Complains Burt Rutan

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

What else can NASA do? They aren't given the ability to do anything more exciting.

Good to see that someone agrees with me that spaceflight should be made inspirational to people.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

I'm still inspired by it. I agree there are problems with how NASA and the "big boys" seem to be doing things, but watching the Shuttle launch, or seeing probes like MESSENGER or MER being lofted fills me with awe every time. Even something as "mundane" as a com or weather sat is wicked cool.

What doesn't fill me with awe is millionaires being tossed to 60km for a quarter mil. What comes after that might be cool, but until they start doing it, I am not convinced myself or the next generation will routinely travel to space. I think it's orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive than they think. Just my opinion.

CJSF

P.S.
Of course, that doesn't stop me from entering any "win a trip to space" contest I can find... :wink:

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

The average age of those people who have left the atmosphere is 61

That´s something to think about.

__________________
There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

That is very true. I spoke over the phone with a writer for AV Week who described how the Chinese space program was filled with young people--and over here, all he sees are old faces--with more wrinkles than usual.

Rutan needs to quit his NASA bashing. It gets really old. He has a plaything he calls a spaceship.

I call it a joke.

Yet Rutan's 'joke' did more to attract interest and vitality to space than NASA's multi-gazillion dollar useless toys.

All,
In common with every other industry, NASA is obliged to adopt a 'Safety First' attitude. Look at some of the reactions to Columbia - shock, horror, how can we let these people do dangerous things?

I don't know the attitude of today's, or yesterday's astronauts to the risks of their profession. I'm sure that they calculated/estimated them and chose to accept them - they were/are professionals. But outside pressures seem, seem to be biasing that balance towards 'no risk is acceptable'.

That's just not exciting. NASA have a conflict - they want spaceflight to be seen as routine, but how many films/features have you seen recently about bus drivers? "Speed" excepted!

John

NASA and other aerospace endeavors are mostly engineering and manufacturing, with some R&D thrown in when the budget allows (in NASA's case, also with a huge amount of political and bureaucratic glop thrown in). Engineering is about, among other things, managing risk. There are no perfect designs. And the vagaries of manufacturing assure that even if there were, the end product of the perfect design would be far from perfect.

But there's a big difference between managing risk and being smug, self-confident, and just plain stupid. Those are the problems with NASA. Want proof? The problem with the foam hitting the left wing of Columbia was known a few hours after the launch. What did NASA do? Unlike a good engineering firm, they essentially did nothing except rationalize why it wouldn't be a problem. They ignored almost all the tools and instruments at their disposal to collect data in order to make an educated decision about the potential problem.

Instead, like a good bureaucracy, they settled back into "business as usual" mode, while relying on the formula that "We've had foam strikes on almost every mission and never had a problem." One characteristic of a bureaucracy is it tends to sweep past problems under the rug. Its collective memory is by definition short. This would explain why almost no one noticed the similarity between, "We've had foam strikes on almost every mission and never had a problem." and "We've had O-ring erosion on almost every flight and never had a problem." Actually those that did were treated condescendingly and thus silenced, just as Roger Boisjoly was in 1986.

This NASA culture is so endemic that when it started to become clear that the foam was the prime suspect, O'Keefe tried to ridicule this by referring to the individuals who supporting this approach as "foamologists". Now there's stupidity in a nutshell. Sure glad he's now out in the pasture counting more beans somewhere.

In short, a young, lean company will tend to act smart. Tired, old bureaucracies such as NASA are bloated, defensive, and, even while avoiding a "no risk is acceptable" environment, make stupid decisions.

Hubris tends to be an affliction of the old, not the young.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

And the average age of the spaceship I pilots?

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know. We should try harder to find out.

Ignoring Publiusr's usual pedantic bashing of anything that launches less than 100 tons of overdesigned government issue garbage into orbit, Rutan has a point. How many times do you have to reinvent the wheel?

NASA is like any other government agency, its too pork dependent to react quickly. The amount of time they want to take to put a retread job of an Apollo system together is unacceptable. And please, lets not retread the even lamer arguement about how simply upgrading the technology aboard an Apollo capsule is not enough, almost all of the shuttles have undergone much the same complete systems upgrades in the last couple years. Its not impossible to do.

The Russians have to be laughing their butts off at the insipidly stupid idea of going all the way back to the drawing board to put a new launch system in orbit, when they've pretty close to perfected a system they've been able to rely on for nearly three decades with generational improvements.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

I am of the opion that the do need new launch systems but I do agree that they are missusing what they got. The loss of Columbia was unforgivable thou. How hard could it have been to send someone out on an EVA misson an take a look? They may have lacked equipment to do an emergency repair if they had found out the extent of the damage early in the misson, but then maybe something could have been done. If nothing else, maybe the russians could have sent out a one of their ISS resupply crafts? I don't know if they can land again and act as a life boat but maybe they could have loaded it with some spare parts.

For a new generation of space craft I question the visdom to launch and then retrive a whole labratory. A space craft should be for transportation of stuff and people, zero g experiments are probably better done on a space station. That's what ISS are for so why all those shuttle missons? Are the ISS station to small? Do we need another space staion for "Heavy duty" experiments? Maybe it's cheaper to take the pain of building a second station and then use a cheap way to resupply it? Would reduce start/re entry stress on the flying lab a lot as well.

