Burt Rutan: Entrepreneurs are the future of space flight

[jschaef5]

"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 />Yah so where in there does it encompass creating a method to put the general public into space?<br /><br />And remember the administrator of NASA is under order of the President of the United States.<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html <br /><br />Why would you think NASA would make it a goal to put a ton of people into space. As a human race we would get nothing out of it. Wouldn't it be more wise to pave the way and explore/research and let commercial entities follow? Think of how much it would cost for a private company to go to Mars... So who else is going to do it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">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...</font>/i><br /><br />To put on my cynic hat... NASA's goal is to protect the NASA organization. This is true of companies, unions, governments, political parties, and probably any large organization. It is the nature of the beast.<br /><br />The real challenge to NASA will come when there is viable access to space, space research, and space facilities provided by organizations outside the NASA Keiretsu. Assuming NASA has a fixed budget, will NASA top and mid-level managers buy sizable amounts of products and services from these outside organizations fully knowing that this will cause layoffs of people directly under them that they have known and worked with for years? Will managers voluntarily reduce the headcounts of their organizations because they can get these products and services outside their organization even though their salaries are based on the number of people underneath them?<br /><br />This will be the challenge. NASA has a long history of trying to deep-six anything that might compete with them, so this should prove an interesting challenge.</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"F (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."<br /><br /> What would all these people do when they supposedly leave NASA? There is no work for them elsewhere. But again, NASA is not about launching people into space. There is the unmanned program and aeronautics

 

[jimfromnsf]

""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 />Still an IF, there is no guarantee of success

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Yah so where in there does it encompass creating a method to put the general public into space?</font>/i><br /><br />I am Joe Scientists, president of Chrystal Growth, Inc. I want to conduct microgravity research abord the "national laboratory". Here is my money. Is NASA going to train my scientist and fly them to ISS?<br /><br />I don't think so.<br /><br />If you go and look at NASA's original vision for Space Station Freedom and later ISS, it was supposed to be an active research and commercial hub, but NASA has done virtually nothing to promote this and has in the past actively fought against it.</i>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yes. Unfortunately, NASA spends only a small fraction of its budget doing that useful research, which couldnt be done by private industry. That fraction seems to be currently ever decreasing too.<br /><br />Building and operating LEO launch systems is not research, and can definitely be done by private industry. Irrefutable proof positive: Orbital Sciences launch systems.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Assuming NASA has a fixed budget, will NASA top and mid-level managers buy sizable amounts of products and services from these outside organizations fully knowing that this will cause layoffs of people directly under them that they have known and worked with for years? Will managers voluntarily reduce the headcounts of their organizations because they can get these products and services outside their organization even though their salaries are based on the number of people underneath them? "<br /><br />Yes! Because NASA contracts out most of its work. If some one can do it cheaper (Ares I is a notable exception) then NASA will use them. However, the burden of proof is on the newcomer. So, a contractor like spacex is going to have to prove its product and get certified before NASA can use it. This certification process is described in http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=8610&s=7C. NASA has an "open" launch service contract that anyone can be placed on http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/procurement/nls/<br /><br />Once the contractor means the intent of the contract, as new launch requirements come about, it can bid on it<br />

 

[jschaef5]

"At what altitude did the off-range excursion happen?"<br /><br />I am unsure, all that I know is they departed their given airspace boundries towards the city of palmdale and have heard from <b>non-Scaled</b> people they "entered" the airports airspace. If this happened while attached to the WK or on ascent of while on its descent, or if they just overflew the airspace, I do not know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I am Joe Scientists, president of Chrystal Growth, Inc. I want to conduct microgravity research abord the "national laboratory". Here is my money. Is NASA going to train my scientist and fly them to ISS? "<br /><br />Why does he need to go? Just the experiment does<br /><br />

 

[jschaef5]

"Yes! Because NASA contracts out most of its work"<br /><br />I don't think people realize this. They assume that all the engineers are NASA civil servants. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

My org procures all the NASA launch services, we have only 150 civil servants and 200 support contractors. We are currently support Dawn and Phoenix and every NASA ELV mission.

 

[soyuztma]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Could you back this up? I think you are confusing different X programs. Scaled build the structure for the X-38 and Lockheed invested some of their own money in the X-33 but i believe the X-34 was completly funded with NASA money and the X-38 was funded with NASA and european funding. Scaled also did not build the X-34 structure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

X-34 was Orbital Science Corporations baby, but they were not able to build it on time and on budget. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

It's a bit hard to deliver when NASA kills the program that is developing your engine.

 

[scottb50]

The X-34 might still be viable, but I think the X-38 is a dead end, for passengers anyway. I would also think parachutes would be a much better idea than a maneuverable rock.<br /><br />If we want commercial and tourist service we have to have safety comparable to the airlines. That pretty much leaves Capsules and parachutes or winged re-entry vehicles with low altitude turbofans.<br /><br />I would also rather climb into a vehicle that can be flown to a landing from any failure. Only one SRB ignites or multiple liquid engines fail, or one fails and flying pieces take out others would be a good case. <br /><br />Lets say WK2 has a catastrophic failure, of any kind, at any time past V-1. Can SS2 escape and return? <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Yes! Because NASA contracts out most of its work. If some one can do it cheaper (Ares I is a notable exception) then NASA will use them. </font>/i><br /><br />That is why I used the term "NASA Keiretsu" -- the family is very tightly knit, and some of this is driven by politics and politicians. I think few people would consider United Space Alliance an open competitor for NASA's launch needs. Even the ESAS (as well as those who wrote proposals) stressed reusing the same contractors, the same equipment, the same employees, and in the same congressional districts.<br /><br />When the Moon2Mars commission released their report for transforming NASA to support its single most high profile mission (Moon, Mars, and Beyond), they were told that they could not recommend shutting down <i>any</i> NASA centers; otherwise, the report would be dead on arrival.<br /><br />Time and time again NASA's leadership and political leaders have stressed keeping future money with the same organizations, people, and locations.</i>

