XCOR and the Lynx rocket

[Elmar Moelzer]

I think you might be confusing cause and effect. Things didn't go south because the founders "left"; the founders "left" because things were going south.

Well, from what it looked like they did not exactly leave willingly.

[Lars-J]

I think you might be confusing cause and effect. Things didn't go south because the founders "left"; the founders "left" because things were going south.

Well, from what it looked like they did not exactly leave willingly.

Neither interpretation paints a very favorable view of the founders.

But hopefully this is not the end of Lynx.

[jongoff]

I had a feeling that things would go south when the founders "left".

I think you might be confusing cause and effect. Things didn't go south because the founders "left"; the founders "left" because things were going south.

It's also possible for both to be true. Things weren't going well, so the new investors figured that replacing the founders would solve the problem, but in reality only made it worse.

~Jon

[docmordrid]

Wasn't there a rumor they couldn't pay the supplier for the first wing set?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Really sorry to hear the news about XCOR. Seems like there wasn't quite enough funding/income.

Here's one confirmed leaver, Doug Weathers:

What a ride! It was the best job I've ever had - so far. I wonder what's next? @XCOR

https://twitter.com/gdunge/status/736407048586334208

[woods170]

I think you might be confusing cause and effect. Things didn't go south because the founders "left"; the founders "left" because things were going south.

Well, from what it looked like they did not exactly leave willingly.

Neither interpretation paints a very favorable view of the founders.

But hopefully this is not the end of Lynx.

I beg to differ. Hopefully this IS the end of Lynx. That little idea has suffered from lack of funding long enough. Better to put it out of it's misery permanently.

[Robotbeat]

XCOR was always held together by the force of Jeff Greason's sheer will power. With him removed, I'm not surprised XCOR crumbled.

[Lars-J]

XCOR was always held together by the force of Jeff Greason's sheer will power. With him removed, I'm not surprised XCOR crumbled.

Surely he then has to shoulder some of the blame, if his "glue of willpower" was not sufficient to get it done.

[jongoff]

XCOR was always held together by the force of Jeff Greason's sheer will power. With him removed, I'm not surprised XCOR crumbled.

Surely he then has to shoulder some of the blame, if his "glue of willpower" was not sufficient to get it done.

Having also run a boostrapped aerospace startup for a few years now, I have a lot of respect for Jeff and his team, and not a lot of patience for the cheap negativity I sometimes see from people here who have no clue how hard what Jeff was trying to do is. Trying to do ambitious things in space when you don't start with a wealthy backer like a Branson, Bezos, Musk, or Carmack, is extremely hard, even in the best of circumstances.

That said, did Jeff and his team make some mistakes? Very likely. I'd love to get a better understanding of what it was that they did wrong, and what they did right. Other industries tend to have a more healthy attitude about failures, and learning from them. My hope is that by learning from others mistakes, at least some of us who didn't start with deep pockets, can learn from their mistakes and be more successful in the future.

~Jon

[Elmar Moelzer]

Well said, Jon!

[Alf Fass]

Well that looks like suborbital contenders Virgin Galactic, XCOR, Armadillo Aerospace, and Kistler are all pretty much down the drain, are there any serious suborbital hopefuls left?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Well that looks like suborbital contenders Virgin Galactic, XCOR, Armadillo Aerospace, and Kistler are all pretty much down the drain, are there any serious suborbital hopefuls left?

Blue Origin. I wouldn't count VG out yet either (but we're off topic).

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Doug Messier has a brief piece on the XCOR layoffs:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/05/29/xcor-layoffs-primarily-impacted-lynx-team/

Confirms the comments on this forum (Lynx suspended, focus on other revenue earning work). I was struck by the size of the layoffs, something in the region of 40 to 50% of the company

I really hope that things improve in the future. Best of luck to all those affected.

[Bob Shaw]

Well that looks like suborbital contenders Virgin Galactic, XCOR, Armadillo Aerospace, and Kistler are all pretty much down the drain, are there any serious suborbital hopefuls left?

Blue Origin. I wouldn't count VG out yet either (but we're off topic).

Masten.

[Robotbeat]

Armadillo Aerospace has been reborn as EXOS Aerospace, and they aren't dead, in fact just had some good news in the last couple months:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/04/05/spaceport-america-exos-aerospace-sign-partnership/

...hoping for a late 2016 launch, for NASA's suborbital opportunities program.

I don't think they're really planning crewed flights any time soo, however. But they aren't dead. Undead, maybe, but not dead

[Space Ghost 1962]

Having listened to a lot of NIAC proposals with starvation funding ambitions, you really get the idea that there's a certain minimum funding/patience before anything can be tried adequately.

Too much ambition/desperation leads to pretty much nothing, either over a long or short timescale.

Most in any kind of finance are unprepared for aerospace ventures - they don't know how to "calibrate" expectations of achievement/advantage. If you happened to do both, by having even a lifetime of business experience, sufficient aerospace experience and up to date credentials for state of the art development, that does not seem to be as much of an advantage as you'd think to closing this gap.

In addition, current trends for doing business involves a certain degree of "pushing the envelope" of people/things, where it's real easy to "go too far" for the wrong reason, in pursuit of what seems to be "the right thing".

Then, there's the "phase lag" of your design and it's business objectives. And the nature of why and what objectives investment flows, has a different time component and acculturation based on "now" verses "then".

With other "new space" ventures, these items have undone them often. Prior to SX, most have been terminal.

The benefit of SX's "wins" has been to strongly suggest that there may be a real win in real time, and that has not been lost on corporate strategic investment, nor on certain VC interests (including Founder's Forum).

As to XCOR/Lynx, I'm with woods170 on this - should not be done on the starvation funding anymore. Few days ago went through Mohave and wasn't pleased by the long faces. It's a community that deserves better.

The reality of getting substantially better revolves around novel investment to serve a market timely. Which means better agile aerospace development, a new business model, and execs with investors that can put in what it takes to achieve this in 4-7 years without second guessing every year the plan, or having to scare up new money for every additional rivet.

[savuporo]

Having listened to a lot of NIAC proposals with starvation funding ambitions, you really get the idea that there's a certain minimum funding/patience before anything can be tried adequately.

For any engineering project that is trying something new there is a minimum
- number of people working on it
- calendar months/years that it takes

And neither can be really worked around or negotiated.
Those two multiplied of course translate into required minimum funding, unless everyone has the luxury to work for free for years. By being more efficient than others, having brilliant talent, strong incentives and dedication etc can squeeze the numbers one or other way by good sized fractions, but can't change the orders of magnitude.

People still dream of two guys in a garage building orbital rockets, but it's just not going to happen until there have been a lot more rockets designed, built and flown. And all this has translated into available off the shelf components, design tools, infrastructure and design/test services etc. - and that is always going to be questionable given obvious dual uses of guided rocketry.

[yg1968]

It's unfortunate.

VG has a great plane but a problematic engine. Lynx has a great engine but a problematic plane. I am not sure which one is better.

[Rocket Science]

I always thought the Rocketplane project with a modified Learjet was the way to get up and going fast. Well there still are a lot Learjets sitting around and XCOR  has a great engine so...

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=c22c3ab9-32bc-4c3d-8d0a-58f6a9fd040e

[ChrisWilson68]

I wonder what happens now with all the people who put down deposits to book flights on Lynx.  Does XCOR have the financial resources to pay them back?  Will they refuse refunds, claiming the program is still underway, just more slowly than before?  Will there be lawsuits?  Will that bankrupt XCOR?