XCOR and the Lynx rocket

[woods170]

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

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

Bury the dead or they'll stink up the place.

XCOR in general, and Lynx in particular, never were viable to begin with IMO. Its only counterpart, Spaceship Two, will eventually go the same way IMO.

[Archibald]

Lynx was a far better concept that Spaceship 2, but the latter will survives as long as Richard Branson is alive.

[john smith 19]

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.

Perhaps reading the article would have cleared up your confusion?

- Regarding Lynx, meanwhile, a quick refresher: The basic mission is, fly from a normal runway to Mach 3/300,000 feet with a payload, then either send the payload on its way or return it intact to the runway - multiple times per day, at costs comparable to (other) high performance aircraft.

Lynx, for this version was a M3 sub orbital vehicle. 
Given that both the XB 70 and SR 71 were runway-to-M3 (300 Kft would have been high for them) it does not seem too big a stretch that something substantially smaller (Outside the SR71 crew it carried a 5000lb payload of sensors) could be executed that did not need the $Bn resources of a whole 1950/60s govt  programme to implement.

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.

You do know that most wind tunnel models are sub scale, right? You're using them to design the shape in the first place.

You normally have a choice in design.
Build a shape, hope it does the job (or fix it later) or get the shape right first then build it.
If you're on a cost plus contract the first option is just fine. If you're not the latter is a pretty good idea, as long as you know there are some questions that only a flight programme will answer. 

There is a third option where there are no design choices and you have to build a vehicle of a certain shape and hope you can convert it to do what you want to later. Sometimes that works, sometimes it does not.
I like to think of it as the "And then a miracle happens" paradigm.

If it was such a great vehicle, how could it have failed to that degree?

Because Vehicle design <> implementation of vehicle design?

IOW The design has not failed, but the design of the company to make it has.
The words "founders syndrome" do sum it up sadly.

Henry is well respected in the industry, but that just reads more like a sales pitch than an honest assessment.

Only in the sense he's reminding people there was a lot more to XCOR that an unflown aircraft design, all of it potentially valuable to a number of players for various different reasons.

Let's find out what happens at the auction.

[Lars-J]

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.

Perhaps reading the article would have cleared up your confusion?

Gee gosh, do I need to read it? 

Lynx, for this version was a M3 sub orbital vehicle. 
Given that both the XB 70 and SR 71 were runway-to-M3 (300 Kft would have been high for them) it does not seem too big a stretch that something substantially smaller (Outside the SR71 crew it carried a 5000lb payload of sensors) could be executed that did not need the $Bn resources of a whole 1950/60s govt  programme to implement.

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.

You do know that most wind tunnel models are sub scale, right? You're using them to design the shape in the first place.

You normally have a choice in design.
Build a shape, hope it does the job (or fix it later) or get the shape right first then build it.
If you're on a cost plus contract the first option is just fine. If you're not the latter is a pretty good idea, as long as you know there are some questions that only a flight programme will answer. 

There is a third option where there are no design choices and you have to build a vehicle of a certain shape and hope you can convert it to do what you want to later. Sometimes that works, sometimes it does not.
I like to think of it as the "And then a miracle happens" paradigm.

I'm skeptical that they chose the right shape. They clearly chose what they thought they could build on a meager budget. (They were wrong about that) And that cockpit is evidence 1A of this (see image), and I am *very* skeptical that this exact shape was validated through Mach 3 with simulations. I would call in to question the fidelity of such a simulation.

If it was such a great vehicle, how could it have failed to that degree?

Because Vehicle design <> implementation of vehicle design?

IOW The design has not failed, but the design of the company to make it has.

This idea of yours that there is a such a disconnect between a "design" and the implementation of that design suddenly explains your Skylon beliefs.

[woods170]

Lynx was a far better concept that Spaceship 2, but the latter will survives as long as Richard Branson is alive.

Concept alone does not cut it. It must be executed properly as well. And it must be "sold" properly. Neither happened.

[whitelancer64]

Lynx was a far better concept that Spaceship 2, but the latter will survives as long as Richard Branson is alive.

Concept alone does not cut it. It must be executed properly as well. And it must be "sold" properly. Neither happened.

And development must be funded properly.

[Robotbeat]

How much does the half-completed Lynx cost?

[Space Ghost 1962]

FWIW due diligence of startups I have done for close to 4 decades, mostly following aerospace work in 70's.

See numbers in the systems and they either add/converge or not. Can't do this with interpersonal, marketing/sales, management, or customer whim issues. So aside from watching a group attempt to piss up a rope, can't crystal ball project futures.

There have been stone dead programs worked for decades, and perfect ones killed at the start for spite, along with everything in between. It does take more than feasibility. Especially with startups of any kind.

But woods170 is spot on about the dead bodies piling up.

add:
It is extremely common for aerospace startups to be populated by smart, immensely talented people, that are not ideally suited to take a startup forward.

As well as some extreme self promoters and hucksters that often take advantage. And some peculiar investor "know it all" types who desire to creatively abuse a situation.

Think that many misunderstood Musk and SX for that reason - a false match. They continue to misunderstand his competitive motivations.

