Beal was just like Kistler: impeccable technical credentials, bad business plan.
Not really; Kistler had a very ambious initial design, and almost no intermediate steps to test before an all-up launch. Beal, on the other hand, had a very simple design (pressure-fed Jet-A/LOX or H2O2 with ablative nozzles), but hit the market at just the wrong time.
If Beal had managed to get over the hump and fly a few rockets, it's not hard to imagine them occuping the space that SpaceX now holds.
It might be a useful exercise to look at some things like Atlas II and Delta II costs in the time Beal was pitching his idea and then applying standard inflation rates and seeing what they would cost today. One of the things that gets lost in all the hype about SpaceX lowering costs is that once you actually take into account all the other things that are part of launch costs, SpaceX is cheap, but it's not revolutionary cheap. It's not really out of line with what a Delta II would cost today if various policy decisions had not driven the price up way above inflation.So assume Beal would have done the same thing. Would it really have been that big a deal? Would it have totally disrupted the launch industry? Probably not.
So in your thinking Beal wasn't a problem to the other NASA programs that were funded?
The BA-2 was also somewhat oversized - 17 tons to LEO (from memory). Was the BA-1 smaller ? (never heard of it before)
Quote from: Prober on 05/31/2013 01:59 pmSo in your thinking Beal wasn't a problem to the other NASA programs that were funded? I don't understand this question. Can you explain it?
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/31/2013 03:26 pmQuote from: Prober on 05/31/2013 01:59 pmSo in your thinking Beal wasn't a problem to the other NASA programs that were funded? I don't understand this question. Can you explain it?Beal at the end tried to make the case that NASA in some way was a hindrance to his project. If this is the case, then wouldn't those who had funded projects with NASA be the ones who would have the losers?
Is it possible what Beal said is true? Could the contractors have put pressure on to put roadblocks in the way of Beal?
Could the contractors have put pressure on to put roadblocks in the way of Beal?
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/31/2013 03:26 pmQuote from: Prober on 05/31/2013 01:59 pmSo in your thinking Beal wasn't a problem to the other NASA programs that were funded? Beal at the end tried to make the case that NASA in some way was a hindrance to his project. If this is the case, then wouldn't those who had funded projects with NASA be the ones who would have the losers? Is it possible what Beal said is true? Could the contractors have put pressure on to put roadblocks in the way of Beal? I don't understand this question. Can you explain it?
Quote from: Prober on 05/31/2013 01:59 pmSo in your thinking Beal wasn't a problem to the other NASA programs that were funded? Beal at the end tried to make the case that NASA in some way was a hindrance to his project. If this is the case, then wouldn't those who had funded projects with NASA be the ones who would have the losers? Is it possible what Beal said is true? Could the contractors have put pressure on to put roadblocks in the way of Beal? I don't understand this question. Can you explain it?
Quote from: Prober on 05/31/2013 05:01 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 05/31/2013 03:26 pmQuote from: Prober on 05/31/2013 01:59 pmSo in your thinking Beal wasn't a problem to the other NASA programs that were funded? Beal at the end tried to make the case that NASA in some way was a hindrance to his project. If this is the case, then wouldn't those who had funded projects with NASA be the ones who would have the losers? Is it possible what Beal said is true? Could the contractors have put pressure on to put roadblocks in the way of Beal? I don't understand this question. Can you explain it?Posts like this don't make your question any clearer.
take for example (under roadblocks) the EPA wouldn't let Beal have a launch site. It's like today the EPA looks the other way with some companies.
I'm very much interested in any facts people can provide on the ultimate failure of Beal Aerospace.
Fact is that just when things were getting interesting, the firm was shut down. I don't consider the company a failure.
Judging by the statement on bealaerospace.com: Beal was too revolutionary, wanted Beal Aerospace to be truly commercial (sell only developed concrete services, not demo-flights to get paid for RnD) and compete only with others like it. NASA wanted to subsidize the development of other "commercial" services. Beal made a value choice that this picture wasn't commercial enough for him so shut it down. He was already a billionaire so this was an option. But he did burn quite a big pile of his own money in this, did he not? IIRC something like $700M.
Quote from: R7 on 06/01/2013 03:23 pmJudging by the statement on bealaerospace.com: Beal was too revolutionary, wanted Beal Aerospace to be truly commercial (sell only developed concrete services, not demo-flights to get paid for RnD) and compete only with others like it. NASA wanted to subsidize the development of other "commercial" services. Beal made a value choice that this picture wasn't commercial enough for him so shut it down. He was already a billionaire so this was an option. But he did burn quite a big pile of his own money in this, did he not? IIRC something like $700M.He walked into a subsidized market, couldn't make things work, and then complained that it was a subsidized market. His departing statement sounded naive, like somebody who had not researched his market.
