On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 07:43:54 GMT, Brett Buck
wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote:


This is also why I fear the day when the "cheap access to
space"/X-Prize types actually try to launch.



I imagine the big companies do too. They'll look pretty stupid if
Rutan succeeds.

Succeeds in winning the X-Prize? Who the hell cares? You guys are
really something.

Maybe you could explain to us why they need the "levelest and flatest
floor in the world" just to line up the friggin' boosters on the Delta
IV. Hell the sections of a drive shaft on a Nimitz class carrier need
to be lined up just as well and they use a CRANE in a shipyard. Then
maybe you could explain why the ATF program was able to produce two
types of fighters (YF-22 and YF-23) both of which had far more new
technology at a FAR cheaper price than this "new technology" little
spaceplane NASA wants to build. The fact of the matter is that NASA
does go way down the diminishing returns curve when comes to
precision, complication, and materials all for CYA and because they're
stuck in this mentality of "we're NASA so it all needs to be gold
plated".




The X-prize is not even on the radar screen to
Lockheed, TRW, or Boeing, and whether or not anyone wins or not, it
won't make a whit of difference to the majority of the industry. It
could have been done in 1960 if anyone had cared to, and you took out
the "no government money" clause. Nobody wanted to, because then as now,
it doesn't really lead anywhere or advance the state of the art in any
way. Far more capable plans were well on their way to succeeding in that
era, but were derailed, once again based on "lack of need" that persists
to this day.


If there is a lack of need then why the X-34, 37, 38, and 40? Why the
tiny spaceplane NASA wants to build? The X-20 didn't get cancelled
because of no need, it was cancelled because of $$$$$.





Rutan has a backer with money, I applaud him for taking on the task,
and I expect that eventually he will make the X-prize requirements
(before or after the deadline). Coefficient of relevence to space
technology is negligible.

A newly designed launch vehicle and manned rocket for far cheaper than
a "lifeboat" that all it needs to do is glide back to earth?
Something of which they've already been doing for DECADES?. First
manned use of hybrid rockets? Totally new way of reducing speed when
returning to earth? Yep, you're right, no relevence whatsoever.





I will grant that it will make sci.space.policy "true beleivers"
ecstatic, but that's really not much of a goal.

Brett

Spoken like a true believer in unnecessary complexity, precision, and
gold plating.