Burt Rutan: Entrepreneurs are the future of space flight

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">the problem is that the turbopump was designed by contractors with government money, the kind alt.space doesn't have.</font>/i><br /><br />One problem that the space business has that today's multi-billion dollar, former start-ups like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Yahoo!, etc. didn't have is very high capital costs.<br /><br />Many of the start-ups over the last few decades were started on pennies out of garages and dorm rooms. You really cannot do that for space vehicles. Companies such as Armadillo, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and The Spaceship Company are being started by millionaires and billionaires. It takes a lot of money to get the first pound into space.<br /><br />I think the best way to start a rocket company is to first start another company that has small initial capital requirements, get rich, and then start your rocket company. As Elon Musk once said, the best way to become a "space millionaire" is to start as a "space billionaire".</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"<br />COTS isn't about flying cargo to the station.<br />Really??? What is it about<br /><br />There were better proposals to meet this requirement. Delta and Atlas with an ATV or HTV could do it quicker and easier.<br />Why didn't they go for COTS then"<br /><br />They were excluded because it would mean that Atlas and Delta could be manrated. <br /><br />COTS is just make busy work. If COTS was really intent about cargo to station, then real contenders would have been picked.<br /><br />COTS isn't run by the station program but the exploration program which has to protect its stick

 

[spacefire]

of course, it is all in proportions:<br /><br />pennies in the computer industry=thousands of dollars in space hardware. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mthomas]

The government I assume, points directly to NASA.<br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">today's multi-billion dollar, former start-ups like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Yahoo!, etc. didn't have is very high capital costs</font><br /><br />This is more a myth than a reality. While Steve Jobs, I'm sure, spent some time working in a garage - and Michael Dell spent some time working out of his dorm room - both quickly outgrew that, as their capital needs quickly grew.

 

[solarspot]

"alt.space figuring out a cheaper, lighter and more reliable alternative on their own"<br /><br />I'd say it's more likely they will either work around the need for fuel pumps using some previously-developed technology unavailable years ago... or they will end up buying turbopumps from Rocketdyne (sp??) and the like.<br /><br /><br />

 

[j05h]

Solarspot has the right idea. New.Space isn't just about doing "old space" but doing it cheaper/faster/better. It's about new businesses, new products and truly new ways of doing things. <br /><br />If you need "X" turbopump, you either buy one (already available) or develop something that doesn't need the pump.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

For example, the SpaceX Falcon-I second stage Kestrel engine has no turbopump, using just tank pressure. The Falcon-V second stage uses the same Merlin engine as the Falcon-I and -V first stage. While the Merlin turbopump is a unique design, SpaceX claims they get a lot of simplicity from it. Other aspects of the Merlin are new implementations of old ideas, according to SpaceX:<br /> <br /><font color="yellow">The main engine, called Merlin, was developed internally at SpaceX, but draws upon a long heritage of space proven engines. The pintle style injector at the heart of Merlin was first used in the Apollo Moon program for the lunar module landing engine, one of the most critical phases of the mission.<br /><br />Propellant is fed via a single shaft, dual impeller turbo-pump operating on a gas generator cycle. The turbo-pump also provides the high pressure kerosene for the hydraulic actuators, which then recycles into the low pressure inlet. This eliminates the need for a separate hydraulic power system and means that thrust vector control failure by running out of hydraulic fluid is not possible. A third use of the turbo-pump is to provide roll control by actuating the turbine exhaust nozzle.<br /><br />Combining the above three functions into one device that we know is functioning before the vehicle is allowed to lift off means a significant improvement in system level reliability.</font> <br /><br />So the one pump handles propellants, hydraulics (using RP-1 as the fluid!), and roll control.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<i>"COTS is just make busy work. If COTS was really intent about cargo to station, then real contenders would have been picked. "</i><br /><br />Jim, I find your cynical tone offensive. NASA heroes were on the front lines during the cold war, defending our freedom and our god loving capitalist society from communist and socialist tyranny. We owe them a little more respect.

 

[frodo1008]

Agreed. What NASA did was to actually try and give a piece of the action to the alt.space people. Thus excluding ( by their own admission) NASA's direct contractors.<br /><br />I would think that the many alt.space supporters would be whooping and hollering in glee here! After all, many have said that NASA should be using these people! OK, now NASA is giving these people a chance to actually "Walk The Talk!"<br /><br />While I would like to see a more serious consideration of alternatives to "the stick" on the part of NASA, I am not going so far out as to state that the current Ares design is some kind of vast governmental conspiracy!<br /><br />I do agree also with those that differentiate between the goals and missions of NASA, "To boldly go where no man has gone before." (which incidentally also means some 99.999% of the moon's surface!), and the efforts of pure private industry, which is to indeed make money.<br /><br />To me this also means however, that there would indeed be areas where these two goals and missions could be of assistance to each other (such as in COTS)!<br /><br />And, living and truly doing useful research in space WILL be facilitated when the ISS reaches its full potential of power and research space with a full crew of six to work with that power and space! So, as such mankind will indeed be going where we have not been before! To say nothing of having many different nations (some former enemies of the cold war) to cooperate on such a large and complicated project, instead of finding newer and more efficient ways of killing each other. That may indeed also be something that manking has not done before either!!