Anyway, I think that commercial space flight will out compete NASA and their conterparts elsewhere in the world before long if they don't improve a lot and soon. NASA are also making the same misstake that the computer manufacturer Commodore did with their they outstanding Amiga system. They had crushed Atari and their machine, Amiga was a real computer was way better then the home console games as the time. And it could run circles around the IBM based PC's at the time, for a fraction of the cost. They owned the gaming market but wanted to sell office computers and starting to ignore their hen that layd the golden eggs and sadly, it died of starvation and so did Commodore.

What NASA need to do is to make people, especially the young understand that space flight isn't a trivial thing, space flight is "fantastic", space flight are the "frontier", space flight is the key to the great treasury in space. Politicans often seem to like to find some trivial (or very real) threat to scare people with so they ignore their own problems for a while. This has sometimes lead to wars, a less bloody and actually benefitial thing would could be to focus on the treat from space in the form of astroids comming our way and our need to create a counter measure, and to get a foothold out there. Imagine all humanity on earth being destroyed by an impact a few centuaries from now but humaity survives in orbital habitats and in the Marsian colony. Eventually, their decendants re populate earth and rebuild civilization. Problem is, we have no survivable foothold out there, we better start building one. I want to see news from the marsian colony within my lifetime and I think we can do it, if we really want to. Let's get going.

__________________
"-UFO detected, interceptor launched"

Take care there. Just because it's fantastic it doesnt mean it shouldn't be trivial, in the sense of routine and low risk. Only with routine low cost orbit access will we have fantastic space travel. NASA and politicians have done everything they could to make space trivial in the sense of boring, not commonplace. It's no use: government bureaucracies just don't have it. They struggle for their own survival. When the Apollo lunacy ended and budgets were cut, NASA could only fight for its own survival and the meaniningless space shuttle program was the way to do it. The space shuttle could have been great, but left alone and made bigger to serve military missions (later abandoned!) it became this Edsel we all know. And remember all those "next shuttles" we used to see on fancy computer graphics that were to replace the current shuttle soon? Billionso of dollars in research and projects cancelled.

Now they want to go back to the capsule concept!!! Which might be better and should never have been abandoned.

That was some rather shallow analysis form Burt's part.

First off, NASA counts on a rather diminished budget. I wonder what NASA would do if they had the same budget DoD has.

Second, science is not intended for the excitement of some space cowboys. That guy sounds like a little rich boy seeking some sort of extravagant entertainment with no interest in the progress of humankind, and that, I think, is not the goal of NASA.

NASA does great things not only for the USA, but for the entire planet. And this is what I consider exciting from my humble point of view. Some small jumps into space just for "excitement" is simply silly.

__________________
Never stop questioning.

http://www.circlemakers.org

Who launched ERTS/Landsat, Terra, Aqua, Jason, EO-1? Who launched Hubble, Chandra, GALEX? Who launched the MERs, MGS, Mars Oddessy? MESSENGER, Cassini? Voyagers, Pioneers? NASA. These are unmanned robotic exploration craft. But would any private company have invested in any of these missions? NO. Even though missions like Landsat, Terra and Aqua, along with a host of other Earth environment satellites provide critical insight and information for everything from landscape and urban planning to agricultural potentials.

Is Virgin Galactic going to spend the time and money to find out what the long term effects of microgravity are on the human body? Are they going to study radiation exposure on Mars? Are they going to experiment to find the psychological limitations of a months-long interplanetary mission? NO.

Science doesn't make money, at least not directly. So NASA should be focused on these things. So in many regards the Shuttle program is a big let down. Well, in the 1970s and 1980s I didn't see any private corporations trying to figure out how to build a space station or carry out fast-turnaround missions. So NASA, entangled as it has been with politics, tried to figure out how to do it. So we learn. That's the POINT of an organization like NASA.

I'm not against private space programs, like SS1 and it's deriviatives. I just think it's dishonest and disrespectful to "blame" NASA for lack of progress. It's partly OUR fault for electing a governing body that doesn't support a NASA we want. Rutan et. al wouldn't be anywhere without a NASA.

[steps off soap-box]
sigh

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

Ignoring Doolder's usual pedantic bashing of anything Government and tiresome praise of the Ayn Rand mythology, Rutan hasn't a point. He wouldn''t have his 'private' GPS system without gov't--nor would the CATO hacks have an interstate driveway to travel to Washington to tell us how 'we don't need gov't.'

Let them build their own roads from their house to work. When they can privatize those--then they can talk

Rutan has been forgotten...and relying on public interest--when his stunt was a flash in the pan much more forgettable in this Episode III jaded society than was Lindberghs--is doubtful.

This is why you have NASA--a Gov't program people are taxed into supporting whether the selfish public--like the little CATO types--want to pay for it or not.

I can't tell you how many times that fool Dennis Miller has bashed space--while his irritating voice bounces all over Thor/Delta launched COMSATS and their ilk. We spend more money on personal watercraft than we do on NASA and CATO & Co. thinks that is too much.

