“The budget forecast [for NASA] is to go out and spend hundreds of billions of dollar to go to Mars and yet you don’t have the courage to go back to the Hubble … it looks like you got the wrong guys doing it,” Rutan concluded.
Spacely - 4/5/2006 11:55 PM
They do have a replacement in the works: The James Webb Space Telescope.
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
Launch is sometime in the 2011-2015 frame.
“They are forcing the program to be done with technology that we already know works. They are not creating an environment where it is possible to have a breakthrough,” Rutan advised. “It doesn’t make sense,” he said, contending that programs must encourage risks “in order to stumble into breakthroughs.”
“The budget forecast [for NASA] is to go out and spend hundreds of billions of dollar to go to Mars and yet you don’t have the courage to go back to the Hubble … it looks like you got the wrong guys doing it,” Rutan concluded.
MATTBLAK - 5/5/2006 10:57 AM
Also, the T-Space CXV design, which I LOVE (strongly affiliated with Burt Rutan), could easily be described as a flying badminton shuttlecock or washing tub, if you were only interested in being unkind with just a pinch of added truth.....
seminole AJ - 5/5/2006 4:13 AM
He raises VERY good points about us not working on the Hubble...only reason I can see for this i that they might have a replacement in the works, then I'll forgive them...
Rutan said there needs to be a technological breakthrough in spacecraft design that would make it affordable and safe to send humans anywhere in the solar system. But he said he doesn't know what that breakthrough will be.
Maverick aerospace designer Burt Rutan on Thursday criticized NASA's decision to use an Apollo-style capsule to return to the moon, saying it "doesn't make any sense" to build a new generation of space vehicles using old technology.
aero313 - 5/5/2006 11:27 AMQuoteMaverick aerospace designer Burt Rutan on Thursday criticized NASA's decision to use an Apollo-style capsule to return to the moon, saying it "doesn't make any sense" to build a new generation of space vehicles using old technology.
Isn't this the same guy who built a modern copy of the 60 year old Bell X-1?
gladiator1332 - 13/5/2006 4:38 PM
And the CXV is nothing but a giant modern Corona film return capsule, which I might add came years before Apollo. If Rutan thinks NASA is archaic, he himself is going back to the Stone Age of spaceflight.
vt_hokie - 13/5/2006 3:46 PMQuotegladiator1332 - 13/5/2006 4:38 PM
And the CXV is nothing but a giant modern Corona film return capsule, which I might add came years before Apollo. If Rutan thinks NASA is archaic, he himself is going back to the Stone Age of spaceflight.
I'd love to see what he could do with $14 billion a year, though! Isn't that NASA's approximate budget? Surely he'd come up with something better than a glorified Apollo capsule. I can't believe that we are replacing this beautiful and capable machine (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001091.jpg) with this thing (http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/cev-crew-capsule.gif). Yeah, that's real inspiring!
If and when NASA gets back to designing a true space shuttle replacement, I'll get behind the agency again. Until then, I am absolutely against my tax dollars being used for this giant leap backwards.
vt_hokie - 13/5/2006 4:46 PMQuotegladiator1332 - 13/5/2006 4:38 PM
And the CXV is nothing but a giant modern Corona film return capsule, which I might add came years before Apollo. If Rutan thinks NASA is archaic, he himself is going back to the Stone Age of spaceflight.
I'd love to see what he could do with $14 billion a year, though! Isn't that NASA's approximate budget? Surely he'd come up with something better than a glorified Apollo capsule. I can't believe that we are replacing this beautiful and capable machine (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001091.jpg) with this thing (http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/cev-crew-capsule.gif). Yeah, that's real inspiring!
If and when NASA gets back to designing a true space shuttle replacement, I'll get behind the agency again. Until then, I am absolutely against my tax dollars being used for this giant leap backwards.
Jim - 13/5/2006 5:30 PM
Additionally, I doubt we will see a totally reusable system in our lifetime for spacecraft.
vt_hokie - 13/5/2006 5:33 PMQuoteJim - 13/5/2006 5:30 PM
Additionally, I doubt we will see a totally reusable system in our lifetime for spacecraft.
