Griffin meets with Rutan

[wvbraun]

This is great! On April 20th NASA administrator Michael Griffin met with Burt Rutan (Rutan was in Washington for a hearing on regulations of the commercial space industry - that was highly interesting, watch the webcast if you haven't already) and it appears they didn't just exchange pleasentries but Rutan showed him what he is working on. <br /><br />From RLV-News: Go to the NASA home page and click on Gallery: On the Job in the Administrator's Corner. In the popup window click on image number 8. <br /><br />The picture shows the two pouring over some documents.<br /><br />Call me crazy but I think I can make out either a schematic drawing of a lunar lander or a top view of SpaceShipTwo. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />

 

[crix]

Hell yes! Griffin in already meeting with Rutan! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Good find, btw. Could that picture be a more updated version of one of these?<br /><br />http://www.transformspace.com/images/tSpace_CEVs_Moon.jpg

 

[grooble]

Guys, are you sure it isn't just a spaceshiptwo Hot Drinks Holder?

 

[nacnud]

Looks like a plan view of SSOne to me.

 

[holmec]

It looks to me like its actually a picture of SpaceShipOne itself. The page is bent so we get a visual effect telling us the booms on the ends are not parallel when they actually are. Also the wings are visible and the body shape is that of SpaceShip One. <br /><br />But its very encouraging that they are meeting. <br /><br />If I had to guess what this page is, it could possibley be a study on reentry and heat since Rutan's system has one of the most unique ways of handling reentry that NASA has never tried (at least as far as I know).<br /><br />On the other hand, I wouldn't put it pass Burt to come up with a lunar lander or even a Mars lander. Heck the guy has been a space junky forever. He admitted that Von Braun was one of his heros and hes having the time of his life developing a space system. Then he laughed loudly like a kid in a candy shop.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

Or maybe Elon Musk could be our von Braun. At the hearing last week he said he intends to eventually build a super heavy lift vehicle (read Saturn 6). Plans could be unveiled later this year.

 

[jurgens]

Well they are going to have to get their falcon I and V launched first before anyone takes their SHLV proposal seriously =)<br />

 

[nacnud]

Remeber the paper is bent by burt holding it, that would make the booms apear to diverge.<br /><br />Also I've heard Tier 1 and Tier 2 mentioned perhaps that is the suborbital - orbital identifier.

 

[odysseus145]

I don't think it's a succesor to SS1. I doubt Rutan would allow pictures of his blueprints released to the media. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

As usual I have to agree completely with shuttle-guy. Do any of the, "private industry can do it all" types on these boards have ANY concept of the sheer size of the Saturn V rocket??<br /><br />The size of the tooling alone for the components of this rocket excludes all but a very few companies from even attempting such a rocket. Tooling of this size alone costs hundreds of millions of dollars!!<br /><br />The Saturn V weighed in at some 3,000 tons!! When assembled the only object that can even move it to the launching pad is the crawler tractor at Cape Canaveral. Building such a rocket would be a far more expensive development than the building of either the 747 or even the newer larger A380 airbus, and these aircraft took tens of billions of dollars to develop!! <br /><br />Unless Musk can prove that his much smaller rockets are both very inexpensive and very reliable the tackling of a project as large as a super heavy launch vehicle is indeed just a paper pipe dream!!<br />

 

[spacester]

The Saturn V was a massive accomplishment. Much has changed in the world of manufacturing and design methodologies. Perhaps a massive vehicle does not necessarily require a proportionally massive development effort.<br /><br />Tooling is very very expensive. I know this from personal experience, customers often experience sticker shock when told the price of their tooling.<br /><br />Tooling up for a BFR will not be cheap. But done once, and done right, and combined with a high flight rate (4-6 per year is enough IMO), the cost per pound to LEO can be brought down to the CATS level.<br /><br />IMO HLLV development will need some kind of support from the gummint. But what if instead of developing the thing themselves, NASA funnels their cash to payload purchases? What if NASA promises to buy 4 BFR launches a year for 5 years to get things rolling? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

spacester: Why not just simply have NASA contract out to either companies such as Boeing or LM to upgrade their already EELV Heavy designs? They have both the tools and the experience to do this. Also, both Boeing and/or LM have designed the Common Booster Cores for either the Delta IV Heavy or the Atlas V Heavy to be mass manufactured. The plants are already in place. <br /><br />Just as an example the Delta IV could have some 4 CBC's spaced around a central (perhaps larger) CBC. I know that Rocketdyne which manufactures the RS68 engines for the Delta IV was running some preliminary thoughts on upgrading the current RS68 from 665,000 pounds thrust to some 1 million pound thrust. If both upgrades were taken to the Delta IV (with an upgrade to the second stage as well) the Delta IV could very easily put 100,000+ pounds into LEO. <br /><br />I know that the Delta IV Heavy was originally designed to put 50,000 pounds into LEO for about $100 million. This comes out to $2,000 per pound to LEO, which is about 1/5th of the current rate. The EELV designs (and I believe that LM's Atlas V is also designed around the same cost premise) were not to be revolutionary, but were designed to use conservative state of the art designs to bring down the costs per pound to LEO to a much lower level than before. The Heavy designs were to replace the far more expensive Titan boosters for the airforce (the EELV projects were DOD, not NASA). If these designs were used either as they are or even to develop Super Heavy designs, and these designs were then launched at a reasonable rate of at least 6 per year (the more the better), then I don't see any reason why such designs could not bring the per pound to LEO down to even less than $1,000, which may not be exactly CATS in itself, but would be a 10x improvement over older launch vehicles!!<br /><br />With the current state of the EELV programs I do not see why this could not be done in concert with the development of the CEV in some fiv

 

[holmec]

SpaceDev, the makers of SpaceShipOne's hybrid engine, seems to be making its mark winning a contract for its hybrid engine design with the big boys.<br /><br />http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage_article.php?pid=510<br />http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage_article.php?pid=493<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>