VentureStar resurrection (perhaps)

[wtrix]

Hi!

The promise of VentureStar was significant - to bring the cost of space launch down 10 times. AFAIK, the X-33 was almost ready to fly besides the composite LH2 tank. Another problem was a too heawy engine that resulted from the materials used. As materials science and construction tech has made great advances in last 10 years, I think that both of these issues shall be easily resolvable.

To conclude: why doesn't Lockheed finish the development of VentureStar by themselves and enter the COTS and satellite launch business with great price advantage?

 

[tampaDreamer]

If work was done on contract from the government, they probably don't own the rights.

 

[Kmand]

Wikipedia seems to suggest that Lockheed decided not to continue the project independently because it wouldn't have been profitable to them, not because of a rights problem.

 

[wtrix]

Wikipedia seems to suggest that Lockheed decided not to continue the project independently because it wouldn't have been profitable to them, not because of a rights problem.

First, I'd be a little sceptical about those wikipedia suggestions.

Second. Even if it was so, that happened when the satellite business was really down and 1997 asian financial crisis had notable efefct on money supply for space projects. Nowadays (setting the current financial and economics crisis aside) there's at least one very lucrative contract available - COTS. Even if NASA doesn't want to further feed the Boeing/LM cartel, Lockheed still can just make a spacecraft and find another company to operate it.

I wonder that If LM did find that despite possible 10x cost reduction the program is not profitable, how it'd be profitable to the government.