They don't have a huge social media presence yet, but I like their
Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/ursamajortechnologies/
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Henry Vanderbilt <
hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Fair enough.
I assume Dave's already making the case to Max Haot that outsourcing the
propulsion to them is a viable alternative to doing it in-house. Hmm.
http://www.ursamajortechnologies.com/#home seems to be saying they have
(or plan to have) a 5Klbf lox-RP engine as a turnkey item. It'd be
interesting to see a bit more detail about that than at quick glance the
site offers. Not much there to indicate how close to "flight qualified"
the engine might be.
Henry
On 9/26/2016 11:24 AM, Jonathan Goff wrote:
From Dave's company, Ursa Major Technologies...
Jon
On Sep 26, 2016 12:20 PM, "Henry Vanderbilt" <hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Flight-qualified, suited to the application, ready to go? From who?
On 9/26/2016 10:56 AM, David Gregory wrote:
Or buy a 5klbf lox-kero engine.
On Sep 26, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Henry Vanderbilt
<hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The overall time and finance seem realistic, leaving aside
the question of market.
One caution: "Qualify for flight as stage 1 within 3 years"
for a 5Klbf liquid biprop engine is IMO unduly optimistic at
4 team members and $3m in funding. There's a significant
difference (too often minimized by ambitious publicists)
between getting a prototype rocket chamber visibly working
on a pressure-fed test stand, and a flight-qualified
integrated propulsion system built around that chamber.
The former might be done in a year with four team members
and $1 million, but achieving the latter in another two
years will likely take somewhere between 3x and 10X the
money and team size.
The actual multiplier depends on the complexity of the
desired engine (pump or pressure-fed? high-margin rugged or
ultra-high performance?), the precise interpretation of
"flight qualified" (how much remaining uncertainty is
tolerable determines how much testing over how wide a range
of conditions is needed), and to some degree on luck.
A note on luck in rocket development programs: Managers who
refuse to depend on it will increase predicted cost and
schedule modestly - and reduce actual cost and schedule
greatly more often than not.
Henry
On 9/25/2016 7:47 AM, Max Haot wrote:
First goal: Build a ~5,000 lbf LOx/RP-1 engine, qualify
for flight as
stage 1 within 3 years. Config - 4 team members, $3mm in
funding lasting
3 years. Key assumptions (a) it's all about the team and
engine - we
have to prove this first (b) there's no rush, demand for
LOE access will
still be there in 10 years.
Sequential goal 2 would be to reach commercial operation
for small
payload to LOE within 10 years of founding. Likely 100
team members
build up, $200mm in funding for this second phase.
Funding would occur
in 2019 for this phase - investment climate and
team/external proof
points expected to be very strong by then.
This is early days - building the team and validating
assumptions before
starting the $3mm fundraising process for the first goal.
Looking for anyone interested to meet to educate,
validate/shoot down
assumptions or most importantly knows of potential team
members in NYC
area I should speak to. Contact me at max [at] haot.nyc
<http://haot.nyc> <http://haot.nyc>
Thanks.
Max
