XCOR and the Lynx rocket

[john smith 19]

Concern trolling...

I don't have any concerns in this area. None of the players are betting with any of my money. If they win, great. 3 companies tried to do this already (I think there were about 6 announced, including Teledisc from a certain William Gates III). All are still in business but none is exactly ubiquitous.

If you cry "concern trolling" often enough people will just start ignoring  you.

Conditions are different, and level of execution is different.

Previous constellations were built in anticipation of a demand that never materialized.  Demand today exists.

So in fact it has materialized? That appears to be a logical contradiction.
So they do, but don't, meet a demand that has materialized. How does that work?

They were also built when mobile phone coverage was so poor a satellite phone that could not work indoors was thought to be a viable product.

The market has indeed changed. Wheather or not it's done so in a way that satellite based broadband can address profitably is another matter.

Previous constellations didn't have a wholly owned reusable launcher.  SL does.

Perhaps you might like to consider your use of the present tense?

Starlink's parent has a plan for an RLV design which presumably it it currently executing. At some point that will be flying. When it does then Starlink has a reusable ride, otherwise it is a partly reusable ride, unless SX can get US recovery and reuse working in some way or other.

Finally SL grabs the bull by the horns, solves the whole problem  and at large scale.  If there is a critical mass, SL is above it.

Insofar as we actually know what Starlinks business plan is.

This is all very entertaining, but what is its relevance to the demise of XCOR?

[meekGee]

Concern trolling...

I don't have any concerns in this area. None of the players are betting with any of my money. If they win, great. 3 companies tried to do this already (I thin there were about 6 announced, including Teledisc from a certain William Gates III). All are still in business but none is exactly ubiquitous.

If you cry "concern trolling" often enough people will just start ignoring  you.

Conditions are different, and level of execution is different.

Previous constellations were built in anticipation of a demand that never materialized.  Demand today exists.

So in fact it has materialized? That appears to be a logical contradiction. they do, but don't meet a demand that has materialized. How does that work?

They were also built when mobile phone coverage was so poor a satellite phone that could not work indoors was thought to be a viable product.

The market has indeed changed. Wheather or not it's done so in a way that satellite based broadband can address profitably is another matter.

Previous constellations didn't have a wholly owned reusable launcher.  SL does.

Perhaps you might like to consider your use of the present tense?

Starlink's parent has a plan for an RLV design which presumably it it currently executing. At some point that will be flying. When it does then Starlink has a reusable ride, otherwise it is a partly reusable ride.

Finally SL grabs the bull by the horns, solves the whole problem  and at large scale.  If there is a critical mass, SL is above it.

Insofar as we actually know what Starlinks business plan is.

This is all very entertaining, but what is its relevance to the demise of XCOR?

Because none of the existing constellations is capable of addressing the demand for data-to-consumers properly.

Sure, you can have trackers on your truck fleet, or a real expensive phonesat, but you can't touch the date needs of mobile users.

You do see though that iridium 2 is happening. Iridium 1 only survived after bankrupcy.  The fact they decided to do it again and got funding is a good data point.

[Robotbeat]

...

When it comes to XCOR I feel like I'm the only sane person in the room (or one of the few), pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Oh, please. Everyone was moaning about XCOR in this thread except, pretty much, me. You're not some lone dissenter. I mean geez, they're defunct and soon will be liquidated.

[Robotbeat]

ITAR just means don't export weapons tech to other countries without permission. It doesn't mean you can't use stuff for other purposes.

Why would taxpayers be mad that companies find other ways to use technology paid for in part by government funding? Half the point of the funding is to spur economic development, so that's pretty much the exact point!!! Also, finding other uses can help lower cost to the government by spreading R&D costs over multiple customers.

RP-1 is just kerosene. Nothing fancy, really. Closer to diesel than gasoline (but cleaner than diesel).

[john smith 19]

Tell me something.  I’ve never understood this. 

How can a small business get government contacts for rocket hardware development, but then use practically the same technology for Rocket Racing League?  Taxpayers should be furious!

Because they didn't.

Down thread it's mentioned the RRL engines were pressure feds. The big He bottles that looked like fire extinguishers were used to pressurize the propellants.

It's what XCOR learned working on the RRL that fed their govt contract work (in terms of safety and performance) not the other way round.

ITAR's stated goal may be to stop US technology proliferating to "The Bad Guys," (Iran, France, North Korea, Israel, UK) but IRL it's mostly a colossal PITA that handicaps SME's, but is quite handy if you're a $Bn corporation.

[Robotbeat]

Can you give an example of other ITAR designated / DoD developed technology being used for essentially commercial/recreational use?

You have no idea how broad ITAR is if this is even a question.

ITAR covers carbon fiber composites, advanced 3D printing technology, certain high performance polymers, even CFD used for Formula 1 race cars. It can even cover encryption technology used for basically everything.

And guns. Guns are never used recreationally, are they? 🤔

[Katana]

Somewhat surprisingly, the updated XCOR website has some performance numbers for the 5H25 and 8H21 hydrogen engines. As far as the cycle, it was closed in both coldflows (using the heat from a train) and in hotfire tests, although at "reduced power". There was a small update on one of the Space Access 2016 slides, which was tweeted by parabolicarc.

Thanks missed that, the numbers for the 8H21 are specifications of a design rather than a finished engine though, also even with an aluminium nozzle 47:1 TWR, roughly the same as an RL-10.

