Rutan hates CEV!

[scottb50]

How many have been structural failures in even semi normal conditions? For the most part Rutans designs have done exactly what they were supposed to do. Human failures make up a high percentage of the accidents, even John Denver, an add on tank with the valve in a bad location. How it got to be the problem it did I don't know, low and slow and run out of gas and not switch tanks fast enough?<br /><br />Might not have been a design problem with the aircraft or the add-on tank. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>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. </i><br /><br />Amen!

 

[qso1]

Seems to me that we need NASA to continue human exploration of the Moon and Mars. Private industry for development of inexpensive launch systems to LEO and development of an infrastructure at LEO. Were probably still about two decades from a meaningful space tourist industry or any other commercial activity in space. However, Burt Rutan and his team at Scaled Composites have shown that space does not have to be the sole domain of government.<br /><br />Critics of SS-1 should realize that it is only a first step. 45 years ago today, NASA took a similar first step. <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>

 

[qso1]

Nyarlathotep:<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 />Me:<br />The reason we quite going to the moon was because The cold war moon race had been won. The science was just beginning keeping in mind the first actual scientist astronaut of Apollo by training was Harrison Schmidtt, a geologist. He flew aboard the last Apollo mission, Apollo 17. The end of Apollo and Skylab was however, the end of production of the Saturn rockets. Five more Saturns did fly for Skylab and ASTP. <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>

 

[frodo1008]

I am all for Musk's efforts, but he has yet to launch a successful rocket. And I think he is now just beginning to realize what he had gotten himself into!<br /><br />This does not mean that he will not eventually be successful. I truly hope that he is. But it is indeed a far harder proposition than he originally thought it would be. Remember all those wild explosions in the movie "The Right Stuff"? They were indeed real rockets being blown up time after time. It was only because they were Air Force efforts that such a learning curve could be even afforded. That and they were not rockets originally designed for placing payloads into LEO, they were originally designed for placing nuclear weapons on the cities of the USSR. So funding was no problem. Eventually what resulted were rockets such as the Delta II, which may not be so very cheap, but is quite probably the most reliable rocket launcher around. NASA has used such a system for almost all of its smaller deep space probes, and to my knowledge at the very least it has never failed them!<br /><br />So what Elon Musk and spacex must do is to not only get a fully successful Falcon I launch, but then repeat this for many times before going on to more expensive and larger rockets. <br /><br />Also, while I admire his cost goals, I am almost as skeptical of them as I am of Zubrin's Mars Direct estimates. When you get up to rockets the size of the Delta IV Heavy, just the handling equipment gets to be a multi million dollar affair.<br /><br />Speaking of the current EELV's, this Air Force program was also designed to do much of what spacex is trying to accomplish. The problem was not with the EELV cost, which because of mass production and an engine (Rocketdyne's RS68) which was designed to cost less than any comparable engine in the world, let alone the US, this system should have been at least as inexpensive as anything that spacex wants to build with a comparable LEO payload weight However, the entire market fo

 

[qso1]

frodo1008:<br />Delta II, which may not be so very cheap, but is quite probably the most reliable rocket launcher around. NASA has used such a system for almost all of its smaller deep space probes, and to my knowledge at the very least it has never failed them!<br /><br />Me:<br />There have been a few Delta rocket failures but overall, the rocket is extremelly reliable. Actually, I believe all current NASA LVs are on the order of 98% reliable. This includes the shuttle as well. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

??? I thought the program was finished and they have moded on to the next phase?<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>

 

[qso1]

Thats what I recall. They wanted to begin developing SS-2 and send SS-1 to the Smithsonian. Since the program was not government funded, the war should not have affected it. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

I Know how that feels! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

 

[JonClarke]

Well after yourself and take care then.<br /><br />Best wishes<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>

 

[mattblack]

>>What's so special about going to the moon?<<<br /><br />!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????<br /><br />I surely hope your question is rhetorical, otherwise the very fact you've asked it means you have no hope of understanding any answer anyone will give you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

