Space firm founded by billionaire Paul Allen closing operations(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Space firm founded by billionaire Paul Allen closing operations
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-stratolaunch-exclus/exclusive-space-firm-founded-by-billionaire-paul-allen-closing-operations-sources-idUSKCN1T12FD
86 comments
"We don’t have any news or announcements to share at this time. Stratolaunch remains operational" is not an emphatic denial.
I was excited to follow the original scaled composite work with Burt and spaceship one (winning the X Prize) but time has passed and stage reusability appears to be a better long term solution than a carrier solution. I think space ship 2 will meet a similar fate against blue origins approach with new Shepard and of SpaceX decides to sell space tourist spots in dragon 2. You need to try different approaches to find what works and the industry should be thankful for these experiments!
For a while I was convinced this project was actually a cover along the lines of the Howard Hughes Glomar Explorer. Maybe for deploying a variant of the X-37 to be able to launch/retrieve/bug satellites undetected. I guess that wasn't actually the case.
More about the Glomar Explorer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian
More about the Glomar Explorer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian
It was a very interesting design, and I'm sad to see any space company go, but stratolaunch was honestly not a great idea for larger launch vehicles. The drag penalty reduction was most useful for smaller launch vehicles.
'The Dream never dies, just the dreamer'...
Allen was that rarest of all Unicorn fathers - no need for commercial justification - to a point. It was very saddening to see him pass.
There may be a substantial tax hit? so his sister has to bring the dream to earth as well as make something carry on. Do a good job Jody, we all support you.
I've just added Stratolaunch plane to the scheme with other giant planes so that it is easier to compare, see:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_compari...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_compari...
It's interesting that Russia (Soviet Union) produced a couple of big space rockets which flew very few times (N1 - four unsuccessful liftoffs, Energiya - two successful flights), and USA made a couple of big planes (Spruce Goose, Stratolaunch) which flew very few times (once each).
Interesting parallel to Howard Hughes and the Spruce Goose. An ambitious aircraft legacy. I hope the plane is not destroyed, it is a remarkable achievement.
Learning: Don't wait with your dreams until you die (or short before that).
Maybe we should all of our pollutant industries over to Io so at least it’ll be warm by the time we need it.
That's what happens when someone's pouring their resources/time into a project without an existing business model. That does not need to be money or the space launch business. I have seen this with FOSS projects as well when the project lead/driving force left.
I'm a bit afraid that this might be Blue Origin's fate if Bezos suddenly died.
SpaceX would maybe be no longer be as ambitious anymore as it used to be if Musk went away but at least they're actually selling things and have a working business model. (TSLAQ hate crew objections incoming in 3..2..1.. ;)
I'm a bit afraid that this might be Blue Origin's fate if Bezos suddenly died.
SpaceX would maybe be no longer be as ambitious anymore as it used to be if Musk went away but at least they're actually selling things and have a working business model. (TSLAQ hate crew objections incoming in 3..2..1.. ;)
And right after they got the big plane flying.
Maybe the museum up near Portland that has the Spruce Goose will take it.
Maybe the museum up near Portland that has the Spruce Goose will take it.
That's the Evergreen Aviation museum in McMinnville, about an hour south of Portland. They have an SR-71, too. I make a pilgrimage once a year just to touch it :D
https://www.evergreenmuseum.org
https://www.evergreenmuseum.org
First time I saw it was surreal.
I was on a wine tour and on the way back to the hotel looked out the window and was gobsmacked. “Woah... that’s the Spruce Goose! The Spruce Goose is here!?!”
Cancelled the next day’s tour and hit up the museum instead.
Highly recommended.
I was on a wine tour and on the way back to the hotel looked out the window and was gobsmacked. “Woah... that’s the Spruce Goose! The Spruce Goose is here!?!”
Cancelled the next day’s tour and hit up the museum instead.
Highly recommended.
> The Spruce Goose is here!?!”
And a 747 on the roof.
And a 747 on the roof.
Wow I'll have to check that place out. The Boeing Air & Space Museum is also a great one to visit - they also have an SR-71, which believe you me satisfied every childhood dream I had about that aircraft.
The one in Tacoma, near the Boeing Field? That isn't SR-71, it is the M-21/D-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21
Just on a tangent, it's amazing how huge the spruce goose is.
This is on the heels of Stratolaunch deciding not to pursue the design and development of their own launch vehicle in January of this year.(1)
Instead they pivoted to customizing their massive airframe to launching Norththrop's Pegasus XL rockets.
