Author Topic: Rocketplane goes under (Read 13172 times)

Namechange User · « **Reply #20 on:** 08/04/2010 03:32 am »

Antonioe,

Given you have had the chance to review the engineering, is this something Orbital could by the rights to? Is it even something you would want to buy the rights to for sometime down the road or was it more just an interesting oppurtunity?

Danderman · « **Reply #21 on:** 08/04/2010 03:02 pm »

IMHO, Kistler would have been better served to start off flying a non-recoverable variant of their system, and so get to revenue sooner. This would have reduced their investment requirements, although their operating costs would have been much higher. After a handful of test flights, they could have raised the capital for the recovery systems, starting with the first stage.

Or, they could have started off with only the first stage being recoverable.

D_Dom · « **Reply #22 on:** 08/04/2010 11:17 pm »

Quoted from Antonioe;
"Having said that, my admiration for George Muller's engineering prowess remains undiminished."

That is high praise indeed, any of his systems engineering approach available to the general public?

Downix · « **Reply #23 on:** 08/05/2010 04:10 pm »

Quote from: Danderman on 08/04/2010 03:02 pm

IMHO, Kistler would have been better served to start off flying a non-recoverable variant of their system, and so get to revenue sooner. This would have reduced their investment requirements, although their operating costs would have been much higher. After a handful of test flights, they could have raised the capital for the recovery systems, starting with the first stage.

Or, they could have started off with only the first stage being recoverable.

Or even only the upper stage being recoverable. In any case, they went for broke, and it broke them.

I am not crying over it, due to the Taurus II.

But I wonder, where did the NK-33's they purchase go, and who do I talk to to get one.