If true, that's sad. And that's one reason I have no desire to stay in the aerospace biz. Maybe if I ever have kids, they'll be able to work on ambitious programs like NASP, and hopefully live during a time when we embrace challenges, like during Apollo, instead of saying, "That's too hard, let's find something less ambitious to do."
The shuttle to me is somewhat like the de Havilland Comet. It is a vehicle ahead of its time, and is perhaps just one step away from the 707 of RLV's. We should be taking the next step in RLV development, rather than retreating back to the DC-3 of spaceflight.
Jim - 13/5/2006 6:12 PM
You are looking at it from the wrong point of view. It doesn't matter how you get there, it is what you do when you get there.
I support the spacecraft that fly on ELV's, that's where the interesting missions are. I have worked on MER, MRO, ICESAT and now MSL.
If that were 100% true, you'd have as many people flying on DC-3's as on 777's today.
It seems we have this debate at least once a week. Is the fact that the CEV doesn't look like an airplane really the problem here? We spend so much time making analogies to airplanes that, I think, we miss the point that spacecraft are not airplanes. They're not even close. In fact, they're more closely related to submarines. John Pike of Global Security said it best in this article :
"We spent three decades trying to make a spacecraft look like an aircraft," Pike said of the shuttle. "We finally concluded that they are two different things."
nacnud - 13/5/2006 7:20 PM
Well it comes down to economics and the 777 is probably cheaper/more profitable that a DC-3 these days.
hyper_snyper - 13/5/2006 7:45 PM
Is the fact that the CEV doesn't look like an airplane really the problem here? We spend so much time making analogies to airplanes that, I think, we miss the point that spacecraft are not airplanes. They're not even close.
hyper_snyper - 13/5/2006 8:49 PM
If the VSE pans out, wouldn't going to the moon, setting up a base, then going to Mars be considered as advancement?
vt_hokie - 13/5/2006 5:16 PMQuoteJim - 13/5/2006 6:12 PM
You are looking at it from the wrong point of view. It doesn't matter how you get there, it is what you do when you get there.
If that were 100% true, you'd have as many people flying on DC-3's as on 777's today.QuoteI support the spacecraft that fly on ELV's, that's where the interesting missions are. I have worked on MER, MRO, ICESAT and now MSL.
I support unmanned exploration as well, but for human spaceflight, I believe this nation should take on the challenge of a next generation RLV. Maybe someday, this (http://www.ae.msstate.edu/rfrl/pics/aircraft/x30/x30b.gif) can be more than just a mockup.
Tap-Sa - 5/5/2006 1:58 AMQuoteMATTBLAK - 5/5/2006 10:57 AM
Also, the T-Space CXV design, which I LOVE (strongly affiliated with Burt Rutan), could easily be described as a flying badminton shuttlecock or washing tub, if you were only interested in being unkind with just a pinch of added truth.....
Actually it's almost half century old Corona return capsule with film replaced with people. Shame on Rutan for resorting to such archaic designs, no risks, no environment for breakthroughs and yadda yadda yaa... ;)
vt_hokie - 13/5/2006 7:23 PM
Well, the shuttle does look a lot more impressive than any capsule, but that's not the main point. The fact is that to approach aircraft style operations, we will need to move beyond capsules launched on ICBM relics. A winged vehicle does have the advantages of greater crossrange, lower g loads, and the ability to perform a soft runway landing. Furthermore, it allows for more down mass capability than capsules. Try bringing Hubble back in the CEV! (It's really a shame that Hubble will never see the Smithsonian.)
They may not be airplanes, but spacecraft that return to Earth do have to be designed for atmospheric flight. The space shuttle is a lot more graceful than a capsule falling like a rock and relying on parachutes, you must admit. Perhaps a true space plane can make better use of the atmosphere, as NASP would have done. The shuttle isn't so much a true space plane as it is a winged vehicle strapped to the side of a rocket. (True, the shuttle orbiter has its own engines, but fed from the expendable external tank.)
The bottom line is that we seem to have stopped advancing. CEV will ensure that we spend billions keeping spaceflight dangerous and expensive, as we maintain antiquated launch vehicles to launch simple ballistic capsules. If the simple, "proven technology" strategy were affordable enough that it freed up money for exploring technologies such as scramjet propulsion, I might feel differently. But it's not. This program will continue to cost billions and eat up the lion's share of NASA's budget, hence ensuring that there are no resources available for newer, more innovative, or more advanced concepts.
