Q&A: Richard P. Speck of Micro-Space Inc

[rpspeck]

(There happened to be a lot of posts in the SpaceX thread which are actually more in reference to Micro-Space, so I've moved them (in time order) into this thread, which becomes the Q&A proper later in the thread - James Lowe - Moderator.)


“As to computers, it occurred in phases, not all at once. How you financed silicon valley start-ups at the time was off of the easy to prove productivity improvements, and may of the ventures were seeded on less than $50k. Wozniak and Jobs built Apple 1 out of junk from a junk dealer FYI. I don't think this is a good comparison.”

The MOS Technology 6502 processor Steve Wozniak used did not come from a junk dealer, since the part had just been announced.  Wozniak and I (and thousands of others) ordered our first units the same week – the week the part was announced and offered for $25.  MOS Technology spent far more than $50,000 putting this near state of the art IC into production.  It was a severe “White Space” venture for them to offer this microprocessor for that price.  But, by breaking away from the 10x to 20x higher price then asked by Motorola and Intel for samples of comparable parts, they broke open a previously invisible market.  

Wozniak did some extremely clever things, turning the weaknesses of these parts, and of the available MOS memory ICs, into strengths.  The result was an “affordable” (1/2 the price of a Volkswagen) computer with live, color graphic display (on a TV). My own efforts buried the processors in some very nice automatic test systems and served niche markets for decades.

My major point is that IBM blindly but accurately dismissed these cut rate “Toy” computers.  They in fact stripped good transistor logic circuits down to a barely functional equivalent, implemented them with slow and unreliable transistors and were built into machines with too little memory for anything but classroom use.  And the displays, while arguably color graphic, were of such low resolution that no IBM scientist would look at one (They actually could be used with only 40 characters per line of text, initially all capitals).  


We have close, accurate (and potentially blind) parallels dismissing the Falcon 1 in this thread.  On the one hand, it does little new.  On the other hand it may produce the economic breakthrough which opens radically new markets.  Time will tell.


The big breakthrough for the new “Toy” computers (beyond the hobbyists served by your $50,000 startup hardware assemblers and software companies) was that they were cheap enough to sit on your desk waiting for your input.  This enabled “VisCalc”, the mother of all spreadsheets, modeling interactive formulas in real time.  No such thing can be done on a timeshare terminal (with characters hammered out on a Teletype at 10 per second) not with batch processed programs. At that point no corporate manager could live without one, and, at the going price, few had to.   The “Toy” turned into a corporate necessity.  

It is easy to dismiss both “low cost” and “Ultralight” space ideas, but millions of people actually want to go into space.  There are limits to how low the price can go:  The fuel used in a typical family car in a year, when combined with 2.6 times its mass in low cost liquid Oxygen, is sufficient to launch a man, with spacesuit and reentry system, into orbit using conventional rockets.  

Richard P. Speck,  Micro-Space, Inc.  

Most of this is off-topic and not helpful.

rpspeck - 5/4/2007  7:47 PM  “As to computers, it occurred in phases, not all at once. How you financed silicon valley start-ups at the time was off of the easy to prove productivity improvements, and may of the ventures were seeded on less than $50k. Wozniak and Jobs built Apple 1 out of junk from a junk dealer FYI. I don't think this is a good comparison.”  

The junk dealers name was Marty Spergel. He lives in Los Gatos. He later ran operations for Woz's "Cloud 9", which sold poor quality universal TV controllers. The cherrywood boxed unit 1 he couldn't afford a audio cassette storage, so in demoing the unit, he'd have to type in the binary hex codes for the integer basic interpreter. I could go on for hours like this. I was present for it, along with many other "big name" deals. So what - this is a forum about Commercial Space, not computers.

The MOS Technology 6502 processor Steve Wozniak used did not come from a junk dealer, since the part had just been announced.  Wozniak and I (and thousands of others) ordered our first units the same week – the week the part was announced and offered for $25.  MOS Technology spent far more than $50,000 putting this near state of the art IC into production.

MOS Technology FAILED as an investment and isn't around. Intel still is. They had little to do with Apples success, which had more to do with VisiCalc improving productivity than which microprocessor was chosen.

It was a severe “White Space” venture for them to offer this microprocessor for that price.  But, by breaking away from the 10x to 20x higher price then asked by Motorola and Intel for samples of comparable parts, they broke open a previously invisible market.

Actually, this wasn't related to technology as market pricing - all of the 8-bit processors cost about the same, and many different ones were used. The Signetics one was similar to the 6502 in price. The issue was one of discount to buy-in an installed base, where Intel had an early advantage and wouldn't discount, and Moto was a big firm that didn't need to discount. Woz could have used another. Not "white space"

   Wozniak did some extremely clever things, turning the weaknesses of these parts, and of the available MOS memory ICs, into strengths.  The result was an “affordable” (1/2 the price of a Volkswagen) computer with live, color graphic display (on a TV).

Woz made color graphics affordable with a trick, making it more attractive than its rival on price. Not "white space".

If anything, the software like VisiCalc made the success, with productivity improvements - some were "white space". But the computer markets. both horizontal and vertical, engaged broad  consumer and enterprise markets. Aerospace isn't a broad market, so again these are rotten examples.

It is easy to dismiss both “low cost” and “Ultralight” space ideas, but millions of people actually want to go into space.    

Sorry. Not a space cadet. Work in the real world with very real interests and enjoy it. Find it easier to answer market need with real products and real public/private funds. No one would be a more serious advocate for new space technology. But it comes from the hard work both in business and engineering in confronting requirements and making things work across the board. Not from fantasy.

You're not impressing me. Some of us have rather wide experience, across many industries. You'd do better here to explain your microspace investment thesis in terms of the space industry, assuming you have the ability to do so. Those in this list would welcome "real" stuff - but they are good at challenging the unreal. For the space industry is literally the most difficult one in the world.

[privateer]

Jim - 5/4/2007  5:13 PM

rpspeck - 5/4/2007  5:36 PM
Additional note: I believe the U2 pilots spend a lot more than two hours suited up.

1.  U-2 pilots are a select group of people performing a national security mission.  They weren't John Q. Public, who would have an issue with spending a long time in a spacesuit.

rpspeck, I must admit that I find your proposal 'crazy' and therefore potentially leading to something good. Let's see.
Basically, you propose to pack LV passenger into EVA suit, and then shave off  weight from spacecraft:
* Unpressurized crew compartment (lighter than pressurized).
* No airlock.
When craft arrives to ISS, astronaut leaves the capsule and simply walks in ISS's airlock!

Jim, If I can get a ride to the orbit for several millions $$$ less than on "conventional" capsule, I will be quite willing to spend a few ("more than 2") hours in EVA suit. Also, a research/development on better (more comfortable) EVA suits should be significantly less costly than LV development.

What are the disadvantages?

[Avron]

privateer - 6/4/2007  7:30 AM


What are the disadvantages?

Single point of failure.. I just don't see the FAA or who-ever granting the licence for launch. If something goes wrong, criminal charges may be an option here for the authorities.

[braddock]

Richard P. Speck of Micro-Space Inc is becoming a regular visitor to the NSF forums, and is willing to take questions from members here.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2006/1015/20061015_032914_CD16_micro.jpg">

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_4494989 (A Denver Post article about Mr. Speck and Micro-Space)

Mr. Speck is head of Micro-Space Inc, which is developing modular liquid rocket systems to compete in the Lunar Lander Challenge (and beyond).  He has been working on components for the Micro-Space system for over 10 years.

http://www.entrespace.org/Micro_Space/MICROnews/903bA.jpg">
Test by Micro-Space of one of their Liquid fueled propulsion modules, 2004
http://www.entrespace.org/Micro_Space/MICROnews/MICnewsA1.html

Micro-Space was also a contender in the X Prize Cup.

http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2004/09/xprize/imagenes/microspace.jpg">

Mr. Speck will take questions here, although due to time constraints it may take him some time to respond.

I'll start out by asking Mr. Speck to describe the Crusader LL lunar lander challenge vehicle pictured above, what particular innovations it holds, and whether we'll be seeing it fly this fall in the next LLC.

[jimvela]

OK, I'll bite with a first question.

First, greetings from a fellow Coloradan... ;-)p

It seems to me that one important lesson learned from various launch systems is that high-value matter (people or payloads) belong at the top of a rocket stack where there is the highest probability of survival in the event that things go wrong with the launch vehicle.  Aside from being furthest away from the excitement, this position also enables various means of crew escape in the event of a lower stage failure.

In looking at the rendering of your X-prize concept, the monkey is sandwiched between two clusters of boosters.  What is your rationale for this configuration?

[rpspeck]

There are many problems with our X-Prize configuration.  It emphasized our modular propulsion approach and made a manned flight vehicle possible.  On the other hand, I knew far too much about Burt Rutan to believe anyone else ever had a chance to win the X Prize.

Rutan had been flying his Proteus for years (and borrowed pressure suits from Edwards to set an altitude record in that Jet Propulsion vehicle’s class).  The cabin on both White Knight and SpaceShipOne were taken from that aircraft, and the mentioned experience allowed him to skip pressure suit use or high altitude tests with the X Prize systems.  

We gave serious consideration to bailout, from between the propulsion units, on this vehicle, particularly at modest altitude during early, manned flight tests.  This actually jumpstarted our successful work on compact, long duration life support equipment.

The moderate grade Hydrogen Peroxide we continue to work with, used with Methyl Alcohol as a bipropellant, is not hypergolic and rather difficult to make burn at all.  It is far less explosive that hypergolics or even liquid Oxygen.  It also allows very light weight, high pressure fuel tanks.  This is a technology we have perfected after much effort, and the high mass ratio systems it allows have factored heavily in our projections and flying hardware.  

The benign nature of the fuels and observed failure modes made the “High Energy, Fireball” a distant concern.  A far greater concern was a fire, in the air or prelaunch, on the ground.  In this case both CO2 flood firefighting (conspicuously missing on Apollo 1) and water deluge were planned, and other than a good Nomex / Kevlar flight suit this demanded a long duration air supply.  In point of fact, the recent “Sea Launch” and a much earlier Delta II are the only “Fireball Failures” I can recall for several decades.  

It is easy to fixate on low probability failures.  But at some point this is like the avalanche hazard in mountaineering:  when you have taken all practical safety steps, you accept the risk of a random, killing event.

A far bigger risk was propulsion failure at too low an altitude to successfully bail out.  Given fairly high takeoff thrust, and full motor stabilization before launch, this also drops to modest probability, involving less than five seconds after release.

Although the SpaceShipOne placed the pilot in the nose, there was no mechanism to detach the motor section in case of fire or failure.  In fact, the vehicle could not be flown if the motor broke off the vehicle (out of Center of Gravity range).  In theory, the nose could have been unscrewed in flight and the pilot could have crawled out of that opening, and parachuted to the ground. But in fact, with the potential spin failures which at least twice faced the SpaceShipOne pilot, this possibility was always remote.  

Richard P. Speck,  Micro-Space, Inc.

[rpspeck]

Jim - 6/4/2007  4:13 PM

rpspeck - 5/4/2007  5:36 PM

“1.  major error in this is passengers don't want to be in a spacesuit for the whole flight.”

Additional note: I believe the U2 pilots spend a lot more than two hours suited up.

2.  A more serious note:  Given the proven loss of life (Russian) from spacecraft depressurization and experience with fast and slow depressurization in less demanding aircraft situations, why has the manned spaceflight industry decided to reverse aviation standards and condemn participants to death following any hull failure, including serious leakage?  The large cross section of the pressure hull becomes an “Acceptable”, single point Fatal failure?   To buy into this scenario and then talk about “Risk” in a spacesuit makes very little sense.  To avoid the fatal single point failure, all astronauts need to stay in their pressure suits until they at least transfer to a more robust (probably double walled) low stress space station.

3.  For two hour rendezvous, I assumed a more precision control system than used in Mercury/Atlas.  Probably a “Hot Dog” like the 486 used on ISS.  Plus I assumed use of GPS so you would know where you were.      

4.  Re Ejection: You can eject from a rocket after engine shutdown (near apogee if still deep in the atmosphere) with a bungee cord plus your standard deployment mechanism (already in freefall).  It is hard to think in these terms since explosive “Flight Termination” has been more common than Thrust Termination.


Richard P. Speck,    Micro-Space, Inc.

1.  U-2 pilots are a select group of people performing a national security mission.  They weren't John Q. Public, who would have an issue with spending a long time in a spacesuit.

2.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  Both Russian and American spacecraft use pressure suits for launch.  Once on orbit, the pressure shells of both spacecraft are just as good as the space stations.  If there is a leak, the life support system pumps in enough air to maintain pressure long enough to allow the crew to put on their suits.  Also, the space stations don't use double hulls.

3. It has nothing to with a computer.  It is sensors and thrusters and a capable LV.   GPS is not one of the sensors (radar, laser, LLL cameras, etc).  And as I stated before there isn't a 2 hour rendevous.

4.  No you can't bail out, especially near apogee because you will burn up also

I will clarify for readers who have not followed this disjointed conversation, starting with item 4 first:

4. My words “deep in the atmosphere” do not refer to high vacuum, 300km up. The prior reference was to the near vertical flight terminated below 5000 feet by Falcon 1 in 2006.  The rocket did not burn up, nor would an ejected pilot.  Waiting for the dynamic pressure (air drag) to drop and altitude to reach peak would be prudent.

I am describing flight to orbit an a lightweight spacecraft/reentry system which could be decoupled following thrust termination (as occurred in both Falcon 1 flights), and safely decelerate to a final parachute landing.

One current manned launch system presently calls for literal “bail out”.  It is called the STS or Space Shuttle, and is American made.  Moderate altitude failures are to be followed by the crew crawling out of a hatch and using a pole to aid them in clearing the tail structure.  I don’t know if anyone thinks this procedure will actually work. I am certain it has not been operationally tested.  

3.  GPS has been used in orbit and I have already discussed the accuracy obtainable with it (using VERY conservative accuracy numbers).
 
2. “Three Russian cosmonauts died during the Soyuz 11 mission in 1971” due to loss of cabin pressure.  Subsequently, the Russians wear pressure suits. This was a good thing for them, and American passengers, since a similar depressurization occurred in the past year.  I do not believe that the Russians can take off their pressure suits in the confines of their small spacecraft.
 
Americans continued to make do without pressure suits until after the failure of “CHALLENGER STS-51L” (1986).  Until then, aircraft safety standards were discarded.

Many ships use double hulls due to the severe consequences that can follow hull rupture.  I did not think either ISS or the STS used such double hulls, but this was a discussion about safety, and avoidance of catastrophic, since point failures.
 
I understand that the STS is too well designed to fail – OOPS, I mean too well designed to fail AGAIN!

1. I don’t write or think about tourists (John Q. Public).  I let others do that.  I think about the 3000 people who have “walked” up Mount Everest  (or, like myself, have experienced similar conditions on smaller peaks).  These people spend more than 12 hours in protective gear, usually including Oxygen masks.  Those who “have an issue” with what I am describing can either stay home, spend ten times as much money for their tickets, or decide – as I will – to put up with inconveniences.

[privateer]

Avron - 6/4/2007  9:12 AM

privateer - 6/4/2007  7:30 AM
What are the disadvantages?

Single point of failure.. I just don't see the FAA or who-ever granting the licence for launch. If something goes wrong, criminal charges may be an option here for the authorities.

1) Just wonderful. Now FAA will tell me how exactly I can risk my life, and how I cannot. Is this legal?

2) How come today's astronauts are allowed to perform milti-hour EVAs? In the very same spacesuits! Isn't it very similar? This is even worse because they don't have a capsule around them, two-millimeter sized grain of space junk and they are dead. Where is FAA now?

[rpspeck]

privateer - 7/4/2007  2:38 PM

Avron - 6/4/2007  9:12 AM

privateer - 6/4/2007  7:30 AM
What are the disadvantages?

Single point of failure.. I just don't see the FAA or who-ever granting the licence for launch. If something goes wrong, criminal charges may be an option here for the authorities.

1) Just wonderful. Now FAA will tell me how exactly I can risk my life, and how I cannot. Is this legal?

2) How come today's astronauts are allowed to perform milti-hour EVAs? In the very same spacesuits! Isn't it very similar? This is even worse because they don't have a capsule around them, two-millimeter sized grain of space junk and they are dead. Where is FAA now?

Actually the FAA has no section of the "Experimental Launch Permit" addressing either flight or ground crew safety: “at your own risk”.  I like the fact that this is to an extent still a free country.  Once NASA was removed from space flight oversight (following Challenger?) many obstacles were removed.  

The FAA concern is that death of a pilot will remove a valuable “safety system” and that the remaining systems must be adequate to protect the public.  

Thank you for noticing that ISS EVA has the same, catastrophic single point failure characteristic: I have been having trouble making this point.  (A shroud/windshield will be in place in the atmosphere just as it is for satellites, which are more fragile than humans – watch a super bowl game closely if you don’t believe this.)

I have also tried to make the point that a mechanical counter-pressure suit, with multifeed mask, removes suit pressure envelope failure as a catastrophic event.  With a small cross section and high energy threshold, destruction of a well designed mask system is far less likely than mechanical destruction of the user’s brain.    

[Avron]

privateer - 6/4/2007  4:38 PM

Avron - 6/4/2007  9:12 AM

privateer - 6/4/2007  7:30 AM
What are the disadvantages?

Single point of failure.. I just don't see the FAA or who-ever granting the licence for launch. If something goes wrong, criminal charges may be an option here for the authorities.

1) Just wonderful. Now FAA will tell me how exactly I can risk my life, and how I cannot. Is this legal?

2) How come today's astronauts are allowed to perform milti-hour EVAs? In the very same spacesuits! Isn't it very similar? This is even worse because they don't have a capsule around them, two-millimeter sized grain of space junk and they are dead. Where is FAA now?

Think the proximity of the station, airlocks, and life support within the structures "close" at hand may have something to do with it, but after looking at the pics of that Gove, maybe "two-millimeter sized grain of space junk ' is not a guarantee , that you are dead, if you have someplace to get to close that can support life.

[Avron]

rpspeck - 6/4/2007  5:54 PM
Actually the FAA has no section of the "Experimental Launch Permit" addressing either flight or ground crew safety: “at your own risk”.  I like the fact that this is to an extent still a free country.  Once NASA was removed from space flight oversight (following Challenger?) many obstacles were removed.  

My bad, I don't know US law, but in Canada, start filling in forms...

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegServ/Affairs/cars/Part5/549.htm

[rpspeck]

nobodyofconsequence - 6/4/2007  11:30 PM

You'd do better here to explain your Micro-Space investment thesis in terms of the space industry, assuming you have the ability to do so.

I have a simple “investment” thesis.  It assumes that some of the people who crowded around TV sets in 1969 still exist and that others have inherited their interest.

It assumes that many of these would rather watch space exploits than cars grinding rubber tires into dust, or actors eating a dead rat in a “reality” script.  

I know that I can push the cost of space exploits (using existing LEO launch and ultralight space systems) below the cost of “Indy car” and “Formula 1” racing teams (over thirty of each currently in operation).   And I know that I can achieve sufficient safety that I will be willing to fly in these craft.  

I know that there are adventurers willing to accept risks and difficulties, both on this planet and off, far beyond my personal limits.

I believe that the market of affluent viewers I have described will attract advertising and sponsorship which, added to the personal investment of “space cadets” (who want to go personally) and speculative early investors, will allow first, feasibility demonstrations and second, dozens of operational space adventures including Lunar and Mars landings.    Richard P. Speck,  Micro-Space, Inc.

[braddock]

You have been talking about space tourism with little but a space suit and a heat shield.  This seems reminiscent of the DynaSoar-era MOOSE inflatable foam-filled single-man reentry systems.

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/m/moose.jpg">
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/moose.htm

What is the state of this technology?  Has anyone else dusted it off in the past 40 years?
I love the idea of space tourism as an extreme sport instead of a tour bus.  John Carmack has lately been talking in similar terms (he recently added a saddle to one of the Armadillo rockets).

[rpspeck]

I haven't heard any one else talking about it.  

The folding, inflatable system isn't necessary if you are going to fly it up, and our prototypes all use rigid foam/fiberglass structures.   This saves weight.  Attitude control can now be included for less than a pound and the radios are almost too light to count.

[rpspeck]

nobodyofconsequence - 6/4/2007  11:30 PM

MOS Technology FAILED as an investment and isn't around. Intel still is.

In Denver, in the late 1970s, 6502 based systems were in stores everywhere, the core of Commodore and Atari systems as well as the premium priced Apple II.  To you, in silicon valley, it was apparently obvious that MOS Technology was a “one trick pony” with no second act.  Z-80 s and CPM were eating up the corporate market and Intel was preparing to demolish all 8 bit business micros.

This makes the important point (very much relevant to this thread) that what you see depends very much on where you stand.  

The very VISIBLE technology leaders then were the ones doomed to a slim future.  

[Flightstar]

In your claim that you are the main competitor to Armadillo Aerospace, what advantages (that you can speak of freely) do you have over them with your concepts.

[rpspeck]

I claim that we were, in October 2006, the primary competitor to Armadillo.  We had then, and now, 17 flights of our bipropellant, liquid fueled rocket (plus numerous static tests) and 2 very successful flights of near hover, gimbaled motor, gyro referenced guided rockets.  We also had then, and now, fuel tanks for a pressure fed system which were so light (allowing a high mass ratio) that our moderate performance fuel chemistry would be sufficient for both 90 and 180 second flights.  The flight weight vehicle (including transport damage and some temporary tubing connections) we displayed at that show had <50 pounds dry weight.

