XCOR was founded in 1999. In 2015, they have yet to fly an integrated vehicle. The founders will take all this experience of not flying a vehicle and consult people how to avoid doing what they were doing for past 16 years ?
If their consulting is based on their own mistakes, it might be well worth the money.
At least none of them are Harvard MBAs.
For example, XCOR chose not to pursue contracts that did not lead directly to developing subsystems they wanted for their own ships. This arguably saved time and focus but it seems to have caused cash flow problems that led to delays, layoffs and ultimately loss of control of the company. I’d like to hear what the founders think with the benefit of hindsight.
For example, XCOR chose not to pursue contracts that did not lead directly to developing subsystems they wanted for their own ships.
Armadillo chose the same path.
If it’s a choice between taking a contract that doesn’t directly advance the company objectives and people sitting idle for lack of funding, take the contract.
To be fair, in those 16 years they’ve developed and flown not zero, but two integrated reusable rocket vehicles, the EZ-Rocket and then the X-Racer. Neither high-performance in the conventional sense, but each representing a significant advance for the team’s capabilities. I’m pretty sure that the X-Racer lessons-learned – the fast-turnaround ops and initial piston-pump flight experience in particular – ended up saving a great deal of time and money on Lynx.
It’s been 7 years since X-Racer, not 16, and they’ve been doing a few other things in that time in addition to Lynx. (Not least of these a pump-driven hydrogen engine using what is as far as I know a unique new pump-drive cycle.)
That said, yeah, the last couple years of six-months-to-first-flight have been frustrating.
The comments over there are brutal…
XCOR was founded in 1999. In 2015, they have yet to fly an integrated vehicle. The founders will take all this experience of not flying a vehicle and consult people how to avoid doing what they were doing for past 16 years ?
If their consulting is based on their own mistakes, it might be well worth the money.
At least none of them are Harvard MBAs.
For example, XCOR chose not to pursue contracts that did not lead directly to developing subsystems they wanted for their own ships. This arguably saved time and focus but it seems to have caused cash flow problems that led to delays, layoffs and ultimately loss of control of the company. I’d like to hear what the founders think with the benefit of hindsight.
For example, XCOR chose not to pursue contracts that did not lead directly to developing subsystems they wanted for their own ships.
Armadillo chose the same path.
If it’s a choice between taking a contract that doesn’t directly advance the company objectives and people sitting idle for lack of funding, take the contract.
To be fair, in those 16 years they’ve developed and flown not zero, but two integrated reusable rocket vehicles, the EZ-Rocket and then the X-Racer. Neither high-performance in the conventional sense, but each representing a significant advance for the team’s capabilities. I’m pretty sure that the X-Racer lessons-learned – the fast-turnaround ops and initial piston-pump flight experience in particular – ended up saving a great deal of time and money on Lynx.
It’s been 7 years since X-Racer, not 16, and they’ve been doing a few other things in that time in addition to Lynx. (Not least of these a pump-driven hydrogen engine using what is as far as I know a unique new pump-drive cycle.)
That said, yeah, the last couple years of six-months-to-first-flight have been frustrating.