Burt Rutan: Entrepreneurs are the future of space flight

[radarredux]

Here is a link to Burt Rutan's talk at the TED Conference. It is very interesting -- his main theme is that if we let the government do it, it will be a disappointment. Entrepreneurs will inspire the next generation.<br /><br />http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/4<br />

 

[deapfreeze]

I agree if we let the government do it, it will never get done. They always manage to screw everything up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

What people around here say is: Rutan's lack of care for safety will screw it up for everyone.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[deapfreeze]

I hope not. I would hate to see 1 persons lack of respect for safety ruin it for everyone.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

deapfreeze:<br />I agree if we let the government do it, it will never get done. They always manage to screw everything up.<br /><br />Me:<br />There are two services the government actually has performed well on...National defense and space exploration. The evidence can be seen as our military being the best trained and equipped in the world and NASA exploration which still includes being the only agency on earth to mount probes to Jupiter and beyond. The real problem with space exploration is that its taxpayer funded. The largely uninterested public is what screwed that up.<br /><br />jschaef5:<br />What people around here say is: Rutan's lack of care for safety will screw it up for everyone.<br /><br />Me:<br />I'm not one of them. In looking at Rutans overall safety record in previous designs. His aircraft fare pretty well and thats the experience base he would be working from. Not to mention his march towards the "X" prize was approached in a manner not unlike how NASA would do it. He had one incident during the "X" prize effort that was reminiscent of one of the X-15 incidents NASA had to deal with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

What people around here say is: Rutan's lack of care for safety will screw it up for everyone...<br /><br />From what I've seen he's designed a lot of easy cheap and safe planes. What could be a small jet contender today used to lay behind the hangers.<br /><br />The only thing about SS-2 I question is not having engines for landing. I would think it would be possible to run them for launch, offsetting their weight at least. A couple of turbofans, nothing too fancy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[acid_frost]

I think that Rutan’s is correct and I think if we leave it in the hands of the government nothing will get done! I think the future and NASA is privatization as the government needs to focus on other areas, the government has allowed NASA to get this far its time for a new direction in allowing the private industry to take care of all future items related to space flight and NASA being placed into a private arena or some type of consortium or corporation.<br /><br />Someone mentioned that some say that Rutan’s lack of care for safety is something to worry about though IMO I don’t think is the case. I think that NASA has lost its edge in getting things done and has basically turned into a bureaucracy that has played it safe and being safe isn’t always the best direction. Its time to take some risks and if those that don’t wish to do so need to step out of the way and allow the next generation to do what needs to be done though the problem is that you have so many people in which are retiring you have this mindset of safety which I think is a bad idea and I think is it time to stop playing safe!<br /><br />I think many other countries such as Russia with the budget could have pulled out more than what NASA has done though that is what we get for not forcing change and allowing the status quote to continue!<br />

 

[qso1]

I think if private industry/enterprise can pull it off, they should take over human spaceflight. Particularly low orbit access and space tourism. The areas they are just beginning to develop now. Going to the moon and mars may still be best left to NASA but this depends on how long it will take NASA to get lunar bases and missions to mars going.<br /><br />Russia has done about the same with its budget as NASA has. NASA since Apollo has been tasked with development of the shuttle and space stations. Both of which became highly politicized due to costs. The shuttle was a stunning technical achievement and a stunning economic failure. Station languished in development for so long due to the problem of just getting funding for it.<br /><br />But operationally, the shuttle and station have been successful. Russia developed earth orbiting stations during the 1970s and 80s. Salyut, Mir, then in the late 1990s NASA and Russia jointly undertook operation of ISS. Russia developed and then abandoned their shuttle while continuing manned orbital access with Soyuz.<br /><br />Russias strengths lie in operations while ours lie in technological capability but both programs are about the same otherwise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

The only thing the media covered about his X prize flights was that it flew to the altitude and was the first private space flight. I guess it doesn't matter that the thing went WAY off course and over a city and rolled nearly out of control...<br /><br />"his march towards the "X" prize was approached in a manner not unlike how NASA would do it."<br /><br />Except that NASA uses decimal places <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><br />But hey what Rutan is doing is great and I give him mad props for it. His operation to me seems like the old NACA days when real progress was made. NASA today has so much bureaucracy that nothing can get done in an efficient and cost effective manner and its a shame. NASA is so worried about not having a failure because if ANYTHING bad happens its all over the media. Back in the NACA days test pilots would be killed all the time in crashes. If NASA lost a single pilot during a mission it would be all over the news today and that means less funding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

The flight which rolled...SS-1 could be seen oscillating as it ascended. Rather wildly I might add. I never saw anything official come out as to why it did so but I suspected the pilot Mike Melvill may have been partly responsible because when Brian Binnie flew SS-1...he usually seemed to fly trouble free IIRC.<br /><br />http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/index.htm<br /><br />A visit to the above link will provide some insight into just how Rutan and his company test the SS-1. Go to the test logs.<br /><br />As you know, in any program where advanced technology is under development, there will be anomalies and they do matter or otherwise there wouldn't be such extensive testing.<br /><br />Even after that...in a decade assuming all space tourism flights have gone well...there will almost certainly be an accident. Conventional commercial aircraft crash into residential neighborhoods despite being pretty well tested. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Flight 15P (Melville) had a 90 degree left roll which was caused by wind shear. An overcorrection caused a 90 degree right roll which was quickly corrected. <br /><br />Flight 16P (Melville) sustained 29 rolls blamed on pilot error.<br /><br />Flight 17P (Binnie) was uneventful. <br /><br />If you've ever seen the "Dark Skies" documentaries Melville IMO looked nervous before 15P, which may well have affected his performance.<br /><br />16P was worse; Pete Siebold was supposed to fly it but became ill. Melville and his wife had prepared for him not to fly SS1 again only to have him tapped as Siebolds last minute replacement. Melville's wife was far less than pleased and you could see Melville was very apprehensive as well. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thats what I recalled. I think I saw that documentary, or maybe one on the SS-1 but I distinctly remember Melville looking a bit nervous and his wife dreading the flight he was called upon to do when Siebold became ill. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

It's good that he strikes the iron while hot. And to continue the analogy, that he hammers it in with every chance he gets.<br /><br />And to his detractors:<br /><br />I don't think NASA will survive into the 2020s if private access to orbit becomes a reality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vulture2]

Scaled Composites was a NASA subcontractor in building the X-34 airframe, and Rutan was rightly aghast when NASA encouraged industry to put its own money into the X-34 and then, for reasons that today appear impossible to justify, abandoned the program just as it approached the point of first flight. <br /><br />NASA's role should be to help private industry, not compete with it. Originally NASA did the basic research that let private industry make the record flights. <br />

 

[jschaef5]

Wait when has NASA's role up to now been anything comparable to what private industry is doing? How many tourists has NASA taken to space?<br /><br />People who say private industry will kill NASA obviously don't understand what NASA is for. NASA will probably have to adapt a bit more and I believe private industry will make things cheaper and easier for NASA to carrier out its goals. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Wait when has NASA's role up to now been anything comparable to what private industry is doing? How many tourists has NASA taken to space?</font>/i><br /><br />This was one of the points made in Rutan's presentation -- if you are a private American citizen and you want to go into space right now, you need to go to Russia. The implication: this is a failure of America's space policy.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What people around here say is: Rutan's lack of care for safety will screw it up for everyone.</font>/i><br /><br />Where is "here"?<br /><br />Rutan does admit that the beginning of the airplane industry saw a lot of crashes and deaths. I think that is a subtle indicator that he expects to see a number of deaths as these various rocket companies get up and going. It will be interesting to see how the public and lawmakers react to these deaths.<br /><br />Rutan also mentioned, and I have read this before, that the government space programs have managed to kill about 1 in 20 of their astronauts. Rutan said he hopes to have a better record.</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

Very interesting indeed! I love Burt Rutan's passion and energy. We certainly could use a few more like him!<br /><br />I still feel, however, that government has a critical role to play in doing research that private industry has no immediate profit motive to do.

