Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

LOS ANGELES - Maverick aerospace designer Burt Rutan on Thursday criticized NASA's decision to use an Apollo-style capsule to return to the moon, saying it "doesn't make any sense" to build a new generation of space vehicles using old technology.

The designer of SpaceShipOne said NASA's proposed crew exploration vehicle to replace the aging space shuttle fleet doesn't push the technical envelope needed to accomplish more complex future missions that might include manned flights to other planets and moons.

"I don't know what they're doing," said Rutan, referring to NASA. "It doesn't make any sense."

Rutan said there needs to be a technological breakthrough in spacecraft design that would make it affordable and safe to send humans anywhere in the solar system. But he said he doesn't know what that breakthrough will be.

"Usually the wacky people have the breakthrough. The smart people don't," Rutan told an audience at the International Space Development Conference in Los Angeles.

NASA is planning to return astronauts to the moon by 2018 and eventually send them to Mars. Unlike previous lunar missions, the space agency is studying possible areas where it can set up a human outpost.

Two competing contractors, Lockheed Martin and a team of Northrop Grumman and Boeing, each have contracts to develop conceptual designs of the crew exploration vehicle. The vehicle, which will be shaped like an Apollo-era capsule, will launched atop a rocket and return to Earth by parachutes.

NASA is expected to name a winner to build the vehicle by August.

NASA spokesman Dean Acosta said the crew exploration vehicle is a "fiscally responsible" project that achieves the space agency's goal of returning to the moon within its budget constraint.

"If you want sexy, it will cost a lot more money," Acosta said.

Rutan is currently building a commercial version of SpaceShipOne, which made history in 2004 when it became the first privately financed manned rocket to reach space.

Virgin Galactic, a British space tourism company, plans to take tourists on suborbital spaceflights using Rutan-designed rocketplanes launched from a proposed spaceport in New Mexico.

Virgin Galactic President Will Whitehorn said Thursday the company is looking at possible future spaceports in the United Arab Emirates, Australia, Scotland or Sweden.

Virgin Galactic representatives recently visited Kiruna in northern Sweden to explore the possibility of launching suborbital flights that will allow passengers to see the Northern Lights, Whitehorn said.

Last summer, Virgin Group founder Richard Branson and Rutan, president of Mojave-based Scaled Composites LLC, agreed to form The Spaceship Company to build and market spaceships and launcher planes, licensing technology from a company owned by billionaire Paul G. Allen, who financed SpaceShipOne.

___

On the Net:

Virgin Galactic: http://www.virgingalactic.com/en/

NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/spacecraft/index.html

Scaled Composites: http:/http://www.scaled.com


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: anymouseissilly; apollo; bigegoboy; cev; gettothemoonorshutup; lunar; mars; moon; nasa; nuttyassquirreldoo; rutan; scaledcomposites; shutuprutan; space; spaceshipone; virgingalactic; wackyrutan; yawn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: CWOJackson
Rutan makes some interesting aircraft, however, they've never been commercial production successes. I think Burt's a little out of his league with these comments.

So?

Rutan has accomplished some significant firsts in aeronautics and space. I think he's highly qualified to criticize NASA.

41 posted on 05/04/2006 8:36:27 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Indeed, he has made some very significant firsts that are on a far lesser level then that NASA did with Apollo.


42 posted on 05/04/2006 8:38:06 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
"I don't know what they're doing," said Rutan, referring to NASA. "It doesn't make any sense."

They are doing what the politicians, in particular the top Republican, are telling them to do. Of course it doesn't make any sense. Duh.

43 posted on 05/04/2006 8:38:19 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

I disagree totally with that. Rutan did not have a NASA-like budget. Nor a NASA-like staff. He didn't have Navy aircraft carriers and helicopters at his disposal. My guess is that he did it on less than the X-15 budget (equalized dollars) and maybe even with fewer staff. His re-entry method alone was very novel!


44 posted on 05/04/2006 8:41:13 PM PDT by true_blue_texican (grateful texan! slightly wasted, tonight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: true_blue_texican
His "space" achievement is comparable to the first Mercury flight...not Apollo. Mercury funding was not that great and the government had not yet fully committed to the project. Even compared to Gemini, Mercury was extremely primitive and cheap.
45 posted on 05/04/2006 8:45:50 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Very few of the public understand, even though Kennedy's "I believe this nation should commit itself.." ;) speech was in 1963, as much as a couple years later, engineers and scientists were still arguing over the rough design and method of actually getting to the moon, there were no spacecraft _actually built_, just tinker-toy models! Contractors must have been pulling their hair out.


46 posted on 05/04/2006 8:48:04 PM PDT by Freedom4US (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Primitive, yes; but I'm certain not anywhere near on the cheap as SpaceShip One.


47 posted on 05/04/2006 8:48:46 PM PDT by true_blue_texican (grateful texan! slightly wasted, tonight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980419b.html


48 posted on 05/04/2006 8:48:52 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US
"Contractors must have been pulling their hair out."

And relying on slide rules for much of their work.

49 posted on 05/04/2006 8:50:08 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
Maverick aerospace designer Burt Rutan on Thursday criticized NASA's decision to use an Apollo-style capsule to return to the moon, saying it "doesn't make any sense" to build a new generation of space vehicles using old technology.

Burt, we're talking about a government agency that launched a generation old idea called the space bus in the 1980s. They wouldn't know a good idea if it bit them. They're existing off government money

NASA wasting taxpayer dollars since 1958

50 posted on 05/04/2006 8:50:21 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: true_blue_texican

SpaceShipOne was cheap because it was built using existing technology and composites.


51 posted on 05/04/2006 8:53:31 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

It's called "Design By Congressional Committee", and it RARELY works out well...

Innovation wins every time, but it's better done by folks with drive and profit motive, than by pandering to pols wanting pork.......


52 posted on 05/04/2006 8:59:42 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Liberalism-What a Pagan Religion...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup

The Beech Starship was an interesting design.

Why did Beech buy them all back? Didn't they destroy them all? They were certainly very advanced for thier day.


53 posted on 05/04/2006 9:02:04 PM PDT by truemiester (If the U.S. should fail, a veil of darkness will come over the Earth for a thousand years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

The Starship was a hell of an Aircraft, but Raytheon actually bought them back and DESTROYED THEM, rather than have the liability of having the product out long-term, and competeing with it's newer models....

Trail Lawyers have KILLEd innovation in America.....


54 posted on 05/04/2006 9:02:50 PM PDT by tcrlaf (Liberalism-What a Pagan Religion...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

Aw jwwz, not this s*** again!

Look I think NASA did great. Now it has lost it focus.

You think if they could put a man on the moon.....they could put a man on the moon!


55 posted on 05/04/2006 9:04:17 PM PDT by truemiester (If the U.S. should fail, a veil of darkness will come over the Earth for a thousand years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

The Starship was a great, advanced design but it was too expensive and a commercial flop.


56 posted on 05/04/2006 9:04:37 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
Here is a good description of what killed the Starship:

"Commercially the aeroplane was a failure, with little demand. Only 53 Starships were ever built, and of those only a handful were sold. Many of the remainder were eventually leased."

"Reasons for the lack of demand probably included price, performance, and economic conditions. The list price in 1989 was $3.9 million, similar to the Cessna Citation V and Lear 31 jets, which were 89 and 124 knots faster than the Starship at maximum cruise, respectively. The Piper Cheyenne turboprop was faster and sold for $1 million less. (Aviation Week, Oct. 2, 1989)."

57 posted on 05/04/2006 9:09:47 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
Trail Lawyers have KILLEd innovation in America.....

Worth repeating... red tape is one thing, but a potential massive jury award adds 100% cost overhead to any potential technological breakthrough..... hence, a risky investment becomes to risky. Off-shoring does not always occur to take advantage of cheap labor.

58 posted on 05/04/2006 9:11:42 PM PDT by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
I know that Rutan is brilliant, but the extra weight required to have wings and reusable rockets is stuff that needs to be carried up and back down again. I'd love to see space planes as much as the next space enthusiast but to paraphrase Monty Python, it's not about whether it has wings or not. It's a matter of lift to mass ratios.
59 posted on 05/04/2006 9:16:01 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
We're never getting to Mars. You want to know why? I point to the Internatnional Space Station. What mission did Coloumbia undergo prior to it going down in flames? I want to know the purpose of Columbia's last mission and what is the mission of the ISS?

My understanding is that the ISS is supposed to be some sort of research platform. Moreover, it was purported to be some sort of nexus for launching to the Moon, which was supposed to be the intent since 1969 as being the springboard to Mars.

Never happen; we'll never get to Mars (ever). With the way the energy crises is unfolding, and the way the world's econcomy is decaying: there's not enough money in the world (in real terms) to get to Mars. And if the bird flu strikes, or China invades Taiwan simultaneously while N. Korea invades the South: FORGET IT we're not going to Mars.

Not that we need to go to Mars either, unless there are commercially viable and exploitable reasons to do so (autobots can do whatever research is necessary).

It's plausible that we may go to the asteroids for mining operations (for raw materials to build stuff in orbit so as to eliminate the energy budget of launching finished materials into orbit). Or we may go to Saturn ostensibly to nudge large chuncks of ice into Earth orbit for use as fuel.

However, I'm extremely pessimistic that will happen in our, our grand-children's (or even their grand-children's lives).

60 posted on 05/04/2006 9:16:40 PM PDT by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson