It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HoW come Burt Rutan is cleverer than NASA?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nacnud

Originally posted by BigTrain
Im sure a bird isnt going through 4 inch solid ceramic reinforced, and foam or anything else for that matter. I still see no reason why there are 30,000 tiles on the shuttle. Train


There are variouse reasons for tiles on the Orbiters rather than a single large solid chunk.

Tiles can flex, or rather the small gaps between them alow them to move in relation to each other in responce to aucoustic and thermal loads. They are also very light, much lighter that a thicker single reinforced layer.


I understand all of the advantages to tiles you have mentioned, but that was because the materials engineering field was largely infintile in the days when the shuttle was being designed. My entire point here is that materials science is now at a point where there is no reason a solid piece cannot be molded or created.

Expansion and thermal effects can easily be accomidated for in the design of the mold.

Does anybody know if a ceramic mold has ever been created for something like this?

Train




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I don't think so, you're best bet probably would be to look at the X-38 tiles, but as far as I know everything uses tiles. Soyuz uses a big abliative though,



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
From the sound of things the next generation is going to be panels too. It's called ARMOR.

ARMOR



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Yep, cheers Duncan, et al, I can well see that the theory doesn't carry over to the much larger and much higher velocity vehicle for all the reasons spelled out.

I have to say that the one single thing about this thread that has surprised me the most is the amount of sheer vitriol that has been directed towards Rutan himself.

I find this very puzzling as Rutan has consistently been one of Americas most ingenious and revolutionary aircraft designers over the last thirty plus years from ther Vari Viggen through to the SS1, and I would have thought his achievement in winning the X-prize was to be applauded?

For instance if the capability to do this has been around for decades and what Rutan did was nothing special, how come he got to be first and none of the other competitors have yet flown? I mean, if it was so EASY? Although, Rutan himself said on the documentary I watched that his biggest regret was that he didn't have the courage to do this in 1974, which suggests it could have been done. But the point here is nobody did. The notion that he used a 'whacko' design in order to 'cheat' his way to the prize smacks of nothing more than bitterness and sour grapes. Hardly a fitting response for the first achievement of its kind, ever. Don't you think?

[edit on 24-1-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The problem Waynos, is that not only is he a great aircraft designer, but he knows it too. He has a tendency to rub people the wrong way at times. After the flight of Spaceship One, one of the first things he said was "There are two space agencies now." He can be rather arrogant at times.


jra

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The notion that he used a 'whacko' design in order to 'cheat' his way to the prize smacks of nothing more than bitterness and sour grapes. Hardly a fitting response for the first achievement of its kind, ever. Don't you think?


Agreed. I don't get all the hostility directed towards Rutan. I doubt a lot of the other X-prize contenders would have gotten as far either. But there is nothing stopping them to finish what they started either. If commercial sub-orbital/orbital flight takes off (no pun intended) then they have a head start already, assuming there designs are viable.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
The best designers usually are arrogant, like the best fighter pilots. R J Mitchell was reknowned for his 'short shrift' with anyone who wasn't quite on his wavelength (ie everyone). Rutans comment about there being two space agancies comes across more to me as being borne of euphoria at the successful flight more than anything else. There's nothing wrong with knowing your good.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I agree, and personally I don't have an issue with him, but there have been times when he's attacked the FAA for not approving his design and giving him a certificate for it, and just gone off on people for pretty much no reason.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
It isn't that Burt Rutan "smarter" than NASA. It's just that free enterprise has consistently been able to outperform government projects. Governments have their way of doing things. This usually means bloated budgets and reports. and offering contracts to the lowest -- not necessarily the best -- bidders. NASA is a huge agency with thousands of people working in various, often redundant, capacities. Smaller companies, guided by vision, tenacity and similar expertise are able to act upon discoveries; capitalizing upon successes and accepting mistakes without being hamstrung by miles of red tape.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Burt Rutan smarter then NASA!?! Ha! All he did was make an "space"craft in order to win a prize. The commercial viability is still very suspect. The XPrize should have had rules saying you can spend more then X amount of $ and you had to have signed up the same time as everyone else. If those rules would have been part of the competition Brain Feeney and the DaVinci Project would be the winner of the XPrize right now, not Scaled (Built to Break Records and Win Competitions) Composits.
Sorry for the rant but that is truely how I feel.


Your only mad because Canada is just so far behind the world in all space related things.
If scaled composites was a canadian company...your view would be 100% different and you know it.
BTW, has Da Vinci even flown...Yet?



I think Nasa should just stick with sending probes...I mean, the more I read on there "future" spacecraft designs...It seems like they keep reaching for older technology...as if thats really going to make spaceflight cheaper and safer.

CEV overhual
This article pretty much says that Nasa is going backwards as far as technology is concerned.

I like Burt Rutan & Scaled Composites, and cant wait to see SpaceshipTwo's unvieling...which is still probably a year away.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   
I'll have to step in and defend NASA here: The only thing old about the CEV is Apollo shape,and that's being reused because the Apollo engineers got it right.

All the insides are new, the ESAS report explains the thinking behind the shape, as the physics of spaceflight haven't changed neither has the best shape for the job. Lifting bodies were looked at but just weren't as good or their 'advantages' weren't needed or too costly.

NASA is trying to develop a vehicle it can afford using technology that exists to be as safe as possible. If that means reusing the J2S engine and Hypergolics it just shows that they are being reallistic with their buget.

I was disapointed they droped the Methane engines but needs must and NASA really really wants to go to the Moon.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Nacnud]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
It isn't that Burt Rutan "smarter" than NASA. It's just that free enterprise has consistently been able to outperform government projects. Governments have their way of doing things. This usually means bloated budgets and reports. and offering contracts to the lowest -- not necessarily the best -- bidders. NASA is a huge agency with thousands of people working in various, often redundant, capacities. Smaller companies, guided by vision, tenacity and similar expertise are able to act upon discoveries; capitalizing upon successes and accepting mistakes without being hamstrung by miles of red tape.



That's correct. Private firms have always dominated the government ones, the only exception being NASA, for 1 reason. They had all the money.

Also, I don't hate Burt Rutan, I just think he is grossly over-rated. He essentially spent 20 years on this SS1, and all it did was go str8 up, and as for why didn;t anybody else do it, well, because its just not that exciting. Most engineers are trying to accomplish much tougher challenges. Plus remember, Burt still needed a billionaire to finance his plan, not everybody has this at their will.

SS1 could have been built in the 40's. Period

Private firms are not interested in a model rocket ship.

Private firms are working for LEO or higher.

Paying passengers are gonna be pissed when they learn the SS2 just shoots str8 up for 40 seconds and floats back down the earth, there went 250,000 for a ride the is no different than superman at Magic Mountain.

And thank you for the information regarding the ARMOUR plating for the new REV. I was certain this tile nonsense had passed it's time.

Waynos, let look at this.

The X-33 I believe thats the correct designation, was a Lockheed-martin design for the next shuttle. This design was made late 80's, early 90's and scale models were flown in the late 90's. This shuttle would use the aerospike engine.

I was absolutely fascinated by this design, they essentially had nothing in common wioth the original space shuttle. This was a private firm design and was so much more advanced than anything before it. This is a perfect example of much better engineers than Rutan.

And this is why, if you go here Burt Rutan on Wikipedia you will see that Burt Rutan specilizes in sub-sonic, exotic aircraft such as beechcraft and other custom slow single seaters.

I mean, shouldn;t I like him, he graduated from the same school as me?

But sorry burt, I dont think you are qualified to be designing space ships.

Train



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
It isn't that Burt Rutan "smarter" than NASA. It's just that free enterprise has consistently been able to outperform government projects. Governments have their way of doing things. This usually means bloated budgets and reports. and offering contracts to the lowest -- not necessarily the best -- bidders. NASA is a huge agency with thousands of people working in various, often redundant, capacities. Smaller companies, guided by vision, tenacity and similar expertise are able to act upon discoveries; capitalizing upon successes and accepting mistakes without being hamstrung by miles of red tape.


How can you say something like this? Just show me one private company that did something for space exploration, you'll rarely find any. Private corporations have one weakness - the need for profit. In fact govermantal organizations are very effective in many areas, especially if rapid inovations are not necessary. Look at the russians they were able to compete inspace race against US just with state companies. For example NASA could be much more profitable, but Congress has explicitely forbidden them comercional space activities (like satelite launches etc.).

If I should choose between private monopoly and the state one, the second one would be surely better option.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
It isn't that Burt Rutan "smarter" than NASA. It's just that free enterprise has consistently been able to outperform government projects. Governments have their way of doing things. This usually means bloated budgets and reports. and offering contracts to the lowest -- not necessarily the best -- bidders. NASA is a huge agency with thousands of people working in various, often redundant, capacities. Smaller companies, guided by vision, tenacity and similar expertise are able to act upon discoveries; capitalizing upon successes and accepting mistakes without being hamstrung by miles of red tape.


