possum - 20/4/2007 3:08 PMQuoteJim - 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 websiteThere is only one picture of an engine in a support dolly and one picture of an engine being tested. .
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
possum - 19/4/2007 10:07 PMWell they should post something on their website.
jongoff - 20/4/2007 3:13 PM Who doesn't think suborbital is a business? ~Jon
My industry contacts don't think suborbital launch vehicles are a generalized business, where you market a product to service companies that operate the vehicle, or specific launch customers attempting to obtain a launch. E.g. not a generalized business as an orbital vehicle is.
As opposed to, say, space tourism, like Virgin Galactic, which is an owner/operator of exclusively obtained SS2's from Scaled.
Sorry for not being precise in my terms.
nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2007 5:52 PMQuotejongoff - 20/4/2007 3:13 PM Who doesn't think suborbital is a business? ~JonMy industry contacts don't think suborbital launch vehicles are a generalized business, where you market a product to service companies that operate the vehicle, or specific launch customers attempting to obtain a launch. E.g. not a generalized business as an orbital vehicle is.As opposed to, say, space tourism, like Virgin Galactic, which is an owner/operator of exclusively obtained SS2's from Scaled.Sorry for not being precise in my terms.
Jim - 20/4/2007 4:57 PM Must not be in the "real "industry suborbital launch vehicles ARE a generalized business. Sounding rockets, target vehicles, RV test vehicles, weather rockets, ICBM and RV interceptors Coleman Aerospace and OSC are big leader in this business
Hi Jim,
"Sounding rockets, target vehicles, RV test vehicles, weather rockets, ICBM and RV interceptors" are clearly application specific, like SS2. Duh.
We were talking in the context of Kistler. So I guess you believe that a minature 3/8ths scale K1 is a useful vehicle that lots of customers would sign-up for, to have the sub-OV dump off a payload for a brief period of exposure? :laugh:
nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2007 6:43 PM. So I guess you believe that a minature 3/8ths scale K1 is a useful vehicle that lots of customers would sign-up for, to have the sub-OV dump off a payload for a brief period of exposure? :laugh:
JIS - 20/4/2007 2:23 PMSome time ago I was expecting that Space X uses 1st stage of Falcon 1 to carry passengers for suborbital trips. It could be doable if the stage is reusable. Unfortunatelly, they've neglected this opporunity. Maybe it's not financially feasible.
Jim - 20/4/2007 9:02 PM It could be used as a "sounding rocket, target vehicle, RV test vehicle, weather rocket........"
It could be used as a "sounding rocket, target vehicle, RV test vehicle, weather rocket........"
"It's a dessert topping, AND A FLOOR WAX!"
And such a great investment opportunity that would be. Gee, gotta rush off to tell Elon, he'd better refocus to pick up that vital segment of the market ... not! :laugh:
Guess its time to educate here. Industry breaks down into vertically and horizontally organized businesses, and the economics are radically different between them. Horizontal businesses sell more "generically", like choosing in this case from a field of roughly equivalent LV's - do you as SS/L fly XM-5 on Atlas, Delta, Ariane, or ? So much so, you might even sell it as less than a package. The whole idea economically is interchangeability - which tends to level pricing and widen total market size. IBM and Intel took the largely vertical computer industry and made it horizontal.
The opposing arrangement is a vertical, where typically you sell an application/solution, with all the components crafted for the application. Economically, prices rise to individual levels based on the market perception of value, thus are called "value pricing", and competitive items are not interconvertable to a large degree.
A common naive mistake is to assume you can cluster verticals to form a horizontal play, like the attempt at generalization. In the case of say OSC, having different product lines like Pegasus or Taurus or Minotaur is to address what we describe as seperate market segments, which is an independant concept from vertical / horizontal businesses.
Kistler K-1 is an example of a application specific vehicle, just as Lockheed Venture Star was. The subscale X-33 was an attempt at a proof of concept prototype for Venture Star. Had they done aluminum tanks and got it through suborbital flight tests, it would not have been used as a "sounding rocket, target vehicle, RV test vehicle, weather rocket...", that is unless the business people were drunk or on drugs.