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Jim, I find your cynical tone offensive. NASA heroes were on the front lines during the cold war, defending our freedom and our god loving capitalist society from communist and socialist tyranny. We owe them a little more respect."<br /><br />I was in the USAF during the cold war and now am with NASA. I was telling the truth

 

[thereiwas]

NASA was defending our freedom?

 

[spacefire]

as a matter of fact NASA <b>won</b> the cold war for us...by bankrupting the USSR via the space race.<br /><br />NASA spent a lot of money in its heyday and its contractors had/have a lot of mouths to feed. Hence the status-quo of exhorbitant hardware. COTS is a glimmer of light, but as long as ULA and NG are shoving their tentacles towards the incumbent alt.space industry (Atlas V for Space Tourism, Lockheed delaying SpaceXs launch, NG buying Scaled) all that we are going to get is more of the same. Everyone needs to understand that the big players are content with the current situation and are geared towards supporting their workforce and maintaining their assets rather than developing cheaper access to space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"as a matter of fact NASA won the cold war for us...by bankrupting the USSR via the space race. "<br /><br />No, the arms race did.<br /><br />"as long as ULA and NG are shoving their tentacles towards the incumbent alt.space industry (Atlas V for Space Tourism, Lockheed delaying SpaceXs launch"<br /><br />Quit spreading FUD<br />Where is your proof of these tentacles ? This is a not a conspiracy of the big players trying to corner the market. <br />Dreamchaser approached Atlas, Atlas didn't go to them. Why? Because Atlas works reliablity.<br />Lockheed didn't delay spacex's launch. That is a plain and simple lie.<br /><br />Where is the proof that alt.space can make it to orbit, much less doing it cheaper.<br /><br /> Instread of spreading lies, show some proof

 

[spacefire]

the cold war Space Race was actually part of the Arms Race if you think about it.<br /><br />Anyways, the Soviets had much fewer ICBMs than originally thought so they were actually fooling us there.<br /><br />I did not state any lie. I just gave my interpretation of recent events. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I just gave my interpretation of recent events"<br /><br />is the same bull$%#@ people use to discredit the lunar landings and the Holcaust. It doesn't give you the right to make unfounded accusations.<br /><br />"Lockheed delaying SpaceXs launch" "<br /><br /> is a blatant lie. <br /><br /><br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"the cold war Space Race was actually part of the Arms Race if you think about it. "<br /><br />It wasn't until the late 70's and the 80's, way past the moon landings

 

[thereiwas]

Lockheed moved some operations to Vandenburg and the military gave them the pad they had already allocated to SpaceX, after SpaceX had spent $7 million fitting it out (according to Musk). Hard to prove motive in that case.<br /><br />Where is the proof CEV+ARES can make it to orbit? We'll have the proof when they've done it. So we wait and give them a chance to finish.

 

[jimfromnsf]

Atlas didn't take anything away from spacex at VandenbErg. Spacex was assigned SLC-3W. Atlas was already at SLC-3E and it was upgraded to Atlas V . <br /><br />The NRO which had a spacecraft on a Titan-IV at SLC-4 didn't want spacex launching because of overflight until the Titan had launched. Even though LM operated the Titan, it was an NRO call. Which was the right one, considering the "success" of the 1st Falcon I flight.<br /><br /><br />"Where is the proof CEV+ARES can make it to orbit?"<br /><br />Previous experience, which counts alot. Just as Atlas V and Delta -IV were givens.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">... Spacex was assigned SLC-3W. Atlas was already at SLC-3E ...</font>/i><br /><br />Was SpaceX's initial flight supposed to be a polar orbit? That seems pretty bold.</i>

 

[frodo1008]

I would certainly hope so! As Vandenberg is the Air Force's designated launch area for such flights. <br /><br />I can certainly see why the NRO would be very cautious about having an untried rocket launch system flying owards the east (and taking advantage of the Earth's spin, which is why non polar orbits are usually launched from the east coast out over the Atlantic Ocean) and thus flying such a system over heavily populated areas such as Solvang.<br /><br />I know that if I were a tourist at Solvang, and a relatively untried rocket part were to land on me or even my car, I would be kind of upset!!

 

[jimfromnsf]

> ... Spacex was assigned SLC-3W. Atlas was already at SLC-3E ...<br /><br />Was SpaceX's initial flight supposed to be a polar orbit? That seems pretty bold."<br /><br />yes. And why is that bold?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">And why is that bold?</font>/i><br /><br />I haven't looked at the numbers, but it seems to me that a polar orbit would take much more energy than one with a typical eastern trajectory. I would think for their first launch they would want to make things as easy for them as possible.</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

it just means less payload mass into orbit. The rocket doesn't change. The flight profile is basically the same