Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued
Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued
Source: http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.space.policy/2005−11/msg00079.html
• From: "Tom Cuddihy" • Date: 5 Nov 2005 01:49:39 −0800
Ed Kyle wrote: > Tom Cuddihy wrote: > > Ed Kyle wrote: > > > "Air Launch LLC announced today that it has been selected for contract > > > continuance by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) > > > under Phase 2B of the Falcon program. Valued at $17.8 million for a > > > one−year effort, the Phase 2B contract activity enables AirLaunch and > > > its team of contractors to continue development of the QuickReach? > > > small satellite booster." >>> > > > "http://www.airlaunchllc.com/News.htm >>> > > > Any news about whether any of the other four DARPA Falcon project Phase > > > 2A > > > contractors have been continued to Phase 2B? >>> > > > − Ed Kyle >> > > Phase 2B is supposed to be test and launch−−when SpaceX elbowed their > > way into the program late last year, I believe they moved directly into > > 'Phase 2B,' and their first launch at Kwaj,although it's an Air Force > > Academy satellite, is listed as a DARPA launch, which would have to be > > FALCON phase 2B. >> > > Things seem to have gone well for both SpaceX and AirLaunch to this > > point, and they could actually both fill different niches of the > > market, which is exciting. >> > > SpaceX is of course much further ahead thanks to private financing and > > an earlier start. In addition, SpaceX's own experience with engine > > testing makes me think AirLaunch is likely to encounter significant > > delays as they work out the kinks in their pressure−fed engine. I think > > if they encounter the same kind of underperformance that SpaceX came > > across, it would be impossible for them to make it up because the > > tolerances inside the aircraft prevent the same kind of 'just make the > > whole thing bigger' solution that SpaceX did. >> > > Of course, it's always possible that they actually are giving Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued 1
Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued > > themselves the margin to accomplish this. Based on their history, I > > doubt it...but maybe. >> > > Tom > > One bit of information I found by digging into the Air Launch web site > material is that the claimed "less than $5 million" per launch cost > is based on an assumed 20 per year launch rate! > > Nevermind that during the past 35 years, no U.S. smallsat launcher > has flown more than 6 times in a single year and no U.S. launch > vehicle of any size has flown more than 13 times in a single year − > and that was during the LEO−sat craze that will not soon be > repeated (all of the LEO−sat companies went bankrupt in short > order). > > And nevermind that with about seven weeks left in 2005 there > have only been 43 successful space launches *worldwide* and > that the most oft−flown launcher (R−7) has only performed *eight* > successful flights so far. > > It would be refreshing, wouldn't it, if the alt−space crowd started > being straight with their numbers? > > − Ed Kyle AirLaunch is being entirely funded by DARPA. I think that automatically eliminates them from 'alt.space' status, unless 'hopelessly unrealistic business forecasts' is the only criteria. And if thats the case, I've got a few other 'alt.space' companies to add...Iridium, Globalstar, and EELV come first... Tom .
• Follow−Ups: ♦ Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued ◊ From: Ed Kyle • References: ♦ Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued ◊ From: Ed Kyle ♦ Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued ◊ From: Tom Cuddihy ♦ Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued ◊ From: Ed Kyle Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued 2
Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued • Prev by Date: Re: China Manned Lunar Landing 2017 • Next by Date: Re: What else could you do with the Stick? • Previous by thread: Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued • Next by thread: Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued • Index(es): ♦ Date ♦ Thread
Re: Air Launch DARPA Contract Continued
3