Northrop Grumman to own Scaled Composites 108
Dolphinzilla writes "According to Space.com, Northrop Grumman Corporation agreed on July 5 to increase its stake in Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites (designers of Space Ship One, Proteus) from 40 percent to 100 percent. They have purchased the company outright, marking a new future for the space pioneering firm. 'Scaled Composites currently is working with Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic venture on a vehicle designated for now as SpaceShipTwo, which would carry two pilots and six paying passengers into suborbital space for a few minutes of weightlessness. The company also is building a new carrier aircraft, dubbed WhiteKnight2, that will carry SpaceShipTwo to an altitude of 15 kilometers before releasing it to soar to suborbital space. The two companies last year formed a joint venture called the Spaceship Company to build the new vehicles.'"
surprise, space is a business. (Score:2)
this also has the faint smell of "NASA can't cut it any more, their memoes all blow up."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I spent 5 years in Missouri for college, 3 in a rural town (population 20,000 something) the explanation I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering that Northrop Grumman is a government defense contractor, their buyout could be to put a competitor, one that doesn't work for the government, out of business.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:surprise, space is a business. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you buy a competitor just to make it go away, then you remove some of the downward price pressure in the market and therefore make yourself more competitive in that market than you would be otherwise. The closer to a monopoly situation you can get, the more control you have over the market prices. And that is a very real benefit, because it means more profits for you.
Whether the move ends up being worth it or not depends on how much you paid to remove the competitor versus how much money you can make as a result of the increased prices (or lack of decreased prices) you can charge afterwards. If a competitor looks to be on the verge of becoming very successful (and thus wielding a lot more market clout), then it's obviously better to buy them out earlier (before they get really successful) than afterwards because it's cheaper and it heads off the changes to market expectations that a successful, scrappy player can bring.
No, I'm afraid the possibility that Grumman bought out Scaled Composites for this reason is very real. Scaled Composites is probably close to the point where they look like they can make a very real change to the expectations of the market, and that would put the traditional players like Grumman in a very bad position.
Think of it as the equivalent of IBM buying Apple right before Apple made the mass-produced personal computer a reality. Doing so probably would have given IBM another few years, at least, of dominance of the computer market with their mainframes, but it would have taken a lot of insight and foresight on the part of IBM to know to make that move. That said, it was a lot cheaper to become a successful small computer manufacturer back then (Apple got started in a garage, and started shipping product while still in the garage phase) than it is to become a successful aerospace company today, so the buyout strategy would be more expensive for the big players in the case of computers because there would be more targets they'd have to buy out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The simpler explanation (thank you Occam) is that Scaled Composites has created a completely new market out of thin air, and Northrop wants a bigger piece of the action.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it is offtopic and irrelevant, but in a thread about his company looking to get into the private space industry, responding to a user with the name "pseudonym"; well I couldn't resist.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, you blew my cover.
Re:surprise, space is a business. (Score:5, Insightful)
They would build prototypes based on requests that they would receive.
Grumman is buying a design firm which they themselves have used in the past.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a competitor just to make it go away, you realize no benefit from the purchase.
What?
You can realize a huge benefit from buying out a competitor, especially in an industry which bids on government contracts, by decreasing competitive pressure and allowing you to raise bid prices. Please explain your idea, because to me you just sound stupid.
As for this deal, Northrop had already owned half of Scaled, and they were doing extensive UAV work. Had they stopped their cooperation, Scaled could very much be in the business of bidding against Northrop on massive UAV contracts, and undercuttin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're not a competitor to Northrop Grumman directly; they're a competitor to the government monopoly on space travel, however small. They're showing that an alternative to such is viable. And as I was saying, Northrop Grumman and the other big defense contractors might as well be considered an arm of the government, except perhaps on paper.
As for benefit? Uncle Sam says something like, "Buy out Scaled Composites, and we'll make sure such-and-such tax break goes through, and we'll buy an extra dozen hel
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a scenario that doesn't require the application of a tinfoil hat: NG took a look at NASA, and the aging Shuttle fleet, and realized that in the very near future, the U.S. space program is going to be out a launch vehicle. And because of certain other priorities that have gotten pushed to the forefront recently, NASA seems like they're pretty much out of the reusable-launch-vehicle business for the time being
You're already booked? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Space ship two details here (Score:3, Informative)
This is unfortunate (Score:5, Insightful)
We will most likley see Scaled develop into a robust provider for Sub Orbital flights but I doubt that they will attempt to push further.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:This is unfortunate (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure it's quite as bad as you fear, it's possible that Northrup-Grumman will continue in that tradition.
