Briefs: Rutan against NASA plan; Hearing notes

Forever contrary, Burt Rutan, who usually loves to talk about "Na-Say", argues that private firms can't do LEO transport services: Space Pioneer Burt Rutan Blasts NASA Plan - WSJ.com. [No, he isn't arguing this. Sorry Burt! See Update 2 below.]

Update: So apparently when Burt collaborated on the t/Space project to provide NASA with commercial space access[, a project that took] in a few million dollars for studies and prototyping, he was just pretending they were capable of that:
/-- t/Space Mid-Term Architecture Briefing - Dec.1.04 (pdf)
/-- t/Space Final Briefing CA-1 - March 2, 2005 (pdf)

A commercial infrastructure is required for a frontier to flourish, even if its initial parts are funded by government purchases

Update 2: In the WSJ article, there is this item:

"From my past comments on NASA's" lack of direction and success, "an observer might think that I would applaud the decision to turn this important responsibility over to commercial developers," the letter says. However, he adds, that's "wrong."

In the comments here, Gary Hudson says that he has communicated with Burt and "important responsibility" refers to "exploration of the solar system, not launching crew to LEO". Alan Boyle also quoted Burt last week saying,

I am for NASA doing either true Research, or doing forefront Exploration, with taxpayer dollars. Ares/Orion is more of a Development program than a Research program, so I am not depressed to see it disappear.

"I am concerned to see NASA manned spaceflight disappear, since they provided world leadership in the '60s and part of the '70s. The result was America’s universities being the leader in science/engineering Ph.D.s. Many American kids will be depressed by the thought that our accomplishments will not be continued and thus America will fall deeper away from our previous leadership in engineering/science/math. I believe our future success depends on our ability to motivate our youth.

"I would support a restructuring of goals and funding so NASA can be allowed to perform like the '60s on space Research and on Exploration. There is not a shred of evidence that the president sees any value in those goals."

So, while Burt's letter to Congress hasn't been released publicly yet, it appears that he is focused on NASA's deep space missions and is not dissing commercial services to LEO.

Update 3: The text of Burt's letter was found and I discuss it here.
===
Another response to the hearing today: Some hints on NASA's human spaceflight plans today? - SciGuy/Houston Chronicle

Posted 02/24/10 | 19:04:28 by TopSpacer | Filed under: Space policy

Comments

I guess Burt Rutan didn't want to compete against other private companies? Otherwise, I found his opinion strange....

Posted by Prospace Environmentalist at 02/24/10 21:26:59

What airport can he "get an approach?" They were never going to get anywhere with Ares/Orion. I guess there is a reason Burt doesn't have his pilot's license anymore.

Posted by Joe Blow at 02/24/10 22:29:52

I have known Burt for over twenty years and it is very true that he "thinks different." He expresses himself in a manner that is often interpreted wrongly by folks in Washington. He uses words in ways are at odds with what NASA or the conventional industry use the same words. Contrast that WSJ article with his published comments to an AP report a few weeks ago:

"I am for NASA doing either true Research, or doing forefront Exploration, with taxpayer [dollars]. Ares/Orion is more of a Development program than a Research program, so I am not depressed to see it disappear.

I am concerned to see NASA manned spaceflight disappear, since they provided world leadership in the 60s and part of the 70s. The result was America’s universities being the leader in Science/Engineering PhDs. Many American kids will be depressed by the thought that our accomplishments will not be continued and thus America will fall deeper away from our previous leadership in Engineering/Science/Math. I believe our future success depends on our ability to motivate our youth.

I would support a restructuring of goals and funding so NASA can be allowed to perform like the 60s on space Research and on Exploration."

Ares was a development program. For all practical purposes so was Orion. neither should be done on a cost-plus basis by government any longer. I don't think he'd disagree with that observation. I too am all for NASA astronauts conducting exploration. They don't need to do that in vehicles designed or built by NASA centers. NASA "manned spaceflight" is not disappearing, as we all know. It will become more vibrant and exciting as new destinations and technologies are implemented.

The NASA plan has been purposefully misinterpreted or exaggerated by certain opponents to confuse and obfuscate the issues. In the end, except for those whose "jobs" oxen are gored, I think we are all going to come together and make the plan work.

Posted by Gary C Hudson at 02/24/10 22:41:32

A clarification to the Update above: Scaled was certainly part of our t/Space team, but their role encompassed about 1/8 of the total dollars and they didn't have any role in the presentation philosophical content (that were done by David Gump and myself, primarily).

Posted by Gary C Hudson at 02/24/10 22:55:39

I am gonna offer a crazy idea, so feel free to provide counter evidence if you like, but I am honestly curious - could Rutan's opposition be not opposition at the plan, but opposition at Obama? I've gotten the impression that he doesn't much like Obama (or at least his policies), and so NASA is just, collateral damage?

Posted by anonymous-explorer at 02/24/10 23:47:34

Clark's First Law?

Posted by Michael Antoniewicz II at 02/25/10 00:02:10

Hi Gary,
Thanks, your right about the text. I rewrote it to make it clear that the money went to the project and not just to Scaled.

WRT the quote, it is in bold letters on the first slide in both reports. That certainly should indicate that the whole collaboration supported it or at least had no objection to it. Hard to believe if Burt disagreed with it that he would not have insisted it be changed for the second report.

I know from what I've heard him say at conferences and in interviews, that he has his own unique take on issues. I hope his letter to Congress is released and it turns out that Pasztor's interpretation is just a big exaggeration. The AP item certainly sounds far more like what I would expect him to say.

However, this item in WSJ seems pretty straight-forward:

"From my past comments on NASA's" lack of direction and success, "an observer might think that I would applaud the decision to turn this important responsibility over to commercial developers," the letter says. However, he adds, that's "wrong."

I hope he offers a clear explanation as to why it's not OK to turn over this responsibility now but it was OK in 2005.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 02/25/10 00:29:03

When he says "this important responsibility" he is referring to exploration of the solar system, not launching crew to LEO. I know this for a fact from a recent exchange of emails.

Posted by Gary C Hudson at 02/25/10 00:32:10

Hi Gary,
OK, great. That's a relief. Unfortunately, the WSJ article may have set off a false meme that will be hard to stop. Hope Burt does something publicly to clarify this.
- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 02/25/10 01:12:55

So the WSJ article is "misleading". I wished these so-called "journalists" do their jobs properly! Now I retract my first comment on this article in light of this new information. *sigh*

Posted by Prospace Environmentalist at 02/25/10 06:38:41

Thanks for the clarification Gary.
I'm with 'Prospace Enviromentalist' on wishing the journalists would do their homework a "bit" better. I withdraw my comment also.

NASA should be leading Research, Technology, some Development, and Exploring.

Posted by Michael Antoniewicz II at 02/25/10 11:58:01

Somebody posted Burt Rutan's letter to the NSF forums:

http://forum.nasaspacefligh...

From reading that, it looks like the WSJ summary was quite misleading. From the letter, it's pretty clear that he's referring to "failure" as a scenario where commercial companies duplicate the LEO access of Gemini and not pursuing beyond-LEO:

<I>"No question, it would be good to see commercial companies quickly succeed at orbital access and to take that capability beyond low earth orbit. However, I am fearful that the commercial guys will fail; i.e. they will do little more in my remaining lifetime than NASA accomplished in 3.5 years with Gemini in the mid 1960s."</I>

Curiously enough, most of what he demands in the letter with NASA R&D and such is specifically addressed by NASA's new plan.

Posted by Neil H. at 02/25/10 23:33:37

Hi Neil,
Thanks for the pointer. I've posted another item about the letter. I also agree that he is clearly talking about beyond-LEO and is saying that getting to LEO is no big deal.
- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 02/26/10 01:39:17

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.