credit NASA/Rocketplane Kistler / caption: Space Access Society 2009 heard that Rocketplane Kistler is not dead
Rocketplane Global's vice president for business development Charles "Chuck" Lauer talked about the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services programme participant Rocketplane-Kistler (RpK), what happened to it, where it is today and its future at the Space Access Society's conference in Phoenix, Arizona on 4 April 2009
Listen here to Lauer describe RpK as the "canary in the [credit crunch] coal mine" and how it fell victim to the financial worldwide crisis
on April 4, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply
Do any of these space startups actually do anything or are they all just vice presidents of business development making money by flipping houses?
on April 5, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply
That's a bit harsh, Armadillo is flying subsystem testing vehicles, Pixel etc, its aiming to build something more substantial soon while an engine its designed has powered a Rocket Racing League prototype, as has Xcor and that company continues developing its Lynx suborbital vehicle's engine the 5K18 and has private funding in support of that, while Rocketplane has had its ups and downs but it has done wind tunnel testing in the past among other things. So they are not just powerpoint jockeys.
on April 27, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply
The biggest problem his company is facing has been management and financial!! That’s indeed the greatest problem!!
Rocketplane has left bills unpaid in multiple time zones, and is being sued across the board.
on June 27, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply
The biggest problem has not been management but Industry and Govt. door slamming. It is a story in COMPLETE contrast to SPACE X which got USAF backing and launch facilities virtually gratis with nothing more than a basic concept, super-hype, but NO hardware which in term enabled them to get orders from commercial customers with NO TRACK RECORD. No financial restrictions were placed on SPACE X COTS contract that have been mentioned - officially of otherwise. Whereas with Kistler...lets hope they can weather the storm and prove THEY have the answer: something I've been convinced of since discovering the K-1 on the web over 10 YEARs ago.
on June 27, 2009 8:23 AM | Reply
I think you're being a bit harsh on SpaceX. Yes they did a good job of convincing the USAF that they had the operationally responsive space launch answer and yes that did mean they got lots of support - a story that has yet to be written IMHO - but they have had to demonstrate that they can do it. Whether you think four launches to reach orbit is good or bad. Kistler Aerospace is a sadder stopry where they decided to use the space primes as their supply base and that was never going to work out well simply because the primes' cost base will always ensure that your budget is going to have to be big. SpaceX's decision to bring virtually everything in-house enabled them to control their costs. Whether COTS-D or even CRS ever happens NASA has got its Delta II replacement with Falcon 9 and my conspiracy theory about all of this is that that was what all of this commercial space guff has been about from the start.
on June 27, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply
You make a couple of excellent points there; particularly about the use of "prime's" as sub-contractors by Kistler, contrasting with going in-house by Space X. But I suspect that Musk's own personal infusion of his own Capital is responsible for that. One thing I won't argue with is SPACE X - or is it just Musk - ability to sell itself without any track-record to back up the hype. Here in the U.S, that is REMARKABLE, believe me! A good idea(Musk's idea IS excellent I grant) is more likely to be stolen rather than backed or encouraged.
It may well be - as I think you're implying - that USGO's USAF & NASA are attempting to escape the "Octopus"-like stranglehold of the U.S Aerospace industry. Although the NASA/ATK dog's dinner of Constellation belies that to my mind.
To a start-up company operating from scratch with no (internal/external) experience to draw from, a 25% success rate is pretty good. But the latest debacle of the Razaksat payload integration problem and the continual delays and slippage for Falcon 9, coupled with a parallel COTS-D contract with Orbital lead me to feel that NASA is beginning to feel much as I, that with SPACE-X, hype exceeds performance by a wide margin. Their website hyped claims of the Merlin engine's performance are just a small sample. Also, as of today's date, Falcon 9 is Falcon 6: the 9-pack propulsion unit remains untested: SPACE-X claim an incremental approach. Good. But their scheduling should be more realistic in consequence.
But there is no doubt that with consistent profit's driving the Aerospace industry's performance & costing levels to the point that even with canceled projects, they're still making money regardless of their own outlay.
Further, that it is actually within their own interests to either fail, or produce sub-standard hardware on a continual basis. Or to propose and push through half-baked concepts such as X-33/Venture Star and ARES 1. Concepts requiring HUGE infusions of extra funding to function as originally envisaged.
In that respect then, SPACE-X' approach is definitely the right one. It may well be, that they are forced to exaggerate in order to be cull the required support from Govt & Commercial customers. In which case I freely admit I'm doing them a disservice. Perhaps Kistler and SPACE-X should cooperate rather than competing if they're truly serious in their intentions!
on June 28, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply
Until Falcon 1/9 are operational with at least 3-consecutive successful launches each, I think the verdict is out on the "Delta II replacement" frankly.
I'm rather curious that there's no apparent utilisation of SRB's OR a Falcon 1(Heavy) using the triple stack design we were first to use on our Europa III(cancelled of course!) concept. On the other hand, SPACE-X has listed the NASA standards that their vehicle and Spacecraft are designed to meet. Let's, for the Astronaut's sake, hope this is true!
On the other hand, I approve of their keeping it as simple as possible approach, although the use of 27 engines firing simultaneously,for Falcon 9 Heavy lift-off almost approaches the ill-fated N-1 with 30!
on July 6, 2009 3:21 AM | Reply
Ha,
just discovered that the original '06 Kistler COTS-D contract was actually with ATK who was the prime Contractor for the K-1 vehicle. RpK was classified as a subcontractor! Strange,because that being so, ATK should have come up with the $500M Kistler was required to obtain, and NOT Kistler. Why didn't they? Perhaps ARES contracts had something to do with it. SPACE X independence from the Aerospace "Octopus" becomes more and more justified. clearly though that limits their technology base.
on July 17, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply
Next Victim?
It looks like they have moved on to Hawaii to pitch their snake oil. From
the July 15 Honolulu Star Bulletin
http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20090715_Space_is_the_place.html
"The launching of commercial space tourism is foreseeable in Hawaii within
the next three years if the state can find a way to provide the initial
funding necessary." "Both the Honolulu and Kona airports are able to
handle the runway takeoffs and landings, similar to those of commercial
airliners, while New Mexico is spending more than $200 million to build a
new infrastructure that will be sufficient but inferior, according to George
D. French Jr., Rocketplane Global's chief executive. The spacecraft is now in
the design stage and is planned to be built in a year and a half." I hope
someone from the state contacts the Hawaiian state officials and warns
them about Rocketplane's snake oil.
on July 25, 2009 2:51 AM | Reply
That's Rocketplane, not Kistler. It's also sub-orbital flights for passengers, not delivery of manned/unmanned payload to orbit. No mention of the K-1 - or if they were sensible, strap 3-1st stages together for a "K-3" and send 15+tonnes to ISS and recover all stages.