Keep in mind that NASA does have a much larger <br />budget than any of the private companies could <br />possibly dream of.<br /><br />However, it also has expenses and restrictions put on it <br />that no private company could possibly endure and still <br />be in business.<br /><br /><br />As an example. <br /><br />If I'm a private company and I need a component for my <br />rocket, then the engineer gets to pick what component <br />to purchase and who to purchase that from. <br /><br /> If I'm NASA and I need to purchase a component for my <br />rocket, then the congress decides what component will<br />be selected and congress decides which company in<br />which congressional district gets to provide it.<br /><br />That is a tremendous burden for NASA to bear and it<br />hurts their efficiency tremendously. On the other hand<br />their budget is astronomical compared to everybody<br />else in the field.

 

[frodo1008]

Congress usually gives NASA total latitude on smaller items. If NASA needed a part for a Delta II they were going to launch they would certainly not need permission from congress to go to the manufacturer of the Delta II itself (Boeing) to get the part. <br /><br />Good Grief man, if congress actually checked to see about ever purchase of the federal government, they would be so busy just doing that, they wouldn't even accomplish as little as they actually do about the larger picture!<br /><br />Congress may affect the selection of major contractors, but that isn't what you were saying in your post. And as far as the major contractors are concerned with the consolodation of the entire aerospace industry in the last 30 years or so NASA dosn't have that many choices anyway.<br /><br />Also. as this is still a very dangerous and chancy business, NASA must go with experience here.

 

[frodo1008]

SS-1 was a Saturn V, complete system to send people back to the moon? I must admit (even though I was there) to sometimes being a bit confused as there seemed to be several different versions of the fantastic Saturn system, and even more official designations for such systems. However, I do believe the last three Saturn V flights to the moon that were originally planned were indeed cancelled by the government. And they were cancelled for the reasons that you (shuttle_guy) have given and NOT because we had run out of sites or things to do on the moon! So please don't feel it necessary to applogise, you do a really great job here! And PLEASE don't over tire yourself even for the sake of your important job, and certainly not for the sake of the people on this site!<br /><br />And who was going to fund this SS-2 if not the government? <br /><br />I would like to ask those that don't want to go back to the moon a question: "How many landings have been made by human beings either on the dark side of the moon (actually not necessarily dark, just not visable from the Earth), or have been made at the poles of the moon?<br /><br />Well, I can give the answer to that, exactly none! Plus if there is a water ice on the moon, it would be in deep craters on those very poles! So the exploration (and even mpore importantly, the exploitation of the resurces) of the moon has not even really been started!<br /><br />Why do we have to keep having to deal with so much ignorance, even here on forums such as this? Or perhaps I should be more user friendly. and just state that people that have their own agendas are blind to opposing facts!

 

[frodo1008]

As I stated in my other post, I think that these anti-moon types are really not ignorant (at least if they post on this forum, I hope they aren't that ignorant), but because they are so set in a particular agenda they truly try to ignore any facts that don't agree with that agenda. Which, come to think of it, may just be even worse then innocent ignorance!<br /><br />Like I asked, just how many human beings have explored the pole areas, or also the side of the moon not even viable from the Earth! Even the original Apollo astronauts wanted far more time to explore those areas that they directly landed in!<br /><br />And then there is the even far more important exploitation of the moon's many resources, without which we may never have the necessary infrastucture to go further out into the solar system!

