A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Airplane Scientists



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #13  
Old December 19th 03, 05:15 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:53:32 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Jon Berndt" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article , says...
How many billion later the X33 isn't complete and isn't fit to decorate
anything except and now less than a year since he introduced the plane

to
the world Rutan is already putting it through its paces.


To be fair to NASA: Rutan has the luxury of not rolling out SS1 until
its design was complete and assembly was nearly complete. NASA has to
make its designs public from the first viewgraphs.


As well, it is one thing to go mach 1 or 2, aiming at 60,000 feet, and quite
another to go single stage to orbit at 17,500 mph.


That wasn't the X-33's stated goal.

Different goals, different funding sources, different rules of operation,
etc. I'm not saying that Rutan doesn't have something to offer in the way
of an example. But I think NASA is getting an unfair treatment here and
Rutan is being "canonized" prematurely.


I've no interest in canonizing Burt. In many ways, particularly
regulatorily, he's a pain in the ass.

The fact remains that there's a different way to approach launch
vehicle development--one that was abandoned in the rush to get to the
moon, and one in which NASA has never shown any interest for various
institutional reasons, and Burt, and XCOR (and perhaps Blue Origin)
and others are pursuing it.

May the best approach win, but I have to say that NASA's decades and
billions with theirs, with little to show for it.

  #14  
Old December 19th 03, 08:22 AM
Tom Merkle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

"Frank Scrooby" wrote in message ...
Hi all

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:10:53 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Kaido Kert" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

ROTFLMAO.

White Knight/SS1 is an incremental approach to the mission of the X33?

Well, IMO no. The mission of X-33 was to be an excuse for funnelling

money
into certain companies, and later decorate some hangars.
White Knight/SS1 has an entirely different mission.


I was tempted to say that, too, but I decided uncharacteristically to
give the question more respect than it deserved.


Be interesting to make a comparison, time, money, man-hours, X33 to White
Knight/SS1.

How many billion later the X33 isn't complete and isn't fit to decorate
anything except and now less than a year since he introduced the plane to
the world Rutan is already putting it through its paces.

NASA needs to hire Rutan just for one afternoon, listen to him, write down
everything he has to say AND THEN DO IT!


hmmm...

Rutan's real genius was in nabbing Paul Allen.

Tom Merkle

  #15  
Old December 19th 03, 12:55 PM
Jon Berndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

"Jon Berndt" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

How many billion later the X33 isn't complete and isn't fit to

decorate
anything except and now less than a year since he introduced the

plane
to the world Rutan is already putting it through its paces.

To be fair to NASA: Rutan has the luxury of not rolling out SS1 until
its design was complete and assembly was nearly complete. NASA has to
make its designs public from the first viewgraphs.


As well, it is one thing to go mach 1 or 2, aiming at 60,000 feet, and

quite
another to go single stage to orbit at 17,500 mph.


That wasn't the X-33's stated goal.


Yes, I was getting ahead of myself (thinking VentureStar). (Had a *long* day
at work yesterday.) It was an "incremental approach" to SSTO. :-) And
ultimately unsuccessful. A comparison to X-15 might have been better than
to X-33, though.

Different goals, different funding sources, different rules of operation,
etc. I'm not saying that Rutan doesn't have something to offer in the

way
of an example. But I think NASA is getting an unfair treatment here and
Rutan is being "canonized" prematurely.


I've no interest in canonizing Burt. In many ways, particularly
regulatorily, he's a pain in the ass.

The fact remains that there's a different way to approach launch
vehicle development--one that was abandoned in the rush to get to the
moon, and one in which NASA has never shown any interest for various
institutional reasons, and Burt, and XCOR (and perhaps Blue Origin)
and others are pursuing it.


Yes, a sort of Skunk Works approach. I think their small, focused, team has
done well here.

May the best approach win, but I have to say that NASA's decades and
billions with theirs, with little to show for it.


Perhaps "little that is of interest to you" to show for it would be more
accurate. Do you think that perhaps any of the expertise, technology,
research, etc. that was used by Rutan or his subcontractors might have come
originally from NASA? They (Rutan's team) don't exist in a vacuum.

I'll have to agree with you that Rutan's approach is productive in this
case. I suspect that if NASA was going to do the same thing it would be
quite a bit more expensive. Then again, if Paul Allen had not come along,
would Rutan have built anything at all?

Jon

  #17  
Old December 19th 03, 02:40 PM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

(Derek Lyons) :

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

In honor of the centennial, I have an essay about the brothers Wright
up at TechCentralStation:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121703D.html

ROTFLMAO.

White Knight/SS1 is an incremental approach to the mission of the X33?

I guess the RC car I bought today as a Christmas gift for a friends
son is an increment on his way to be being a NASCAR driver then.


And I lay odds that you can't find a present day NASCAR driver who did not
have racing car models when he was a kid. And yes I had rocket models when I
was a kid, and *NO* racing car models. Plus my brother did have racing car
models and now works for GM in the design department.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

  #18  
Old December 19th 03, 03:37 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:55:52 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Jon Berndt" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


May the best approach win, but I have to say that NASA's decades and
billions with theirs, with little to show for it.


Perhaps "little that is of interest to you" to show for it would be more
accurate.


Little that is of interest to me, or most people, given how much it
cost.

Do you think that perhaps any of the expertise, technology,
research, etc. that was used by Rutan or his subcontractors might have come
originally from NASA? They (Rutan's team) don't exist in a vacuum.


Perhaps some, but probably not. If they were trying to get into
orbit, then NASA TPS technology will probably be used, but remember,
there's been a lot of Air Force technology development as well.

Of course it's much easier to do it resting on the experience of
four-plus decades, but the point is it's not somethiing NASA would
have done, or will do, and it's needed doing since the sixties.

I'll have to agree with you that Rutan's approach is productive in this
case. I suspect that if NASA was going to do the same thing it would be
quite a bit more expensive. Then again, if Paul Allen had not come along,
would Rutan have built anything at all?


No. The biggest barrier remains not technology, but funding.

  #19  
Old December 19th 03, 03:38 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:22:38 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

hmmm...

Rutan's real genius was in nabbing Paul Allen.


More luck (or an accumulated history of skill) than genius...

But it was the key.

  #20  
Old December 19th 03, 06:23 PM
Louis Scheffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Airplane Scientists

"Jon Berndt" writes:

I'll have to agree with you that Rutan's approach is productive in this
case. I suspect that if NASA was going to do the same thing it would be
quite a bit more expensive. Then again, if Paul Allen had not come along,
would Rutan have built anything at all?


This is one of Rutan's skills that NASA most needs - the ability to get
potential funders excited to the point that they open their checkbooks.
For private donors, anyway, this requires a clear vision of what is to be
accomplished, solid leadership, and a sense of getting good value for the
money. NASA is providing none of these things and Rutan provides all three.

Frank Scrooby wrote:
NASA needs to hire Rutan just for one afternoon, listen to him, write down
everything he has to say AND THEN DO IT!


The leadership needed includes impeccible technical credentials, personal
committment, determination to see things through, and the ability to
inspire others to do their best. This is not something that can be taught
in a seminar, a course, or even in a year. Rutan could talk to NASA until
he is blue in the face, and nothing will happen until at least one of
vision, leadership, or value is present.

Lou Scheffer

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.