 

[jschaef5]

"you are a private American citizen and you want to go into space right now, you need to go to Russia. The implication: this is a failure of America's space policy. "<br /><br />Wait when has our space policy ever been to put as many people in space as possible?<br /><br /><br />"It will be interesting to see how the public and lawmakers react to these deaths. "<br /><br />This is what many fear.<br /><br />"Rutan also mentioned, and I have read this before, that the government space programs have managed to kill about 1 in 20 of their astronauts. Rutan said he hopes to have a better record. "<br /><br />Well I sure hope so, his goal is to take large amounts of people to the edge of space... the governments have taken people into space when everything was unknown. <br /><br /><br />And the roll problem I have heard it was an instability near zero angle of attack that was fixed in the later flights by having a different ascent trajectory. And that it was not pilot error. And after going into the palmdale airport's airspace where GA planes were flying around and over the city the FAA came down on them and they then reworked their flight path for future flights. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chyten]

<b>People who say private industry will kill NASA obviously don't understand what NASA is for. NASA will probably have to adapt a bit more and I believe private industry will make things cheaper and easier for NASA to carrier out its goals. </b><br /><br />IF (big IF) Rutan, Bigelow, etc. start putting people into orbit regularly and at fraction of NASA costs, NASA will suffer a serious hemorrhage of those employees who are actually passionate about their job, as opposed to just about regular paycheck. Unless NASA manages to radically reinvent itself (and I do not believe it can at this point), that may well effectively "kill" NASA.

 

[chyten]

<b>People who say private industry will kill NASA obviously don't understand what NASA is for. NASA will probably have to adapt a bit more and I believe private industry will make things cheaper and easier for NASA to carrier out its goals. </b><br /><br />IF (big IF) Rutan, Bigelow, etc. start putting people into orbit regularly and at fraction of NASA costs, NASA will suffer a serious hemorrhage of those employees who are actually passionate about their job, as opposed to just about regular paycheck. Unless NASA manages to radically reinvent itself (and I do not believe it can at this point), that may well effectively "kill" NASA.

 

[chyten]

<b>People who say private industry will kill NASA obviously don't understand what NASA is for. NASA will probably have to adapt a bit more and I believe private industry will make things cheaper and easier for NASA to carrier out its goals. </b><br /><br />IF (big IF) Rutan, Bigelow, etc. start putting people into orbit regularly and at fraction of NASA costs, NASA will suffer a serious hemorrhage of those employees who are actually passionate about their job, as opposed to just about regular paycheck. Unless NASA manages to radically reinvent itself (and I do not believe it can at this point), that may well effectively "kill" NASA.

 

[jschaef5]

"IF (big IF) Rutan, Bigelow, etc. start putting people into orbit regularly and at fraction of NASA costs, "<br /><br />Not "IF" but "when"<br /><br />"NASA will suffer a serious hemorrhage of those employees who are actually passionate about their job, as opposed to just about regular paycheck. Unless NASA manages to radically reinvent itself (and I do not believe it can at this point), that may well effectively "kill" NASA. '"<br /><br />Again there are there are two different end goals here: Commercial Entertainment and Scientific Research/Exploration. If the people working on the first can create cheap access to space, then all the better for the second. And currently at NASA how much of the development work is contractor work anyways with NASA oversight and management.<br /><br />And please explain how cheap private access to space will "KILL" JPL or all the aeronautics work at Ames, Langley, Dryden... and what about all the mission control at JSC or all the space suit work, what about the work on the moon/mars missions, and what about all the people at KSC who are involved in the operations of launches? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

One of the reasons those cheap private launches are cheap is they don't NEED "all those people at KSC".

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Wait when has our space policy ever been to put as many people in space as possible?</font>/i><br /><br />If you look back at the visions espoused by NASA, elected leaders, and NASA supporters, you will see the opening of space to a wider population widely promoted. From the Collier's Weekly magazine articles laying out Wernher von Braun's vision, to Gerald K. O'Neill's "The High Frontier", to early images of the Space Shuttle with the cargo bay configured like an airline taking dozens of people to space, to even today's vision of ISS as a "national laboratory" open to anyone wanting to conduct research, a colony on the Moon, and the potential to terraforming Mars.<br /><br />NASA has not promoted itself as multi-billion dollar program paid by the tax payers to only take a very small, self selected goup into space on small sojourns, with no intention of widening it to the larger population. This is not how to win friends and funding.</i>