 

[specfiction]

>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?<br /><br />You know, I find it amazing that someone would characterize the shuttle this way. No matter how many times you say it, people will always reduce things to cartoon analyses.<br /><br />Okay, let’s say it again: the shuttle was a successful experimental spacecraft. It was suppose to be the prototype for testing various technologies. Its designers clearly stated this. In twenty years, why wasn’t the data taken, the economic liabilities understood, and an iterative program established to update this magnificent spacecraft. We think we know how to build better, more economic heat shields for space planes. It was incorporated and tested in the X-33. This was the single biggest issue in cost/lb of payload to LEO in the shuttle program. There are many other improvements that should and could have been made to the shuttle to make it economically viable and safer. None of that was done. The X-33 was too big a step and it almost worked.<br /><br />People who like manned space and continue to denigrate the finest spacecraft ever built by man are doing a disservice to the brilliant men and women who were the architects of this great achievement as well as shooting themselves in the foot.<br />

 

[space_dreamer]

I think you have misunderstood josh_simonson he is talking about Space Ship One not the shuttle!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I think you have misunderstood josh_simonson he is talking about Space Ship One not the shuttle!</font>/i><br /><br />I agree, yet I think his analysis is correct.<br /><br />SS1 was a prototype that, besides used to win the X Prize and develop general excitement, gave Scale Composites an opportunity to explore the issues. In the tradition of true X-vehicles, it was designed to test approaches and technologies, and then to be figuratively thrown away. Its purpose was not to gain an operation vehicle but to gain knowledge.<br /><br />I believe one of the problems with the Shuttle was that NASA did not develop enough X-versions of it before turning it into an operational vehicle. Had there been an equivalent of Mercury and Gemini versions of the Shuttle before the Apollo version of the Shuttle (what we have now), the Shuttle may have been more successful.<br /><br />I suspect the reasons for the path that NASA took were complex.</i>

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>What's so special about going to the moon?</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????? <br /><br />I surely hope your question is rhetorical, otherwise the very fact you've asked it means you have no hope of understanding any answer anyone will give you.</font>/i><br /><br />Yet the question still must be answered concisely and articulately by those in power. This is from a [supposed] recent email from Griffin:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The next step out is the Moon. We're going to get, and probably already are getting, the same criticisms as for ISS. This is the "why go to the Moon?" theme.<br /><br />We've got the architecture in place and generally accepted. That's the "interstate highway" analogy I've made. So now, we need to start talking about those exit ramps I've referred to. What ARE we going to do on the Moon? To what end? And with whom? I have ideas, of course. (I ALWAYS have ideas; it's a given.) But my ideas don't matter. Now is the time to start working with our own science community and with the Internationals to define the program of lunar activity that makes the most sense to the most people. I keep saying -- because it's true -- that it's not the trip that matters, it's the destination, and what we do there. We got to get started on this.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/12/mike_griffins_p.html<br /><br />Griffin seems to be saying this too -- their ideas need to be well formulated and well communicated to the appropriate customers (Congress, President, American people, etc.). This is going to be very important because Griffin has said on more than one occasion that NASA doesn't have the funds to do anything on the Moon. The current proposed budgets through 2020 only includes funds to build out the spacecraft and fly approximately 2 trips a year. There ar</i>

 

[j05h]

>How about replacing Griffin with Rutan - that'l show 'em!<br /><br />Rutan addressed that: he NEVER wants that job. He did say that if he were adminstrator, he'd call a press conference and say "This is stupid." about CEV/VSE.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[john_316]

Though I admire Rutan I don't access his personal view on CEV as widespread through out the space community. NASA has always been a leader regardless how they mis-spend tax payers money and until Burt has routine space flight operations with Virgin Galactic he isn't winning support to build the CEV or the next HLV either. <br /><br />White Knight type of launches won't get you to the moon and Burt even knows that.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[qso1]

