Burt Rutan: Entrepreneurs are the future of space flight

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">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.</font>/i><br /><br />There is a big difference. SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler are only getting a very small part of the development costs from the government. They still have to cover most of the costs themselves (or with outside investors). The NASA money is more like seed money (and a vote of confidence) they can use to attract other investors. As Griffin has said, he wants to see these companies with their "own skin in the game."<br /><br />LM, on the other hand, is getting all (or almost all) its development funding from the government.<br /><br />However... I do feel SpaceX has been somewhat compromised by taking that COTS Phase I money. I think they could have done fine on their own. I have much less confidence is Rocketplane Kistler -- they mainly seem to have computer-generated graphics right now.</i>

 

[frodo1008]

Also, the Dragon is not a complete launch system. It will require a separate launch vehicle to get to orbit, and I don't thik that soacex will be ready with that level of launcher in 3 to 5 years (although I am more than willing to be pleasantly surprised here). So I don't think that spacex is being too very compromised as they would quite probably not have even seed funds for such a project at this time. <br /><br />If they are successful (as I hope they will be) it shuold give them some much needed experience in handling large space structures without too much of an investment of their own funds.<br /><br />After all, this is an area where LM + Boeing (or ALS as it is now referred to) does have the advantage of a whole lot of such experience!!<br /><br />

 

[rfoshaug]

RadarRedux wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />If Rutan <i>hopes</i> to kill less than 5% of his passengers, I'm getting a bit worried... Especially when the fatalities (that will inevitably come) are not test pilots who are used to dangers, but Hollywood actors and pop stars.<br /><br /><br />I wonder what Rutan's plan is for how to deal with it when the first SS2 crashes into the desert killing all on board. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Rocketplane Kistler -- they mainly seem to have computer-generated graphics right now."<br /><br />They have 75% of the LV hardware built

 

[j05h]

<i>>> "Rocketplane Kistler -- they mainly seem to have computer-generated graphics right now."<br /> /> They have 75% of the LV hardware built</i><br /><br />Actually RpK inherited a 75% complete vehicle - they have done nothing or very little on the hardware and are focusing on fundraising and finding an integrator (either ATK or Lockmart). It has been in that part-finished state since the mid-90s. In some ways, the K1 is more of a hangar queen than even the X-33. Rumor on SDC recently was that something had happened and the K1 was now "85%" complete, but take that with a large grain of salt. <br /><br />The K1 has had a longer development time than the Saturn V.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Most on these boards that talk about private efforts are also referring to purely private funded efforts. </i><br /><br />There is a lot of wiggle-room on that - in our socialist-libertarian society you can reasonably argue that everything or nothing is government or private funded. The fact is that Dragon was started years before SpaceX joined the COTS program, Falcon even earlier. Dragon and Falcon are both largely funded out of Mr. Musk's pocket, which you routinely ignore. He has said repeatedly that he can bring Falcon 1 and possibly Dragon/F9 to flight status with internal funding, and yet you claim SpaceX the company is government funded? Last, to argue that Virgin Galactic is any more a "private" company ignores the social net that V.G.'s parent company receives in England.<br /><br />Sub-orbital is not the only kind of spaceflight that entrepreneurs are striving for. New private orbital flights may actually happen before new suborbital flights - it's Dragon, Lockheed-Bigelow and SpaceDev vs Virgin/Scaled, SpaceDev and Blue Origin. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">They have 75% of the LV hardware built</font>/i><br /><br />I have heard a similar number about Kistler for a long time now (here is a link to slide claiming 75% completion in 2004 PDF slide, check the title and then the date in the lower right hand corner). And I believe that is 75% "by mass" -- which is a long way from having a built system. They also previously received money from NASA under the Space Launch Initiative. Last I read (which was some time ago), it was estimated that Kistler had burned through about $100 million before going into bankruptcy.<br /><br />They may surprise me (and I hope they do -- clearly NASA has a fair amount of confidence in them), but at some point they need to stop taking money and start flying hardware.<br /><br />By the way, here is a link to a discussion last month about Rocketplane Kistler missing their May COTS Milestone (discussion)</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I wonder what Rutan's plan is for how to deal with it when the first SS2 crashes into the desert killing all on board.</font>/i><br /><br />Yep, that will be a big issue they will need to deal with. Every week we hear about small planes crashing (and crashing into houses and killing their occupants), but a high profile space ship... that is a different story.</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"They also previously received money from NASA under the Space Launch Initiative."<br /><br />Never got a cent from SLI, spacex filed a suit<br /><br />"They may surprise me (and I hope they do -- clearly NASA has a fair amount of confidence in them), but at some point they need to stop taking money and start flying hardware."<br /><br />COTS isn't about flying cargo to the station. There were better proposals to meet this requirement. Delta and Atlas with an ATV or HTV could do it quicker and easier. But this would 'show up" NASA and their stick (EELV's doing manrated tasks). RPK and spacex were picked because although they may look promising if they fail it is no big deal.

