Would ULA buy the IP and carry on the development inhouse?.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 07/10/2017 03:54 pmWould ULA buy the IP and carry on the development inhouse?.Kill XCOR for IP?Apart from any moral/legal considerations, ULA could save little on an engine already dirt cheap.BTW, which engine has ULA chosen instead? BE-3U is too massive for RL-10 replacements.
And sometimes founders have no clue about the business, or their ideas don't work out. It's convenient to blame the XCOR problems on those darn investors, but I would suggest that the majority of the problems with XCOR came from the founders.Every company at some points is handed off from the founders to new leadership. If that hand off is not successful, that tends to indicate that the company is run more off the force of personality of the founders rather than a sound business model.I don't know the exact details of what happened here, but this idea that XCOR was running fine and the villainous investors sabotaged the good company that the good saint Greason founded is not a credible one. The truth is somewhere in between.
As many have said, knowledgeable individuals can be more important than the IP. But XCOR did have promising IP - their composite LOX tanks and piston pumps. Similarily Armadillo (now EXOS) has no people left, but their flight control IP remains relevant and valuable. Not sure if Firefly had any worthwhile IP, just people.
Former XCOR CEO blames company problems on lost contractby Jeff Foust — July 19, 2017WASHINGTON — The former chief executive of XCOR Aerospace told a Senate committee July 18 that the company’s recent financial problems, which led to a layoff of all of its employees last month, could be blamed on a terminated engine development contract. [...]
With all their eggs in one basket they were vunerable. As CEO for two years he had plenty of time to find other revenue streams using his company's skilled workforce.
XCOR running out of time to find investorby Jeff Foust — October 20, 2017WASHINGTON — XCOR Aerospace, a company forced to lay off its staff earlier this year when it ran into financial problems, has only weeks left to find an investor willing to rebuild the company or else face liquidation, the company’s chief executive says.
We? (?) And why do you think it would be a wise investment? They never got that far on Lynx. Nothing of real value remains of XCOR. They said they would keep core employees on a contract basis, but Doug Jones wasn't even a part of that mythical group. It's dead, Jim.
Quote from: Lars-J on 07/26/2017 06:25 amWe? (?) And why do you think it would be a wise investment? They never got that far on Lynx. Nothing of real value remains of XCOR. They said they would keep core employees on a contract basis, but Doug Jones wasn't even a part of that mythical group. It's dead, Jim.Real value of XCOR is technology of piston pump engines, however surpassed by today's 3D printed turbopumps.
Quote from: Katana on 10/20/2017 02:36 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 07/26/2017 06:25 amWe? (?) And why do you think it would be a wise investment? They never got that far on Lynx. Nothing of real value remains of XCOR. They said they would keep core employees on a contract basis, but Doug Jones wasn't even a part of that mythical group. It's dead, Jim.Real value of XCOR is technology of piston pump engines, however surpassed by today's 3D printed turbopumps.Depends. 3d turbo pumps are a) Very complex shapes. b). Likely to need quite a lot of post processing to get the surface finish to a standard that keeps losses low and avoids stress concentrators being formed (doing so during the latter part of the MIT Micro-rocket engine project raised the maximum safe chamber pressure from 12 to 19atm, or about 58% c)The Whitehead team at Sandia found losses rise a lot for turbo pumps below about 5 000lb. While the analysis is > 20 years old the fluid properties haven't changed. So yes piston pumps do still score at the right level of size and are frankly a damm sight easier to build (drilling machines, lathes and hand tools, not 5-axis CNC milling machines). Besides any XCOR patents will have some years to run, while the original Sandia ones have already expired. The really unique IP they do have is the "unburnium" composite for LOX storage. AFAIK there is nothing quite like it anywhere.
