ianmga - 19/4/2007 3:25 AMQuoteJIS - 18/4/2007 5:58 AMQuotenobodyofconsequence - 17/4/2007 12:59 AMKistler's biggest problem hasn't been technology, just business -Kistler reusability must work 100% from the very first launch. It's something like STS without NASA's resources. It would be world wonder if it works.True. It's a complicated system. But so cool though. :laugh: Technically though, the two only big uncertainties are the flyback of the launch stage after separation and the reentry of the orbital vehicle (They are truly big uncertainties). And there's talk in the air of flying downrange so that leaves you with reentry only. The rest is "standard" rocket science. Ha.
JIS - 18/4/2007 5:58 AMQuotenobodyofconsequence - 17/4/2007 12:59 AMKistler's biggest problem hasn't been technology, just business -Kistler reusability must work 100% from the very first launch. It's something like STS without NASA's resources. It would be world wonder if it works.
nobodyofconsequence - 17/4/2007 12:59 AMKistler's biggest problem hasn't been technology, just business -
AntiKev - 18/4/2007 6:49 PMBecause it forces NASA to go to the moon. Now this in and of itself isn't a bad thing, it gives NASA some worthwhile goal. But the bureaucratic inertia is very large, and when you've been sitting there for 25 years doing the same thing over and over, you don't want to change, and you resist change with all of your strength. The success of one COTS competitor or the other (or both!) would mean that NASA must actually now give results, because private industry is in the game.
jcanal12 - 18/4/2007 11:23 AM>Why would NASA secretly want COTS to fail?Does it have to be all (opts A-D) or nothing? What if just D is rejected? In that case it seems like NASA could halve their Russian buy AND support commercial space for cargo.
JIS - 19/4/2007 7:31 AMQuoteianmga - 19/4/2007 3:25 AMTrue. It's a complicated system. But so cool though. :laugh: Technically though, the two only big uncertainties are the flyback of the launch stage after separation and the reentry of the orbital vehicle (They are truly big uncertainties). And there's talk in the air of flying downrange so that leaves you with reentry only. The rest is "standard" rocket science. Ha.Not so standard. Upperstage works as a spacecraft too. It's pretty nonstandard. Something like STS.
ianmga - 19/4/2007 3:25 AMTrue. It's a complicated system. But so cool though. :laugh: Technically though, the two only big uncertainties are the flyback of the launch stage after separation and the reentry of the orbital vehicle (They are truly big uncertainties). And there's talk in the air of flying downrange so that leaves you with reentry only. The rest is "standard" rocket science. Ha.
ianmga - 19/4/2007 10:21 AMNow imagine the re-entry of that thing. It's basically a flying lead pipe.
pad rat - 19/4/2007 10:17 AMGoing one layer deeper in the onion, the onboard computer is supposed to not only handle all the flight duties, but the ground processing and launch process, as well. Just imagine what the code must look like.
possum - 19/4/2007 9:32 PMHave they even built/tested any hardware?
possum - 19/4/2007 10:07 PMWell they should post something on their website.
possum - 19/4/2007 8:32 PM I think Kistler will get nowhere. They've been floundering for a decade and have never even attempted a launch. ... Have they even built/tested any hardware?
Kistler started out as the preeminent space venture of its times, with a very aggressive vision and the appearance of buy-in from many parts of the industry. The big knock against them was that even the biggest firms wouldn't dare do such a LV, let alone a start-up. Too risky. At first, the approach of total outsource seemed sensible, but when you calculated the total cost and time taken, it became obvious as a impossible financial nightmare.
I can imagine them finishing 1-2 complete LV's. I'm skeptical of them making it to hotfire. I'm very worried about flying such a vehicle, especially when they have to recover and reuse it. But I believe it is possible to fly, given enough billions applied. And not one cent of my investment capital.
jongoff - 18/4/2007 9:46 AM Interestingly enough, our Bus Dev guy, Michael Mealling was speaking with Rick Citron ... Rick said that the original intent was for the Kistler guys to build a subscale suborbital vehicle, and practice reusing it, figure out what worked, and what didn't, and maybe even try to market it. Only once they had some real RLV experience under their belt would they have taken on the orbital vehicle. He said that had they done that, Kistler probably still would've been around...
I'd heard about an subscale version, but only from a unreliable source, and when I inquired, they said no ... perhaps I asked the wrong person or wrong question. When was that decision made? Certainly illuminates history better ...
It certainly would have been a better use of capital, and probably increased the scope of potential investors. But there are many in this industry that would snort at a subscale prototype, as they do about Delta Clipper. Ridicule is deadly in financial circles, and all you have to do is look at these forums to see how often its employed, mostly by bright people too lazy to answer in the sentences and paragraphs, defaulting to three or four words for us simpletons ...
BTW, Space-X's approach of having an standalone product, namely the Falcon 1 as a "prototype" means that a fungible asset is developed - which makes investment *much safer*.
Jon, thanks for clearing up Kistler history for me.
It certainly would have been a better use of capital, and probably increased the scope of potential investors. But there are many in this industry that would snort at a subscale prototype, as they do about Delta Clipper. Ridicule is deadly in financial circles, and all you have to do is look at these forums to see how often its employed, mostly by bright people too lazy to answer in the sentences and paragraphs, defaulting to three or four words for us simpletons ...BTW, Space-X's approach of having an standalone product, namely the Falcon 1 as a "prototype" means that a fungible asset is developed - which makes investment *much safer*.
02hurnella - 20/4/2007 12:24 PMIf SpaceX develop the Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule, they will just sell trips into space regardless of what Nasa do. In the process they would make Nasa look bad.
nobodyofconsequence - 19/4/2007 11:54 PMRidicule is deadly in financial circles, and all you have to do is look at these forums to see how often its employed, mostly by bright people too lazy to answer in the sentences and paragraphs, defaulting to three or four words for us simpletons ...
Jim - 19/4/2007 9:36 PMQuotepossum - 19/4/2007 10:07 PMWell they should post something on their website.well you should read the press releases and photo gallery on the website
jongoff - 20/4/2007 1:26 AM I think that building a good, solid, reliable suborbital RLV is by far the best first step towards developing an orbital RLV that a company could take. In spite of all the semi-informed poo-pooing about the differences between suborbital and orbital LVs, suborbital LVs are in actuality a great first step.
Jon, I'd like to believe it, but my take on the industry is that they don't think a suborbital LV is a business, and so isn't fungible, and won't pass the litmus test.