"NASA is like any other government agency, its too pork dependent to react quickly. The amount of time they want to take to put a retread job of an Apollo system together is unacceptable."

You are full of it Doodler. Griffin is an example of good gov't completely unlike the Goldin types the Space Libertarian frauds keep touting. Have you even been paying attention to Griff's house-cleaning?

"And please, lets not retread the even lamer arguement about how simply upgrading the technology aboard an Apollo capsule is not enough, almost all of the shuttles have undergone much the same complete systems upgrades in the last couple years. Its not impossible to do."

On that we agree.

"The Russians have to be laughing their butts off at the insipidly stupid idea of going all the way back to the drawing board to put a new launch system in orbit, when they've pretty close to perfected a system they've been able to rely on for nearly three decades with generational improvements."

Ditto. Just remember--that R-7 Tito rode to space atop was a GOV'T launch vehicle. They built larger than their 'experts' wanted thanks to a visionary like Glushko.

So while people were going "ooh, ahh" over the actors' performance in the Movie "The Fountainhead"--they were forgetting one important thing:

The character Rourke--the architect--and his equally lofty skyscraper were works of fiction.

Korolov and his R-7 were quite real, I assure you--and their accomplishments rose MUCH higher.

Its seems people interpret things in terms of either pro- or anti-NASA here. Of course NASA, in almost 50 years with the backing of the world's most powerful nation has accomplished and still accomplishes fantastic things. Of course Korolev's rocket as a goverment project, what else.

And of course space is very difficult, especially when it comes to human flight. It's just that the "space agency model" is not so good and has been terribly misused. It's not that NASA is crap, it's that government agencies have a limit, called politics.

Whatever technology you consider, money has to be made even if with certain subsidies for the business to prosper. This sub-orbital tourism thing could be a major start, once a profitable industry is established it hardly ceases to exist and feeds itself, besides space needs economy of scale, sending people to space (orbit) is expensive partly because it's so rare. Once thousands of people go suborb, maybe an orbital industry is established then there will be "cheap" (relatively) space access. Then the science could be done also more cheaply and much more extensively.

Besides we'll get to go there ourselves, even if when we're old and grey. HAVE YOU EVER IMAGINED THAT? I'm already saving money.

Great posts from all, from both sides of the issue.

Personally, I don't think the problem is all NASA's fault, though I think they're far from blameless. It's the public that perceives NASA's work as boring. Every day there are many findings that astonish scientists, but make nary a ripple in the public eye, and I don't think NASA should be held accountable for it.

IMO, I think the cultural environment has changed too much since the beginning of the Space Age. Space exploration in say, 1964 was tied up with the Cold War, and with the thrill of pulling off numerous "firsts", and the fact that it was such a new thing. Today, we have more than 30 years of sci-fi entertainment that makes space exploration ten times more dazzling than it could ever be (at least in our lifetimes) under our belt, the Cold War is over, and the Apollo era and its firsts are old hat. Times have changed.

People have also always wanted to see immediate results, and in space those are in short supply; for instance, I think the concept of waiting seven years for a payoff, as in the Cassini mission, would be unthinkable to the vast majority of Americans. We have to convince people that spending money in manned exploration will pay off decades or generations down the road, and I think that will be difficult, especially when few people will be able to conceive of *tangible* benefits. It's one thing to spend money to clean up the environment for future generations, quite another to spend money for something that we--and probably not our descendants either--will ever see or touch. I'm starting to rant here, but in short space exploration may never live up the expectations that the public at large has built up for it, and I don't think NASA can be wholly blamed for that.

__________________
"Call me old-fashioned, but I think fire is magic. And it scares me a lot."

--The State

Well, the work is boring, if perceived so. That's what boring is all about. The real question is: why care? I mean, nobody finds the airplane industry a thrill yet the airplane industry does not care. The Antarct bases do not constantly send shivers down people's spines yet they're there unquestioned. Even the satellite launch industry goes on without humandkind's adrenaline. What is the difference between these entreprises and NASA? It's that they are self-sufficient. No one goes to the European parliament rant about the billions of euros spent on the Airbus A380. Why? Because it was made to generate profits, besides airtravel is one of the backbones of the world.

The day human space becomes an industry that generates its own profits and tangible benefits with a good cost-benefit ratio, people will be able to yawn about space as much as they want, yet the space industry won't care. But if space remains public and politics-dependant, then those yawns will be of tremendous importance, an obstacle. It was in trying to overcome that obstacle that NASA lost Challenger.

The thing is that NASA in some respects, and the whole concept of a space-program maybe be the USA's greatest mistake. The Soviets started the race and the US took the bait. Given the times, who can blame it, but once the challenge was accepted, the USA played the Soviet game, following their rules, their pace. They say when you compete against someone you become like them.

If the USA was to prove the superiority of its system, maybe if wisdom was possible in the Cold War it could have forfeited the challenge and just tried to instigate a profitable space exploration. Instead, NASA wound up not proving the superiority of the free-market system, but the inefficiency of the State-driven economy system - for NASA, being a state bureaucracy, failed just like the Soviet Union, where all else in capitalism flourished.