 

[frodo1008]

I have stated many times on these boards that I am perfectly happy to see such efforts as spacex become totally successful. So please stop either misinterpreting what I post and making snide comments. I really don’t want to see M&L turned into another free space.<br /><br />My problem with some of the more enthusiastic supporters of pure private efforts here is not that they support such efforts (as I said I too wish such efforts all the success in the world), it is the rancor that these people seem to carry against government efforts and companies that have supported such efforts in the past. Companies that have very proven track records in this very technological an difficult area!<br /><br />For those of us that have spent our working lives either working for NASA or its contractors this is insulting, to say the least! <br /><br />I know that many of these companies such as spacex must attempt to sell their efforts to private investment types. So I do allow for a little stretching of what these companies will be able to do. But knowing what it entails to build just the larger rocket engines for such large rocket systems as Saturn V and the EELV Heavies I think that some of Elon Musk’s predictions of building such rockets almost over night must be taken with a certain grain of salt. However, as I fully support ANY space efforts (including NASA and its direct contractors) I would be more than delighted to be proven wrong here!<br /><br />Just moving such large rockets around costs millions. Heck, just to even move a Saturn V sized rocket can only be done with such equipment as exists at the cape. A rocket of this size is not a V2 you know!<br /><br />Spacex needs to first get a completely successful launch of the Falcon I off the ground, and then get enough such rockets off the ground to establish a high degree of reliability, and further show that this can be done at a level of profit. <br /><br />By the way, I am perfectly aware that the two most successfu

 

[frodo1008]

I have stated many times on these boards that I am perfectly happy to see such efforts as spacex become totally successful. So please stop either misinterpreting what I post and making snide comments. I really don’t want to see M&L turned into another free space.<br /><br />My problem with some of the more enthusiastic supporters of pure private efforts here is not that they support such efforts (as I said I too wish such efforts all the success in the world), it is the rancor that these people seem to carry against government efforts and companies that have supported such efforts in the past. Companies that have very proven track records in this very technological an difficult area!<br /><br />For those of us that have spent our working lives either working for NASA or its contractors this is insulting, to say the least! <br /><br />I know that many of these companies such as spacex must attempt to sell their efforts to private investment types. So I do allow for a little stretching of what these companies will be able to do. But knowing what it entails to build just the larger rocket engines for such large rocket systems as Saturn V and the EELV Heavies I think that some of Elon Musk’s predictions of building such rockets almost over night must be taken with a certain grain of salt. However, as I fully support ANY space efforts (including NASA and its direct contractors) I would be more than delighted to be proven wrong here!<br /><br />Just moving such large rockets around costs millions. Heck, just to even move a Saturn V sized rocket can only be done with such equipment as exists at the cape. A rocket of this size is not a V2 you know!<br /><br />Spacex needs to first get a completely successful launch of the Falcon I off the ground, and then get enough such rockets off the ground to establish a high degree of reliability, and further show that this can be done at a level of profit. <br /><br />By the way, I am perfectly aware that the two most successfu

 

[frodo1008]

Sorry about the double post, but it seems to be getting more an dmore difficult to get a post through here!

