Skip to comments.
Rutan Faults NASA on Apollo-Style Capsule
Associated Press ^
| 5/4/06
| ALICIA CHANG,
Posted on 05/04/2006 6:13:14 PM PDT by anymouse
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
To: anymouse
The Starship was too expensive to produce...it was a flop.
To: anymouse
"About a dozen"
Oh, really? :)
To: RightWhale; Brett66; xrp; gdc314; anymouse; NonZeroSum; jimkress; discostu; The_Victor; ...
23
posted on
05/04/2006 6:56:54 PM PDT
by
KevinDavis
(http://www.cafepress.com/spacefuture)
To: anymouse
You mean the BEECH Starship?
To: MediaAnalyst
So do you work for a NASA contractor or do you just shill for them for the fun of it?
NASA is not immune from criticism just because they do something slightly more valuable with our tax dollars than most other government agencies. We as tax dollars should demand the best from every government agency and every single person on the government payroll. To settle for less is just furthering the problem.
BTW, if the commercial sector is able and willing to do an activity as well or better than the government, we are fools for allowing the government to keep doing it. Last I checked businesses and their employees and investors pay taxes, where as the government spends those taxes. Less government means less taxes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the greater benefit of getting the government out of the space business - or other businesses for that matter.
25
posted on
05/04/2006 6:59:12 PM PDT
by
anymouse
To: operation clinton cleanup
I was speaking specifically about any single current NASA bureaucrat. If you compare an individual engineer to a whole government agency over its entire existence, you are the one comparing apples to oranges.
BTW, most of the x-planes were designed and built by contractors not civil servants. And most of the x-planes were flown by the Air Force not NASA. But why should I get in the way of your love affair with NASA's inflated ego. I bet you think NASA invented Tang and Velcro as well.
26
posted on
05/04/2006 7:04:27 PM PDT
by
anymouse
To: operation clinton cleanup
Sorry for the typo. It didn't look right, but I didn't think it was worth looking up.
Again Beech dropped the ball in driving the production costs down. Then again the corporate jet market was pretty much dominated by Lear and Gulfstream. They don't exactly roll them off an assembly line.
27
posted on
05/04/2006 7:10:05 PM PDT
by
anymouse
To: anymouse
After laying on NASA, I was actually expecting him to propose something, but no.
But he said he doesn't know what that breakthrough will be.
Building a rehash of Apollo is not the future, but I don't think there's much of a future in reusable vehicles either. Perhaps for space tourism, yes. But if you've got plans to build something in space, it makes sense to use your lifting capacity to lift something that you can keep in orbit. Otherwise, returning a massive spacecraft to earth is a just a waste of the millions of pounds of fuel that you used to get it up there in the first place.
28
posted on
05/04/2006 7:11:25 PM PDT
by
July 4th
(A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
To: operation clinton cleanup; anymouse
How can anyone who claims to be an engineer discout the tremendous technical feat of going from 0 to the moon in less than a decade?
It's unbelievable!
How can anyone not be filled with deep respect and awe when one considers that those men crossed a gap of 239,000 miles in a machine that was designed using the best technology available 37 years ago, walked on another world, planted the flag of the United States, left scientific instruments that are still being used to this day, and returned safely? There is no chance that we could repeat that feat in five years, even given our unutterably massive technological advantage. On the current schedule, we hope to go back to the moon on a schedule with a timescale similar to that of Apollo, with much more ambitious goals on what is essentially a shoestring compared to what this nation invested in Apollo.
Were there mistakes and problems in our first journey to the moon? Sure. That's only to be expected in such a vast undertaking, one that is still unique in human history. That's why the first astronauts were test pilots, men who were unafraid to risk their lives.
Someone who would so easily dismiss that achievement on account of Apollo 1 and 13 could only be a person who really doesn't know what they are talking about, even if they mean well.
To: anymouse
BTW, most of the x-planes were designed and built by contractors not civil servants. Ahhhh... I think they were all built by contractors.. its called the National Aeronautics and Space ADMINISTRATION.. they administer the programs, not construct the vehicles.
To: Constantine XIII
I think you need to read for comprehension. In case missed the obvious the crew of Apollo 1 died unnecessarily in a fire during a ground test.
And most everyone on the planet who knows that Apollo 13 had quality control problems that caused them to not make it to the Moon (they were very fortunate to make it back to Earth alive.)
Also most of the engineers that made the Apollo program a success are now retired or dead.
If you want to fawn over NASA as a god-like government agency, I can't stop you, but I have worked in the manned spaceflight program for about 15 years and know that there are both heroes and zeroes employed there. If you can't distinguish the difference between the two, shame on you.
31
posted on
05/04/2006 7:26:50 PM PDT
by
anymouse
To: anymouse
"In case missed the obvious the crew of Apollo 1 died unnecessarily in a fire during a ground test."
Were you aware that Apollo had over 2,000,000 components? Anyone of which could have caused a cathastropic failure? You really should go back and read the remarks of the other astronauts following that disaster. Considering that they were breaking new ground the whole way, being pushed by the White House to accomplish a moon landing within a fixed time frame, and were making it up (technology) as they went along...I'd say their record was pretty impressive through Apollo.
In retrospect, over forty years later Burt Rutan was only able to mimic the results of Alan Shepard's first flight.
To: anymouse
I'm not "fawing over NASA", I'm mad that you're crapping in the greatest engineering achievement in the history of mankind. O_o
To: Constantine XIII
To: anymouse
I'm less worried about waiting to come up with some grand new idea.
I'm more interested in getting moving on getting back to the moon.
We're already way behind thanks to the shuttle folly.
35
posted on
05/04/2006 7:38:10 PM PDT
by
airborne
(Satan's greatest trick was convincing people he doesn't exist.)
To: anymouse
When Rutan can build a ship that can achieve orbit, then he can take on NASA. Up and down is a lot easier than getting the velocity to orbit Earth or escape Earth's orbit.
To: Question_Assumptions
When Rutan can build a ship that can achieve orbit, then he can take on NASA. Well since Rutan designed and built the delta wing on the Pegasus rocket, which has launched numerous satellite payloads into orbit, I guess he can at least offer an opinion about NASA. Some of Rutan's structural products have flown on some military satellites and rockets as well.
With all the sidewalk supervisors on FR, I'm surprise that we don't have a FR space program. :)
37
posted on
05/04/2006 7:55:15 PM PDT
by
anymouse
To: anymouse
Hey anymouse, I just FreepMailed you.
38
posted on
05/04/2006 8:25:17 PM PDT
by
true_blue_texican
(grateful texan! slightly wasted, tonight)
To: CWOJackson
In retrospect, over forty years later Burt Rutan was only able to mimic the results of Alan Shepard's first flight.
He "may" have mimicked the RESULTS but he did NOT mimick the METHOD. It is the method that Rutan is criticizing NASA for. Technology has changed so drastically since 1969 that we can attain the "old" results with far better methods; that has to translate into faster, safer, cheaper, further, more....
39
posted on
05/04/2006 8:30:12 PM PDT
by
true_blue_texican
(grateful texan! slightly wasted, tonight)
To: true_blue_texican
When you consider that Rutan had 40 years of innovative technological advances to draw upon and that's all he could accomplish, that's not very impressive.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson