|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane Scientists
"Jon Berndt" wrote:
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. Jon; We saw the same effect when Gary Hudson got the ATV flying. All too many were willing to credit him as if he's got the C9 *itself* flying. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane Scientists
Louis Scheffer wrote:
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. I hate to break it to you, but NASA is a goverment organization, and prohibited from soliciting private donors. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane Scientists
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
(Derek Lyons) : 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. Given the vast dispersion of racing car models, and the tiny population of professional race car drivers, I'd say there is no clear way to conclude cause-and-effect. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane Scientists
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane Scientists
In article , -pc-
dot.org says... "Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message 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. The energy required to go to orbit scales with the square of the velocity per pound. Rutan would need over 500 times the energy to get to orbit. The goal of SS1 was never to archive orbit. SS1 is the first attempt to do a manned suborbital flight since the 1960s. Doing this on a small budget would be a significant achievement. As for cheap orbit, I *hope* there is a SpaceShipTwo... NASA needs to hire Rutan just for one afternoon, listen to him, write down everything he has to say AND THEN DO IT! "then do it". hmmm.... why do you assume NASA is capable of working the same way as a very small, tightly focused team who are willing to take nontrivial risks (note the landing gear problem in yesterday's flight). Different goals, different funding sources, different rules of operation, etc. Perhaps the biggest difference: Rutan can pick his goals, but many of NASA goals are imposed from without, e.g., the requirement that the space station be an international project. 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. Understood. Agreed, to some extent. To some of us, he is the only person who seems to have a chance of developing cheap access to space, so we have tied our hopes to his effort. (Lord knows I'll never earn a ride in the Shuttle.) Still, cheap and supersonic is a significant achievement, worthy of at least some praise. -- Kevin Willoughby lid Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work for test pilots. -- Mike Collins |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane Scientists
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:30:48 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Kevin Willoughby made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: The goal of SS1 was never to archive orbit. SS1 is the first attempt to do a manned suborbital flight since the 1960s. Doing this on a small budget would be a significant achievement. As for cheap orbit, I *hope* there is a SpaceShipTwo... I do as well, but I doubt if it will go to orbit. As I've said repeatedly, it has to be an incremental approach. Understood. Agreed, to some extent. To some of us, he is the only person who seems to have a chance of developing cheap access to space, so we have tied our hopes to his effort. Not to me. I believe that there are many people who can do so, and we're starting to see them appear. The key point is a diversity of approaches, something that we haven't seen since NASA was granted a monopoly with billions of taxpayer dollars decades ago. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane Scientists
In article ,
says... Louis Scheffer wrote: 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. I hate to break it to you, but NASA is a goverment organization, and prohibited from soliciting private donors. For NASA, "potential funders" == "Congress". Accept this, and Louis' argument stands unchanged. -- Kevin Willoughby lid Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work for test pilots. -- Mike Collins |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane Scientists
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane Scientists
"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message
... In article , says... Louis Scheffer wrote: 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. I hate to break it to you, but NASA is a goverment organization, and prohibited from soliciting private donors. For NASA, "potential funders" == "Congress". Accept this, and Louis' argument stands unchanged. In other words, still pointless. Congress doesn't fund things for the same reason as investors. Investors expect a return on their investment in the form of more money. Congress often expects a return on their investment in the form of re-election. -- Kevin Willoughby lid Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work for test pilots. -- Mike Collins |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|