Comments on: Don’t mince words, Burt Dick

By: Chris Mann

Chris Mann — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:24:28 +0000

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.

By: D3x

D3x — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:37:36 +0000

Well it is still valid even if it isnt Burt but his brother Dick

By: Monte Davis

Monte Davis — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:28:15 +0000

“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.

By: Chris Mann

Chris Mann — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:05:15 +0000

“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.

By: Monte Davis

Monte Davis — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:21:01 +0000

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.

By: David

David — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:55:59 +0000

Uh, of course, it’s worth noting that none of those quotes are from BURT Rutan.

The speaker is his brother Dick.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:41:52 +0000

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.

By: D3x

D3x — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:45:35 +0000

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?

By: vze3gz45

vze3gz45 — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:08:12 +0000

“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.

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:54:56 +0000

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?