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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!!!