Maybe, if he writes an autobiography, one could get his opinion of the facts.
Quote from: Blackstar on 06/01/2013 04:43 pmQuote from: R7 on 06/01/2013 03:23 pmJudging by the statement on bealaerospace.com: Beal was too revolutionary, wanted Beal Aerospace to be truly commercial (sell only developed concrete services, not demo-flights to get paid for RnD) and compete only with others like it. NASA wanted to subsidize the development of other "commercial" services. Beal made a value choice that this picture wasn't commercial enough for him so shut it down. He was already a billionaire so this was an option. But he did burn quite a big pile of his own money in this, did he not? IIRC something like $700M.He walked into a subsidized market, couldn't make things work, and then complained that it was a subsidized market. His departing statement sounded naive, like somebody who had not researched his market. fully researched not naïve
Quote from: gbaikie on 06/02/2013 12:29 amMaybe, if he writes an autobiography, one could get his opinion of the facts.I wonder if anyone has ever approached him for a book. Hopefully not Elizabeth Weil.Perhaps it was the Fastrac gifted to Orbital Sciences for the X-34 that ticked Beal off?
That's a little hard to believe based upon his departing statement. If anything, he should have been more angry at DoD than NASA, because they were buying more rockets and had created the EELV program. But when he quit, he blamed others for his failure to succeed.
While we believed we could compete successfully against the government subsidized EELV launch vehicles, the characteristics and depth of subsidy for NASA’s new initiative as well as its ultimate performance are impossible to determine or evaluate.
We were naively lured into business by NASA’s constant remarks about wanting to encourage privatization and new launch service providers.
Quote from: Blackstar on 06/02/2013 03:32 amThat's a little hard to believe based upon his departing statement. If anything, he should have been more angry at DoD than NASA, because they were buying more rockets and had created the EELV program. But when he quit, he blamed others for his failure to succeed.From the statement:QuoteWhile we believed we could compete successfully against the government subsidized EELV launch vehicles, the characteristics and depth of subsidy for NASA’s new initiative as well as its ultimate performance are impossible to determine or evaluate.It wasn't the EELV that upset Beal. It was already on when Beal got into the business and hard to believe that he didn't know about it SLI was too much for him. In retrospect he pulled the plug too hastily. The naivety was not expecting NASA to continue to do things like SLI and expecting something wonderful to come out of it to put him utterly out of the business. He even admits in the open letter to Space News:QuoteWe were naively lured into business by NASA’s constant remarks about wanting to encourage privatization and new launch service providers.
Quote from: R7 on 06/02/2013 08:06 amWe were naively lured into business by NASA’s constant remarks about wanting to encourage privatization and new launch service providers.And I think the collective response was "Boo hoo." He didn't know he was getting into a tough field when he started? And how did he think he was going to compete against Ariane, or Proton? Again, he blamed other people for his failures. It was pretty self-serving.
His LV probably could have easily undercut Ariane and Proton which really are not all that cheap.Falcon 9 is a lot cheaper,Zenit is, and in some cases maybe even an Atlas V is.....Still looking at Spacex's success I wonder if he regrets his decision.
Quote from: R7 on 06/01/2013 03:23 pmBeal was too revolutionary, wanted Beal Aerospace to be truly commercial (sell only developed concrete services, not demo-flights to get paid for RnD) and compete only with others like it. NASA wanted to subsidize the development of other "commercial" services. Beal made a value choice that this picture wasn't commercial enough for him so shut it down....
Beal was too revolutionary, wanted Beal Aerospace to be truly commercial (sell only developed concrete services, not demo-flights to get paid for RnD) and compete only with others like it. NASA wanted to subsidize the development of other "commercial" services. Beal made a value choice that this picture wasn't commercial enough for him so shut it down....
With skipping the BA-1, it is not a given that the BA-2 would work
His LV probably could have easily undercut Ariane and Proton which really are not all that cheap.
Quote from: Patchouli on 06/02/2013 04:55 pmHis LV probably could have easily undercut Ariane and Proton which really are not all that cheap.Paper rockets are always cheaper than actual rockets.
Quote from: Blackstar on 06/02/2013 09:10 pmQuote from: Patchouli on 06/02/2013 04:55 pmHis LV probably could have easily undercut Ariane and Proton which really are not all that cheap.Paper rockets are always cheaper than actual rockets.Paper rockets? Mr. Beal deserves the respect for putting his money in real terms where his mouth was.Please do check out the amount of cash he personally invested the adjust it for inflation.If you compare the amount, or even the percentage of Mr. Beal's investment compared with todays so called "commercial" its very much an apples vs oranges story. Today's "commercials" take taxpayer money to fund their companies.If you wish to discuss "paper rockets"; That's open to discussion. Mr. Beal might not have gotten to the assembly, and launch phase he did build much of that rocket. My files, In storage include much of his web site materials that are no longer available.
