Burt Rutan: Building The People's Spaceship

space.com ^ | 11/28/05 | Leonard David

[ChadGore]

Wow ! It's Nancy Pelosi !

[Moonman62]

Since the early 1970s, NASA seems to mean No Adult Supervision Apparent.

I guess so, if politicians don't count as adults.

[r9etb]

The Discovery Channel had an excellent two-hour documentary on the X-Prize and about Rutan (mostly). Suborbital is just a simple stepping stone.

Rutan's X-prize entry cost at least $10 million more to develop than the X-prize brought back. The reason he could do it at all, is because Paul Allen has money to burn on hobbies like this. Neither he nor Mr. Branson has a chance in hell of making a profit on this -- not at $200k a pop.

Aside from demonstrating the ability to strap a rocket onto a vehicle (which isn't groundbreaking), suborbital flight really isn't a "simple" stepping stone to an orbital capability.

Orbital is a completely different ball of wax, especially if you want to bring the vehicle back home again, and then re-use it. Burt's costs won't be in the low tens of millions for that -- they'll be closer to a billion dollars, if not (a lot) more. And the operations and maintenance costs will be correspondingly higher as well. You're just not gonna make money hauling rich tourists -- not too many folks are able to drop a few million bucks on a lark.

The only way this works, is if there's a reason to send people into space for legitimate business reasons -- to build and operate stuff in space, as part of a space-based commercial network (stuff done in space, for space-based reasons). And those days are quite a ways off.

[Travis McGee]

31: IMHO, you DO get it!

[r9etb]

The design of the White Night is unique where the horizontal stablizers are completely separated. That's not a small thing, and they must be syncronized lest they torque the wing seriously. In essence, it's two airplanes in very tight formation.

Rutan's got some great ideas, and this is a nice approach to air launch -- but it's just not groundbreaking stuff for spaceflight, especially of the manned variety. It's a matter of commercial viability, and "completely separated horizontal stabilizers" really don't do much on that score.

[narby]

But somebody's got to find a realistic way to make a pile of money from it first,

Check out the costs of sailing in the "America's Cup" sometime. People who do that are doing it for pride and for status. If Burt can do some of this stuff for reasonable amounts of money (say, < $1bil) there are people who will fork over the dough, IF it gives them enough status and attention. Those kinds of people will get a return simply from increased business sent their way because they are held in higher regard as a result of their space adventures. Branson will be able to attract investors in a secondary business, for example. And some people (the Microsoft co-founder, forget his name) just love airplanes, and they have way too much money to spend in too short of a lifetime.

But someone like Burt has to get out and flog the effort and put on an air of "coolness". Otherwise it will be just a bunch of geeks and their buddies, and not attract the attention that a Branson type needs.

At some point, yes, it must make money. But when did airplanes first make money? 1914, after 10 years of no money? And there was another long dry spell from 1919 till 1935 or so. Yet it was "The Future", so people with money hung out there.

[narby]

The twin mustang was cool. But it was just two airframes bolted together. The boomerang was asymetrical, with different sized wings, different wing sweeps, different weights in each side, and one engine was in front of the other. Yet for all this asymetry, the flight reports were that it was totally balanced. This is no small feat, and makes the boomerang aerodynamicly totally different from the twin mustang, or ANY other previous airplane.

[narby]

"completely separated horizontal stabilizers" really don't do much on that score.

The separated stabilizers allowed the white night to have "dirty air" in the center with no buffet. The structural design it totally different than the twin mustang, where the horizontal is rigidly mounted between the booms, like the P-38. In essence, Rutan's using aerodynamics to keep the two booms parallel, rather than physical structure. THAT's different. And the original subject we were talking about was how Rutan is building completely different airplanes, rather than just another 4 wheel, front engine, two seat, gull-wing car with slightly different lines as Delorean did.

[af_vet_rr]

Aside from demonstrating the ability to strap a rocket onto a vehicle (which isn't groundbreaking), suborbital flight really isn't a "simple" stepping stone to an orbital capability.

I wasn't clear and I apologize - I consider it a stepping stone, because of the money it will bring into the program to help develop the next stage. As Rutan himself said, they were lobbing people sub-orbitally 40 years ago - the only difference is that anybody with the cash can do it, rather than a few dozen NASA astronauts.

[r9etb]

And the original subject we were talking about was how Rutan is building completely different airplanes, rather than just another 4 wheel, front engine, two seat, gull-wing car with slightly different lines as Delorean did.

Actually, for this thread we're talking about spaceflight, and methods for launching spacecraft. Burt's done some swell stuff, but he's also doing some heavy marketing on some ideas that don't seem to pass even a casual inspection of his claims.

[r9etb]

the only difference is that anybody with the cash can do it, rather than a few dozen NASA astronauts.

Can you drop $190K on this? I can't.

[narby]

Burt's done some swell stuff, but he's also doing some heavy marketing on some ideas that don't seem to pass even a casual inspection of his claims.

Really? Like what? Sure, he's marketing that they're going to do some "great things", but it's rather vague, except for the suborbital part.

