Space Adventures to Acquire Space Launch Corporation

[aero313]

Speaking of the DARPA/RASCAL program...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19965

Sort of begs the question, "why bother?"

Here's the best part:

Space Launch Corporation has spent the past five years working with the U.S. government on new launch systems and their related technologies, successfully executing on contracts exceeding $25 million (USD)

Seems to me that if Space Launch had successfully executed their $20+ million RASCAL contract, the program wouldn't have been cancelled.

[bad_astra]

They sold their propulsion test facility and were formerly working on a microsat launch business. Perhaps around the beginning of the year they had already begun to refocus their business. I never paid any attention to them, before.

[publiusr]

One failure buys another.

[hop]

publiusr - 9/6/2006  3:33 PM

One failure buys another.

How is Space Adventures a failure ? They seem to be selling orbital flights as fast as the Russians can provide them, and I haven't seen any indication their other 'adventures' are losing money.

[bad_astra]

If your startup isn't building a fully funded seadragon, apparently you are a failure.

The Beale project should show some people that you can't jump straight into building big boosters.

[mlorrey]

bad_astra - 10/6/2006  12:35 AM

If your startup isn't building a fully funded seadragon, apparently you are a failure.

The Beale project should show some people that you can't jump straight into building big boosters.

Depends on your staff, and your willingness to suck up losses long enough to succeed. Beale, despite all that was done against him (and things he think were done against him), didn't have the cojones to stick it out and accept that losing a few at first is to be expected. He never even got to launch. Beale's problem was that he was a banker, and thus was too risk averse for this business.

Conversely, Musk has lost one, and not only is pledging to keep on keeping on, he's signed ten customers and is building larger boosters, and designing a monster booster. That is the sort of risk acceptance that is needed in this sort of Venture. Musks history in the high risk world of the internet and silicon valley is exactly what is needed for a launch venture.

It can also be said that Musk has invested in more high tech manufacturing and better staff. Beale invested in real estate. Another difference between the entrepreneur vs the banker.

[aero313]

mlorrey - 11/6/2006  6:04 PM

It can also be said that Musk has invested in more high tech manufacturing and better staff. Beale invested in real estate. Another difference between the entrepreneur vs the banker.

Well, I personally know a number of folks who went to work for Beal (only one "e") and a number of people currently working for Elon.  I'll take the team from Beal any day.  They were significantly sharper and had infinitely more real launch vehicle development and operation experience.  Beal's problem was that he abandoned the Delta II class BA1 and went straight to the Ariane V class BA2.  Instead of competing with a single company, he decided to compete with countries.  (Why Beal claimed NASA was the problem is beyond me.  He should have been complaining about the develoment money being poured into EELV).

Note, by the way, that Elon now wants to do the same thing.  Apparently he's has so much success at defeating Orbital that he wants to build Falcon 9 to take on France, Russia, China, and Japan... not to mention the US Air Force.  THAT's a formula for success!

I'm just waiting for Elon's full page ads in Space News.

As an aside, Andy Beal blew $250M before bailing out.  Elon's net worth, if you believe Fortune Magazine, is somewhere between $300M and $500M (well, it USED TO BE that much).  I suspect he's going to tire of hemmoraging money at some point.

[meiza]

aero313 - 12/6/2006  3:37 PM

Well, I personally know a number of folks who went to work for Beal (only one "e") and a number of people currently working for Elon.  I'll take the team from Beal any day.  They were significantly sharper and had infinitely more real launch vehicle development and operation experience.  Beal's problem was that he abandoned the Delta II class BA1 and went straight to the Ariane V class BA2.  Instead of competing with a single company, he decided to compete with countries.  (Why Beal claimed NASA was the problem is beyond me.  He should have been complaining about the develoment money being poured into EELV).

There is little good information on Beal's rockets on the internet. How far were they hardware-wise when he cancelled the whole venture?
They had fired the second stage engine of the BA-2, in March 2000, that much is known.

[bad_astra]

aero313 - 12/6/2006  9:37 AM
Beal's problem was that he abandoned the Delta II class BA1 and went straight to the Ariane V class BA2.  Instead of competing with a single company, he decided to compete with countries.  (Why Beal claimed NASA was the problem is beyond me.  He should have been complaining about the develoment money being poured into EELV).

The point I was trying to make. Thanks.
I imagine Mr Beal saw the failure of Kistler, Rotary, Kelly, etc at that time. The leo constellations most everyone had hoped for didn't occur (how many LockMart Athenas have been launched lately?). If he'd build BA-1 he would have at least demonstrated he had a market, and by the time it was running operationally, the small booster market would have improved a bit. BA-2, like the Falcon V, was an answer to a question no one was asking.

I guess it's easy to Monday quarterback the thing, but I was really hoping Beal would be the company that "did it." It does rankle me when someone puts down Space Adventures as a failure when they are actually starting to make things happen.

But Publius just likes big rockets. Big, erect, tall manly rockets.

It would be cool if someone did something with the BA-2 2nd stage engine though.

[NEberly]

The difference between Space X and Beal, and it is the key difference here, is that Musk is already getting money from the Air Force and has orders in the pipeline (even for the Falcon 9). People are bitching about whether he can do it, and how he did it, but the bottom line is he has created his market, and Beal never had that (as I understand it...maybe I'm wrong). So if he gets a successful launch, he is on his way. I'm not saying he's going to do it, but that is a world away from where Beal ever was...
Cheers,
N-

[publiusr]

mlorrey - 11/6/2006  5:04 PM

bad_astra - 10/6/2006  12:35 AM

If your startup isn't building a fully funded seadragon, apparently you are a failure.

The Beale project should show some people that you can't jump straight into building big boosters.

Depends on your staff, and your willingness to suck up losses long enough to succeed. Beale, despite all that was done against him (and things he think were done against him), didn't have the cojones to stick it out and accept that losing a few at first is to be expected. He never even got to launch. Beale's problem was that he was a banker, and thus was too risk averse for this business.

Conversely, Musk has lost one, and not only is pledging to keep on keeping on, he's signed ten customers and is building larger boosters, and designing a monster booster. That is the sort of risk acceptance that is needed in this sort of Venture. Musks history in the high risk world of the internet and silicon valley is exactly what is needed for a launch venture.

It can also be said that Musk has invested in more high tech manufacturing and better staff. Beale invested in real estate. Another difference between the entrepreneur vs the banker.

That I give you. Musk also loves hardware more than "spaceports."