Rutan: NASA is Dull

srmeaney · 2005-05-23 20:31:34

What Burt Rutan needs to look at is a flying wing with the "tiles" on the top rather than the bottom. That way it can fly to and from an "airport" like a normal aircraft but needs to make the atmospheric entry upside down. This can be upscaled later to airliner for mass passenger transfer.

BWhite · 2005-05-23 20:36:40

What Burt Rutan needs to look at is a flying wing with the "tiles" on the top rather than the bottom. That way it can fly to and from an "airport" like a normal aircraft but needs to make the atmospheric entry upside down. This can be upscaled later to airliner for mass passenger transfer.

t/Space seeks to "avoid" wings. Its a capsule. Nothing more.

idiom · 2005-05-23 20:40:08

What I got out it was that Burt intends the sixth generation of the SS1 line, not to go to orbit at all, but to fulfill point-point transportation. He can do math as well as anybody and knows a completely different approach is needed for orbital stuff.

There is no reason a larger SS1 style craft with enhanced range wouldn't be really handy.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-23 21:58:16

What I got out it was that Burt intends the sixth generation of the SS1 line, not to go to orbit at all, but to fulfill point-point transportation. He can do math as well as anybody and knows a completely different approach is needed for orbital stuff.
There is no reason a larger SS1 style craft with enhanced range wouldn't be really handy.

Oh really?

Why would it be handy?

idiom · 2005-05-23 22:05:33

It has slow take off and landing speeds so it avoids the problem of sonic booms that have generally shutdown supersonic transport previously.

It depends on how low the opreational costs go, these days they need to be about twice as efficient as a concorde.

Each Airport would have to operate a fleet of carrier craft and still come in with decent operational costs.

RobertDyck · 2005-05-23 22:23:09

The flimsy composit contruction that his company deals in primarily is not going to be good enough either, its too fragile and can't take much heat.

The X-38 full size mock-up was built by Scaled Composites, Burt's company. X-38 used the same graphite/epoxy body construction as SS1. In fact, the skin of OMS pods on the Shuttle is also graphite/epoxy with foamed aluminum ribs. The composite materials Burt's company works with are exactly what you need for an orbital entry vehicle, it just needs a heat shield. SS1 didn't have a heat shield because it was only designed for Mach 3.

We have lots of options today including RCC, FRCI tiles, and DurAFRSI blankets; the advanced materials designed for the next generation shuttle. DurAFRSI can handle 2000°F, not quite the 2600°F of black HRSI or 2700°F of FRCI tiles, but more than the 1200°F of AFRSI white blankets. There are many places where DurAFRSI could be used instead of black tiles. You could place large blankets of DurAFRSI over much of the orbiter, not the piddly little tiles. Tiles were kept small due to thermal expansion. That's not an issue with soft blankets. AFRSI blankets were made small like the white tiles they replaced, but there's no need for that. Just ask a seamstress how to sew a quilt to cover a curved surface, it's just sewing. A small number of large thermal blankets would greatly reduce labour, both installation and maintenance.

An orbital space taxi would be handy to ferry crew to ISS, to ferry science experiments and supplies to/from ISS, to service space telescopes, to service satellites in LEO, and most importantly to carry crew to a lunar vehicle or an orbit-assembled Mars vehicle.

Rxke · 2005-05-24 03:26:09

And Rutan never said he would use that kind of propulsion for LEO.
He's not stupid. It's not because he decided this engine fitted his needs for the stuff he's doing now, it will stay his engine of choice for everything he does later on.

idiom · 2005-05-24 04:07:58

T/Space says Rutan is going to use propane/Lox for orbital craft in two stages. Being air dropped at high speed would make it a three stage system.

Surely you can get to orbit with a three stage Hydrocarbon/LOX rocket.

BWhite · 2005-05-24 08:02:26

What I got out it was that Burt intends the sixth generation of the SS1 line, not to go to orbit at all, but to fulfill point-point transportation. He can do math as well as anybody and knows a completely different approach is needed for orbital stuff.
There is no reason a larger SS1 style craft with enhanced range wouldn't be really handy.
Oh really?
Why would it be handy?

Please read the t/Space website.