[john smith 19]

I'm skeptical that they chose the right shape. They clearly chose what they thought they could build on a meager budget. (They were wrong about that) And that cockpit is evidence 1A of this (see image), and I am *very* skeptical that this exact shape was validated through Mach 3 with simulations. I would call in to question the fidelity of such a simulation.

You're entitled to your opinion.

This idea of yours that there is a such a disconnect between a "design" and the implementation of that design suddenly explains your Skylon beliefs.

You appear to think that the best business ideas will prevail because they are the best business ideas.

This ignores the importance of the ability to raise money, or to manage that money well once you've done so.
Ignoring those factors means your views are basically a fairly tale of capitalism.
SG1962 and Woods170 have a much more realistic view of the problems.

The book "Startup" By Jerry Kaplan, discusses some of the non-financial ways companies can have stunning ideas and still fail.  You might like to look up the design of the PenPoint OS and reflect on how much  (or little) of its capabilities are available in modern OSes 30 years later. 

As for Skylon and Reaction Engines. They were also founded by a small group with complementary skills. If there is a difference it's that they seemed to have focused much more tightly on the key elements that make SABRE different and proved a) That they worked and b) They can be mfg'd efficiently.

[QuantumG]

You appear to think that the best business ideas will prevail because they are the best business ideas.

This ignores the importance of the ability to raise money, or to manage that money well once you've done so.

Or a million other things.

Ignoring those factors means your views are basically a fairly tale of capitalism.

While we've all heard people espouse these kinds views, it's the fact that mere "good ideas" aren't sufficient to succeed in the marketplace that makes capitalism so successful. It takes a lot of different people with different agendas workings together to make a product and get it to consumers. XCOR fell down in a lot of places, but that doesn't mean they didn't do good work along the way.

[john smith 19]

Or a million other things.

Ignoring those factors means your views are basically a fairly tale of capitalism.

While we've all heard people espouse these kinds views, it's the fact that mere "good ideas" aren't sufficient to succeed in the marketplace that makes capitalism so successful. It takes a lot of different people with different agendas workings together to make a product and get it to consumers. XCOR fell down in a lot of places, but that doesn't mean they didn't do good work along the way.

Absolutely.  Some of their work was unique within the industry, certainly in the US. It's an old cliche that "Success has many parents, but failure is an orphan" and it's a cliche because it is true.

People who've never studied the process, or who've never done it, often underestimate the skill set(s) needed to do this. that includes the question of how well people know themselves and their limitations in certain fields, and their willingness to bring others in to cover those limitations.

[Nilof]

The most valuable IP that XCOR owns isn't the Lynx, which was already put on the backburner long before the bankruptcy.

The important IP they own is their closed cycle piston-pumped engines. If XCOR's numbers are to be believed, the XR-8H21 has performance equivalent to or slightly better than the RL-10 while being manufacturable for considerably less than the cost of buying an RL-10.

Furthermore, depending on things go, the company IP might sell for less than the cost of a single RL-10. At that price there should be no shortage of buyers. Lots of companies might be interested in picking up a bargain engine with that kind of performance.

[john smith 19]

Furthermore, depending on things go, the company IP might sell for less than the cost of a single RL-10. At that price there should be no shortage of buyers. Lots of companies might be interested in picking up a bargain engine with that kind of performance.

Technically it's all the information to make such an engine.

[Robotbeat]

Nilof:

Good! So the Lynx should be cheap. How much do you think?

[john smith 19]

The important IP they own is their closed cycle piston-pumped engines. If XCOR's numbers are to be believed, the XR-8H21 has performance equivalent to or slightly better than the RL-10 while being manufacturable for considerably less than the cost of buying an RL-10.

That shouldn't be surprising, given that's what they were funded to produce, an RL10 replacement.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Some details of XCOR financials in backruptcy proceedings:

http://www.mrt.com/news/local/article/XCOR-files-financials-with-bankruptcy-court-12372452.php

Including:

No value was given to the Lynx MK1, a spaceplane in development that would take off and land horizontally. Documents say the Lynx would require between $15 million and $20 million to finish. An estimated $25 million to $30 million was invested.

[john smith 19]

Now I realize why that shape looked familiar.

It's the X-20 Dyna Soar.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

A failed company and an uncertain market

by Jeff Foust
Monday, November 27, 2017

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3379/1

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Motion for Asset Sale Filed by XCOR Aerospace, Inc.
Jan 26 18

XCOR Aerospace Inc., filed a motion in the US Bankruptcy Court for the sale of its certain assets on January 26, 2018. The debtor seeks the Court’s approval for the sale of its certain assets to highest bidder, for a purchase price of $1 million in cash pursuant to the asset purchase agreement. The debtor’s assets include personal property of debtor. The initial minimum overbid should be $0.01 million more than the initial purchase price. At the auction, the subsequent bids would be in increments of $0.1 million. The buyer would be entitled to a break-up fee of $0.01 million & administrative expense reimbursement of $0.02 million to trustee. The sale hearing is scheduled for February 20, 2018.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=5106205

[Robotbeat]

Let's buy a Lynx!!!!