Rec.Aviation.Homebuilt.Spacecraft?

Harry K wrote:
On Dec 12, 6:07 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

I figure there is enough expertise in this group to successfully tackle
this challenge...

Now all it takes is money!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceands...2/moon-20.html

The latest version of the X Prize is backed by Google: $20 million to
the first private enterprise that can land a robotic rover on the lunar
surface,

Um - has any private enterprise even gotten into orbit yet? I mean jeepers,
how many _nations_ have even managed to get an artificial satellite into
orbit - never mind get one to the moon? What gives with announcing prizes
that no one is likely to be able to collect on?


Or a prize where the effort to win it will cost nearly as much, if not
more, than the prize?

Harry K

Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One.
It cost $40 million.


They seem to think it was worth it...


Richard

cavelamb himself wrote:

Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One.
It cost $40 million.

They seem to think it was worth it...

$1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll eventually make
money...

"DT" == Darrel Toepfer writes:

DT cavelamb himself wrote:
Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
cost $40 million.

They seem to think it was worth it...

DT $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
DT eventually make money...

If Rutan doesn't kill them first.

I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.

I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
"government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
and budgets.
--
The fascist state is the corporate state.
~ Benito Mussolini

In article ,
Bob Fry wrote:

"DT" == Darrel Toepfer writes:

DT cavelamb himself wrote:
Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
cost $40 million.

They seem to think it was worth it...

DT $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
DT eventually make money...

If Rutan doesn't kill them first.

I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.

I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
"government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
and budgets.

NASA hasn't done all that well no matter what party has been calling the
shots since the early 1970s, it's not nothing whatsoever to do with "the
Republican 'government-sux' crowd".

And Rutan (along with a host of others) is quite correct in stating that
NASA has become badly risk-averse bureaucracy that seems more interested
in its own maintenance than in doing really new things, particularly in
regard to manned spaceflight.

Which is a crying shame, but pretty hard to seriously dispute. That
zero-risk culture means that things are highly unlikely to change, too.

"SH" == Steve Hix writes:

SH NASA hasn't done all that well no matter what party has been
SH calling the shots since the early 1970s, it's not nothing
SH whatsoever to do with "the Republican 'government-sux' crowd".

Let me make clear I'm not going to defend the current NASA. Their
decline clearly occurred with the cutoff of the Apollo program (under
Nixon BTW though probably Congress had as much or more responsibility
for their cutback). They never really regained the competence and
prestige they had in the '60s.

SH And Rutan (along with a host of others) is quite correct in
SH stating that NASA has become badly risk-averse bureaucracy
SH that seems more interested in its own maintenance than in
SH doing really new things, particularly in regard to manned
SH spaceflight.

Again, not defending current NASA, but the above is overly harsh. They
have achieved some very good unmanned interplanetary missions,
notwithstanding blunders betwee SI and English units. And they have
to avoid obvious risks.

My gripe with Rutan is several, but his utterly over-the-top criticism
of anything government is absurd and childish. It speaks more to his
insecurity than anything.

--
I did not know how to say goodbye. It was harder still, when I refused
to say it.
~ Native American saying

Bob Fry wrote:

"SH" == Steve Hix writes:


SH NASA hasn't done all that well no matter what party has been
SH calling the shots since the early 1970s, it's not nothing
SH whatsoever to do with "the Republican 'government-sux' crowd".

Let me make clear I'm not going to defend the current NASA. Their
decline clearly occurred with the cutoff of the Apollo program (under
Nixon BTW though probably Congress had as much or more responsibility
for their cutback). They never really regained the competence and
prestige they had in the '60s.

SH And Rutan (along with a host of others) is quite correct in
SH stating that NASA has become badly risk-averse bureaucracy
SH that seems more interested in its own maintenance than in
SH doing really new things, particularly in regard to manned
SH spaceflight.

Again, not defending current NASA, but the above is overly harsh. They
have achieved some very good unmanned interplanetary missions,
notwithstanding blunders betwee SI and English units. And they have
to avoid obvious risks.

My gripe with Rutan is several, but his utterly over-the-top criticism
of anything government is absurd and childish. It speaks more to his
insecurity than anything.



Yeah, you got him there.

But he HAS done what he said he would do.

Maybe it's not so much insecurities and plain old fashioned
competence and pride.

Bob Fry wrote:
"DT" == Darrel Toepfer writes:

DT cavelamb himself wrote:
Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
cost $40 million.

They seem to think it was worth it...

DT $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
DT eventually make money...

If Rutan doesn't kill them first.

