulture2

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

scottb50

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

scottb50

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page