Rocketeers try, try again

Craig Russell, Madison, Alabama — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:07:33 GMT

Americans in Orbit-50 Years Inc., a non-profit organization, will launch two astronauts and 10,000lbs. of space science experiments, Feb. 20, 2012. The purpose is to once again give universities access to orbit and commemorate the 50th anniversary of America's first orbital space flight.

Rocketeers try, try again

steve smyth — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:27:07 GMT

I didn't even take time to read the piece...the vehicle says it all...you have got to be kidding me...how much did that thing cost?
In 1959, there were probably 1000 of those things in various backyards around the country...looking exactly like what you see above...a pop riveted spaceship...oh, boy, can't wait to get aboard...

Rocketeers try, try again

Claude Gelinas, Levis, QC — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:39:29 GMT

This is the kind of "rocket science" that gets me excited (all over again) about space travel.

I was wondering, though, if this spaceship properly protects its passengers from space (and sun) radiation?

Rocketeers try, try again

Alec Clayton — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:06:02 GMT

There is *zero* aerodynamic justification for a sharp-edged, flat-planed, stealth-profile vehicle and numerous reasons to dismiss it out of hand. These people have absolutely no idea what they're doing - the concept vehicle was designed that way to be stealthy, not to be a good spacecraft OR aircraft, let alone what happens when you put it on top of a rocket. Here's a genius way to go about getting to space: Dig up some viewgraph fantasy from the Skunk Works basement - preliminary work on a distant ancestor of one of the moodiest, most high-strung, least durable types of aircraft in existence (stealth), that was too iffy even for the spend-crazy maniacs of the Cold War DoD - and then try to shoot it 60 miles up on top of a rocket before subjecting it to the g's and heat of reentry. They may get in some drop-tests of a scale model, but this thing will *never* be made into an operational spacecraft, even as a scale demonstrator. The technical problems will just mount and mount, the expenses balloon, and the project will just fade away. It makes me sick watching them pretend to have a serious program - all they have is a skin-deep mock-up, some archaeological found art from their "partner" (heh) Lockheed's catacombs, and some (likely weak) computer modeling. They have no rocket, no engine, nothing. This is a farce. They're paying Lockheed for the privilege of being condescended to, like a debutante dancing with a cerebral palsy student. The stars will burn out before Planetspace gets a funded NASA contract.

Rocketeers try, try again

A disgruntled investor — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:23:33 GMT

This photo is just a plywood prop, equipped with trailer tires and a broom stick.
Most likely better viewed from far away. If you squint your eyes it almost looks real.
I bet the I bet Mr.Sheerin's personal secretary upholstered the cockpit with fleece.
Speaking of fleecing….

Rocketeers try, try again

TH, Sacramento CA — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:51:21 GMT

Keep exploring!!! Don't let the picture deceive you. This is state of the art hardware not a kit car.

Rocketeers try, try again

steve smyth — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:41:31 GMT

All they need to do is spray some of that black super ball material all over it and it can be marketed as a stealthy, sub-space, global weapon of mass destruction...just in case the telecomsat scams don't pan out as planned...good management technique, eh?
Go Chirinjeef!
It looks kinda like the space car in one of Alan's earlier postings...maybe they can get together...
Give yourselves a break and assess your chances of survival right here on Eart by clicking on my name below...we ain't goin' nowhere with these clowns at the helm.
PS...
what happens to the control surfaces on re-entry, or, for that matter, when in supersonic flight?
that thing would tumble worse than Yeager did...don'tcha think?
"Lessons of History" does not mean doing the same stupid things over and over...it means learn and move forward...
TRIPLE GEEZ!!!

Rocketeers try, try again

A disgruntled investor — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:15:29 GMT

"Planetspace has a few things going for it, however: Its chairman, Indian-American entrepreneur Chirinjeev Kathuria, has made millions in other ventures related to telecommunications and medical equipment - and his cash helped keep Russia's Mir space station on life support for a few extra months in the year 2000. Its president and CEO, Geoff Sheerin, has drawn upon his hands-on experience at Canadian Arrow to work out technical details and help out with partnerships."
Ok Alan, assuming what you say is true, if these guys are so good, Kathuria with his money and Sheerin with his " his hands-on experience" how come these guys have done nothing. I mean surely with all that money and know how they could have done more than build yet another plywood model in the past 3 years since they dissolved Canadian Arrow in 2005. What is missing? Canadian Arrow seemed to be able to do quite a bit more with its limited recourses. Where are the completed NASA COTS milestones?
Oh and why would you put a jet engine on a test glider? (assuming that there is a test glider)
And Alan as I mentioned in our last email conversation it would seem that you did recently talk to these guys….did they happen to say if they were going to finally honor their commitments to the share holders …Mr.Sheerin are you out there?

Rocketeers try, try again

Brian G. ON — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:23:17 GMT

Having ATK and Lockheed as partners is a huge vote of confidence. I wonder what some of you guys (Disgruntled Investor et al) think you know about PlanetSpace that these blue-chip companies don't? Do you really claim to have done due diligence while they haven't, yet they've attached their good name and credibility to PlanetSpace?

Rocketeers try, try again

Alan Boyle — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:59:48 GMT

On the topic of Space Act Agreement milestones, PlanetSpace was up to date as of last September. Since then, the Lockheed/ATK venture has loomed larger, and Kathuria says the milestones are being renegotiated to incorporate the development schedule for that venture. I can't shed any further light on shareholder relations or other internal matters.

Rocketeers try, try again

PJ, Halifax, Nova Scotia — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:30:34 GMT

Good Article Alan!

Wow are there ever some jaded comments in here! Disgruntled - maybe you should invest in something a little safer for you - try Bonds!

Steve - whats up man? Try Reading the article next time! That pop riveted space ship says Mock up underneath it PS, Nice Personal Web Site - I find you guilty of overusing <br> tho.

Alec I actually thought you were going to come to a point somewhere in that rant on aerodynamics; but you ended up with "farce" and an odd prediction of the stars burning out. NASA has given money to companies that have dropped out, why not invest in a partner that wants to work with you rather then opt out and miss milestones? So I disagree I think they could get money and I also think that Lockheed and ATK wouldn't let themselves be associated with a Farce.

Well as I see it, and as best as I understand it, they (PlanetSpace) are using a previous NASA design and working on proposals to garner contracts before designing models. To me this seems a logical way to conduct business rather then build - spend money - on something no one wants! Just my thoughts...

To the Canadians among us - Happy Canada Day,
For the Americans - Happy Independence Day on the 4th!

Later!

Rocketeers try, try again

Todd, Billerica, MA — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:17:24 GMT

PJ,

Well said. :)

Rocketeers try, try again

Ed — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:07:26 GMT

PJ in response to your posting I have to agree with the other posters here.
I have been following this stuff on line for quit a while now and I have seen several companies evolve in the past few years. Some into legitimate companies and other promising companies erode into shams, and let downs.
Planetspace came on strong a few years ago but seemed to get mired down into endless proclamations of launch dates and elaborate plans.
This in striking contrast to Canadian Arrow the now defunct xprize team that seemed to be able to consistently develop and provide evidence of real work.

You stated "NASA has given money to companies that have dropped out, why not invest in a partner that wants to work with you rather then opt out and miss milestones?"

Well PJ, that is a good question why would NASA want to work with a company that has missed milestones.
Hence why Planetspace has not ever received a contract from NASA.
Planetspace according to their unfunded COTS agreement with NASA, had set milestones which they were supposed to attain in a given amount of time. These milestones were developed by Planetspace and NASA. All of which can be referenced on the NASA website.
By June of 2008 they were supposed to have completed a 3rd stage assembly, Hot fire engine test, production of silver dart airframe, just to name a few.

PJ you also stated the following
"So I disagree I think they could get money"

could get money??? I thought Kathuria was their "Paul Allen" this according to what Sheerin said.

"and I also think that Lockheed and ATK wouldn't let themselves be associated with a Farce."

Well that is the whole problem with Trust. I would bet Lockheed and ATK have both never set foot in a Planetspace factory or for that matter ever seen anything other than power point presentations, old Canadian Arrow videos of long ago tests.
Name dropping and riding on past associations will only get you so far. eventually you have to put up or shut up.
I think the problem is that they have never had the money (the big money that is) I don't think Kathuria has funded any development of hardware what so ever.
Like Rocketplane they have unveiled big plans but have never put wrench to bolt.
By insinuating that they have done all kinds of stuff they are hoping to net bigger investment. If this was not the case I am sure we would have seen more accomplished than someone stating 'we have done that'.
A company like Lockheed or ATK will "partner" with any organization that will cut them in on a contract. Of course they will lend there expertise that is if you have the money to pay for it. My guess is that nothing in terms of development has ever happed between Planetspace and these organizations other than conceptual work. They need a signed deal from NASA first, And Planetspace is not going to spend a dime that they don't have to begin work. This is why they have not ever been able to show completed work. They are still in need of big money. And in order to get investment you need a sound team and the ability to do things, skills, knowledge this sort of thing.
That is just my take on it, but I think it makes sense.
PJ they have lots of cheerleaders what they need is people who can get things done.
I like the DART I just don’t see it happening with this group.

[ALAN ADDS: I've mentioned that PlanetSpace's unfunded COTS milestones are now being renegotiated in light of the Athena-based project. It's OK to be skeptical ... there comes a time when you just have to deliver the goods, whether you're PlanetSpace (which hasn't yet built hardware) or SpaceX (which has, and is aiming to get to orbit next time around) or any other venture that still has to prove itself fully. But I'm being somewhat more selective about the comments going forward, so I hope you'll understand if some comments are not approved. I don't want to fuel comment campaigns either for or against particular companies.]

Rocketeers try, try again

Timothy Gerrard Canada — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:46:10 GMT

The only "disgruntled Investors" are the ones who gave up on the dream! :) AK