Thanks for your kind words of support, I do the best I can and try to bring the real reasons for NASA not being able to do as much as it once did and thats "No bucks, no Buck Rogers". I don't mind responding to negative comments. I try to bring out the real reasons as I called them because I do not see much of that in the press. I have never seen an accounting of NASAs budget in the press after inflation ravages it except in the most general of comments.<br /><br />SS-1 is SpaceShip 1 in Scaled Composite parlance. And Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were cancelled as you mentioned. As for Saturn series designations, the Saturn 1 was simply known as that...Saturn 1. That was followed by the Saturn-1B, and then the Saturn-V.<br /><br />frodo1008:<br />And who was going to fund this SS-2 if not the government? <br /><br />Me:<br />The whole idea of private enterprise funding their own way is to not rely on government. SS-2 would be financed either by Branson who was supposed to have ordered vehicles to take tourists to the edge of space by 2007-08. Proceeds from that would fund orbital versions of Rutans spaceplanes eventually. They may ultimately rely on some government funding in the form of prizes such as the Centennial Challenge.<br /><br />Now, having mentioned that, this is no guarantee that it will work but...there is little or no public support of NASA in a way that would allow NASA to beef its budget up substantially so its obvious full government funding is pretty much out of the question...unless NASA upon retiring the shuttle has to turn to Rutan for solutions to LEO. Given Rutans disdain of NASA, this would be a rocky relationship I would think. It's still quite possible that private enterprise startups will discover what NASA already knows, access to LEO is not easy or cheap.<br /><br />frodo1008:<br />Why do we have to keep having to deal with so much ignorance, even here on forums such as this? Or perhaps I should be more user friendly. and just state that people that have th <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>

 

[elguapoguano]

<font color="yellow">"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 agree. I am sure that Rutan knows that also. Before the high flights Rutan had plans to fly more than one person on a flight. He wisely forgot that plan. </font><br /><br />SS1 is already on display at the National Air and Space Museum in DC. Here's a shot I took of it while I was there, it's hanging in the main lobby, right next to the Bell X-1. Notice the dent in the rear, I seem to remember it buckled during the last flight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[mikeemmert]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"...when we were just starting to learn what the real questions were...."<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Science isn't about finding answers to known questions. It is about discovering questions that there was no hint of before.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I was looking for a profound post. Thanks, newsartist, and also to the guy you replied to...<br /><br />But this thread is about Rutan and his "archaeology" statement. He's right. We've gone about as far as we can with regular rockets. They're all just modified ICBMs, even the Shuttle.<br /><br />We can do better.<br /><br />I like Rutan's concept of a launch plane. Somebody mentioned the X-15, that's launched from a B-52, as is Pegasus. The B-52 was not designed to be a launch plane. It was designed to be a WWII bomber. The landing gear is all wrong. You can't just roll the second stage under it and clamp it on.<br /><br />Although the problem of flying at the optimum flight envelope, 35.000 ft @ mach 0.85, has been solved, This has not been applied to spaceflight. Rutan built a great first stage. He got into space using a crummy rubber/nitrous rocket by having a great launch point.<br /><br />Check out the name of Rutan's outfit: "Scaled Composites". He's building scale models. There's nothing wrong with that, they progressed from V-2 to Atlas to Titan to Saturn to Shuttle. But all that's archaeology.<br /><br />What we are writing on is an internet blog, folks. I'm surprised by the number of people who assemble pre-existing components, like playing with an erector set. The excitement of Apollo is that the components didn't exist! They had to invent new metal alloys! They had to use new kinds of engines and fuels, new kinds of flying techniques; they had to make science fiction come <i>true!</i><br /><br />I would like to see more posts that break out of the archaeological erector set mold and examine things like MIPCC and cubane or e</p></blockquote>

 

[qso1]

mikeemmert:<br />I like Rutan's concept of a launch plane. Somebody mentioned the X-15, that's launched from a B-52, as is Pegasus. The B-52 was not designed to be a launch plane. It was designed to be a WWII bomber. The landing gear is all wrong. You can't just roll the second stage under it and clamp it on.<br /><br />Me:<br />The B-52 was designed well after WWII. Its primary purpose was as on of the components of a nuclear detterent triad, the other two components being ICBMs and FBMs.<br /><br />mikeemmert:<br />I would like to see more posts that break out of the archaeological erector set mold and examine things like MIPCC and cubane or even beamed power. It's the only way to break into the future. <br /><br />Me:<br />I agree, but very few people are gifted enough to not only see a future based on something entirely new, but be able to take part in implementing such a future as well. <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>