The point of a K-1 subscale would have been a proof of concept, and not a sensible business in itself. Falcon 1 is a sensible business by itself in comparison. The danger with a subscale is that nitpickers claim things won't scale anyways, so we'd better not try anyways ... even though we proved it works.
We return you to your normally scheduled forum ... unless we persist in nitpick the obvious mode ...
Jim - 20/4/2007 4:05 PMQuotepossum - 20/4/2007 3:08 PMQuoteJim - 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 websiteThere is only one picture of an engine in a support dolly and one picture of an engine being tested. .There are pictures of built tanks and composite structures. Look harder
pad rat - 19/4/2007 11:36 AMThe RpK briefing I sat in indicated the vehicle's computer was to handle both ground and flight roles.
possum - 19/4/2007 9:32 PMI think Kistler will get nowhere. They've been floundering for a decade and have never even attempted a launch. The only reason they are still around is the incredible amount of ex-NASA senior managers that they have employed. Their political connections are keeping them alive in spite of a pitiful business plan and almost non-existent technical progress. What have they ever done to warrant getting a piece of COTS? They got awarded the COTS contract based solely on political connections. They haven't done anything in 10 years. Just look at their website, it is devoid of any technical accomplishments. It's just one press release after another about still yet another business deal they've managed to sign. Who the hell is stupid enough to sign a contract with these guys? Other than NASA, of course. Have they even built/tested any hardware?
Kayla - 21/4/2007 9:32 AMQuoteJim - 20/4/2007 4:05 PMQuotepossum - 20/4/2007 3:08 PMQuoteJim - 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 websiteThere is only one picture of an engine in a support dolly and one picture of an engine being tested. .There are pictures of built tanks and composite structures. Look harderI think the issue here is that most of Kistler's hardware was built a decade ago when they still had a strong technical team. Have they really made much additional progress in the last 6 months since winning COTS1?
pad rat - 16/4/2007 7:16 AMAs far as the government getting hosed by the big players, it's worth noting that none of the established rocket builders are making a huge profit. Figures I've heard point to marginal profits. If it weren't for the subsidies ULA is receiving to cover some of its costs it'd be operating in the red - and maybe looking hard at shutting down one of the two launcher lines. High launch costs are an indictment of the way the biggies operate, the way the government requires them to operate (when it's involved), and the demanding nature of the prize - a reliable launch of an expensive asset.
khallow - 29/4/2007 8:12 AM It strikes me that space launch is a sort of loss leader for high margin defense contracts. Even if the company cannot make a profit on that, it can decide where to employ people, spend money, etc and hence, has indirect ways to reward politicians for defense funding. So there's a lot of hidden value in there.
nobodyofconsequence - 2/5/2007 5:38 PMQuotekhallow - 29/4/2007 8:12 AM It strikes me that space launch is a sort of loss leader for high margin defense contracts. Even if the company cannot make a profit on that, it can decide where to employ people, spend money, etc and hence, has indirect ways to reward politicians for defense funding. So there's a lot of hidden value in there. Different customer base - not all such defense contracts require such generalized services, so not a loss leader. Defense or other space customers have very specific needs in a launch vehicle. More like a highly selective service provider to a very refined and tiny customer base you can't grow.
khallow - 3/5/2007 10:46 PM There's a lot of high margin defense contracts that are assigned or altered based on political considerations. For example, you might be able to get a $2 billion dollar DoD contract (which need not have anything to do with space) because you have the best bid. But a few hundred million dollars spent on your low margin space business in the appropriate congresscritter districts might mean that defense contract gets a few hundred million extra. Ie, the low margin business attacts the high margin business just like a loss-leader should.
The original Delta IV business, like the Atlas V, qualified as valid standalone businesses. If this business were dominated by "loss leaders", than the remaining commercial and science payloads none of which having $2b contracts, would tend to show up on more frugal foreign built launchers. Even with defense projects, not all of them package in this way. This is what I meant earlier.
Also, when you have a horizontal launch vehicle market, you have components independently consumed, so its hard to link contracts because of separate bidding. But this only works with volume. Sooner or later, this is the way this business has to go to mature. Loss leaders in such markets distinguish themselves from competition who are perceived as otherwise indistinguishable from.