Turbopump is not THAT easy, but yet much easier today than 10 years ago, when no space startups could do it. SpaceX bought pumps from Barber Nichols untill full production of F9.Quote from: KatanaSmall turbopumps are inefficient, but not too bad. I print turbopump parts from my desktop printer and cast them into metal. Preliminary tests with toy grade clearances (0.5～1mm) develops only 5~10% efficiency, yet means 220s potential isp capability. For pistons, 1mm clearances would be impossible to use.The problem, like in making IC's, is the scaling laws. The MIT micro gas turbine project was looking at rotational speeds of 1-1.2 million RPM. Boundary layer effects are another major effect, because they don't scale down very well. A 5 thou BL on a 2 foot turbine is nothing. But when the turbine is a 1/4 of an inch..In contrast positive displacement pumps run 10-100s of cycles a second, tolerances are set by piston fit into a cylinder (a very well understood problem in the automotive world) and pressure defined by the area ratios of the drive and pump pistons. I think the geometry of PD pumps is a poor fit for 3d printing, but that's more a mfg issue than the design. Quote from: KatanaLOX compatible composites have been reported since years, they are only marginally beneficial.Maybe because they were only marginally compatible?The point about XCOR product was not that it was "compatible" it was it did not burn at all.
Small turbopumps are inefficient, but not too bad. I print turbopump parts from my desktop printer and cast them into metal. Preliminary tests with toy grade clearances (0.5～1mm) develops only 5~10% efficiency, yet means 220s potential isp capability. For pistons, 1mm clearances would be impossible to use.
LOX compatible composites have been reported since years, they are only marginally beneficial.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 10/20/2017 07:46 pmQuote from: Katana on 10/20/2017 02:36 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 07/26/2017 06:25 amWe? (?) And why do you think it would be a wise investment? They never got that far on Lynx. Nothing of real value remains of XCOR. They said they would keep core employees on a contract basis, but Doug Jones wasn't even a part of that mythical group. It's dead, Jim.Real value of XCOR is technology of piston pump engines, however surpassed by today's 3D printed turbopumps.Depends. 3d turbo pumps are a) Very complex shapes. b). Likely to need quite a lot of post processing to get the surface finish to a standard that keeps losses low and avoids stress concentrators being formed (doing so during the latter part of the MIT Micro-rocket engine project raised the maximum safe chamber pressure from 12 to 19atm, or about 58% c)The Whitehead team at Sandia found losses rise a lot for turbo pumps below about 5 000lb. While the analysis is > 20 years old the fluid properties haven't changed. So yes piston pumps do still score at the right level of size and are frankly a damm sight easier to build (drilling machines, lathes and hand tools, not 5-axis CNC milling machines). Besides any XCOR patents will have some years to run, while the original Sandia ones have already expired. The really unique IP they do have is the "unburnium" composite for LOX storage. AFAIK there is nothing quite like it anywhere.Turbopump is not THAT easy, but yet much easier today than 10 years ago, when no space startups could do it. SpaceX bought pumps from Barber Nichols untill full production of F9.Small turbopumps are inefficient, but not too bad. I print turbopump parts from my desktop printer and cast them into metal. Preliminary tests with toy grade clearances (0.5～1mm) develops only 5~10% efficiency, yet means 220s potential isp capability. For pistons, 1mm clearances would be impossible to use.LOX compatible composites have been reported since years, they are only marginally beneficial.
From what little I understand of turbopumps, one of their main issues with reusability is bearing life. While 3D printing may make casting easier, it isn't going to make the bearings last longer, which is the important part.
Quote from: Katana on 10/21/2017 11:53 amTurbopump is not THAT easy, but yet much easier today than 10 years ago, when no space startups could do it. SpaceX bought pumps from Barber Nichols untill full production of F9.Quote from: KatanaSmall turbopumps are inefficient, but not too bad. I print turbopump parts from my desktop printer and cast them into metal. Preliminary tests with toy grade clearances (0.5～1mm) develops only 5~10% efficiency, yet means 220s potential isp capability. For pistons, 1mm clearances would be impossible to use.The problem, like in making IC's, is the scaling laws. The MIT micro gas turbine project was looking at rotational speeds of 1-1.2 million RPM. Boundary layer effects are another major effect, because they don't scale down very well. A 5 thou BL on a 2 foot turbine is nothing. But when the turbine is a 1/4 of an inch..In contrast positive displacement pumps run 10-100s of cycles a second, tolerances are set by piston fit into a cylinder (a very well understood problem in the automotive world) and pressure defined by the area ratios of the drive and pump pistons. I think the geometry of PD pumps is a poor fit for 3d printing, but that's more a mfg issue than the design. Quote from: KatanaLOX compatible composites have been reported since years, they are only marginally beneficial.Maybe because they were only marginally compatible?The point about XCOR product was not that it was "compatible" it was it did not burn at all.
