|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane Scientists
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:06:28 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: (Rand Simberg) wrote: I was tempted to say that, too, but I decided uncharacteristically to give the question more respect than it deserved. You decided *characteristically* to stick with the unsupported delusion that the X-Prize has anything to do with space access. I've supported it many times. I'm sorry you have trouble comprehending it. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane Scientists
"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. 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. 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|