Editorializing I'd guess that Paul Allen's estate pushed the company to figure out if there was a short term commercialization opportunity with Northrop, found there wasn't, and is cutting their losses.
Tough to be a space faring startup without a billionaire sponsor bankrolling you as a passion project.
(1) https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-p...
Instead they pivoted to customizing their massive airframe to launching Norththrop's Pegasus XL rockets.
Editorializing I'd guess that Paul Allen's estate pushed the company to figure out if there was a short term commercialization opportunity with Northrop, found there wasn't, and is cutting their losses.
Tough to be a space faring startup without a billionaire sponsor bankrolling you as a passion project.
(1) https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-p...
We definitely need more billionaires interested in space. We need to inspire with space the "next" (heavily overlapping) generation, so those who'd succeed may have a chance to advance the space activities.
Why? That centers power in the hands of the few. And what happens after they die, the project does with them. Imagine if he wasn't a billionaire and neither were any of the space expeditioners. They would probably be working together to come up with a more stable set of plans for space development.
> centers power in the hands of the few
Power inevitably becomes centered in a small group. This seems to be an immutable trait of either power itself or people-groups in general. Regardless, it is unavoidable everywhere except on paper, which is to say conjecturally.
Also, billionaires dying don't kill industries. They might kill devastatingly expensive pet hobbies,but not industries.
It always feels good to predict that humans would be getting along swimmingly if it weren't for a handful of bad actors, but there really isn't a case for this expectation based on history. What there is a case for, as has been demonstrated countless times in literally every human endeavor, is an ordered hierarchy pursuing a declared set of goals and reaping unintended/unexpected benefit and detriment along the way. It is like pushing a boulder from point A to B; sometimes it needs to be pushed up hill and other times it must be guided downhill. The idea that "it would be so great if we stopped pushing boulders up hill and only guided them downhill" (a metaphorical interpretation of the happy, co-equal group of like minded workers) ignores the topographical reality of effort, endeavor, intention, and challenge.
Power inevitably becomes centered in a small group. This seems to be an immutable trait of either power itself or people-groups in general. Regardless, it is unavoidable everywhere except on paper, which is to say conjecturally.
Also, billionaires dying don't kill industries. They might kill devastatingly expensive pet hobbies,but not industries.
It always feels good to predict that humans would be getting along swimmingly if it weren't for a handful of bad actors, but there really isn't a case for this expectation based on history. What there is a case for, as has been demonstrated countless times in literally every human endeavor, is an ordered hierarchy pursuing a declared set of goals and reaping unintended/unexpected benefit and detriment along the way. It is like pushing a boulder from point A to B; sometimes it needs to be pushed up hill and other times it must be guided downhill. The idea that "it would be so great if we stopped pushing boulders up hill and only guided them downhill" (a metaphorical interpretation of the happy, co-equal group of like minded workers) ignores the topographical reality of effort, endeavor, intention, and challenge.
Also hobby projects with abandunt money tend to push for the "Wow"-solution. Not the cheapest possible solution.
Although that would have been solidboosters + spaceguns- and automated in orbit-assembly.
Although that would have been solidboosters + spaceguns- and automated in orbit-assembly.
And life longevity research as well, along with medicine and genetics.
Chances are inspiration is overvalued today. Remember when Elon Musk was going to put a plant on Mars with an ICBM? Instead he managed to leverage the fact that the US has a space industry. He has pretty much argued this himself in that he used to think that "if there is a will, there is a way", but later realized that it was "if there is a way, there is a will".
> but later realized that it was "if there is a way, there is a will"
I don't think so. He was going to launch rockets anyway. And also the way was there for long time - yet SpaceX was the first company which successfully reached orbit among new space companies.
I don't think so. He was going to launch rockets anyway. And also the way was there for long time - yet SpaceX was the first company which successfully reached orbit among new space companies.
As far as I remember that is what he has said. The idea from the beginning was just to fund a launch. Here is someone else retelling the story: https://medium.com/@toledoalbert/starman-is-mars-oasis-reali...
Musk started at the same time as these other private space companies, just with a different approach. Most of it is there in these 2003 videos: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/?f%5Bauthor_person_facet%5D...
Musk started at the same time as these other private space companies, just with a different approach. Most of it is there in these 2003 videos: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/?f%5Bauthor_person_facet%5D...
