i would like to see NASA go since all they are doing is wasting our tax money on "demonstrator" aircraft and using a shuttle thats almost 30 years old.

heck i made some models at home that are some pretty good concepts to replace the shuttle

 

Burt Rutan will get us to the moon and beyond....

The Hubble needs some work on the gyro's (or something) in '07 or '08 max. Even if ISS *is* a white elephant' date=' I believe they'll continue to support it.

[/quote']

 

The Hubble won't be getting another call from the shuttle even under the current plan.

Burt Rutan will get us to the moon and beyond....

Burt Rutan didn't even get into orbit.

so....

they accomplished the only objectives neccessary for the x-prize

and he had what 20 people

oo, suborbit....so impressive...

oo, suborbit....so impressive...

Six Flags will have it in 10 years

sooner or later boeing will get into the game.

I'm not convinced Rutan will solve the problem of re-entry at > 17,000 mph as easily as he handled the problem of "re-entry" at < 3,000 mph. Try that little "feather" trick at that kind of speed, and I imagine Mother Nature will just point and laugh.

 

But he certainly seems to have a better shot at it than anybody else.

oo, suborbit....so impressive...

Yes, I think it was. When compared to the manpower and money used for the first NASA manned shots.

 

Sort of like a backyard builder making a 12 seater passenger plane. Not very impressive compared to a Jumbo, but quite an achievement in it's own right.

THAT I agree with. An incredible achievement, no question about it.

Pangloss, why is it that every time I see your avatar, all I can think of is "Mine!"?

I dont see how this foam falling off the tanks is such a huge problem for NASA. There has to be a solution. Maybe a different material. Maybe a stronger, more flexible adhesive will work (that is, if the foam is glued on).

 

What are other countries doing right that we aren't. They don't seem to be having this problem.

 

Will someone please explain to me why this is so difficult to solve!

Yes' date=' I think it was. When compared to the manpower and money used for the first NASA manned shots.

 

Sort of like a backyard builder making a 12 seater passenger plane. Not very impressive compared to a Jumbo, but quite an achievement in it's own right.[/quote']

Rutan had access to info on NASA's first shots. NASA didn't have anything to go on when they did it.

Apart from everything von Braun and his fellow Germans brought from Peenemunde.

Take Bert Rutan, lock him in a room with Zubrin, give them the ISS budget and we'll be on Mars by 2015.

But NASA's *non*-involvement in Rutan's project is a big part of why it happened at all. There's no way NASA would ever approve a vehicle without triple redundancy on every safety system, and a hell of a lot more safety systems than SpaceShip One has. There are single points of failure all over the place in that thing.

 

Not that it's really NASA's fault, I suppose. We just wouldn't view the failure of a routine space tourism flight in the same way that we view failures by the space shuttle. Private developers not only get to avoid government oversight, they also get to avoid all the emotional baggage. All they have to worry about is their OWN public image (i.e. nobody may want to fly with them if one of their vehicles crashes).