Seems like there are a lot of horses in this race already but personally my
advice would be to stay conventional. Lots of people out there touting some
kind of perceived technological edge over the competition but experience
will show that barring some great advances in technology the mature
solution is the solution for a reason.
Doesn't sound as good to investors but if you can't be first to market then
you just need to be better/cheaper/more responsive. It doesn't take an
aerospike or air launch or pressure fed boosters or carbon composites to be
better, maybe all it takes is good management or a focus on fast and
efficient manufacturing or on reliability and robust design over absolute
performance.
Ultimately if you have no background in aerospace you probably need to hire
people who do before you can go too far in your concept or development as
speaking from personal experience making a small orbital launch vehicle is
extremely technically difficult. It would take a team of 4 people 100 years
to develop and build an orbital launch vehicle first stage, I don't care
who they are.
Also I assume you meant LEO instead if LOE? And I find using 'mm' instead
of 'M' to denote millions of dollars very strange...
Andrew
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Lars Osborne <lars.osborne@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
That sounds like fun. I can't comment on the business viability for such a
plan, but most people aren't on this list because they think it will help
them make money - we're here because talking about rockets is fun.
Since I assume you are hiring pro's to do the engine development and not
leading the technical development yourself, it won't take that long. There
are people on this list who could do much more in 3 years. Ursa Major is a
small company of just 6 or so great people, and they are doing some very
impressive, ambitious stuff with their small engines. But I I also don't
know what ambitions you might have for the performance and weight of this
engine.
It took about 200 million dollars worth of investment for SpaceX to create
the Falcon 1, which had 125,000 lbf of thrust at liftoff. I think most
people would rec commend against making a rocket of that size with a
cluster of 25 engines. It would have reduced efficiency, and may have
reduced reliability (subject to debate). But I am making assumptions about
the size of the rocket and what future engine developments may or may not
happen.
Making rocket engines in NYC seems tough, access to test facilities where
you can make noise and detonate a few engines in privacy is important.
Again, sounds like fun, good luck. If you are looking for talent I think
you came to the right place.
I would advise the other members of the list to do some googling before
making assumptions about the posters experience level with running a
business and access to capital.
Thanks,
Lars Osborne
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Max Haot <max@xxxxxxxx> 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
Thanks.
Max
