Rutan: CEV doesn’t make sense

• Rutan: CEV doesn’t make sense by Jamie Young on 05 May, 2006 00:54
• http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060505/ap_on_sc/space_technology;_ylt=AiXj2fyXGkz_IXntO0xUCc5vieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
• #1 by James Lowe1 on 05 May, 2006 01:08
• That'll teach Griffin for inviting him into his office!  
• #2 by hyper_snyper on 05 May, 2006 02:08
• I have respect for Rutan and all he's accomplished but that was one of the most arrogant things I've ever read.
  
  He claims the CEV is archaic and also complains that NASA has "only pennies to do it."  Thank you captain obvious.  If this isn't good enough for you ask congress to give NASA enough money to build the Starship Enterprise.  The design of the CEV was built around the notion of having a limited budget to work with.
  
  

  Quote

  “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.

  
  Don't have the courage to go to Hubble?  Excuse me?  Okay let's replace the Shuttle with a safer system .... that would be CEV.  Oh wait that isn't a "breakthrough."
  
  Let's get something else straight.  SS1 and SS2 aren't technical breakthroughs either and I have a sneaking suspicion that SS3 is going to look like a capsule for the same reasons that CEV is a capsule.     http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/misc/ss1.html
  
  I don't really participate in any of the arguments on the architecture on this forum but I drew the line here.  I'm just tired of all the complaining that's been happening lately.
  
  
• #3 by seminole AJ on 05 May, 2006 03:13
• 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...
• #4 by Spacely on 05 May, 2006 03:55
• 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.
• #5 by shuttlefan on 05 May, 2006 04:02
• Does Rutan not realize that the CEV will be a _ of alot safer than the Shuttle?
• #6 by seminole AJ on 05 May, 2006 04:30
• Quote

  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.

  
  I rescind the previous comment...
  
  (I was out of the loop for the longest time on the NASA issues, so thats probably why I didn't know what was going on...)
• #7 by MATTBLAK on 05 May, 2006 06:57
• Well of COURSE he'd say that!!  But it is hypocrisy in a way. SS1 & SS2 are TOYS. Magnificent toys to be sure, but toys nonetheless. I respect the man a lot but he's been a Nasa basher forever. If he claims the CEV is 'archeology' he MUST also acknowledge that large, fully reusable and 'sexy' spaceplanes cannot be afforded by Nasa and aren't much use beyond low Earth Orbit, unless one plans to fly in the Venusian or Titan atmospheres.
  
  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.....
• #8 by MATTBLAK on 05 May, 2006 06:59
• James Webb wont be servicable or upgradable beyond software patches, nor will it have all the same capabilities in the visible light spectrum that Hubble does. I'd prefer the money went into the Terrestrial Planet Finder and for one more "super service" of Hubble.
• #9 by Tap-Sa on 05 May, 2006 07:05
• Quote

  “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.”

  
  Did Rutan offer any tangible description of this alternative 'environment' ?
  
  

  Quote

  “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.

  
  I don't quite get it what Rutan tries to say here. NASA should do HSM with risky vehicle, no safe heaven possibility and probably higher costs than building&sending a completely new space telescope just to show courage? And this relates to hundreds of billions and Mars mission ... how? NASA should send people to Mars in equally or more dangerous missions in order to allow them stumble into breakthroughs on the way?
  
  
• #10 by Tap-Sa on 05 May, 2006 07:11
• Quote

  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.....

  
  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...
• #11 by Dana on 05 May, 2006 08:03
• SS1 is basically the same mothership/rocket-plane flight profile that has been flown since the days of Slick Goodlin and Chuck Yeager, on up through the X-15....only slower. Burt, we love ya, man, but just because something's funny-looking doesn't mean it's INNOVATIVE. (cough!)XP-35Ascender!(cough!) And even then, "innovative" doesn't neccessarily mean, "BETTER."
• #12 by Stardust9906 on 05 May, 2006 12:24
• Quote

  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...

  
  In all probability another servicing mission will go ahead anyway providing they have enough confidence in the tank modifications to dispense with safe haven for that one mission.
• #13 by aero313 on 05 May, 2006 15:01
• Quote

  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.

  
  Boy, it must be nice to be able to throw stones without having to come up with a solution.  Face it, Burt hates the capsule design because it doesn't have canards...
  
  (Actually it WILL have deployable canards on the escape tower... just like Apollo)
• #14 by aero313 on 05 May, 2006 15:40
• Quote

  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.

  
  Isn't this the same guy who built a modern copy of the 60 year old Bell X-1?
• #15 by publiusr on 05 May, 2006 17:13
• I don't know why anybody listens to Rutan. I will give him this. The Global Flyer could make a good UAV platform. That is fine. But I wouldn't ride SS1. White Kniight is more surprising than that little ME-163 (that I call The John Denver Special) slung under its belly. Rutan's craft are made so near to the point of structural failure to where it isn't funny.
  
  Seinfeld voice on:
  
  And what is with him and fuel monitoring?
  
  Global flyer and Voyager seemed to have fuel problems--so you can't blame that on being Rocky Mountain High, Vari-eze style.
  
  
• #16 by vt_hokie on 13 May, 2006 20:34
• At least he's taking the initiative to do something!  I share his opinion on CEV, but unfortunately I don't have the knowledge or resources required to go build my own space plane!  I do hope that a reusable, orbital space plane comes along, whether it be from within the United States or elsewhere, that renders NASA's porkbarrel CEV program obsolete.
• #17 by gladiator1332 on 13 May, 2006 20:51
• Quote

  aero313 - 5/5/2006  11:27 AM
  
  

  Quote

  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.

  
  Isn't this the same guy who built a modern copy of the 60 year old Bell X-1?

  
  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.
• #18 by vt_hokie on 13 May, 2006 20:59
• Quote

  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.

  
  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 with this thing.  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.
• #19 by Bill White on 13 May, 2006 21:16
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 13/5/2006  3:46 PM
  
  

  Quote

  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.

  
  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 with this thing.  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.

  
  Here's one reason for that replacement you don't like.