Bad luck erased the lead Armadillo had from having flown in 2005, and from having started FAA paperwork early.  Unfortunately, other obligations and cash flow considerations have made OUR progress since October much less than expected.  We are far ahead of where we were last year, but know that success this October will require a lot of hard work.  Ours is a small and minimally funded team.


Beyond the competition, it was somewhat a surprise to us to realize that our storable fuels (Hydrogen Peroxide – upgraded to 90% - and Methyl Alcohol – probably with some Hydrazine added) equal the ISP performance of N2O4  based chemistries with the same fuel component (ie Hydrazine), and offer vacuum performance in excess of 300 seconds.  With a 2:1 mass ratio, the 300 pound fuel load we planned for our level two vehicles (with 10 fuel tank modules), and the known vehicle dry weight, could actually land >250 pounds on the Moon.

This is sufficient for a human adventurer in his spacesuit.  An identical lander unit would carry down the fuel (used in either vehicle) to return the astronaut to lunar orbit.   Roughly 1200 pounds in lunar orbit (including the astronaut) would allow one person to walk on the Moon and return.  

Admittedly, this follows the old practice – once in vogue for emergency parachutes – of providing a separate system for each participant.  It of course raises the chance of one astronaut being killed, but radically reduces the chance of all astronauts in a team being killed.  As for “economies of scale” for a multi-person lander, I will let that question be answered operationally.  

The primary advantage we have is production capability of flight qualified, lightweight, high pressure fuel tanks.  Our current production tank weighs only 1/20 as much as the fuel it can contain (20:1 mass ratio limit) and has a bursting pressure of >700 psi.  Operating pressures are a temporary 300 to 400 psi.  (Safety factors are higher for tanks held at full pressure for years and simultaneously exposed to severe thermal and shock stresses.)

Due probably to poor resource management we currently have in stock enough flight qualified tanks to BOTH accelerate an astronaut in a lightweight craft from LEO to an orbit around the Moon, and build two human lunar lander systems.  

We have more than enough motors of our proven design to propel human test flights.  We do not, however, have any of the welded Niobium (also called Columbium) C-103 alloy motors necessary to handle the more energetic fuels in a “radiatively cooled” motor.  This is the material used in the glowing, Falcon 1 second stage and in most satellite thrusters.

The long duration life support systems work we continue probably also reflects poor management as it is irrelevant to the X Prize Cup competition.  We started it when we became an X-Prize (human spaceflight) team and haven’t had the sense to stop it.  This fixation probably includes nostalgia since I was deeply involved in research in Pulmonary Physiology in the 1960s, producing several innovative instruments and research systems and coauthoring several research papers.    Richard P. Speck

[rpspeck]

nobodyofconsequence - 6/4/2007  11:30 PM

You'd do better here to explain your Micro-Space investment thesis in terms of the space industry, assuming you have the ability to do so.

I neglected to describe how investors (if they wake up before adventurers) would profit form our program:

Over roughly ten years, a number of adventurers (“The First Hundred”) will accomplish noteworthy objectives in space, including several Mars and Moon landings.  About 30 solo and small team missions will embark with budgets averaging $65 Million.  Nearly 80 % of these costs will be for “freight” carried to LEO (possibly all by SpaceX).  The rest will pay “outfitters” for customized deep space hardware of the type Micro-Space is developing.  

Since to be the “first” to achieve anything is the essence of a race, success (fame, prestige and more funding opportunities) accrues to those who get an early start and go fast.  A supplier who has prepared the necessary equipment in advance can command a premium price from those who intend to win.



For the adventurer the situation is simpler.  It may already be too late for those who want to accomplish a first in space. They can start to prepare lightweight expeditions now, or join our efforts and start 16 years ago.  

We are offering options and contracts for mission specific deep space hardware.  Any adventurer capable of funding a $50 to $100 Million expedition in three to five years will have no trouble raising 1% of that total now.  We are presently talking to more than one, qualified adventurer about space missions, including a Mars landing.    

[braddock]

rpspeck - 8/4/2007  9:13 PM
I claim that we were, in October 2006, the primary competitor to Armadillo.  We had then, and now, 17 flights of our bipropellant, liquid fueled rocket (plus numerous static tests) and 2 very successful flights of near hover, gimbaled motor, gyro referenced guided rockets.

Wow, that much flight time would make you quite the dark horse LLC contender.  
Any video or photos of the test flights?
Any desire to partner some of your work with one of your better funded competitors?