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> COTS isn't about flying cargo to the station.</font><br /> Really??? What is it about<br /><br /><font color="yellow">There were better proposals to meet this requirement. Delta and Atlas with an ATV or HTV could do it quicker and easier. </font><br />Why didn't they go for COTS then? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i><font color="yellow">My problem with some of the more enthusiastic supporters of pure private efforts here is not that they support such efforts (as I said I too wish such efforts all the success in the world), it is the rancor that these people seem to carry against government efforts and companies that have supported such efforts in the past. Companies that have very proven track records in this very technological an difficult area! <br /><br />For those of us that have spent our working lives either working for NASA or its contractors this is insulting, to say the least! <br /></font>/i><br /><br />I am in complete agreement on that.</i>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

"My problem with some of the more enthusiastic supporters of pure private efforts here is not that they support such efforts (as I said I too wish such efforts all the success in the world), it is the rancor that these people seem to carry against government efforts and companies that have supported such efforts in the past. Companies that have very proven track records in this very technological an difficult area! <br /><br />For those of us that have spent our working lives either working for NASA or its contractors this is insulting, to say the least!"<br /><br /><br />I second that. NASA deserves all the respect we can muster. My gripes with government do not come from NASA but the budget committees, presidents, members of Congress and a growing American population who are becoming more disconnected with NASA's efforts. The baby boomers who are in charge of our country and at NASA now lived through the cold war and the space race. They get it. Meaning they understand NASA's relevance. I'm not sure VSE will survive in today's political climate. Hopefully, private enterprise can work with NASA to make exploration of the solar system possible. This is where SpaceX and visionaries like Rutan come in. We are teetering on the edge of a knife right now with aerospace. If SpaceX, Bigelow, Virgin Galactic and others fail and if the political winds slash NASA's budget in the next election we are looking at dark times in aerospace. We have a plethora of venture capitalists, angel investors and entrepeneurs willing to part with their fortunes right now. If they fail, we may not see this kind of willingness again for a long time. OTOH, a windfall of scientific and technical breakthroughs like the world has never seen might be around the corner. I am an optimist, I believe in the latter. But, private enterprise is the insurance, they won't ALL fail so long as there is money to be made and our government doesn't regulate them out of business.<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[Testing]

Companies that have very proven track records in this very technological an difficult area! <br /><br />For those of us that have spent our working lives either working for NASA or its contractors this is insulting, to say the least! "<br /><br />Let's see them build a reliable turbopump. Until there is 7-10 years of testing they have not a clue of what can go wrong. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chyten]

<b>"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. </b><br /><br />I thought I was being obvious, but allow me to rephrase it: <font color="yellow">"IF (big IF) Rutan, Bigelow, etc. start putting people into orbit regularly and at fraction of NASA costs, Boeing/LockMart and OMS employees who are actually passionate about their job, as opposed to just about regular paycheck, will flock to job opportunities with space tourism."</font>There are only so many skilled aerospace engineers around, and while some are no doubt happy "going in circles" with Office of Manned Spaceflight and its contractors, others would prefer more exciting if more risky opportunities. And I think the latter are also more capable.<br /><br /><b>But again, NASA is not about launching people into space. There is the unmanned program and aeronautics </b><br /><br />A lot of people on this forum seem to disagree with you -- read posts on "Space Science comes First" thread, and all the claims that without manned spaceflight, unmanned activities will be budget-cut to death.<br /><br />Actually, I think that with robust <i>private</i> manned spaceflight, Congress will be quite happy to keep funding JPL and such. But that's just my opinion.

