Orbital Sciences ditches Kistler

[j05h]

OSC has dropped out of the RocketplaneKistler K1 COTS project. I'm surprised no one commented yet. OSC was going to be the new prime integrator for the K1, plus bringing $10mil to the table. Article says they couldn't finalize details, so OSC stepped away.<br /><br />Implications? I see this as potentially the end of the K1. If RpK is supposed to provide double NASA's investment, what will those investors say now that OSC isn't participating? Jon Goff's recent Selenian Boondocks posts have had a lot of potential applications for the K1, what are the odds of it ever flying now?<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/060925_kistler.html<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Transterrestrial musings speculates that Orbital found it's plate to be full being on the RpK COTS team and the Lockheed CEV team, and may have pulled out of COTS because they didn't want to do both at once.<br /><br />COTS with RpK would have been a good hedge against losing the CEV contract.<br /><br />If that's the case it wouldn't be significant like they found a showstopping problem, but RpK will lose some credibility and expertise with Orbital, since Orbital is actively launching spacecraft and RpK isn't.

 

[nyarlathotep]

Remember a couple of months ago when I had a hunch that no venture capitalist would touch RPK with a 100 foot pole?<br /><br />I called it first!

 

[j05h]

> Remember a couple of months ago when I had a hunch that no venture capitalist would touch RPK with a 100 foot pole?<br /> /> I called it first!<br /><br />Word. There seems to be a little stumbling block with picking up abandoned projects like this. 6+ year hiatus in development seems to be enough to terminate. I'm still having trouble grasping how they intended on pulling this off. Rocketplane hasn't been exactly successful, either. Both the founders are gone, they've never flown anything, why'd they adopt the K1? <br /><br />The other Josh has a good hunch, too, with OSC having to much work on their plate. It's still a big confidence loss to RpK.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

No real suprise to me. Awhile back, I pointed out how Kistler came to my attention in a 1992 Ad Astra cover. Kistler was marketing human space flight solutions then. Later they quietly devolved to the easier than human spaceflight unmanned rocket market.<br /><br />Its a trend in aerospace projects:<br /><br />1.<br />Propose the grandiose scheme.<br /><br />2.<br />Start work on a watered down scheme.<br /><br />3.<br />Watch funds dry up and your concept blow away.<br /><br />Were still in the early commercial space era. Going to see more companies fail at this than succeed. At least for the next few years. Hopefully the successful one or ones will turn it around and bring in the commercial space age. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[ldyaidan]

Article this morning says Rp claims to have something in the works to replace OSC. We'll see how it pans out.<br /><br />Rae

 

[spacefire]

I wonder if LM told Orbital to get out of the other partnership.<br />This goes with the recent news of LM partnering with Bigelow.<br />LM is flexing their huge (albeit fatty) muscles to get in the COTS business, with as few competitors as possible.<br /><br />I h8 that corporation so much I hope they are forced to split or something. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

It seems to me that LM has more vision and ambition than boeing at least.

 

[spacefire]

I'm not a fan of Boeing either. In fact, of any large aerospace corporation always digging deep in the taxpayer's pocket for military contracts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Lockheed Martin did pay a considerable out of pocket amount in the development of the X-33, and in at least considering man-rating the Atlas V on their own they are displaying some initiative in attempting a major project that is distant from a porky government teat. <br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

The highly cynical would suggest that 'manrating' an Atlas V doesn't involve a whole lot more than building a service tower and slapping a new sticky label on the vehicle.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Lockheed Martin did pay a considerable out of pocket amount in the development of the X-33</font>/i><br /><br />I have read that Lockheed proposed a fair amount of cost sharing, and that is what helped them (in part) win the contract. However, I have also read the Lockheed's cost sharing wasn't going to kick in until later (perhaps during the venture star), and that all the money spent on the X-33 was NASA's money and not their own.<br /><br />I am not sure what to believe.</i>

 

[holmec]

Its pretty sad. I have yet to hear good news about Kistler. On the other hand SpaceX seems to be fairly upfront with news and updates. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

I think you hit the nail on the head. The most significant development will be RpK's loss of credibility and expertise. I suspect they would not have won the COTS contract without Orbital's name on their application.<br /><br />I wrote about this in a little greater depth on my blog yesterday:<br />http://sabletower.wordpress.com/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[j05h]

> Its pretty sad. I have yet to hear good news about Kistler. On the other hand SpaceX seems to be fairly upfront with news and updates.<br /><br />I've followed Kistler since their inception, here's my take. Especially in it's original incarnation, Kistler Aerospace featured a unique combination of talent, personalities, contacts and bad luck. The only big stumbling block (imho) was the collapse of the LEO telecom movement, everything else was solvable. They were able to go from zero to a 75% complete vehicle in only a few years. They've had deals for data sale post-flight for years, but can't seem to find the $500mil investment to finish the craft. The world has been Kistler's clam if not oyster: Australian and US launch sites, a warehouse full of Russian engines, successful chute-airbag tests. They just couldn't quite finish the K1. They had an extremely high financial burn rate.<br /><br />OSC dropping out could mean nothing. They probably have to much to do with Lockheed and other work. I had a concern that the K1 would be outfitted at Michoud - it's still in the flood zone. Kistler's new integrator of choice will be the make or break of the project. If nothing else, maybe they'll auction off the NK33s and 43s.<br /><br />Last Kistler note: IIRC, one of the major unfinished segments of the K1 is the avionics. So the "75% complete" statement is only partly true, mostly refering to structural, tankage and recovery hardware.<br /><br />You're right about SpaceX. Their burnrate through first flight will be less than Kistler's first few years. They are using very modern development practices, which has led to a first flight within a few years of founding. They could still fail - if the Falcon I somehow never works or the F9 fails. Their openness, confidence and obvious passion all lend SpaceX more credibility. This kind of news, in light of COTS contracts, puts RpK in direct comparison with SpaceX. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[chuck2200]

Word on the RPK site is that Orbital was mandating some design changes to the K1 which didn't sit well with RPK. It also involved outsourcing out of the country, which RPK objected to. I've no idea how valid these claims are but they are posted on the official site.<br /> As to the $10m, RPK says they have another investor ready to step up and fill the gap, with possibly even more cash.<br />If that's true, then it's good for COTS. As much as I like (and am routing for) SpaceX with the Falcon series, I would hate to see them become the only game in town so soon. Competition is healthy and good for the industry. Plus, it gives a lot of bright people the opportunity to feed off each other's ideas and talents.