Rutan hates CEV!

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">What has Rutan done to make CATS happen?</font><br /><br />Roughly the same amount as NASA has. Didly squat. <br /><br />Actually, Rutan in the next year will probably have done slightly more. His vehicle will likely save researchers a packet in performing microgravity experiments which have previously required a sounding rocket.

 

[tap_sa]

NASA has provided the necessary knowhow decades ago. It's not NASA's task to start providing CATS services, it's up to the private sector which lags a lot behind. For instance SS1 could have been built at least couple decades ago, yet it wasn't. Why?<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">NASA has provided the necessary knowhow decades ago.</font><br /><br />Actually, the USAF did all of the required research for CATS back in the 50's and 60's. <br /><br />NASA has done SFA since the 70's but scare off investment in true CATS by providing heavy subsidies to gummint contractors whenever it looks like one of the startups might succeed.

 

[tap_sa]

I think NASA did help a bit in the 60s. <br /><br />edit: and I agree that NASA has harmed private efforts by delivering pork. But it's people at the Hill that pull those strings. CLV continues the trend. NASA wants to build launcher while there are two perfectly good commercial alternatives.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">I think NASA did help a bit in the 60s.</font><br /><br />The only cheapish vehicles in the 60's were the Titan and Atlas, both developed by the USAF. Everything from the Saturn I onwards has been stupidly expensive and complex.<br /><br />What we need to do is settle on a simple design like the zenit, and start churning them out of a production line like toyotas.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"start churning them out of a production line like toyotas."</font><br /><br />That kinda was the plan with EELVs. Production lines are in place but the market flopped. NASA was going to use them for OSP but now they get the cold shoulder for manned flights.

 

[specfiction]

I started the “Back to the Future Thread.” I was expecting that (manned space) enthusiasts would be disappointed with goal-less proposals (business-wise) and antique technology. To my surprise, most of the debate was conservative acquiescence that had the feel of “maybe if we’re real careful and don’t say anything to upset the keepers of the budget,” they might let us reenergize manned space. They won’t. If you really want to restart manned space, this is not the way to do it (Back to the Future).<br /><br />The bureaucrats making the budget decisions lost bold vision a long time ago. Many are incompetent and most of the others main concern is to cover their arses. Our only chance of making manned space work is a bold, realistic, economically viable vision. If we capture the imagination of the public, the bureaucrats will disappear under their risk-adverse rocks.<br /><br />Rutan is absolutely right. Antique technology and goal-less PR stunts will all but guarantee the end of manned space (govt sponsored anyway) in the US.<br />

 

[drwayne]

"The bureaucrats making the budget decisions lost bold vision a long time ago."<br /><br />Two points:<br /><br />(1) It is not the role of a bureaucrat to have bold visions. Those rapidly go away in such an environment.<br /><br />(2) The budget is controlled by the political process, i.e. congress, which has an attention span measured in weeks. (Maybe)<br /><br />It is a different world than 1962, when the seniority system meant that a program could be started, even a big one, with the buy-in of literally a handful of men. The nature of the congress was quite different then.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[specfiction]

It's a lose-lose to assume that anyone in charge of anything is dead from the neck up and waist down. And the decision makers get their marching orders from the public who empower them. We forget that there are leaders because we see them so seldom.<br /><br />Rutan may be one—go Rutan!<br />

 

[starfhury]

I've never been a fan of CEV and now that Rutan has come out against it too, I feel validated. What do we want in space? Above all, I think we want sustainability. If we look over the pass few decades, I think we will find that only the shuttle and Soyuz have offered any real manned sustainability over that time. Let's consider if we wanted to do ten to fifteen launches per year. Which vehicle architecture would be the better suited? Shuttle or Soyuz? If we look at what Rutan is doing, he is following a progressive build out. He's not going to try and do things in one great leap, finish up and go home. I think after the fourth iteration of the SpaceShip concept, he will have a sustainable system capable of launching people into LEO. My only problem is that Rutan is getting older and I don't see too many disciples of his ready to take up the mantle and run with it.<br /> Why don't I like the CEV? Plain and simple, I don't like it's architecture and I think that's what Rutan has a real beef with. The tossing of hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars for every launch can not continue indefinately. At 500 hundred millions per launch, using the shuttle budget, NASA can launch maybe eight expendible missions. If they can turn the shuttles around in three months, that amounts to twelve shuttle missons per anum. Grant that has never happened, but with a better shuttle I'm sure it could. More than just going back to the moon or rocketing off to Mars, NASA should be charged with developing a sustainable architecture or frame work where private industry can plug into and fill out the gaps in a profitable manner. I don't believe CEV/ESAS covers that in any meaningful way and as long as it doesn't I'll not support it. I'd rather NASA spend the next fifteen years in LEO while building a better shuttle than going off to the moon with an unsustainable architecture. And with each revision of ESAS/CEV even it's purpose is questioned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> Rutan: <i><font color="yellow">They are forcing the program to be done with technology that we already know works. They are not creating an environment where it is possible to have a breakthrough</font>/i><br /><br />Rutan and Griffin are operating under different rules.<br /><br />Rutan can hire and fire who he wants; Griffin has inherited his employment base and cost structure. Rutan can take risks, and if he fails he is still considered a hero for trying. Griffin (especially in light of past problematic efforts) has to succeed, so he is much less likely to take risks. Rutan can largely operate in secret; Griffin operates in the public eye. Rutan sees his efforts as a commercial enterprise; Griffin sees his efforts as an enabler of commercial enterprises.<br /><br />I suspect the issue is less a Rutan versus Griffin, or a Scaled Composites versus NASA. It is a private enterprise versus government issue.</i>

 

[josh_simonson]

>Rutan is absolutely right. Antique technology and goal-less PR stunts....<br /><br />You mean like airplanes which are twice as antiquated as apollo, and building a rocket that lost half of what was invested in it and isn't good for anything but a museum now after 3 flights?

