Genesis, N-Prime, Mars Global Surveyor, Columbia . . .

Is this what the US has to look forward to for the future of space exporation? I, for one of many, am glad we have the "little guy" (spaceship one) overtaking NASA in many aspects. No longer will we have to wait through the government red tape and wait some more until heck freezes over. Don't take my word for it, read the transcript from Burt Rutan on xprize.org.

-Kevinito

PS. Remember, this is the same NASA who essentially cancelled all flights to repair Hubble!

Is Rutan going to send billion dollar space telescopes up there? Is he going to spend the money on planetary orbiters, or solar observatories? 'Cause if not, beating NASA over the head is just going to irritate those of us who would prefer to keep our feet on the ground, and our many different eyes on the skies.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

How about a list of NASA successes?

And, echoing UT, spaceshipone is nice, but in what aspects is it overtaking NASA? I can't see it performing any of the duties that the Shuttle did. I know Rutan likes to take shots at NASA, but is that really a reasonable attitude?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

He's got $10 million to start, and the backing of Microsoft (who sponsored Spaceship One). I think they do and will have the billions. They also have the vision to develop new technologies in spaceflight, unlike NASA.
NASA is appearing goofier than ever!

-Kevinito

Cassini, Spirit, Opportunity, Voyager, ah heck, just go here: http://spacescience.nasa.gov/missions/

Yep, some missions fail. NASA is still doing more to further real space research than Rutan. I don't know why you want there to be a fued between the two, there certainly doesn't have to be.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

The big thing about NASA is that this is taxpayer money. It is just plain idiotic to bump into a satellite and knock it to the floor. Who do they have working for them? Retards?
At least Spaceship One is doing it with private money and not wasting taxpayer money. That's the big difference.

-Kevin

Actually, the big difference is that NASA is performing science in space and Rutan is not. Maybe one day he will be, but not yet. And, once again, accidents happen. Wasn't SS1's pilot a little heavy on the rudder last week? What if that had ended in disaster?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

No, you are correct, there shouldn't be a fight. There should be cooperation. I am just tired of all big and mighty NASA "head" removing necessary programs like the Hubble in order to refunnel funding to the aging shuttle.

-Kevinito

"And, once again, accidents happen. Wasn't SS1's pilot a little heavy on the rudder last week? What if that had ended in disaster?"

It didn't, and they are 10 million richer.

-Kevinito

So you can see, even Rutan's team makes mistakes, I guess that makes them retarded too?

And $10,000,000 is nice, but what did they spend to get there?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

"And $10,000,000 is nice, but what did they spend to get there?"

Only $800,000 in eight years, the rest came from Microsoft. Not a bad turnaround.

"So you can see, even Rutan's team makes mistakes, I guess that makes them retarded too? "

Nope, just less retarded than NASA, who can't seem to keep a satellite in orbit.


-Kevinito

As I understand it, $10 million is about half of what was spent on the two aircraft. And Microsoft is not sponsoring them. Otherwise, you'd see the MS logo all over SpaceShipOne and MS would not be quiet about it. Paul Allen is the major investor, and he made his bundle by being a co-founder of Microsoft. That's it for the MS connection.

Besides, if MS did put down the money for it, they'd probably insist on it being called "Microsoft Rocket" or something like that.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

I'm sure that this subject can be discussed without resorting to name calling...that's not acceptable behavior on this board!

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Really? Maybe you should go back and reread that list of successful missions. The mistake to mission ratio is probably much lower for NASA than Rutan, but feel free to let me know when Rutan has a) more than one mission going and b) put anything into orbit.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Yes, I do apologize, that was unnecessary. Although, I wasn't calling anyone here that name . . .

The simple fact of the matter is that this small company has given more hope and more vision in recent weeks since the mars rovers mission on Mars.

And, yes , I do agree that there has been successful missions, but what is NASA's current success rate overall?

-Kevinito

I imagine it is pretty high, I can try and figure it out, anyone care to guess (or help ).

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

I just figured it out. This is probably a hot topic because there are NASA people on these boards. OOPS!

-Kevin

I'm glad that you figured it out, so I didn't have to point it out to you...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Here is a list of current ops. I am not sure which are/were successful, but I know a few that were not, I will indicate the ones I know:


ACE - success?
Cassini - success so far
Chandra - success
CHIPS - success
Cluster - success
FAST - success
FUSE - success
GALEX - success
Genesis - crashed but samples may pan out (hopefully)
Geotail - success
Gravity Probe B - working
HETE-2 - success
Hubble (HST) - dying but very successful anyway
IMAGE - success
INTEGRAL - success
Mars '03 Rovers - far more successful than imagined
Mars Express /
ASPERA-3 - failed?
Mars Global Surv. - It looks like it is performing, but Kevin has it in the failure list?
Mars Odyssey - Success
MESSENGER - so far so good?
Polar - success
RHESSI - success
Rosetta - ???
RXTE - success
SAMPEX - success
SOHO - success
Spitzer (SIRTF) - success
Stardust - success
SWAS - success
TIMED - success
TRACE - success
Ulysses - success
Voyager - success
Wind - Success
WMAP (MAP) - success
XMM-Newton - success

Deep Space Network
Space Science Data

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

If you want to be a fanboy, by all means, be a fanboy. When you start talking trash, you enter a different realm. NASA has a science budget of billions of dollars. A big chunk of what they do is science. Your mockery is meaningless until Rutan starts giving astronomers, meteorologists, and climatologists the resources to do global or universal research.

NASA's had some trouble with Apollo, and the shuttle. They lost a Martian lander because someone somewhere hasn't learned the wonders of base 10 units. They've been saddled with an international embaressment of a space station, and now someone at a lab that they hired forgot to do something stupid, and things went boom.

The Apollo accidents were due to inexperience. They almost certainly will happen over the next few years in the commercial sector, hopefully in a less scarry or fatal fashion.

They fixed Hubble, but now can't keep up with the upkeep. You seem angry at NASA for not going back up, but ff the shuttle went up again, and something went wrong again, you'd be all over them for another failure. Sometimes, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

I'm happy there's a private alternative to space flight on the horizon. But I'm not going up. I'm going to sit in a room, and look at pictures taken with giant telescopes, some of them built, launched, and maybe even maintained by NASA. Big holla holla out to JPL, WHOO!

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

Given the propensity for MS operating systems to crash spectacularly, I would have grave reservations about stepping into any spacecraft with that logo on the side!!

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

Mars Global Surveyor: http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/.../msop-mgs.html
Might want to take that one of your list Kevin.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Why is the Mars Global Surveyor been included with Genesis, Columbia et al? As far as I can see, the MGS has been nothing short of an outstanding success. :-s In fact, MGS should be a NASA poster-child!

I am also encouraged by the success of Rutan's flights. But let's get serious - a manned 5-minute sub-orbital flight was achieved by NASA over 40 years ago. He is years away from an orbital flight. To describe Rutan as 'overtaking' NASA is perhaps a bit of a stretch.....

NASA has made mistakes. Name me any large organisation that hasn't. But as an independent observer from another country, I must say that it does far more things right than wrong.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith