From: greg@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Did Pegasus funding stifle the competition?
Date: 25 Feb 1999 10:04:25 -0800

I found the full transcript of the committee hearing in which Gary
Hudson testified.  The URL is:

   http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy036160.000/hsy036160_0.htm

The transcript indicates that the testimony given was in fact sworn
testimony.  In response to a question Gary Hudson said this about the
Pegasus rocket:

-------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, our view would be that X-33 should definitely continue. We
have no quarrel with that program. The issue, in our view, is will there
be subsidies, however they might be phrased, concealed or disguised, that
would make it difficult to go into the financial marketplace and have to
what amounts to, compete with the Federal Government. For my own part,
a previous company of mine ceased operation because DARPA funding of the
Pegasus activity when we were building a competitive system with fairly
private funds. My Chief Technology Officer, Bevin McKinney, who was the
founder of American Rocket, had the same thing happen to him after an
investment of about $40 million, so that's where the concern is, not in
the research activity.
-------------------------------------------------------

When I said that I liked the Pegasus, people pointed out that it is one
of the most expensive launch vehicles per pound of payload.  Point taken;
I don't want to tout it as revolutionary, I just think it looks cool.
But is it true that the Pegasus actually stifled competition because it
had a DARPA grant?  I have to wonder what people at Orbital thought of
this particular comment in the hearing.
--
  /\  Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
 /  \
 \  / Visit the xxx Math Archive Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
  \/  * From A-hat to Z(G), ABC to ZFC *

Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Did Pegasus funding stifle the competition?
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:35:02 GMT

In article <p4w4soanww4.fsf@panix7.panix.com>,
Jim Kingdon  <kingdon@panix7.panix.com> wrote:
>...Now, it was a big
>milestone for Pegasus, and having Pegasus pulling out in front
>may have made it harder for everyone else, but Conestoga did make
>it as far as a launch attempt and Athena even made it to market...

Some years later, after they landed government contracts of their own.
--
The good old days                   |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
weren't.                            |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Did Pegasus funding stifle the competition?
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:33:32 GMT

In article <7b43b9$dcc$1@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu>,
Greg Kuperberg <greg@manifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>But is it true that the Pegasus actually stifled competition because it
>had a DARPA grant?

That isn't *quite* what Gary said, although the wording is misleading.
DARPA didn't supply any grants; the Pegasus development funding was all
private (aside from some cooperative work with NASA people who were
interested in the aerodynamics etc.).  What DARPA *did* do was anoint it
as the US government's chosen lightweight launcher, and place a contract
for a bunch of launches, at a time when Pegasus was just pretty pictures
on viewgraphs.  Given that the US government is the single biggest
customer for small launches, having them openly backing your competition
makes it very hard for you to get development funding...
--
The good old days                   |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
weren't.                            |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

Newsgroups: sci.space.history
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Liberty launcher?
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 13:17:13 GMT

In article <380E7FCB.7EBFF05C@primary.net>,
James A Davis  <jimdavis2@primary.net> wrote:
>>A few years ago, there was an abortive attempt to develop a light launch
>> vehicle called Liberty...
>
>You may be thinking of the Liberty launch vehicle promoted by Pacific
>American Launch Services, headed up by Rotary's own Gary Hudson...

"Liberty" has been a popular name for launcher projects, but that's most
likely the one being referred to.

>...I think the lack of customers and financing
>killed it although perhaps Gary would like to speak for himself.

If memory serves, Gary has said that what killed it was when the
government anointed Pegasus -- still, at the time, a paper design -- as
its preferred light launcher.  Gary's financial backers decided that this
diminished the potential market for Liberty unacceptably, and withdrew.
--
The space program reminds me        |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
of a government agency.  -Jim Baen  |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

From: Mary Shafer <shafer@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Liquid Shuttle Boosters
Date: 26 Jul 2000 17:32:53 -0700

henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) writes:

> Pegasus got no subsidies and no development funding.  The only thing the
> government did for it, aside from some cooperation from government labs
> (who had their own interests at heart), was to commit to buying several
> launches (at quite low prices) before the design was more than paper.  All
> the development money came from Orbital and Hercules.

They got a number of launches from NASA's NB-52B at incremental
(non-profit, non-amortization, direct-cost-only) prices, as well as
consultation on flow fields and separation, and assistance in
converting their L-1011.  We even built them a building and supplied
free utilities, security, and so on.

We also provided safety and photo chase aircraft at incremental cost,
as well as making the Mission Control Centers available, and doing a
lot of PAO work.  I, like a number of other senior engineers, spent an
entire day hosting visitors for the first launch and NASA didn't get
reimbursed for my time (I charged it to Directorate overhead, as
instructed).  We even conducted a Mishap Investigation for them when
something went wrong.

