Lars:
I assume that last was directed at me....
How much money did John Carmack waste before he gave up?
Having money is a good start but is very far from sufficient, particularly if
one has not thought through the problem; it is more likely that Max will loose
his money than that he will *ever* generate an economic gain: an assertion
which I can prove, formally.
Of all the organizations that have started building rockets lately only
one--Blue Origin--carefully analyzed the trade space before deciding on a
reusable liquid rocket. All others appear to have picked an arbitrary starting
point and iterated the design around that start (a pattern of behavior that is
frustratingly common to the aerospace industry).
There are a handful of people in the world who have thought very carefully
about the cost of space travel and what business design will minimize that
cost. Googling my background will establish that I am one such.
Bill
Sent from my Commodore 64
On Sep 26, 2016, at 3:00 AM, 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