If we must go to the moon on a shoestring budget, then yes, the CEV might be the best available option. But I question whether the entire "VSE" gives us the right goals in the first place.
vt_hokie - 13/5/2006 8:56 PMQuotehyper_snyper - 13/5/2006 8:49 PM
If the VSE pans out, wouldn't going to the moon, setting up a base, then going to Mars be considered as advancement?
I don't see us setting up a base, much less going to Mars, in our lifetimes. We'll be lucky to see the 4 person, 7 day lunar excursion by 2018, and it comes at a heavy cost. To me, it seems premature to worry about going beyond LEO when we don't even have a decent transportation infrastructure in place for LEO operations. What's the compelling reason for sending humans back to the moon, other than the fact that footprints on the moon are kind of cool? All of the reasons typically given (lunar bases, telescopes, mining, etc.) will require more affordable, routine access to space anyway!
imfan - 14/5/2006 6:58 AMQuotevt_hokie - 13/5/2006 7:23 PM
Well, the shuttle does look a lot more impressive than any capsule, but that's not the main point. The fact is that to approach aircraft style operations, we will need to move beyond capsules launched on ICBM relics.
add ICBM relics: current LVs are way too far from their predecessors.
Jim - 14/5/2006 9:29 AM
A RLV for a few flights a year is not the way to go. An RLV can not do the work of a CaLV for the near term.
vt_hokie - 14/5/2006 1:19 PMQuoteJim - 14/5/2006 9:29 AM
A RLV for a few flights a year is not the way to go. An RLV can not do the work of a CaLV for the near term.
Why not? Imagine where NASA would be today if it had a vehicle with the same overhead costs as STS, but capable of flying a couple of dozen times per year. ISS might have been finished in a couple of years, instead of taking well over a decade. Surely, a next generation STS would improve at least incrementally on both costs and flight rate.
But hey, there are people with more degrees, more experience, and far more knowledge than I have making the decisions. So, I guess I can't argue too much. (Although, there are also a lot of clueless politicians with more influence than they should have.) I just know that the possible existence of "Blackstar" was far more exciting to me than VSE. I'm interested in seeing aerospace advance, and in seeing some of the advanced concepts of my youth become reality. I have zero interest in re-creating Apollo, and I doubt I will ever be very excited by or interested in CEV.
Jim - 14/5/2006 2:08 PM
The real reason that RLV won't work in the near, it because LEO is not where the money is made. It is at GEO and most ELV's optimized to deliver spacecraft to GTO. RLV can not used for this orbit because dropping off a spacecraft with an upperstage at LEO is inefficent.
vt_hokie - 14/5/2006 3:37 PMQuoteJim - 14/5/2006 2:08 PM
The real reason that RLV won't work in the near, it because LEO is not where the money is made. It is at GEO and most ELV's optimized to deliver spacecraft to GTO. RLV can not used for this orbit because dropping off a spacecraft with an upperstage at LEO is inefficent.
Why does it have to be about making money? How about getting more for our dollar out of NASA, which is not a profit driven enterprise. What if, instead of getting 4 flights per year at best out of STS, we spent the same amount on a system that gave us 20 or more flights per year?
Jim - 14/5/2006 3:49 PM
Other than ISS, NASA doesn't need to get to LEO, it needs to go further.
NASA has been stuck in LEO.
How about this for a scenario.
A RLV is used to fly components of the ESAS to LEO, which may be the cheapest way. But to get the men to it, a system similar to CEV and CLV is used.
That would be more likely to occur.
vt_hokie - 14/5/2006 3:02 PMI agree. I have read somewhere that there was possibility to get licence to build energias in US. that would be great. but politicaly unrealistic
But it's a shame that NASA will have to spend billions to replicate the heavy lift capability that Russia had 20 years ago with Energia.
vt_hokie - 14/5/2006 4:02 PM
but I always figured the next humans to travel to the moon would be flying on something more advanced and capable than the CEV, while dozens more humans lived and worked in LEO.