There are lots of cranks in the aviation business, and Burt's the least of them. Generally, what he says he can do, he does. Maybe not 100%, but generally within 90%, which compared to some of those folks I've seen that don't get within 5% of where they're bragging.

[r9etb]

Really? Like what?

Read my comments on this thread. The commercial viability of his "suborbital tourist" trade is nil, except perhaps as a way to lure gullible investors.

[af_vet_rr]

Can you drop $190K on this? I can't.

I wouldn't because I don't want to see my wife brought up on manslaughter charges for "accidently" running me over once she saw the bill.

You bring up price - If I told you five years before Henry Ford began rolling his cars off the assembly lines, that within 30 years most middle-class families would have some kind of motorized transportation, you would have laughed at me.

Just a 1000 people at $190,000 a pop would bring in 190 million. From Scaled Composities/Virgin Galactic: It is expected that around £60 million ($100 million) will be invested developing the new generation of spaceships and ground infrastructure required to operate a sub orbital space tourism experience. Over five years Virgin expects to create around 3000 astronauts and the price per seat on each flight, which will include at least three days of pre-flight training, are expected to start at around £115,000 ($190,000). Virgin will reinvest the proceeds in developing a new generation of vehicles for further space ventures. To date the cheapest space tourism experiences in government built and taxpayer funded spaceships cost over $15,000,000 per seat.

You've had a couple of people pay $10 million plus to go up in Russian capsules and stay at the Mir II, err ISS. For substantially less, they could get a lot of people who would pay big bucks for a week in a nice space station, one setup like a resort.

The money is there, the will is there, the investors are there, and most importantly, the spirit is there.

The men involved in funding and building this aren't a bunch of idiots with too much money on their hands - they like to take risks, no doubt about that, but they are also very technically astute, have a very sharp business sense, and are very much in love with the idea going into space, and making it so that lots of other people will pay them to go into space.

[narby]

The commercial viability of his "suborbital tourist" trade is nil

Oh. I saw that. I thought you were talking about his ability to build the hardware.

Like my earlier post, it doesn't matter if it's commercially viable or not, if you have the right investors, and it's not *too* much money. They'll make their money back on other ventures that this one brings in. A loss leader.

And Rutan isn't the one that will be trying for the bottom line. That's Branson and others, and as long as Branson's check clears, what does Rutan care?

[r9etb]

The money is there, the will is there, the investors are there, and most importantly, the spirit is there.

No, no, no, and no. The difference between Henry Ford and this, is the simple fact that people had an actual use for automobiles. Branson and Rutan are banking on thrill-seekers lining up at the doors.

Plus which, the upfront costs for your orbital vacation are a heck of a lot more than $190 million.

But hey ... I might be surprised by how many people are willing to plunk down a quarter of a million bucks for a 40 minute joyride.

[narby]

Branson and Rutan are banking on thrill-seekers lining up at the doors.

That's all that kept aviation going between 1919 and 1930 or so.

You could buy an old Jenney for $500, and hop rides for $5/ride. And that was when $5 was serious cash. 100 rides paid for the plane.

Of course there were lots of breakdowns etc. So it wasn't that simple.

[r9etb]

That's all that kept aviation going between 1919 and 1930 or so.

Well, that and the military.

Of course there were lots of breakdowns etc. So it wasn't that simple.

Right. Even so, pretty much the only overhead those guys had was food, fuel, clothes, and a few spare parts. The R&D had already been paid for, as had the "infrastructure," meaning the landing area.

Infrastructure is part of what's missing from the "commercial space" equation right now. The other part is a scarcity of serious market niches for money-making ventures that can't be done cheaper and easier here on the ground.

Also, manned orbital spaceflight carries along with it some enormous costs, and even more if you want to tack "reusable" onto your requirements.

[narby]

The other part is a scarcity of serious market niches for money-making ventures that can't be done cheaper and easier here on the ground.

I worked at a Radio Shack store right after they got their first TRS-80. Even the upgraded model didn't have a floppy, could only load programs from tape.

Customers would ask me "what can I do with it". All I could tell them was they could write their own programs and keep track of their bank accounts, or keep recipies. We didn't even have any games to sell them.

But the industry stayed alive for years on tinkerers, buying hardware they couldn't really afford (I paid something like 20x my monthly rent for hardware) while living on 29 cent boxes of Mac&Cheese.

I think commercial space flight will happen, because it's cool, and people will pay for cool, even when it makes no economic sense. Enough to get an industry started.

But one thing is for sure. If enough nay-sayers (cough, cough) convince the people with money that it's impossible to work, then it won't work because it won't be tried.

Have a little optimism already. It's not your money that's being risked. Even those people who worry that their NASA job will go away don't realize just how huge this might get in a few decades, and they could change to the private sector. Those of us in the computer mainframe business in 1979 would never have guessed how many people would be in "IT" today, while the old mainframes themselves are gone.

Likewise, if NASA as we know it were replaced by the private sector, that would undoubtedly be the best thing for government space flight, and scientific research. Because doing it would be dramatically cheaper, and would be done by many more entities, both government and non-government, covering many more subjects.

[gogeo]

He reminds me a lot of John Delorean, however...

It's that 70's hairdo, isn't it?