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Think what new technology has been lost over the last 10 years because of politics and lack of resources; X33, X34, X37, X38, RS-84 TW-107 GTX, X43C, X43B etc… </i><br /><br />Exactly. I'd trade this useless Apollo style moon program for those programs!

 

[tomnackid]

arrrrgggghhh! Just 'cause it has wings doesn't mean its automatically superior!!!!!! Even if any of these programs were developed to completion they would give us nothing more than an expensive taxi to LEO. LEO sucks. LEO is NOTHING! I want the moon. I want a 2,160 mile diameter space station full of oxygen, aluminium, silicon, iron, probably even water already there waiting for us. <br /><br />Flying back and forth to LEO in little rocket powered gliders isn't going to do squat for the long term human presence in space. What good is a refueling station in orbit when you have to carry all of the fuel up to it in the first place? Your proposal would be like flying cargo across the Atlantic in F-15s. Yeah they are cool and fast but you would need a fleet of aerial refueling planes to get the job done! Superior technology is technology that gets the job done.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

What's so special about going to the moon? We won't be able to do much there until we develop new technologies to lower the cost and risk of getting there while increasing flight rates.

 

[josh_simonson]

Musk's rockets are cheaper than any of the above NASA schemes. In that light I'm glad they didn't waste 100bln on a 'cost saving' launch system only to have it outdone for several orders of magnitude cheaper by private industry. <br /><br />If anything, a half assed expensive NASA RLV would have destroyed the private launch industry that's now maturing due to NASAs failures. The best way to minimize cost is to design a launch system that minimizes cost instead of maximizing performance. The established players won't do it that way so new blood is required if we ever want to see significant improvements.

 

[steve82]

"Rutan has designed a number of aircraft that push the envelope. "<br /><br />True, and a cursory search of the ntsb.gov accident database turns up 39 accidents involving Rutan's planes.<br /><br />I notice SpaceShip One hasn't flown in a long time. Perhaps it's because they barely dodged a bullet the times they flew it before.<br /><br />(i admire and give him credit for a lot of things, tact is not one one of them, however.)

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">enabler of commercial enterprise</font><br /><br />You NASA types keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[qso1]

steve82:<br />For NASA's Sake I certainly hipe so! God knows there are enough critics ready to kill the entire program!<br /><br />Me:<br />39 accidents out of how many total flights? <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]

I think the Smithsonian wanted it and it served it's purpose. It might have had problems, but while it won't have the same problems I'm sure SS2 will have it's own issues. Maybe by SS4.2 I might think about it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">What's so special about going to the moon?</font><br /><br />Nothing. We ran out of science to do there on the earlier Apollo missions, that's why they killed the Saturn program. <br /><br />The only thing the moon is good for is oxidiser and possibly, although I seriously doubt the economics even using russian rockets, PGM. Other than that, there is nothing on the rock that isnt cheaper to extract from NEO's, or boost using mass produced boilerplate rockets from earth.

 

[JonClarke]

<i>We ran out of science to do there on the earlier Apollo missions, that's why they killed the Saturn program. </i><br /><br />Really? All the lunar scientists I know bemoan the fact that Apollo and Luna missions stopped when we were just starting to learn what the real questions were. <br /><br /><i>Other than that, there is nothing on the rock that isnt cheaper to extract from NEO's, or boost using mass produced boilerplate rockets from earth.</i><br /><br />Economic reasons are not the whole motivation for going into space. But even there, the Moon is more accessible that NEOs, has a gravity field, making living and working much easier, provides marvelous shielding agaist radio noise, and is much more scenic for the tourist market.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"Really? All the lunar scientists I know bemoan the fact that Apollo and Luna missions stopped when we were just starting to learn what the real questions were."<br /><br />And yet here we are, 30 years later, and they still havent been able to jot any of them down.<br /><br />One would have thought that firmly establishing with the public 'why the hell are we going back to the moon' would have been a priority before allocating a $100B jobs program to do it.<br /><br /> />>"Economic reasons are not the whole motivation for going into space."<br /><br />Now that the cold war is over, economic reasons are the ONLY motivation for going into space. And we are not going to get anything worthwhile done in space, science or otherwise, when access to LEO costs $10000+/kg.

 

[steve82]

"Me: <br />39 accidents out of how many total flights?"<br /><br />Yikes! I refined my search and got some interesting data. Before I just searched for accidents involving "Rutan" aircraft, (most all of his planes are homebuilts of his design) but many of them are listed by homebuilder as the manufacturer/type. Like "Steve82/VariEze" So I searched the database on accidents involving just Rutan's Vari-Eze and Long-Eze designs and came up with 155 Accidents involving 69 fatalities! <br />True, most of them were due to things like pilot error or construction issues or unauthorized design changes (John Denver's crash wasn't listed in that set, either). <br /><br />And as I said, I do have some admiration for the guy, but The American people would never accept the kind of failure rates his aircraft have had for whatever cause in their space program.

 

[JonClarke]

<i>And yet here we are, 30 years later, and they still havent been able to jot any of them down.</i><br /><br />Read the scientific literature.<br /><br /><i>Now that the cold war is over, economic reasons are the ONLY motivation for going into space. And we are not going to get anything worthwhile done in space, science or otherwise, when access to LEO costs $10000+/kg.</i><br /><br />Knowledge is more than adequate for many missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>