 

[chyten]

<b>And please explain how cheap private access to space will "KILL" JPL or all the aeronautics work at Ames, Langley, Dryden... </b><br /><br />I meant Office of Manned Spaceflight, not JPL and Dryden.<br /><br /><b>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? </b><br /><br />See my post above. There is a limited number of skilled people, after all.

 

[MeteorWayne]

frodo.<br /><br />It seems the problem occurs between the top of the hour and about 10 minutes after. So I'm taking care of other business during that time <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> I have stated many times on these boards that I am perfectly happy to see such efforts as spacex become totally successful. So please stop either misinterpreting what I post and making snide comments. I really don’t want to see M&L turned into another free space. </i><br /><br />I don't want M&L to become FreeSpace, either. I'm not misinterpreting anything - you said SpaceX is government funded, which is patently absurb. It's not a snide comment, I'm calling you out on a serious, repeated error. They have a fairly small contract with NASA for one of their products in a range of space applications. New.Space is not a panacea to all problems, but we need new payloads and new space applications to make a positive future happen - SpaceX is in the lead on this with Bigelow.<br /><br /><i>>Just moving such large rockets around costs millions. Heck, just to even move a Saturn V sized rocket can only be done with such equipment as exists at the cape. A rocket of this size is not a V2 you know! </i><br /><br />That is also partly a horizontal Vs. vertical integration issue. Falcon 9 will be transported and integrated horizontally, significantly impacting handling issues. The whole point of the Falcon rockets is to use processes and procedures that eliminate costs and errors.<br /><br /><i>> By the way, I am perfectly aware that the two most successful of these start up companies, spacex and t-space are almost totally funded by the private funds of such as Elon Musk. But that is the nature of such start up companies, now isn't it? </i><br /><br />So, does that make SpaceX a self-funded startup or a government funded design bureau? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Let's see them build a reliable turbopump. Until there is 7-10 years of testing they have not a clue of what can go wrong</font><br /><br /><br />the problem is that the turbopump was designed by contractors with government money, the kind alt.space doesn't have. which will result in alt.space figuring out a cheaper, lighter and more reliable alternative on their own <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

According to the NASA site, COTS total funding is some $500 million. This is to be split between spacex and Kistler. So that would mean that spacex is to receive some $250 million for the Dragon design.<br /><br />I may be wrong here, but from other posts I think that Elon Musk has invested some $100 million in total into soacex for all of its activities so far. So $250 million for just one particular project is a whole lot more than just a small portion of that particular project!<br /><br />Please don't misunderstand me here. I think that is a very good investment for NASA itself to make. But it makes spacex quite similar to LM as a contractor for the VSE capsule system. What could be wrong with NASA using its considerable funding and expertise in helping such a start up company to develop such a system?<br /><br />The very fact that NASA dose not make its own hardware, but buys such equipment from private industry makes NASA one of the very best of governmental agencies! And as you can buy stock in LM or Boeing or any of the other large experienced aerospace companies, this certainly qualifies them as private industry!<br /><br />So I see nothing at all wrong with not only NASA also getting contracts out to such as spacex, but also nothing wrong with spacex going after such contracts!<br /><br />IF spacex and other such start up companies can really bring the cost of placing materials and even human beings into LEO then that is just terrific by me!!<br /><br />Is their something then wrong with my thinking this way?<br /><br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

It seems to me your thinking is pretty good in that post! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"the problem is that the turbopump was designed by contractors with government money, the kind alt.space doesn't have. which will result in alt.space figuring out a cheaper, lighter and more reliable alternative on their own"<br /><br />nope, it will be heavier, less efficient and take longer to develop

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">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.</font><br /><br /><br />You were doing so well. I think the point is that taxpayer-funded exploration [which should not diminish significantly in the near future] is scarce. There are scarce resources to handle the increased demand. And privately-funded space exploration and flight may have to pick up the slack [and has alrady done so in some cases].<br /><br />Burt Rutan, BTW, is just on the other side of loony.