The Excalibur Almaz corporation didn't have a chance in hell of putting this hardware in orbit withouta serious attempt at obtaining an inexpensive booster (and a launch site worthy of the name) to do the job.Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard/read of EA corporation approaching either SpaceX or the Russians or the Chinese or ANYBODY to obtain such a booster IMHO. It's just common sense. No booster, no hardware in orbit.
Quote from: Moe Grills on 11/16/2014 06:31 pmThe Excalibur Almaz corporation didn't have a chance in hell of putting this hardware in orbit withouta serious attempt at obtaining an inexpensive booster (and a launch site worthy of the name) to do the job.Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard/read of EA corporation approaching either SpaceX or the Russians or the Chinese or ANYBODY to obtain such a booster IMHO. It's just common sense. No booster, no hardware in orbit.Actually, Art Dula sank some cash into SeaLaunch in the last few years.
It will be very interesting to hear Dula's response. I hope there is a public response. He might argue, as you say, that the agreement was unenforceable. Or he might argue that the characterization in the suit is incorrect and that it does actually allow modification for flight. Or he might argue that his team didn't read the fine print carefully enough and didn't notice. Or he might not really have any excuse at all.
Quote from: Moe Grills on 11/16/2014 06:31 pmThe Excalibur Almaz corporation didn't have a chance in hell of putting this hardware in orbit withouta serious attempt at obtaining an inexpensive booster (and a launch site worthy of the name) to do the job.Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I have never heard/read of EA corporation approaching either SpaceX or the Russians or the Chinese or ANYBODY to obtain such a booster IMHO. It's just common sense. No booster, no hardware in orbit.Was the hardware even worthwhile putting in orbit? They didn't even have the legal rights to modify the station modules into a less threatening state.Their business case always seemed a little left-field.
I saw EA at the ISDC conference a few years ago. They showed some slides and had some really nice postcards with images of their spacecraft on them.I don't know about them talking about flying the equipment that they owned. But I do remember them saying that they had also purchased all the designs, which would allow them to make new spacecraft. I also remember them using a term like "print to order" that they explained meant that they had all of the design documentation, including things like alloys and other materials used, so that a company could manufacture everything. I later looked up the term myself. I found it a bit hard to believe that totally detailed specifications and designs existed for an old vehicle. The term primarily seemed to apply to new products, the kinds of things you would design on a computer so you'd have detailed information files that could be easily shared.EA never struck me as a scam, just some guys who had an unrealistic vision of what was possible. Not that different from lots of other people with unrealistic visions.**Everybody defines "unrealistic" in their own unique way.
EA never struck me as a scam, just some guys who had an unrealistic vision of what was possible. Not that different from lots of other people with unrealistic visions.*
I saw EA at the ISDC conference a few years ago. They showed some slides and had some really nice postcards with I don't know about them talking about flying the equipment that they owned. But I do remember them saying that they had also purchased all the designs, which would allow them to make new spacecraft. I also remember them using a term like "print to order" that they explained meant that they had all of the design documentation, including things like alloys and other materials used, so that a company could manufacture everything. I later looked up the term myself. I found it a bit hard to believe that totally detailed specifications and designs existed for an old vehicle. The term primarily seemed to apply to new products, the kinds of things you would design on a computer so you'd have detailed information files that could be easily shared.
Quote from: Blackstar on 11/18/2014 04:17 pmI saw EA at the ISDC conference a few years ago. They showed some slides and had some really nice postcards with I don't know about them talking about flying the equipment that they owned. But I do remember them saying that they had also purchased all the designs, which would allow them to make new spacecraft. I also remember them using a term like "print to order" that they explained meant that they had all of the design documentation, including things like alloys and other materials used, so that a company could manufacture everything. I later looked up the term myself. I found it a bit hard to believe that totally detailed specifications and designs existed for an old vehicle. The term primarily seemed to apply to new products, the kinds of things you would design on a computer so you'd have detailed information files that could be easily shared.I am sure that NPO Mash stored the design documentation for the Almaz capsule, including the equivalents of PDR and CDR.I am not so such that such documentation could be transferred abroad, the Russians have their own version of ITAR.
• EA program is based on modification of an existing and proven reusable spacecraft – EA’s spacecraft development program begins with a spacecraft reusable asset that is owned by EA – Modification requirements have been studied for non-crewed and crewed flight – Overall investment to date > $45 million US • Physical assets currently owned by EA – 4 Reusable Re-entry Vehicles – 2 Space Station pressure vessels – 1 Engineering Evaluation Unit mock-up of Reusable Reentry Vehicle
Quote from: Blackstar on 11/18/2014 04:17 pmEA never struck me as a scam, just some guys who had an unrealistic vision of what was possible. Not that different from lots of other people with unrealistic visions.*I think it is possible for people to start out well intentioned with overly-ambitious goals that they really, really want to achieve and slowly go from there into scam and fraud territory. This is not limited to spaceflight. Some big ponzi schemes started out with people trying to make good returns for their investors fibbing a bit when the returns weren't so good, thinking they'd make up the difference next quarter, and getting in deeper and deeper every quarter.
Quote from: Blackstar on 11/18/2014 04:17 pmI saw EA at the ISDC conference a few years ago. They showed some slides and had some really nice postcards with images of their spacecraft on them.I don't know about them talking about flying the equipment that they owned. But I do remember them saying that they had also purchased all the designs, which would allow them to make new spacecraft. I also remember them using a term like "print to order" that they explained meant that they had all of the design documentation, including things like alloys and other materials used, so that a company could manufacture everything. I later looked up the term myself. I found it a bit hard to believe that totally detailed specifications and designs existed for an old vehicle. The term primarily seemed to apply to new products, the kinds of things you would design on a computer so you'd have detailed information files that could be easily shared.EA never struck me as a scam, just some guys who had an unrealistic vision of what was possible. Not that different from lots of other people with unrealistic visions.**Everybody defines "unrealistic" in their own unique way.Did they say the documentation came from Russia? This could be the crux of the matter, did EA reverse engineer what they needed?
Since this is a pretty dead thread these days, I thought I would pose the question of feasibility of launch of Almaz capsules on Stratolaunch.
Quote from: Danderman on 02/03/2015 08:13 pmSince this is a pretty dead thread these days, I thought I would pose the question of feasibility of launch of Almaz capsules on Stratolaunch.You might as well ask about the feasibility of launching a 1971 Ford Pinto on Sea Dragon.