If 8H21 did shown some real promise beyond paper specifications to ULA, XCOR would not fail after cancel the Lynx program for it.

[savuporo]

ITAR covers carbon fiber composites, advanced 3D printing technology, certain high performance polymers, even CFD used for Formula 1 race cars. It can even cover encryption technology used for basically everything.

At least the encryption part is false. Encryption is covered by EAR controls, unless it's very specifically a classified or specifically military use algo.

[su27k]

A recent interview with Jeff Greason has the following to say about XCOR:

XCOR did some really groundbreaking work on reusable rocket engines; I’m not sure even in the industry the full extent of that is known.  We essentially developed liquid rocket engines that did not wear out – at least not in the first few thousand firings.  We had one go two thousand or so firings and it looked essentially brand new.   The only maintenance between flights was a quick visual inspection with a flashlight.   I’ve been told as recently as two years ago that such a thing is impossible – well, it isn’t impossible, we did it.   We converted an airplane to use that rocket propulsion, and flew it with a crew of four plus the pilot – by the end of its life, we had the cost per flight down to $900, which I think is pretty respectable for a manned rocketship, however modest.   We then had a client who wanted something a bit more ambitious for an entertainment application; for that, they wanted a very short turnaround time.   On that program, we got to the point where, with a sort of NASCAR-like ground crew, we could pull the rocket in, put the chocks in, service it, and reload with propellant in just under ten minutes.  Between those two vehicles, we had 66 rocket flights, with crew aboard, without ever losing anyone.  I think we really pushed the state of the practice on how to run those operations with a high degree of professionalism and excellent safety discipline, while simultaneously keeping the very small team and very low operations cost that commercial success will require.

The vehicle XCOR was developing for revenue service, the Lynx, required us to again resurrect a lot of lost art, like “how do you make a supersonic vehicle that flies out of the atmosphere and back and can be flown by a human being?”  That wound up taking a long time to develop, which meant more money, which meant new investors.  Eventually, they wanted a new CEO, and shortly thereafter, I no longer had resources or responsibilities.   After about six months of that, I left.

Entire interview is worth reading in full: https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/get-off-rock-interview-jeff-greason-part-one/

Edit: I didn't know Jeff Greason used to work for Intel, it's quite interesting that the pioneers of new space all seem to come from a computer industry background, there's probably a good reason for that, but not sure if this is the right thread to discuss this.

[Elmar Moelzer]

That wound up taking a long time to develop, which meant more money, which meant new investors.  Eventually, they wanted a new CEO, and shortly thereafter, I no longer had resources or responsibilities.   After about six months of that, I left.

I have seen that happening too many times.

[Katana]

That wound up taking a long time to develop, which meant more money, which meant new investors.  Eventually, they wanted a new CEO, and shortly thereafter, I no longer had resources or responsibilities.   After about six months of that, I left.

I have seen that happening too many times.

Greason left XCOR in 2015.2
XCOR publically canceled Lynx for 8H21 in 2016.5

[Elmar Moelzer]

Greason left XCOR in 2015.2
XCOR publically canceled Lynx for 8H21 in 2016.5

Not sure what you are trying to say with that.

[Robotbeat]

That wound up taking a long time to develop, which meant more money, which meant new investors.  Eventually, they wanted a new CEO, and shortly thereafter, I no longer had resources or responsibilities.   After about six months of that, I left.

I have seen that happening too many times.

Greason left XCOR in 2015.2
XCOR publically canceled Lynx for 8H21 in 2016.5

Vaguepost is vague.

[Sam Ho]

Entire interview is worth reading in full: https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/get-off-rock-interview-jeff-greason-part-one/

Part 2 is below.

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/get-off-rock-part-two/

[FutureSpaceTourist]

XCOR Files for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
November 9, 2017 Doug Messier

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/11/09/xcor-files-chapter-7-bankruptcy/

[Gliderflyer]

Henry Vanderbilt has a pretty spot-on summary: http://space-access.org/updates/sau148.html

[Graham]

Saddened to hear this, lots of brilliant and dedicated engineers had a good idea ruined by management- which is all too common in engineering to begin with. Best of luck to the few remaining employees, I'm hoping you all land on your feet.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Henry Vanderbilt has a pretty spot-on summary: http://space-access.org/updates/sau148.html

Matches much of what I know about XCOR, so FWIW not BS.

[Lars-J]

Henry Vanderbilt has a pretty spot-on summary: http://space-access.org/updates/sau148.html

Matches much of what I know about XCOR, so FWIW not BS.

I dunno... I'm just an amateur outside observer, but the part about Lynx being so great and scale-able all the way to a large airliner to orbit strikes me as extremely hyberbolic. And specifically - and I quote: "the configuration has been thoroughly wind-tunneled and is flyable and controllable throughout" - seems very optimistic. The thing was never even assembled. They had to outsource the wings. It never moved. The outer cockpit moldline appeared to be wildly implausible for a supersonic aircraft. The list goes on. If it was such a great vehicle, how could it have failed to that degree?

Am I wrong? I certainly could be. Henry is well respected in the industry, but that just reads more like a sales pitch than an honest assessment.

[QuantumG]

I think that's fair... but if you wanted to do that kind of flight profile it'd be nice to have the XCOR data to start from.