Quote from: Prober on 03/22/2014 11:54 amQuote from: Blackstar on 06/02/2013 09:10 pmQuote from: Patchouli on 06/02/2013 04:55 pmHis LV probably could have easily undercut Ariane and Proton which really are not all that cheap.Paper rockets are always cheaper than actual rockets.Paper rockets? Mr. Beal deserves the respect for putting his money in real terms where his mouth was.Please do check out the amount of cash he personally invested the adjust it for inflation.If you compare the amount, or even the percentage of Mr. Beal's investment compared with todays so called "commercial" its very much an apples vs oranges story. Today's "commercials" take taxpayer money to fund their companies.If you wish to discuss "paper rockets"; That's open to discussion. Mr. Beal might not have gotten to the assembly, and launch phase he did build much of that rocket. My files, In storage include much of his web site materials that are no longer available. I posted that nearly 10 months ago and you're going to feign outrage now?Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
Quote from: QuantumG on 05/31/2013 10:44 pmI'm very much interested in any facts people can provide on the ultimate failure of Beal Aerospace. Fact is that just when things were getting interesting, the firm was shut down. I don't consider the company a failure as Mr Beal pulled the plug.
1. If you compare the amount, or even the percentage of Mr. Beal's investment compared with todays so called "commercial" 2. If you wish to discuss "paper rockets"; That's open to discussion. Mr. Beal might not have gotten to the assembly, and launch phase he did build much of that rocket. My files, In storage include much of his web site materials that are no longer available.
Quote from: Prober on 03/22/2014 11:54 am1. If you compare the amount, or even the percentage of Mr. Beal's investment compared with todays so called "commercial" 2. If you wish to discuss "paper rockets"; That's open to discussion. Mr. Beal might not have gotten to the assembly, and launch phase he did build much of that rocket. My files, In storage include much of his web site materials that are no longer available. 1. It was a small amount compared to what Boeing, LM or Spacex have invested2 It was a bad design
1. Yes, but you cut the most important line and point. Today's "commercials" take taxpayer money to fund their companies. The funds for his development came directly out of his pocket2) In what way?
Quote from: Prober on 03/22/2014 07:08 pm1. Yes, but you cut the most important line and point. Today's "commercials" take taxpayer money to fund their companies. The funds for his development came directly out of his pocket2) In what way?1. After COTS, Spacex hasn't. Beal wanted to get money. 2. The location of pressurant tanks and the vehicle assembly. Also, he should have gone with a the BA-1 first, like Falcon 1
2) You might be right about the BA-1. Sure launching payloads would have brought the cash in.
Several years ago I wrote an article about what I called "space fetishism," about how space enthusiasts often get wrapped around some specific technology or ideological solution that they think is truly wonderful and is the magic solution to--if not all problems, then it is at least the solution to what they consider the biggest problems.
Quote from: Prober on 03/22/2014 07:35 pm2) You might be right about the BA-1. Sure launching payloads would have brought the cash in.It wouldn't be for cash but for validating the concept and technology
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/22/2014 10:58 pmSeveral years ago I wrote an article about what I called "space fetishism," about how space enthusiasts often get wrapped around some specific technology or ideological solution that they think is truly wonderful and is the magic solution to--if not all problems, then it is at least the solution to what they consider the biggest problems. Sounds like a great article maybe you can post it under "general". Would enjoy to see if you cover the differences between "space fetishism," "space enthusiasm ," and the "space Cult" person.
yesterday's dream is really today's hope and tomorrow's reality
Quote from: su27k on 03/24/2014 03:28 amyesterday's dream is really today's hope and tomorrow's realityPrint that in a Hallmark card.
What space conservatists don't understand is that there is an industry where "fetish" actually works,
Quote from: su27k on 03/24/2014 03:28 amWhat space conservatists don't understand is that there is an industry where "fetish" actually works,Which industry is that?
Quote from: Jim on 03/24/2014 01:29 pmQuote from: su27k on 03/24/2014 03:28 amWhat space conservatists don't understand is that there is an industry where "fetish" actually works,Which industry is that?Do not look it up on your work computer.
Do not look it up on your work computer.