Jim - 14/5/2006 4:45 PM
Not everything that is forcasted becomes reality. Nuclear powered aircraft...
gas turbine cars
Hi speed cars
personal aircraft
ISS experiments are a farse. There is nothing new under the sun. The same experiments that flew on the Spacelab missions and on the Spacehab module are still flying on the ISS.
vt_hokie - 13/5/2006 8:56 PM
What's the compelling reason for sending humans back to the moon, other than the fact that footprints on the moon are kind of cool?
HailColumbia - 14/5/2006 8:10 PM
Whats the compelling reason to fly around LEO forever, other then the fact that winged spaceplanes are kind of cool?
kraisee - 16/5/2006 4:02 PM
Right now, Rutan hasn't even accomplished a real manned re-entry. Space Ship One didn't have much in the way of re-entry heating at all. NASA still accomplished that with their very first manned sub-orbital flight with Alan B. Shepard in 1961, so Rutan hasn't even matched that yet. Rutan is simply not credible in this field yet. Comments like that from his "infant" program is just "infantile". He should never have lowered himself to that level, it made *him* look stupid, not NASA.
Ross.
yinzer - 16/5/2006 8:20 PM
NASA might have been able to build spaceships better in 1961 than he can now, but the NASA of 2006 is not the NASA of the 1960s.
kraisee - 16/5/2006 6:02 PM
The VSE is not planned to be a test program, but a fully operational program which we can truly rely upon for decades to come. That requires a totally different approach to space hardware. Truly bleeding-edge hardware is not going to be a requirement for this particular program. NASA doesn't have to re-invent the wheel to go back to the moon and to start to open-up the rest of the solar system through this program.
mlorrey - 17/5/2006 2:30 PMQuotekraisee - 16/5/2006 6:02 PM
The VSE is not planned to be a test program, but a fully operational program which we can truly rely upon for decades to come. That requires a totally different approach to space hardware. Truly bleeding-edge hardware is not going to be a requirement for this particular program. NASA doesn't have to re-invent the wheel to go back to the moon and to start to open-up the rest of the solar system through this program.
A. With the capsule design, they ARE, in fact, reinventing the wheel. Worse, it is reinventing the horse in the age of the automobile.
B. So long as NASA refuses to allow any third parties to buy CEVs on an open and free market, the solar system will not be opened. The Western US was not opened by the US Cavalry, it was opened by trappers and settlers riding their own animals and wagons.
C. So long as NASA refuses to allow third party capsule and launcher producers to compete for manned launch services to ISS on an equal footing to its own CEV, there will be little venture capital incentive to invest in private launch programs. Capital tends to avoid companies that have to compete against an established government subsidized program, which is why there are absolutely no private passenger rail services in the US beyond small boutique routes in tourist areas. Ask any US airline what it is like competing against a foreign government owned airline.
mlorrey - 17/5/2006 2:30 PM
Capital tends to avoid companies that have to compete against an established government subsidized program, which is why there are absolutely no private passenger rail services in the US beyond small boutique routes in tourist areas.
Jim - 17/5/2006 2:48 PM
A. As posted on other threads, trains haven't changed in the last 100 years.
hyper_snyper - 17/5/2006 6:33 PM
Even though I do not agree with vt_hokie on the CEV, he brings up a question that's been bugging me ever since ESAS was released. Why did LM choose a lifting body as its original design? What was their architecture plan like. (Atlas V launcher I would imagine). I'm just curious because people keep saying lifting bodies are no good for lunar reentry speeds.
Jim - 17/5/2006 6:35 PM
Passive reentry is the requirement. The Apollo CM shaoe is marginal in this respect and the way out is a independent system, that has its own power, attitude determination, controls and thrusters/propellant. Other than launch, most accidents/incidents have occurred during entry. The current shape will right itself in most conditions but there are some that it won't. Additionally, the lifting capabilities, if uncontrolled, could result in the lift vector in the wrong direction steepening the entry.
The backup entry control system is enough (using only 2 pitch and 2 roll thrusters), even with total power loss, to determine the attitude and move the correct angle and cancel the lift vector by rolling, making a ballistic entry
However, the requirement for monostability, in the context of the entire system, is only one way to achieve the goal of safe trim during reentry given a loss of primary flight controls.Which makes you wonder why a fully redundant RCS system is deemed unacceptable. IMUs are pretty damn cheap, light weight, and low power these days, and blowdown monopropellant thruster systems are pretty damn simple and reliable.