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>"It will be interesting to see how the public and lawmakers react to these deaths. "</i><br /><br /> /> <font color="yellow">This is what many fear.</font><br /><br />I suspect we will be revisiting this topic in earnest in 2-5 years time. My concern is that Congress will overreact.<br /><br />To date, about 9% of the people who have tried to climb Mount Everest have died in the attempt (most of the bodies are still up there). Even today, with much improved safety equipment and guides the death rate is still about 4.5%. I would not be surprised to see civilian spaceflight have similar numbers in the early years -- adventure travel can be risky. <br /><br />Assuming full disclosure is made of the risks, and adequate steps are made to protect non-participants, then I hope Congress keeps their hands off. However, that may be too much to ask for. In the end, those of us who plan to go into space may have to do so from outside the United States.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I think few people would consider United Space Alliance an open competitor for NASA's launch needs."<br /><br />Why not? There is OSC. Name others that could meet NASA's needs.

 

[nyarlathotep]

JP Aerospace maybe? I'm sure that some day they'll solve that pesky drag problem. Perhaps with some sort of antigravity device.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Why not? There is OSC. Name others that could meet NASA's needs.</font>/i><br /><br />That is a problem. A good functioning market needs both multiple consumers and multiple suppliers.<br /><br />I think NASA could have done a better job at this by designing and developing space station components so that they could be launched by multiple vehicles. By having their designs to tightly bound to the Shuttle design, it stalled ISS for several years following Columbia, but it also guaranteed the STS would continue to fly since it was the only vehicle that could finish ISS. It was as if the ISS was designed to justify the Shuttle's existence. If components were designed so that more than one vehicle could fly it, the Shuttle would have probably already been retired.<br /><br />When Griffin proposed his first draft for ESAS before he became NASA administrator (as part of the Planetary Society report), he proposed an Orion capsule design that could be flown by several launch vehicles from both domestic and international organizations. At the time he thought this was an important feature.<br /><br />I wish he still believed this.</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"It was as if the ISS was designed to justify the Shuttle's existence"<br /><br />It was. Without the ISS, the shuttle had no reason to exist. This was the real reason it was proposed in the late 60's. Station and shuttle, but the station was dropped and the shuttle was pushed as a way to reduce the cost to space. But it was always intended to support a station

 

[frodo1008]

There are about a dozen countries, and several dozens of private companies that are launching objects into LEO!<br /><br />So far, only the US government, the Russian (or Fomerly USSR) government, and the Chinese governments have launched delicate human beings in LEO!<br /><br />Building craft and launch systems capable of safely launching human beings into LEO is VASTLY more difficult than just placing them into sub orbital flight!<br /><br />If you wish, I would be more than glad to explain why, but it will take a considerably longer post.<br /><br />Even Rutan knows that it is going to be at the very least some 10 years until such flights. And this is if the sub orbital systems work perfectly (and are even more importantly profitable). <br /><br />By this time, with reasonable funding, NASA should be back on the moon, and perhaps well on the way to at least realistically defining the ability to go on to Mars!<br /><br />Indeed, IF the pure private interests can bring the price of placing human beings into LEO down to less thaqn $1000 per pound, then not only NASA, but just about every space program in the world will be using such services!<br /><br />However, there are indeed some IFS yet to go!!!!!<br /><br />

 

[jschaef5]

I remember Rutan talking about putting someone in a lunar orbit that would pass you within a few miles or less of the surface on a highly elliptical figure eight trajectory around the moon. <br /><br />Now that is a goal and something that I think is definitely reachable before the end of my lifetime (i am only a college student right now)<br /><br />I wouldn't venture to say that we will have flying personal cars in widespread use in my lifetime....unless we master antigravity <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> but traveling to space has a real possiblity as being a vacation spot in 50 years. Rutan along with Bigelow and many others are making some great progress. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Even Rutan knows that it is going to be at the very least some 10 years until such flights... By this time, with reasonable funding, NASA should be back on the moon,</i><br /><br />Actually you might have that backwards. SpaceX is planning on flying the Dragon in the next 3-5 years and NASA has put the first moon landings in the 2020-2024 timeframe, not 2017.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Most on these boards that talk about private efforts are also referring to purely private funded efforts. Spacex and Dragon are government funded, in which spacex is no more a pure private effort than is the CEV being build by LM.<br /><br />However, I am not one to quibble here, and would be more than happy to see spacex come up with a design that would reduce the cost of placing either human beings or other materials into LEO from the Earth's surface! Whether that effort is directly government funded or not does not matter to me in the least.<br /><br />But purely private funded efforts such as Rutans' through Virgin Galactic are going to take more time as even his efforts to take large numbers of tourists to sub orbital space must first pan out economically as well as technically before he will get enough funding to even attempt LEO!<br /><br />That is what I was referring to. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough!<br /><br />