Those guaranteed launch purchases reassured people putting up the
money and may have had a major influence on investors.

These were definitely subsidies.  Whether they were proper or not, I
really couldn't say, but NASA was, without a doubt, subsidizing
Pegasus.  Dryden wasn't doing this on local initiative, either, but
at HQ direction.

--
Mary Shafer
shafer@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Senior Handling Qualities Research Engineer
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use shafer@spdcc.com please

From: Mary Shafer <shafer@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Liquid Shuttle Boosters
Date: 26 Jul 2000 17:14:24 -0700

cjones@ix.cs.uoregon.edu (Christopher Michael Jones) writes:

> JF Mezei (jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca) wrote:
>
> > Is there any indication that private industry would be able to profitably and
> > without government help, run a launch business that was competive with what
> > NASA (and other countries) offer now ?
>
> Sure its possible.  It would probably be happening sooner rather than
> later if Iridium didn't fall flat on it's face.

Weren't some of the Iridium satellites launched by a Pegasus launched
from the NASA NB-52B?  I may be wrong about either the Pegasus or the
NB-52B, but I thought an early Iridium launch used both.  Maybe I'm
thinking of that military cluster launch instead.  Unfortunately, my
NASA Pocket Statistics for 1996 only has major launches tabulated and
this doesn't count as major.

Of course, we used the SR-71 to imitate a low-elevation Iridium
satellite and boomed all four of the Four Corners states (much to the
pleasure of my aunt in Durango and to the surprise of pretty much
everyone, including my aunt, within range), so Iridium had government
aid in the proof-of-concept stage.

--
Mary Shafer
shafer@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Senior Handling Qualities Research Engineer
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use shafer@spdcc.com please

From: Mary Shafer <shafer@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Liquid Shuttle Boosters
Date: 01 Aug 2000 12:43:48 -0700

henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) writes:

> In article <u08zuo8m5b.fsf@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov>,
> Mary Shafer  <shafer@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >Weren't some of the Iridium satellites launched by a Pegasus launched
> >from the NASA NB-52B?
>
> No, you're probably thinking of Orbcomm.  The Iridium birds were too big
> for Pegasus.  The main Orbcomm launches were in stacks of eight (!) on
> Pegasus XLs from Orbital's TriStar, but a prototype did go up on one of
> the NB-52B Pegasus launches.

You're quite right, if this was a cluster (constellation?) of
itty-bitty military satellites.  They got lost for about 24 hours
after orbital insertion, as I recall, but turned up eventually.

> >Of course, we used the SR-71 to imitate a low-elevation Iridium
> >satellite...
>
> Both Orbcomm and Iridium were tested that way.

But we only boomed my aunt in Durango doing the Iridium sim.  I spent
most of the Iridium sim flight on the phone to Motorola in Phoenix
(?), relaying position reports from the crew calls on RF so that
Motorola would be ready to place the calls at the right time, as well
as getting the TV news crews cued up to tape the demos.

We made the local evening news on every channel in the four-corners
states, I think, although the Phoenician coverage was the most
detailed, and Motorola was kind enough to send us copies of the
reports local to them.  My aunt sent me a copy of the story she saw,
too.  Quite a different between the "home-town" stories about Iridium
and the "incidentally-boomed" stories about the SR-71.

> >...so Iridium had government aid in the proof-of-concept stage.
>
> Well, it depends on what you mean by "aid".  Motorola paid $200k+ for
> each of the SR-71 Iridium test flights.

If it only cost that little, we'd still be flying them instead of
laying them up in flyable storage, I should think (we got the two USAF
As, too, by the way, and there are laid-up SRs everywhere you look
here at the facility, with one parked on the ramp outside the main
hangar for the tour; you'd be quite surprised at how different our
airplane complement looks these days, between adding the various
science and X-planes and putting the "heavies" down the taxiway in
Bldg 1623, one of AFFTC's big hangars, compared to how it looked when
you visited).  That number represents the incremental costs, I
believe, based on the estimates I've heard over the years.

OSC sent funding toward the NB-52B flights, too, as well as the other
support they used, but they didn't pay the full cost of everything
they got.  We didn't give the store away or anything, but there's a
lot we didn't get reimbursed for, either, like senior engineers
working as hosts and crowd control.  And, yes, some of those things
were requirements that we put on the situation, being a secure
facility, etc, that OSC didn't intend to incur, even though they had
to be provided, which is part of the reason they didn't pay for it
all, I think.

--
Mary Shafer
shafer@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Senior Handling Qualities Research Engineer
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use shafer@spdcc.com please