How can you say something like this? Just show me one private company that did something for space exploration, you'll rarely find any. Private corporations have one weakness - the need for profit. In fact govermantal organizations are very effective in many areas, especially if rapid inovations are not necessary. Look at the russians they were able to compete inspace race against US just with state companies. For example NASA could be much more profitable, but Congress has explicitely forbidden them comercional space activities (like satelite launches etc.).

If I should choose between private monopoly and the state one, the second one would be surely better option.


How are to unable to distingwish between a private monopoly and a government one?!?!?!?!?!

That was an AMAZING statement.

And im sorry man, but have you not followed anything, all the satellites that NASA sends up and made mostly by Lockheed Martin, not the mention that the Atlas Rocket is a private thing, where have you been!!!!! All the ballistic missile defense and satellites are made by private companies.

NASA has never built anything, its always been contracted out!!!

They OPERATE these machines, they rarely build them.

Train



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Nacnud - The route Nasa has taken is best for getting to the moon and all that...But they are stifling what should also be at the top of the list.....Inovation.

Now it seems they want to buy several russian trip to the ISS. And the technology for their "future" spacecraft is older then the current one they fly...and some is older then Apollo! I'm all for going back to the moon, and have a permanent base their...But I see this as going the same way Apollo did. If you have to spend ridiculous amounts of money to go to the moon...Then the public wont like it...and they will loose interest the longer your their, and their the ones that foot the bill to keep the light on at Nasa.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Why is Burt Rutan able to do things that NASA is not?

1) He has a genius for all things aviation.
2) He does not have a overloaded bloated buracracy with a endless horde of paper pushers trying to cover thier butts and justify thier positions by generating endless reams of staus reports and other office entities that take on a life of thier own.
3) Less adversion to taking risks
4) See #2 above. When you have to deal with 5 committies to design say a flange how efficient are you going to be?
5) What is the ratio of actuall hands on staff to "managers"? Ill bet almost all of Rutans staff is "hands on". Im also willing to be that the number of managers outnumbers the engineers at NASA.
6) NASA is spread out and that breeds inefficiency. Get mission controll out of Texas for christ sake. Concentrate thier assests in 2-3 places.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain

Originally posted by longbow

How can you say something like this? Just show me one private company that did something for space exploration, you'll rarely find any. Private corporations have one weakness - the need for profit. In fact govermantal organizations are very effective in many areas, especially if rapid inovations are not necessary. Look at the russians they were able to compete inspace race against US just with state companies. For example NASA could be much more profitable, but Congress has explicitely forbidden them comercional space activities (like satelite launches etc.).

If I should choose between private monopoly and the state one, the second one would be surely better option.


How are to unable to distingwish between a private monopoly and a government one?!?!?!?!?!

That was an AMAZING statement.

And im sorry man, but have you not followed anything, all the satellites that NASA sends up and made mostly by Lockheed Martin, not the mention that the Atlas Rocket is a private thing, where have you been!!!!! All the ballistic missile defense and satellites are made by private companies.

NASA has never built anything, its always been contracted out!!!

They OPERATE these machines, they rarely build them.

Train


Train, I suggest you re-read his post, particularly the bit in bold and what it infers.

Do you think Lockheed Martin etc would not have built those satellites but for NASA's grants and contracts?

Longbow is 100% correct - cutting edge research, developing proof of concept is never economically viable for a private company never - simple as that. It needs government funding, money that can effectively be written off in pure research.

As Longbow says (with a bit of clarification from me), name a private company that ever did anything for space exploration off their own backs (as in, not through a NASA/ESA etc contract.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I would like to remind everybody to please watch the big quotes and also to stay on the topic.

Thanks



[edit on 1/25/06 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
And im sorry man, but have you not followed anything, all the satellites that NASA sends up and made mostly by Lockheed Martin, not the mention that the Atlas Rocket is a private thing, where have you been!!!!! All the ballistic missile defense and satellites are made by private companies.

NASA has never built anything, its always been contracted out!!!


I never said NASA build anything, like you said NASA (and other govermental agencies) CONTRACTED that work, only because of them for example moon landing happened. What do you think would happen NASA never existed and Eisenhower and Kennedy never authorised the funding? Do you think free enterprises would achieve anything? I heighly doubt there would be even satelites on orbit without NASA (and USSR) efforts. By saying something like free enterprises are constantly outperforming govermantal ones,you are underestimating the state influence and effecitvity on science and development of future technology.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by longbow]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Waynos - starts fight, walks away, whistling




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join