There are examples of Beal Aerospace, which closed not long before SpaceX founding, and Kistler Rocket, which also didn't survive around the same time. According to success of SpaceX, the way was there - but somehow not nearly everybody succeeded. Even Virgin Galactic was thought to be easy after successful demonstration of flights in 2004 - the was the way - but today in 2019 we have Stratolaunch closing and Virgin Galactic still not flying with regular passengers.
I think reality is that doing business with space is tricky, and requires complex combinations of luck, money, perseverance, experience - approximately in this order, but still tricky.
I think reality is that doing business with space is tricky, and requires complex combinations of luck, money, perseverance, experience - approximately in this order, but still tricky.
Honestly I don't really follow your point.
"Where there is a will, there's a way" means that if you are motivated enough you will find a way to succeed. Which as I understood was your first point. That if billionaires creates these ventures people will be inspired and go on to succeed. That was also Musk's initial idea, that he would do this stunt of sending a plant to Mars and people would get more interested in funding and do space exploration.
"Where there is a way, there's a will" is the opposite. That if you can find a way to do something, people will want to do it. This is what SpaceX ended up doing, trying to be a part of the space industry.
In one of the videos he compares space and the Internet. That the Internet was first created by DARPA who did the ground work and that private companies commercialized and made it accessible. He suggest that space could be similar with NASA doing the ground work and private companies commercializing and making it accessible. That is why he moved the company to Los Angeles instead of the Bay Area, why they got government contracts, why they started with satellites and then cargo etc. And of course it is also luck, timing and everything else. But it was certainly also specifically because the idea wasn't to fund something to inspire or to do space tourism.
"Where there is a will, there's a way" means that if you are motivated enough you will find a way to succeed. Which as I understood was your first point. That if billionaires creates these ventures people will be inspired and go on to succeed. That was also Musk's initial idea, that he would do this stunt of sending a plant to Mars and people would get more interested in funding and do space exploration.
"Where there is a way, there's a will" is the opposite. That if you can find a way to do something, people will want to do it. This is what SpaceX ended up doing, trying to be a part of the space industry.
In one of the videos he compares space and the Internet. That the Internet was first created by DARPA who did the ground work and that private companies commercialized and made it accessible. He suggest that space could be similar with NASA doing the ground work and private companies commercializing and making it accessible. That is why he moved the company to Los Angeles instead of the Bay Area, why they got government contracts, why they started with satellites and then cargo etc. And of course it is also luck, timing and everything else. But it was certainly also specifically because the idea wasn't to fund something to inspire or to do space tourism.
In the previous wave of new space companies, Orbital's Pegasus launcher was first.
In all seriousness, I think the next 100 years of climate deterioration will provide plenty of motivation to everyone.
No matter how the climate develops earth is still leaps and bounds ahead of anything in the solar system. It’s not even close
You would have more fun living in the Sahara dessert than on mars.
The joke will be when we have to build domed villages here with all the research we thought we were going to need for Mars.
What we need is more billionaires interested in dealing with climate change.
And by 'dealing with', I don't mean 'flying off, and leaving the rest of us to deal with the shit.'
And by 'dealing with', I don't mean 'flying off, and leaving the rest of us to deal with the shit.'
Why? In what way do we need to even preserve humanity? There is such an assumption and gloss over with space exploration. Why? This doesn't mean humanity is terrible but all of life and simply matter evolves into new things. To attempt to infinitely preserve anything is just our human genetics projected.
Things end. Do not let your personal intuition override that universal truth.
Things end. Do not let your personal intuition override that universal truth.
Let me at least try to lift the value of humanity from being an assumption to being a rationale.
Life seems to be pretty rare[1]. At least on the order of once per solar system. Nervous systems capable of thought also seem rare, based on terran history. Analytical thought a fortiori. We are very possibly the only species capable of understanding the universe within at least a rather large radius. Inter-planetary life is really freaking difficult, but it is a complete cakewalk in comparison to interstellar living, let alone intergalactic life. How many shots does this universe get at understanding itself before the whole thing heat-dies? And, who knows, maybe even doing something about that heat death.
I think that matters. Life matters. Consciousness matters. Beyond it just being ours[2].
Earth is a paradise, but a fragile one. If earthly life (not just humans, any life) is going to end up spreading across the solar system, we are by far their best shot.
Perhaps if all life were destroyed nothing would be lost, because things end. Perhaps the entropy of a dead child is no more significant than the entropy of a cooling car engine. Perhaps the existence of the universe is itself irrelevant. After all, what (and to whom) would it matter if it ended? Starting with different assumptions gives different conclusions. I don't think there is any way to prove either axioms correct. But whether you agree or not, the assumption is somewhat different to the one you identified. And there is – at least – a 'why'.