GLS - 18/5/2006 10:52 AMIt would take too much energy to return anything from Mars other than the crew capsule. There is no talk of reusablity wrt Mars spacecraft. All mars return scenarios have a capsule performing a direct entry while the main vehicle flys pass earth into solar orbit. The energy to brake into earth orbit (or to haul around a shield for aero braking) is too great
I feel we're going back with this CEV thing... OK, a capsule is fine to get from LEO to the moon, but we need *a* shuttle to get to and from LEO... no, not *this* shuttle, it's old and it's not "as good as they wanted", but it was the first. Now we can do better! And now you're asking: "Why do we need a shuttle?" So you can have a couple spacecrafts making LEO-Moon-LEO... and when they need refurbishment you bring them down, work on them and send it back up. I think this is going to be important on the way to mars... How would you go to mars? I wouldn't want to go on anything less big than about half Mir's size, because you'll have to take all your entertainment with you as there's nothing outside for some months! Is it better to built and launch this big spacecraft everytime you go to mars and then scrap it or to bring down the modules (on *a* shuttle) when they need refurbishment????
Now, all this costs money... more than what they are giving.... and this lack of funding forces NASA to kill programs and stuff to go to the moon, and this is wrong! If it keeps going this way, in a couple decades, when they turn to mars, they're going to scrap the moon base because they going to need the money to get to mars!!! To me, all this "Vision for Exploration" is way too narrow....
Jim - 18/5/2006 11:18 AMQuoteGLS - 18/5/2006 10:52 AM I feel we're going back with this CEV thing... OK, a capsule is fine to get from LEO to the moon, but we need *a* shuttle to get to and from LEO... no, not *this* shuttle, it's old and it's not "as good as they wanted", but it was the first. Now we can do better! And now you're asking: "Why do we need a shuttle?" So you can have a couple spacecrafts making LEO-Moon-LEO... and when they need refurbishment you bring them down, work on them and send it back up. I think this is going to be important on the way to mars... How would you go to mars? I wouldn't want to go on anything less big than about half Mir's size, because you'll have to take all your entertainment with you as there's nothing outside for some months! Is it better to built and launch this big spacecraft everytime you go to mars and then scrap it or to bring down the modules (on *a* shuttle) when they need refurbishment???? Now, all this costs money... more than what they are giving.... and this lack of funding forces NASA to kill programs and stuff to go to the moon, and this is wrong! If it keeps going this way, in a couple decades, when they turn to mars, they're going to scrap the moon base because they going to need the money to get to mars!!! To me, all this "Vision for Exploration" is way too narrow....It would take too much energy to return anything from Mars other than the crew capsule. There is no talk of reusablity wrt Mars spacecraft. All mars return scenarios have a capsule performing a direct entry while the main vehicle flys pass earth into solar orbit. The energy to brake into earth orbit (or to haul around an shield for aero braking) is too greatr
So you would have to build a new Mars Transfer Vehicle every time you want to go to Mars?
hyper_snyper - 18/5/2006 11:23 AMQuoteJim - 18/5/2006 11:18 AMQuoteGLS - 18/5/2006 10:52 AM I feel we're going back with this CEV thing... OK, a capsule is fine to get from LEO to the moon, but we need *a* shuttle to get to and from LEO... no, not *this* shuttle, it's old and it's not "as good as they wanted", but it was the first. Now we can do better! And now you're asking: "Why do we need a shuttle?" So you can have a couple spacecrafts making LEO-Moon-LEO... and when they need refurbishment you bring them down, work on them and send it back up. I think this is going to be important on the way to mars... How would you go to mars? I wouldn't want to go on anything less big than about half Mir's size, because you'll have to take all your entertainment with you as there's nothing outside for some months! Is it better to built and launch this big spacecraft everytime you go to mars and then scrap it or to bring down the modules (on *a* shuttle) when they need refurbishment???? Now, all this costs money... more than what they are giving.... and this lack of funding forces NASA to kill programs and stuff to go to the moon, and this is wrong! If it keeps going this way, in a couple decades, when they turn to mars, they're going to scrap the moon base because they going to need the money to get to mars!!! To me, all this "Vision for Exploration" is way too narrow....It would take too much energy to return anything from Mars other than the crew capsule. There is no talk of reusablity wrt Mars spacecraft. All mars return scenarios have a capsule performing a direct entry while the main vehicle flys pass earth into solar orbit. The energy to brake into earth orbit (or to haul around an shield for aero braking) is too greatrSo you would have to build a new Mars Transfer Vehicle every time you want to go to Mars?
mong' - 18/5/2006 11:43 AM
If I understand the need for the CEV on lunar missions, I don't understand why you would need it to go the mars.