I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.

He's always been a prototype guy. That's what he is good at.



I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
"government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
and budgets.


I grew up in the 60s as well and thought until well into my 20's that
they were the perfect government organization because at the time they
were. They aren't anymore. They are just another federal agency. It is
sad but it is true. You could take the same bunch of people that are in
charge of any random US agency and move them to NASA and you wouldn't
see the least bit of difference in operation.

I really don't think you could hand double the amount of money that was
spent going to the moon in the 60s (adjusted for inflation) and get man
to the moon and back today.

Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
Bob Fry wrote:

"DT" == Darrel Toepfer writes:


DT cavelamb himself wrote:
Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
cost $40 million.
They seem to think it was worth it...

DT $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
DT eventually make money...

If Rutan doesn't kill them first.

I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.


He's always been a prototype guy. That's what he is good at.



I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
"government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
and budgets.



I grew up in the 60s as well and thought until well into my 20's that
they were the perfect government organization because at the time they
were. They aren't anymore. They are just another federal agency. It is
sad but it is true. You could take the same bunch of people that are in
charge of any random US agency and move them to NASA and you wouldn't
see the least bit of difference in operation.

I really don't think you could hand double the amount of money that was
spent going to the moon in the 60s (adjusted for inflation) and get man
to the moon and back today.

I hate to, but I fully agree.

On Dec 13, 1:28 pm, Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
Bob Fry wrote:
"DT" == Darrel Toepfer writes:

DT cavelamb himself wrote:
Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
cost $40 million.

They seem to think it was worth it...

DT $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
DT eventually make money...

If Rutan doesn't kill them first.

I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.

He's always been a prototype guy. That's what he is good at.



I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
"government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
and budgets.

I grew up in the 60s as well and thought until well into my 20's that
they were the perfect government organization because at the time they
were. They aren't anymore. They are just another federal agency. It is
sad but it is true. You could take the same bunch of people that are in
charge of any random US agency and move them to NASA and you wouldn't
see the least bit of difference in operation.

I really don't think you could hand double the amount of money that was
spent going to the moon in the 60s (adjusted for inflation) and get man
to the moon and back today.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree but for a different reason. Back in the 60s they were given a
very dramatic goal and allowed to run with it. Tremendous risks were
taken and accepted. Try to do the same things they did back then and
they wouldn't be allowed to proceed.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:

On Dec 13, 1:28 pm, Gig601XLBuilder wrote:

Bob Fry wrote:

"DT" == Darrel Toepfer writes:

DT cavelamb himself wrote:
Rutan's crew won the $20 million prize with SpaceShip One. It
cost $40 million.

They seem to think it was worth it...

DT $1.2m per multisecond zero g space tourist, I think they'll
DT eventually make money...

If Rutan doesn't kill them first.

I guess I'm the only one on the planet that thinks Rutan is more
blowhard than substance. Sure, he can one-off stuff that looks sexy
and advanced. But try delivering a reliable production aircraft or
spacecraft...he can't do it. His spacecraft, as I recall, damn near
went out of control on one or two of the three launches. Only by luck
and skill did they not kill the pilot. It's my fervent hope that the
FAA will examine the hell out of their commercial spacecraft venture.

He's always been a prototype guy. That's what he is good at.




I admit I dislike him for another reason. Everytime I see him on the
TV he's dissing NASA and similar government programs. I grew up
through the 1960's when NASA and others in government were laying the
foundation of technology we all enjoy today, including this forum,
Usenet/Internet. It's not their fault that the Republican
"government-sux" crowd has taken over for 25 years and ruined morale
and budgets.

I grew up in the 60s as well and thought until well into my 20's that
they were the perfect government organization because at the time they
were. They aren't anymore. They are just another federal agency. It is
sad but it is true. You could take the same bunch of people that are in
charge of any random US agency and move them to NASA and you wouldn't
see the least bit of difference in operation.

I really don't think you could hand double the amount of money that was
spent going to the moon in the 60s (adjusted for inflation) and get man
to the moon and back today.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I agree but for a different reason. Back in the 60s they were given a
very dramatic goal and allowed to run with it. Tremendous risks were
taken and accepted. Try to do the same things they did back then and
they wouldn't be allowed to proceed.

Harry K



There are calculations that tell how many men will die building a bridge
or anything big like that.

There was always the implication that we would lose a crew in space.

But had that happened they (congress) would have wrung their hands
and cried, "How tragic that we funded this", and pulled the plug.

We lost one crew on the ground and nearly lost the whole project.

I just can't fathom it...

Richard