SpaceShipOne is NOT the precursor vehicle. t/Space proposes a classic capsule with no wings, no landing gear etc. . .

Propulsion is by pressure fed propane/LOX - - very traditional rocket science.

Edited By BWhite on 1116943387

BWhite · 2005-05-24 08:05:55

The flimsy composit contruction that his company deals in primarily is not going to be good enough either, its too fragile and can't take much heat.
The X-38 full size mock-up was built by Scaled Composites, Burt's company. X-38 used the same graphite/epoxy body construction as SS1. In fact, the skin of OMS pods on the Shuttle is also graphite/epoxy with foamed aluminum ribs. The composite materials Burt's company works with are exactly what you need for an orbital entry vehicle, it just needs a heat shield. SS1 didn't have a heat shield because it was only designed for Mach 3.
We have lots of options today including RCC, FRCI tiles, and DurAFRSI blankets; the advanced materials designed for the generation shuttle. DurAFRSI can handle 2000°F, not quite the 2600°F of black HRSI or 2700°F of FRCI tiles, but more than the 1200°F of AFRSI white blankets. There are many places where DurAFRSI could be used instead of black tiles. You could place large blankets of DurAFRSI over much of the orbiter, not the piddly little tiles. Tiles were kept small due to thermal expansion. That's not an issue with soft blankets. AFRSI blankets were made small like the white tiles they replaced, but there's no need for that. Just ask a seamstress how to sew a quilt to cover a curved surface, it's just sewing. A small number of large thermal blankets would greatly reduce labour, both installation and maintenance.
An orbital space taxi would be handy to ferry crew to ISS, to ferry science experiments and supplies to/from ISS, to service space telescopes, to service satellites in LEO, and most importantly to carry crew to a lunar vehicle or an orbit-assembled Mars vehicle.

t/Space intends a redundant system, transpirational water cooling backed up by ablative tiles. If the active system works, the amounts of ablatives consumed is minimized for easy re-use. If the active systems fail the passive system is sufficient for safety.

I listened to a t/Space representative claim that arc-jet testing has proven the tiles to be good for at least 25 re-entries.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-24 10:33:55

Not sure which thread to continue the Tspace commenting but here goes, it would seem that tspace is asking Nasa to contract funds for give milestones of achievement in which they are to provide the CXV or crew transfer vehicle for LEO developement.

Conflict at Space Confab

Although Transformational Space, or t/Space, has chosen not to bid for the contract to replace the shuttle, the company nevertheless hopes to beat big aerospace companies to orbit with a four-person crew transfer vehicle, or CXV, that NASA can use to send astronauts to the International Space Station and beyond.
Instead of bidding for the full amount ($500 million) it needs to develop the ship, as the primes will do, t/Space is asking NASA for small increments of development money in exchange for achieving significant milestones.
NASA is sitting up and taking notice; the space agency has already awarded t/Space $6 million for developing the CXV concept and building flight-test hardware that Scaled Composites will fly this week.

Sounds like this was very interesting seeing that lockheed would say nothing about what had been published in the popular mechanics magazine.

BWhite · 2005-05-24 13:39:19

I stole this line about Rutan from a poster named 1207 at space.com - - its a pretty good line:

Rutan can take a good idea and free himself of all constraints, and then play with it in his mind until he reaches the simplicity on the far side of complexity. The Shuttlecock and the use of water for cooling are examples of this.

Simplicity on the far side of complexity

I likes it!

BWhite · 2005-05-24 13:41:49

Not sure which thread to continue the Tspace commenting but here goes, it would seem that tspace is asking Nasa to contract funds for give milestones of achievement in which they are to provide the CXV or crew transfer vehicle for LEO developement.
http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,67614,00.html] Conflict at Space Confab
Although Transformational Space, or t/Space, has chosen not to bid for the contract to replace the shuttle, the company nevertheless hopes to beat big aerospace companies to orbit with a four-person crew transfer vehicle, or CXV, that NASA can use to send astronauts to the International Space Station and beyond.
Instead of bidding for the full amount ($500 million) it needs to develop the ship, as the primes will do, t/Space is asking NASA for small increments of development money in exchange for achieving significant milestones.
NASA is sitting up and taking notice; the space agency has already awarded t/Space $6 million for developing the CXV concept and building flight-test hardware that Scaled Composites will fly this week.
Sounds like this was very interesting seeing that lockheed would say nothing about what had been published in the popular mechanics magazine.