---
[1] The question of the prevalence of different complexities of life is – in my experience – a perfectly tuned discussion for 'well actually's. All of my second paragraph can be quibbled. But I don't think any step would invalidate what I'm doing with it.
[2] In fact, I think is likely that the intelligent life we end up sending interstellar will be descended at least as much from human technology as human biology, perhaps overwhelmingly more so. But again that is not directly relevant to my point here.
Life seems to be pretty rare[1]. At least on the order of once per solar system. Nervous systems capable of thought also seem rare, based on terran history. Analytical thought a fortiori. We are very possibly the only species capable of understanding the universe within at least a rather large radius. Inter-planetary life is really freaking difficult, but it is a complete cakewalk in comparison to interstellar living, let alone intergalactic life. How many shots does this universe get at understanding itself before the whole thing heat-dies? And, who knows, maybe even doing something about that heat death.
I think that matters. Life matters. Consciousness matters. Beyond it just being ours[2].
Earth is a paradise, but a fragile one. If earthly life (not just humans, any life) is going to end up spreading across the solar system, we are by far their best shot.
Perhaps if all life were destroyed nothing would be lost, because things end. Perhaps the entropy of a dead child is no more significant than the entropy of a cooling car engine. Perhaps the existence of the universe is itself irrelevant. After all, what (and to whom) would it matter if it ended? Starting with different assumptions gives different conclusions. I don't think there is any way to prove either axioms correct. But whether you agree or not, the assumption is somewhat different to the one you identified. And there is – at least – a 'why'.
---
[1] The question of the prevalence of different complexities of life is – in my experience – a perfectly tuned discussion for 'well actually's. All of my second paragraph can be quibbled. But I don't think any step would invalidate what I'm doing with it.
[2] In fact, I think is likely that the intelligent life we end up sending interstellar will be descended at least as much from human technology as human biology, perhaps overwhelmingly more so. But again that is not directly relevant to my point here.
What's the point of such a nihilistic viewpoint?
Space exploration excites hopes and dreams, promising expanded horizons and to avail ourselves of new resources with which to improve our lives, and the lives of our loved ones, and their loved children, and their loved children, and so on and so forth. Do not let universal truths override your personal intuition as to the value and meaning of striving towards these goals, even if someday the eventual heat death of the universe will almost certainly put an end to it all.
Space exploration excites hopes and dreams, promising expanded horizons and to avail ourselves of new resources with which to improve our lives, and the lives of our loved ones, and their loved children, and their loved children, and so on and so forth. Do not let universal truths override your personal intuition as to the value and meaning of striving towards these goals, even if someday the eventual heat death of the universe will almost certainly put an end to it all.
Because sometimes looking to the future steals important moments from today. There is a balance between today and tomorrow that should never be taken lightly.
That cuts both ways - I've seen people crushed under debt and chasing fleeting moments without building for the future at all, which soon ends up being their past stealing important moments from today. You're right to call for balance, but more space flight could very easily be a part of that balance.
Looking to the future gives a reason to have one.
Interesting. If we could love the now, today, we might not have need for hopes and dreams of spaceflight.
Some of us, maybe. Others would not stand the tedium, the stagnation.
Think also how would the world look if we could have "loved now" 5000 years ago, and thus never developed past proto-agriculture.
Think also how would the world look if we could have "loved now" 5000 years ago, and thus never developed past proto-agriculture.
[deleted]
Ultimately we need to get off this rock as a species; the Earth is fairly overdue (statistically as I understand it) for a major asteroid hit.
We seem to have this hubris that we'll be able to "detect and deflect" - both of which are unlikely with our current technology for any size dire enough to care about.
We don't even have the "detect" part in place - not in the way it needs to be. As more than a few recent incidents have shown, we're currently blind and a sitting duck, so to speak.
Even a relatively small strike, depending on where it landed, could potentially trigger a nuclear launch depending on the political climate and such at the time. We need better eyes, if for nothing else than the avert that kind of "misunderstanding" which could lead to an existential crisis.
We seem to have this hubris that we'll be able to "detect and deflect" - both of which are unlikely with our current technology for any size dire enough to care about.
We don't even have the "detect" part in place - not in the way it needs to be. As more than a few recent incidents have shown, we're currently blind and a sitting duck, so to speak.