Too bad really because even the BA-810 would have made a heck of a booster engine (1 BA-810 = 4.3 Merlin1Ds just gives me chills to think of the things you can do )Timing is everything they say and Beal didn't have that or the vision/drive to go broke competing in the market of the day. Can't really fault him for pulling out, and lets face it NASA-et-al are a convenient whipping boy for almost everyone despite the "facts" on the ground so his good-bye post is understandable if not actually supported by the facts.His concept of "purely commercial" was the biggest flaw in the plan as far as I can see since even Elon isn't willing to go that far and gladly accepted NASA money/support which is why I don't see Beal ever stepping back into the game.Jim's also right that he tried to do to much from the start with not enough "proof" on the ground and it would have done wonders for the design to proceed through some intermediary steps before trying to fly the full-up design.And you can't fault his ultra-conservative design really under the circumstances, as he was coming at the problem from a "purely commercial" point of view with no plans for pushing the boundaries like SpaceX has done. Today might be different but I'm doubtful the incentive would be there to jump in again...So, that means we can steal, er borrow I mean, what he did do and make our own plans for Solar domination! Bwhahahahaha! Er, Hmmm, that sounded WAY less "super-villain-ish" in my head Randy
Randy Take the info from thishttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39553.msg1489811#msg1489811enough incentive ?
Too bad really because even the BA-810 would have made a heck of a booster engine
How close was the pickup truck to the test stand? That just looks wrong
Quote from: RanulfC on 02/19/2016 04:59 pmToo bad really because even the BA-810 would have made a heck of a booster engine It really was a monster..<3
About as much as the canceled Delta IV Medium+ (5,8) variant.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 10/24/2016 08:58 pm About as much as the canceled Delta IV Medium+ (5,8) variant.That was never a planned configuration.
Quote from: Step55 on 03/22/2014 03:36 pmHow close was the pickup truck to the test stand? That just looks wrong Quote from: Dante80 on 10/23/2016 09:00 amQuote from: RanulfC on 02/19/2016 04:59 pmToo bad really because even the BA-810 would have made a heck of a booster engine It really was a monster..<3The photo in the immediately previous post, taken from a different perspective, appears to answer Step55's question. That truck does appear to be too close. Did it get stuck in the mud? It looks like steam is rising from the mud puddles.It looks like the set-up for a Farmer's Insurance ad for strange claims..."We are Farmer's, bum-te-de-um-bum, bum-bum."
At liftoff, the first stage produces a thrust of 2,693,211 pounds. About as much as the canceled Delta IV Medium+ (5,8) variant.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 10/24/2016 08:58 pmAt liftoff, the first stage produces a thrust of 2,693,211 pounds. About as much as the canceled Delta IV Medium+ (5,8) variant.I get some different numbers here.http://www.astronautix.com/b/bealba-2.htmlhttp://www.astronautix.com/b/ba-3200.htmlIf I understand correctly, The number in the engine name was used as a descriptor of its planned thrust. In other words, at liftoff the BE-3200 was supposed to give/have more thrust and SL Isp than the STS SRBs.
I'm away from my HD but I dug out a recent interview of Beal about SpaceX. Andrew and Elon know each others pretty well, and not only because of the McGreggor connection. Basically Beal feel a little too old to try again, but he is quite happy with what Elon already achieved.
(still kills me that we should have discovered how easy it was to get peroxide NOT to decompose in storage a lot earlier than the mid-70s, and despite that almost no one who uses or proposes peroxide STILL don't seem to know about it!)
Quote from: RanulfC on 10/31/2016 02:53 pm(still kills me that we should have discovered how easy it was to get peroxide NOT to decompose in storage a lot earlier than the mid-70s, and despite that almost no one who uses or proposes peroxide STILL don't seem to know about it!)Err...how do you keep it from decomposing?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ty-bonte-6201898was wondering if Blue Origin BE-2 that used peroxide was related to Beal Aerospace in any way. Well, look at the above CV. While SpaceX took McGregor from Beal, Bezos might have been interested in their peroxide engines.
Looking back, Beal Aerospace had allot of Issues with there program Biggest one was crazy idea to build a launch pad on Sombrero Island in Anguilla, and to mass-produce launch vehicles in the Virgin Islands.oh the environmentalists have aggressive opposed those plansThat Island is part of the British overseas territory of Anguilla. Means Beal Aerospace had to make a deal with British government in order to get use rights (unlikely) Next that Island is dead rock in ocean, a launch pad would be hit hard by Hurricanes here Also to install rocket building infrastructure on Virgin island would be extremely expensive and logistic nightmare. Had Beal Aerospace stick to USA for rocket building and used existent launch pads or build one in Texas.They would have chance to get a launch like SpaceX or Rocket Lab (last are USA & New Zealand join-venture) Another issue was Beal Aerospace had no working product to show investors or Clients Had they build suborbital rocket or Beal-1 for small Satellite für Pentagon or University They had gain customers early and the could finance Beal-2 Final problem was that the Beal rocket to be manufactured from lightweight composite materialswhat in early 2000s was very expensive had they stick to aluminum production cost could lower (yes i know with Payload losses) they could manufacture the rockets much cheaper