What happens to the engines now? was Kistler Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Sander Vesik wrote:

Reed Snellenberger wrote:

The announcement was for a Chap 11 bankruptcy, so maybe there's a slim
chance that they'll survive and start flying... but what if they don't?

Somebody will by up the IP and existing parts.

SpaceDev perhaps?

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

I suspect SpaceDev is only interested in advanced, safe hybrid rocket
motor technology, not explosive, decades old Russian liquid motors.
SpaceDev also seems to be interested in only simple, easily mastered,
innovative technology.

I suspect the reason Kistler failed, and why a company like SpaceDev
would not be interested, is because Kistler was a miniature NASA, run
by old NASA Program Managers who freak out at the thought of
innovation and cost-effectiveness.


(Michael Kent) wrote in message ...
Sander Vesik wrote:

Reed Snellenberger wrote:

The announcement was for a Chap 11 bankruptcy, so maybe there's a slim
chance that they'll survive and start flying... but what if they don't?

Somebody will by up the IP and existing parts.

SpaceDev perhaps?

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

I suspect the reason Kistler failed, and why a company like SpaceDev
would not be interested, is because Kistler was a miniature NASA, run
by old NASA Program Managers who freak out at the thought of
innovation and cost-effectiveness

Kistler not innovative? That's pretty harsh. Their design was innovative from
one end to the other, except for the use of a veteran, flight-proven engine.

SpaceDev also seems to be interested in only simple, easily mastered,
innovative technology.



If it was that simple and easy to master, it wouldn't be innovative They
are trying to perfect the hybird - a valauble idea and I hope it succeeds, but
not simple.

Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

On 26 Aug 2003 16:22:34 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(MattWriter) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I suspect the reason Kistler failed, and why a company like SpaceDev
would not be interested, is because Kistler was a miniature NASA, run
by old NASA Program Managers who freak out at the thought of
innovation and cost-effectiveness

Kistler not innovative? That's pretty harsh. Their design was innovative from
one end to the other, except for the use of a veteran, flight-proven engine.

Innovation is necessary to reduce costs, but it's not sufficient.

There's an old saying about the guy who had some new ideas, and some
good ideas, but the ones that were good weren't new, and the ones that
were new were no good...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: