Chuck Lauer starts by informing us that Kistler and Rocketplane have been split off into separate companies. Still want to resurrect Kistler–only two-stage reusable out there.

Bottom line was that markets didn’t buy the value proposition that NASA could be a reliable anchor customer.

Drawing contrast between their max gees and Virgin’s. Rocketplane is four, Virgin is six. Thinks it will be a significant difference. In terms of market research, early studies had to spend a lot of time educating the customer. Now there’s a lot more awareness of various products (runway takeoff and landing single vehicle, versus air drop versus vertical) and it would be useful to update the market research.

Need public/private partnership unless you’re a billionaire like Jeff Bezos. They are continuing to partner with Oklahoma, and the action is primarily between the companies and the states, not the federal government. Even Florida is waking up the fact that the entrepreneurial space community is the future.

Marketing strategy is to work with partners all over the world. Going after one third of the tourist market. Expect 80/20 tourism/other (microgravity science and microsatellite), but the latter may be a bigger market than they think. Looking at charter flight model with things like reality teevee shows, sponsorship of contests (currently have one going with Nestle–paying full price for two seats and giving them away). Can see the Kitkat promotion at nestle.fr. Another contest in India for a multi-media company with a four-episode show to pick the winner. Winner’s sound bite: “I want to see what it’s like to pee in space.”

They can provide a blank canvas for corporate customers without having to compete with a brand (as they do with Virgin).

Lost a year plus of schedule in 2005/2006 as a result of the focus on COTS. Original plan was to build a couple four-place Learjet version, and then build a bigger version for more throughput. Since then have taken a step back and decided to go directly to the larger vehicle, built from scratch. New vehicle is pure cylinder fuselage, cabin the size of a large SUV 2+2+2 seating, with more revenue per flight but no increase in ops costs. Upgraded to an after-burning turbo jet with higher thrust, shorter takeoff roll, higher air-breathing altitude.

Frank Nuovo designed the interior of the aircraft (former head cellphone designer for Nokia). Everyone sees out the front (even in the rear seats), has their own window, and a personal video display. Will show tail camera view during ascent. Video screen will also be selectable for different angles. May use Google Earth overlay on monitor to know what you’re looking at.

[Update at 11:30 AM MST]

I got pulled away from the rest of the Lauer talk, but Clark Lindsey has some good notes, as well as more from the Frontier Astronautics talk.

John Carmack is starting off with a video of Lunar Landing Challenge, showing the failed attempt to win last fall.

Likes the new single-tank design compared to the old quad. It’s easier to service, though a little harder to transport because it’s much taller.

Seeing views that we hadn’t seen at the time, from the three on-board cameras.

Now showing a burn of methane engine that they’ve been developing with NASA.

Now have four modules of the six that they plan to build their suborbital vehicle. Landing gear turns out to be one of the heavier items, as heavy as the tank. Sticking to dual tanks and single engine on each module. 800 psi pressure tank, with rubber landing pads. Thus tank is also landing gear.

Steps to commercial vehicle. Some debate whether differential throttling will work for control. Recent experience indicates that it is sluggish to respond, because throttling can’t be done fast enough on a peroxide engine, but a bi-prop engine may be more manageable.

Definitely disappointment after losing the cup. Thought they’d done everything they needed to prepare for. They’d done many test flights, including five 180 second flights (long enough to go to space). Had three vehicles, any one of which could do the ninety-second challenge. But they had five starts with three wrecked engines. Still not sure what the problem was, but think that (sorry, going to fast to capture it all), but think it had something to do with cooling jacket capacity and start-up processes that resulted in fuel entering the chamber prematurely. BIggest difference was that they turned the vehicles faster at the cup than during normal tests, and there could have been slight differences in chamber pressures or fuel ratios at a given point in time that had catastrophic results. May have had an assembly error (leaving out an O-ring that resulted in a fuel leak), but can’t be sure.

Disheartening, but compared to all the other hardware at the airshow with thousands of flights, they couldn’t have the statistical confidence as those military aircraft. Learned a lot of lessons. Don’t expect it to work the first time. Even with modern engineering practice, it won’t happen. Not arrogant enough to think they’ve solved all the problems, or even know what they are. Expect to lose several of the modules in flight testing. But once they find the problems, they’re confident they can solve them. On propulsion, engine now starts and stops like a light switch. Expecting high-speed aero problems.

On business scale issues, things are accelerating. Half a million in contract work, NASA and a commercial customer not to be disclosed. Starting to talk more like Jeff Greason now–transitioning from hobby to business. Won’t sell components, because integration is critical. Will sell functional systems (such as propulsion). Currently at around 5000 lbf thrust, will sell for a couple hundred thousand bucks. Will sell complete vehicle for half a million. Talking to Lunar Google X-Prize teams. Won’t warrant that it will land on the moon, but if they want to buy one for testing, he’ll sell it. Has very little confidence in Google Lunar X-Prize–doesn’t think anyone has what it takes. Talking to aerospace companies about sensor suite testing and lunar simulations. Still thinks highly of suborbital passenger market. Thinks there’s a market, and has all the pieces: propulsion, control, insurance, etc. Not worried about schedules, because SS2 continues to slip.

Had hoped that he was past the point where he didn’t have to invest any more, but did recently. However, more of a float issue, or loan, until some other things come in. “Perseverance and determination will get us there.”

Problem with LLC: once a year demonstration is the worst thing for a technical challenge. Adds pressure for tough decisions that can distract from main commercial goals. Afraid to do boosted hops at higher altitudes because they don’t want to risk if for the challenge. Have three vehicles, but last year’s experience shows that’s not enough for redundancy. Ready to do it now, but have to wait until end of year and keep hardware available for it.

[Update a few minutes later]

Clark Lindsey has more on Armadillo, and a report on the previous talk on laser launch by Jordin Kare.

Dan DeLong starts off by telling Paul Breed that they learned a long time ago at XCOR that green is bad, stop right now.

This talk is more than just Lynx, they’ll be talking about the other things they’re working on as well. Can’t talk about the Rocket Racer, because Rocket Racing League controls information on that. The piston pump is working well on it, though, and it’s the same pump that will be used on the Lynx, for both fuel and LOX.

There is no more Xerus. The concept has been changing, business model changing, aero changing, and they decided that they have a new stable configuration that they can give a name to. That is Lynx.

They’re having trouble with the computer display. Making jokes about Microsoft, and saying that their flight software won’t be windows. Dan talking about conversation he had night before with Russ Blink of Armadillo, with Russ saying that he’d rather fly a rocket controlled by a computer than one controlled by a human. Dan responded that while it made sense to do a vertical vehicle with computers, but it didn’t seem that good to do it with software based on a package called “Doom.”

Showing a flow chart of a meat hunt, with overanalysis. Their emphasis is analyze a little, and test a lot.

Showing various past projects–NRO thruster, DARPA LOX pump, methane engine.

Showing video of putting bomb inside of a methane engine to test combustion stability. Four bomb tests, all successful.

Talking about the valves that they’ve developed, because none were available that met their needs. Also doing own composites for the Lynx. They’ve come up with a glass-fibre and teflon resin, neither of which will react with oxygen.

Not talking about Lynx. Sunk cost so far $7m, with an estimate of $9M to complete. Showing a video of 50-lbf attitude control thruster, running nitrous/ethane, that will sit in the strakes. This video wasn’t shown at the press conference.

Mark II will have hard points on outside. Will carry upper stage dorsally, that can put 10-20 kg payload into LEO. Purpose of the contract is not to help build vehicle. It’s for analysis, demonstration and knowledge sharing of its responsive features. Air Force is looking for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS). Air Force has space they need the “OR.” XCOR has the “OR” but not the “S.” Everyone understand that you can’t be cheap at nine times per year, but because XCOR is commercial, they have to make it cheap, which happens by flying often. So Air Force gets the benefit.

Lynx requirements:

Supersonic
Two people
Fly under FAA-AST rules

Goal was to build smallest vehicle that met those requirements.

Showing video of firewall test stand, successive engine runs with increasing pauses, with minimum off time of two seconds. About a half second to start up.

Showing video from press conference now.

Fuel is carried in wing strakes, LOX in fuselage. About two gees at burnout, heading straight up at Mach 1. Mark II will be three gees. Landing speed about 95 knots, takeoff about twice that.

Tim Bendel, of Frontier Astronautics, is giving a presentation on how to address the gap between the ability of garage-based startups and larger companies to raise money. Not very many angels with money who are interested in space who aren’t already doing it.

Giving a history of the Zeppelin. After the count lost his first ship, he threw in the towel, because he’s lost all his money, but a lot of Germans sent him money, and he ended up with more than he had started with. Are there space enthusiasts who could do the same thing?

Talking about Warren Buffett’s stock, and its high value that he refuses to split. Independent holding companies evolved by purchasing a few shares of Berkshire stock, and then issuing new, lower-priced stock based on that asset.

His proposal is to gather small investors for the holding company, put their money into escrow, and fund start-up space companies off the interest. Different “flavors” or classes of stock would be issued, with different Class A escrow accounts, which could be associated with specific start ups.

Unfortunately, most of the info is on his charts, which I can’t read because I’m all the way in the back (where the laptop power is), and too dense for me to quickly transcribe even if I could.

He claims that it avoids sunshine laws, according to SEC lawyers that they’ve talked to. The basic idea is to provide a means for small investors to invest in small companies, albeit indirectly.

Issues: Have to pay for licenses, need to be broker/dealer, etc., a lot of paperwork. Probably about a hundred thousand bucks to get started. Goal is to do it for profit, in addition to helping space industry. Makes money on trades, but could also use other investment tools, such as puts and calls.

Has a business process patent on it, needs about a quarter million to start up.

Hard for me to evaluate it, given my funky state of consciousness, and inability to look at the numbers. I’ll talk to TIm about it later.

While I slept, XCOR lifted the news embargo at midnight PDT (presumably to allow coverage in today’s WSJ).

I’m still a little bleary (and of course still attending the press conference later this morning), but Clark Lindsey has a lot more. Just scroll down.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s more, from east coaster Jeff Foust, here and here.