I paid $$$ for that dinner expecting to see plans for the new Lockheed CEV and all I got were some cool jokes and a history lesson.

:;):

I suspect everyone knows Rutan and t/Space have trumped the table.

srmeaney · 2005-05-25 00:53:04

NASA isn't dull, it's just undernourished.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-25 05:26:09

Bwhite, Sure wish I could afford to be at these types of functions ( Conflict at Space Confab ) like all those you that did attend.

As to Nasa being undernourished, IMO it gets plenty but the organization is full of leaches that are draining off the funds for which Nasa could be great again.
Nasa lacks a volunteering spirit, a drive to work for free if need be and it lacks the heart to take risks.

RobertDyck · 2005-05-25 09:48:54

NASA isn't dull, it's just undernourished.

No, it isn't. NASA's budget now equals what it received at the height of the Apollo program, and that's after adjusting for inflation. They don't need more money; they need to make intelligent use of the massive amount of cash they get every year. In year 2000 I argued to cut the military budget by 10%, give half to NASA and use the other half for tax cuts. That would have doubled NASA's budget. NASA could use those funds for a massive exploration and space industrialization program, the result of which would have been a great boost to the economy. However, that was before the ballistic missile defence shield, 9/11 and the war in Iraq. I said there would be a suicide attack on the World Trade Center, not a nuclear bomb lobbed with a missile that's easily traceable. The truck bomb on American soil targeted the WTC, the one that wasn't done by an American. The ballistic missile defence system is an $80 billion waste of money. However, America has lost a lot of money between rebuilding the pentagon, rebuilding the WTC, economic damage done by loss of financial companies in the WTC, anti-terrorism measures instituted after 9/11 (many of which are useless and blatant violations of civil liberties), and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. America can't afford more than it's giving NASA right now.

One congressman actually said before the camera that during the Apollo program they got contractors to offer work at or below cost with the promise of future contracts. He wants NASA to do that now. But when will these "future" lucrative contracts happen? It's 44 years since JFK's speech of May 25, 1961, which made the Moon the goal. Contractors have to receive a reasonable profit now. It's well known that contractors are over charging NASA, if congress attempts to screw over contractors that simply justifies their screwing over the American taxpayer. It's time to be honest and fair. Provide contractors a reasonable profit now, with realistic promises for future contracts and consistently stick with a long-term development plan that contractors can bank on. This flip-flopping costs contractors money, and they have to pass those cost on to NASA by increasing prices in subsequent contracts. However, major aerospace companies are charging more than 10 times what each contract is worth. Small start-up companies could replace them, but only if there's consistent direction.

NASA's 2005 budget is $16.244 Billion, their request for 2006 is $17.002 Billion. That's Billion with a "B". Per year. It may be small compared to the military budget, but it's still a hell of a lot of money. George W. Bush's plan is to redirect funds from the Shuttle program and construction of ISS (once it's complete) to manned exploration of space. That's intelligent use of existing funds, not massive new spending.

srmeaney · 2005-05-25 10:29:55

I'm not just talking about money, I'm talking creativity. For years now I've heard how the kids who dream about space just arn't making it to NASA any more. NASA is fed on dreams.

You want NASA to do something, cut it loose of the Government restraints, let it share ideas with others and build up the creative think tanks in schools. If kids can see a future in space for them they will hurl themselves down this path with a fury.

You wave a recruitment and training program for Mars Commonwealth in front of them on the scale that the millitary does it and you will get kids in engineering signing up for a change of citizenship and homeworld.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-25 10:58:46

But while we dog Nasa over getting to much, it is proported that they will get every dime of the 2006 years budget with the latest news on aeronautics getting more funding.

Were Russian to get what Nasa is getting in a single year for funding what a russian world this would be. Russia To Spend More On Its Space Program,

The fact that they get simular amounts but this does go for for many years worth of work, was eye openning.

Anatoly Perminov, head of Roskosmos, was quoted by Itar-Tass in April as saying 305 billion rubles or $11 billion will be needed to implement the space program for 2006-2015.

Palomar · 2005-05-25 13:19:23

But while we dog Nasa over getting to much,

*Who's dogging NASA about the funding they receive?

The issue for most space enthusiasts seems to be how NASA uses those funds.

--Cindy

Soyuz · 2005-05-25 16:37:23

BWhite,
Did t/Space say how much there CXV would approximately weigh? And do they keep the possibility open to launch there CXV on an existing vehicle or the Falcon V? And can NASA choose to just let them build the capsule and somebody else a rocket to launch the CXV or do they expect NASA to fund the whole plan?

BWhite · 2005-05-25 17:12:38

BWhite,
Did t/Space say how much there CXV would approximately weigh? And do they keep the possibility open to launch there CXV on an existing vehicle or the Falcon V? And can NASA choose to just let them build the capsule and somebody else a rocket to launch the CXV or do they expect NASA to fund the whole plan?

Air launch appears to be a mission critical element. They say that the propane / LOX engine will not adequately self pressurize at sea level. Also, crew remains in the airplane and do not transfer to the rocket until at altitude. Thus, no escape rocket is needed. Launch from the ground and in the event of malfunction the capsule needs an escape rocket to attain sufficient altitude for the parachute to work.

I know nothing that has not been confirmed by their website except there was an animated video of a laucnh which hepled put all the pieces in perspective. I was told that should be on-line this week.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-26 05:49:45

Here are some other pagers that I think will help all that did not attend to see the potential of the Crew Transfer Vehicle.

The t/Space Concept
This is a two page document that makes things a little simpler to see.
Has the page link to the carrier craft
Crew Transfer Vehicle (CXV) prject page

clark · 2005-05-26 06:16:32

Griffin has already come out (prior to t/space) that he wasn't going to make NASA dependant on outside parties to acomplish their missions.

Sure, maybe rocket launches- but not manned flight.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-05-26 16:14:35

The more I see of T/Space, the more I'm impressed by them, but it seems as though their stated goals as a company are fundamentally flawed. They're aiming to reduce the cost of space travel, okay, that makes sense. At the same time, however, they are also trying to deal only with NASA, an organization that operates far differently from how they do. If they couldn't keep up with the paperwork NASA would have required for a CEV bid, I don't see why they'd be able to do the same for the CXV. T/Space is going to have a very difficult time getting anything done unless they become more flexable and more willing to adapt to the requirements of organizations like NASA.

It would be wonderful to have cheap access to LEO (relatively speaking), but unless the CXV can better fit with NASA's longer-term goals I don't see them getting the $100+ million a year they'd need to develop it. $100 million is a lot of money, especially for an administration that is now trying to pinch every penny it can to pay for its new long-term vision. If the CXV could be adapted for use on cislunar flights then it would have a much more solid shot at actually being developed. Otherwise, I just don't see NASA being willing to put so much faith in the alt.space community so soon.

BWhite · 2005-06-03 18:25:19

http://www.transformspace.com/media_gal … pg]t/Space video - - warning, perhaps slow download.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-05-23 20:31:34

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#27 2005-05-23 20:36:40

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#28 2005-05-23 20:40:08

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#29 2005-05-23 21:58:16

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#30 2005-05-23 22:05:33

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#31 2005-05-23 22:23:09

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#32 2005-05-24 03:26:09

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#33 2005-05-24 04:07:58

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#34 2005-05-24 08:02:26

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#35 2005-05-24 08:05:55

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#36 2005-05-24 10:33:55

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#37 2005-05-24 13:39:19

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#38 2005-05-24 13:41:49

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#39 2005-05-25 00:53:04

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#40 2005-05-25 05:26:09

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#41 2005-05-25 09:48:54

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#42 2005-05-25 10:29:55

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#43 2005-05-25 10:58:46

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#44 2005-05-25 13:19:23

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#45 2005-05-25 16:37:23

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#46 2005-05-25 17:12:38

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#47 2005-05-26 05:49:45

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#48 2005-05-26 06:16:32

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#49 2005-05-26 16:14:35

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

#50 2005-06-03 18:25:19

Re: Rutan: NASA is Dull

Board footer