Because all the mars direct and semi direct plans out there don't call for such a vehicle. except maybe to ferry the crew between earth and the mars transfer stage + Hab.
But why would you want to carry 20+ tons of deadweight ? I could see it integrated at the top of the ERV as the earth reentry vehicle but that's all
mong' - 18/5/2006 11:43 AM
If I understand the need for the CEV on lunar missions, I don't understand why you would need it to go the mars.
Because all the mars direct and semi direct plans out there don't call for such a vehicle. except maybe to ferry the crew between earth and the mars transfer stage + Hab.
But why would you want to carry 20+ tons of deadweight ? I could see it integrated at the top of the ERV as the earth reentry vehicle but that's all
mong' - 18/5/2006 1:02 PM
yes but if you really want crew escape then you can use the CEV to dock to the Hab in LEO, transfer crew, undock and back to earth. that way you don't need to carry the heavy CEV all the way to mars.
Anyway i gotta read that part of the ESAS again, must've missed something
lmike - 18/5/2006 1:02 AM
Sigh, again the 'capsule' stigma thread... snip... Spacecraft as such need wings like a fish needs a bicycle (now *launch vehicles* may be another story, tbd) I'm willing to allow and in fact, a 'capsule' is a lifting body! Lifting body concepts are at least as old as capsules. Are we now going to argue about the proper amount of the L/D ratio for a craft to be considered as advanced? Wings, tail and wheels are the criterion? That'd be silly.
Oh, and I personally, have no problem with someone trying to design a space system with lifting bodies, wings, balloons, or helicopter rotors... And if they work, great! Why others shun the 'symmetric around the Z axis' lifting body, which is what a capsule is, concept specifically? Rutan engineered some great *one-of-a-kind* aircraft, but man, aircraft are not spacecraft at the fundamental level!
Jim - 18/5/2006 10:24 AMQuotehyper_snyper - 18/5/2006 11:23 AMQuoteJim - 18/5/2006 11:18 AMQuoteGLS - 18/5/2006 10:52 AM I feel we're going back with this CEV thing... OK, a capsule is fine to get from LEO to the moon, but we need *a* shuttle to get to and from LEO... no, not *this* shuttle, it's old and it's not "as good as they wanted", but it was the first. Now we can do better! And now you're asking: "Why do we need a shuttle?" So you can have a couple spacecrafts making LEO-Moon-LEO... and when they need refurbishment you bring them down, work on them and send it back up. I think this is going to be important on the way to mars... How would you go to mars? I wouldn't want to go on anything less big than about half Mir's size, because you'll have to take all your entertainment with you as there's nothing outside for some months! Is it better to built and launch this big spacecraft everytime you go to mars and then scrap it or to bring down the modules (on *a* shuttle) when they need refurbishment???? Now, all this costs money... more than what they are giving.... and this lack of funding forces NASA to kill programs and stuff to go to the moon, and this is wrong! If it keeps going this way, in a couple decades, when they turn to mars, they're going to scrap the moon base because they going to need the money to get to mars!!! To me, all this "Vision for Exploration" is way too narrow....It would take too much energy to return anything from Mars other than the crew capsule. There is no talk of reusablity wrt Mars spacecraft. All mars return scenarios have a capsule performing a direct entry while the main vehicle flys pass earth into solar orbit. The energy to brake into earth orbit (or to haul around an shield for aero braking) is too greatrSo you would have to build a new Mars Transfer Vehicle every time you want to go to Mars?
That is the planQuoteGLS - 18/5/2006 10:40 AM
Doesn't that sound wrong?
imfan - 25/5/2006 10:40 AM
U have to build spacestation because there is almost no difference in current ISS stays and mars missions. ah there is one. mars mission is longer.