[Editor’s note: an earlier version of this entry attributed the comments below to Burt Rutan, when in fact they were spoken by Dick Rutan, Burt’s brother. I apologize for the error.]
Dick Rutan, appearing at the Camarillo Air Show last weekend in southern California, had a few contentious things to say about NASA, according to an article in a local community newspaper, The Acorn:
Rutan took time to comment on last week’s resignation of three NASA advisers who were asked to step down because they disagreed with NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s plans for a manned flight to Mars and the return of humans to the moon.
“They’re using four-decadesold equipment to go and do something that we’ve already done,” Rutman [sic] said. “The American people should be ashamed of themselves for even supporting such a worthless endeavor. Mars is a dead planet. There’s nothing there of any interest. We need to find something where there is true exploration.”
I don’t think Rutan will be getting an invitation to next year’s Mars Society conference…
Interesting. I wonder where Mr. Rutan — a man I have tremendous respect for — considers true exploration to be?
— Donald
There is nothing there that can’t be better and more inexpensively explored by teleoperated robot from the surface or vicinity of Phobos.
What happened to rationality in our American space program?
“There is nothing there that can’t be better and more inexpensively explored by teleoperated robot from the surface or vicinity of Phobos.
What happened to rationality in our American space program?”
The real exploration of Mars or any body in the solar system can only be truly and fully explored with people on sight.
I think that NASA should actually move away from exploration – that is not what I think they are about. Exploration is something that a Scientific Agency should pursue. NASA in my opinion is an engineering agency and should be solving the problems to allow for the exploration of celestial bodies.
NASA needs to focus on developing a reliable, relatively inexpensive, routine (at least bimonthly) way to get to LEO, MEO, and HEEO and then move from there to other places like Lunar Orbit and surface, NEOs, & Martian Orbit & Mars. NASA should provide the means of getting to these places. Other companies, organizations, & agencies should be NASA’s customers for what ever they may need to do in space. (Also in the Air the first A is Aeronautical)
This would mean that NASA would develop technologies and then sell them for use.
The other thing is NASA is not about sustained projects, it comes up with something cool that it can say will be the next great thing and then build it and use it forever.
And Burte is right – they are doing something that they did 50 years ago (by the time it happens) with the same basic technology that they did it with before. Where is the engineering challenge in this?
Burt Rutan is right, but the situation is worse than he claims. NASA is not concentrating on Mars. It’s not even really focusing on the Moon, although that is the obstensible rationale for its current activities. It is merely building a low-capability replacement to the Space Shuttle using Apollo and Shuttle-era technology. Worse yet, this system duplicates capability already residing in the commercial sector.
I do disagree that Mars is a worthless objective. Until we discover new aspects to the laws of physics, it’s probably going to be as good as it gets. But exploration in the form of rigorous scientific practices must be the approach. Sending astronauts to the Moon or Mars to ooh, ahh and hit golf balls just ain’t gonna cut it.
The idea of using Phobos or Diemos as a base for telerobotic exploration of Mars is the best justification I’ve seen for near-term crewed missions beyond earth orbit. A presentation at the recent Outer Planetary Analysis Group (OPAG) advocated the same type of mission around Venus. Both Mars and Venus are rich with information that could help us understand past and future evolution of Earth’s environment. To better understand these planets we need the more immediate and direct means of exploring these worlds using human-operated telerobots.
Uh, of course, it’s worth noting that none of those quotes are from BURT Rutan.
The speaker is his brother Dick.
Worse yet, this system duplicates capability already residing in the commercial sector.
If so, the commercial sector has been remarkably cagey about demonstrating it to date. But then, it’s 25 Aug 2006 where I am; you may be more current.
“If so, the commercial sector has been remarkably cagey about demonstrating it to date.”
I guess you completely missed all of the commercial launches of Proton, Zenit, Soyuz, Arianne, Delta, Atlas, and longmarch in the last decade.
“This system” in the passage I quoted — ESAS — includes development of the CEV. I must have missed the commercial launches in the last decade that carried those, or were intended to land payloads on the moon.
I have no problem with criticism of the choices behind the new ESAS launch vehicles. It’s the NewSpace reflex of referring to “capabilities we expect to have Real Soon Now” as “capabilities we have” that I was challenging.
Well it is still valid even if it isnt Burt but his brother Dick
It’s the NewSpace reflex of referring to “capabilities we expect to have Real Soon Now” as “capabilities we have” that I was challenging.
It’s the NASA greybeard reflex of referring to “commercial capabilities we’ve had for decades” as “NewSpace” and “Real Soon Now” which I was challenging.