Even a relatively small strike, depending on where it landed, could potentially trigger a nuclear launch depending on the political climate and such at the time. We need better eyes, if for nothing else than the avert that kind of "misunderstanding" which could lead to an existential crisis.
>the Earth is fairly overdue (statistically as I understand it) for a major asteroid hit.
What does this mean? Wouldn't the distribution of asteroid hits be essentially memoryless? That is, the fact that we have not had one in recent history has almost zero bearing on the probability of one happening in the future.
What does this mean? Wouldn't the distribution of asteroid hits be essentially memoryless? That is, the fact that we have not had one in recent history has almost zero bearing on the probability of one happening in the future.
Maybe, maybe not. There could be potential ultra-long-period impactors that share a similar origin, and therefore a similar period. Or perhaps crossing the galactic orbital plane changes the odds. The question of periodicity of mass extinctions (and what, if any, causes there are) is a valid line of inquiry, although there are no clear smoking guns.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/the-next...
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/the-next...
Oh, the asteroids, they remember. They remember and they do not forgive!
If you're interested, the terminology is "independent" events, and you're correct.
Independence is not exactly the same as memoryless. In this case I was referring to something like a Poisson process.
I suppose like flipping a number of heads in a row to get a coin "ready for tails".
>the Earth is fairly overdue (statistically as I understand it) for a major asteroid hit.
I thought that as the solar system ages these sorts of event become much less frequent, as orbits of these bodies decay and huge gravity wells (like Jupiter) suck them up?
I thought that as the solar system ages these sorts of event become much less frequent, as orbits of these bodies decay and huge gravity wells (like Jupiter) suck them up?
Let’s see, an odd chance of extinction in several million years due to an asteroid or certain extinction within several hundred years due to a climate catastrophe, which one should we prioritize? Hmmm.
If there are humans in space habitats and (better) on transit with colonisation ships to other star systems, the climate of our homeworld doesn't really matter for the survival of the species.
Still, it's much better to solve both. Especially since space technology is still in its infancy. Abandoning either would be a folly.
Still, it's much better to solve both. Especially since space technology is still in its infancy. Abandoning either would be a folly.
[deleted]
Why would it trigger a nuclear strike? Do some countries have seismic detectors that will auto-launch nukes or something?
> Tough to be a space faring startup without a billionaire sponsor bankrolling you as a passion project.
I thought Allen still left quite a bit of money for his space projects?
This most likely was just a rational business choice based on their research and market testing. The parent company Vulcan Inc is still likely to continue.
I thought Allen still left quite a bit of money for his space projects?
This most likely was just a rational business choice based on their research and market testing. The parent company Vulcan Inc is still likely to continue.
It used to be the government. When these individuals no longer want to do it, the government will step in again.
You got that backwards. The government didn't step aside because some billionaires wanted to do this important job. Post-Apollo, politically compromised NASA bet everything on dumb systems like the Shuttle and struggled managing its contractors. The result was going to be decades without a manned space flight capability. These super rich individuals are resurrecting our ability to send people into space from the ashes. If they no longer want to do it, it's unlikely NASA will suddenly become competent again.
My assumption is that the US wants innovative space programs. You are right, the government became lackluster. Then the individuals stepped in.
Now, you are assuming the government won’t step in even when the individuals no longer want to do it. Either they’ll revamp nasa or start handing out subsidies. Either way it’s the government stepping in. Unless there’s another way that I’m missing?
Now, you are assuming the government won’t step in even when the individuals no longer want to do it. Either they’ll revamp nasa or start handing out subsidies. Either way it’s the government stepping in. Unless there’s another way that I’m missing?
Your mistake is in assuming that the government handing out subsidies will result in a manned space program that works. It hasn’t. Go lookup the history of SLS/Orion.
Have you seen how large the national debt is already?
Have you seen the military spending?
Yes but still a drop in the ocean of the total national debt.
Defence spending 2018 is $700 billion, which happens to be almost exactly the deficit for that year ($780 billion).
Cut defence spending to the level of other western countries (i. e. about half), reverse the tax cuts for corporations and you're back to a balanced budget.
The debt of $22 trillion is still there, but inflation and economic growth cut it in half in about a decade in real terms.
Cut defence spending to the level of other western countries (i. e. about half), reverse the tax cuts for corporations and you're back to a balanced budget.
The debt of $22 trillion is still there, but inflation and economic growth cut it in half in about a decade in real terms.
Figured this was going to happen when Paul died. Really too bad they didn't have another year or two.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/the-worlds-largest-a...