Another failure was under-capitalization, not necessarily to get to launch, but to survive a recession. There were probably half a dozen launch companies killed by the relatively minor recession that followed the dot.com crash.
Now that we have a bunch of new companies planning to fly new rockets, I thought it would be useful to examine the efforts in the past that mostly failed, and why they failed. Sometimes it was just a question of an early failure that killed the company, and knowing failure modes of the past could be useful.One common screwup was testing rockets horizontally, and then suffering leaks when actual launch was attempted, when the rocket was vertical. The typical leak would be a LOX leak that would freeze valves, resulting in sadness later on. That happened to AMROC.Another failure was due to control loss from either underperforming or malfunctioning hydraulics. I think we had 3 of those, Conestoga, Athena and SuperStrypi.Kistler had a nastier problem, a design that didn't close under a billion dollars. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars and got 75 percent done. The last 25 percent apparently was going to cost a billion dollars. They should have hired Elon.Another failure was under-capitalization, not necessarily to get to launch, but to survive a recession. There were probably half a dozen launch companies killed by the relatively minor recession that followed the dot.com crash.But yes, there plenty of companies that just couldn't raise the money for first launch. That would include XCOR and Kistler and Pioneer Rocketplane and Rotary Rocket and others that I can't remember.The first one that was basically killed by IP litigation was Firefly. Perhaps I am wrong on that.The US government's track record on getting to first launch is far worse, BTW.Any more?
One common screwup was testing rockets horizontally, and then suffering leaks when actual launch was attempted, when the rocket was vertical. The typical leak would be a LOX leak that would freeze valves, resulting in sadness later on. That happened to AMROC.
The US government's track record on getting to first launch is far worse, BTW.
I don't know that anyone knows for sure what occured with Beal. Considering how close Beal was, and how SpaceX pretty much followed a similar path to success, I sometimes wonder if it wasn't just a lack of conviction. (and a lack of scaling up to their EELV class rocket)Kelly Space, and Pioneer: business plans requiring the small leo fleets that never really occurred. Maybe they were a couple of decades early. PlanetSpace: too ambitious.
If Beal had counted on several billion dollars from NASA, and Musk had not, the stories would be reversed.
Following NASA's announcement that they would fund research and development of competing launch vehicles under the Space Launch Initiative (SLI), Andrew Beal announced on October 23, 2000 that Beal Aerospace would cease operations. Beal cited NASA's commercial practices as the primary reason for closing.
Quote from: John-H on 12/14/2016 11:37 pmIf Beal had counted on several billion dollars from NASA, and Musk had not, the stories would be reversed.Without getting too far into SpaceX stuff, can you elaborate? I didn't think Musk counted on several billion from NASA.From the WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_AerospaceQuoteFollowing NASA's announcement that they would fund research and development of competing launch vehicles under the Space Launch Initiative (SLI), Andrew Beal announced on October 23, 2000 that Beal Aerospace would cease operations. Beal cited NASA's commercial practices as the primary reason for closing.That sounds rather odd... the whole press release is oddish to me.. http://www.spaceprojects.com/Beal/
I believe Beal interpreted that to mean that his competitors would get piles of NASA money and he would get nothing.
Now that we have a bunch of new companies planning to fly new rockets, I thought it would be useful to examine the efforts in the past that mostly failed, and why they failed. Sometimes it was just a question of an early failure that killed the company, and knowing failure modes of the past could be useful.One common screwup was testing rockets horizontally, and then suffering leaks when actual launch was attempted, when the rocket was vertical. The typical leak would be a LOX leak that would freeze valves, resulting in sadness later on. That happened to AMROC.
Many of these startups failed due to economic, political, or business reasons before even getting the hardware to the launch pad. Many had interesting or unique technological approaches to space launch that would supposedly give them an edge or at least be able to compete in the already established market. They never got to test those technologies. Its easy to look back and say if only they had been able to survive long enough we'd have cheap launch! However I'd bet that many of those technological solutions were either unworkable or not doable on their budgets. In contrast SpaceX was very conservative with the Falcon 1. It was a two stage conventional rocket, powered by conventional propellants, and boosted by an evolution of an already well tested engine. Though relatively conservative they still had plenty of difficulty with the rocket and lost the first three. They wouldn't be around today if they had bit off a bigger technological challenge. One of the lesions that could be learned is that getting into space is hard, don't make it harder by reinventing the wheel.
Are pressure feds feasible? harder? Easier? Compared to normal liquid ones? Many instances(OTRAG, Microcorsm, Firefly, Vector, and many) but none success yet. Projects with turbopumps are relatively rare but more healthy (SPACEX, BO, Rlabs) with only one dead (in 1980s).Maybe pressure feds are indications of weakness and turbopumps are indications of strength?Other types:Near all solids are based on spare missiles, successful or not. Except UP Aerospace makes propellant in house (CSXT amateur legacy).Hybrids have inferior performance and scability, AMROC dies too early to prove, SpaceShip1 is successful but SpaceShip 2 suffers.Real exotics are rare: Roton , XCOR, Skylon.
Quote from: notsorandom on 12/14/2016 01:33 pmMany of these startups failed due to economic, political, or business reasons before even getting the hardware to the launch pad. Many had interesting or unique technological approaches to space launch that would supposedly give them an edge or at least be able to compete in the already established market. They never got to test those technologies. Its easy to look back and say if only they had been able to survive long enough we'd have cheap launch! However I'd bet that many of those technological solutions were either unworkable or not doable on their budgets. In contrast SpaceX was very conservative with the Falcon 1. It was a two stage conventional rocket, powered by conventional propellants, and boosted by an evolution of an already well tested engine. Though relatively conservative they still had plenty of difficulty with the rocket and lost the first three. They wouldn't be around today if they had bit off a bigger technological challenge. One of the lesions that could be learned is that getting into space is hard, don't make it harder by reinventing the wheel.Are pressure feds feasible? harder? Easier? Compared to normal liquid ones? Many instances(OTRAG, Microcorsm, Firefly, Vector, and many) but none success yet. Projects with turbopumps are relatively rare but more healthy (SPACEX, BO, Rlabs) with only one dead (in 1980s).Maybe pressure feds are indications of weakness and turbopumps are indications of strength?Other types:Near all solids are based on spare missiles, successful or not. Except UP Aerospace makes propellant in house (CSXT amateur legacy).Hybrids have inferior performance and scability, AMROC dies too early to prove, SpaceShip1 is successful but SpaceShip 2 suffers.Real exotics are rare: Roton , XCOR, Skylon.