The challenge with these very small, innovative space companies is that their model (which is a small group of really smart guys working very hard without a lot of support overhead) can only scale up so far. At some point the products they are creating get complex enough where you hit critical mass and start needing groups to specialize in things like analysis, integration, customer support, systems integration, etc.
This is what large aerospace companies are good at. You might call this a bloated support structure, but it's the only way that the industry has found to develop really big, complex, and profitable aircraft and spacecraft (which is what a passenger ship to LEO would be). They haven't yet found a way to build a high complexity, profitable product like a Boeing 777 airliner or a Boeing 702 satellite with a small shop.
Orbital Sciences, for example, has evolved from a small company with a few neat ideas back in the 80's (in particular, the air launched Pegasus) into a major player in the aerospace world, and it is structured like Boeing, Northrup, and LockMart today.
I consider this a positive evolution of the great ideas Scaled Composites has demonstrated into something that can be built and be a commercial success.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't been to Boeing, but this may have something to do with fact that today none knows how to recreate e.g. Apollo project because too many knowledge resided only in heads of employees, who were subsequently fired, retired or died of old age. Sometimes the benefits of paperwork and "process" are neither immediate nor certain to surface ... ever, but these things may make differenc
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps that is part of why they were bought out by the military. Maybe private firms are not welcome in the space industry. I'm not making accusations, but examining likely possiblities. If 50 years from now a private firm wanted to start it's own space station or extraterrestrial colony whose jurisdiction would it fall under? The whole worlds population is under one government or anoth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they've had all their good ideas (Score:2)
But getting to orbit is defined by achieving orbital velocity, not any particular altitude. (You can achieve orbital velocity at ground level if you want to, if you h
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps the best example I can cite is the Lockheed (now Lockheed-Martin) Skunkworks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunkworks [wikipedia.org]. In short, Skunkworks was essentially as company within a company, with its own budget and most importantly, corporate mentality.
If The Management at NG do not recognize the value of this type of organizational structure within their advanced r
spacedev (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it is truly saddening for the space industry
I think Northrop Grumman, albeit a large company, still has the creativity to innovate and seek interesting solutions to engineering problems. I also think that the flying wing concept has not received the attention it deserves. I find the marriage between Scaled and Northrop an interesting development which may be good or bad, but we don't know that yet. We have to wait to see how Northrop is going to utilise Scaled within its family of engineers, and how much contact there is going to be between Nort
Re: (Score:1)
The flying wing concept is indeed interesting, but it's not without major challenges (particularly in the realm of flight control). Now, it's a well-understood problem to design control laws for "unorthodox" aircraft, and the flying wing design is indeed a good fit for some missions.
But a concept "deserves" only the attention that it garners due to its performance. It's not just a matter of being pretty. Sure, a well-designed aircraft is usually aesthetically plea
There goes innovation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Best of luck to Rutan with establishing another aero company if he wants to...
-b.
Re: (Score:1)
Here comes a great movie [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And that's just the 2 listed on Wikipedia's article on "northrop grumman" - the other 3 are only a few that caught my eye on the first page (A) of _how_many_ products they make or are researching?
IMHO, Rutan entrusted his company to the right people - and
Rutan is getting old ... (Score:2)
Great, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
What I would like to see is some truly innovative solutions. Things that bring us closer to a conquest of space. Contests such as the X Prize should focus on that instead of giving money away for stuff that's been done 50 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Future_develop ment [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Aerospace [wikipedia.org]
What I would like to see is some truly innovative solutions.
Innovation isn't necessarily the issue. The science of rocketry is now fairly well-understood, but up until companies
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
And have you stopped to consider HOW would SS1 survive an atmospheric re-entry from orbital velocity? Its heat shield can handle falling down from 100km up, there's not that much energy to dissipate, but from orbit you're coming down a Mach 25+ and the only
love the names (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
B3? (Score:1)
Translation: The beginning of the end for Scaled C (Score:5, Insightful)
"Northrop Grumman Corporation top managers decided they were bored with their regular business. They decided to buy a business they can talk about at parties. Of course, they have nothing creative to contribute. They are contributing only money. So, they will degrade Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites with their company politics, their need to be seen as important, and their general disinterest in doing the real work."
Re:Translation: The beginning of the end for Scale (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Translation: The beginning of the end for Scale (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Translation: The beginning of the end for Scale (Score:2)
The only other thing I can think of was the developement of future military air/spacecraft, where this technology would have obvious applications.
Re: (Score:2)
It has happened before, many times. (Score:2)
1) The original executives of the bought company eventually leave, usually within 2 years.
2) The bought company declines rapidly.
If 1 happens, my understanding is that 2 will certainly happen. Hard to imagine Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites without Burt Rutan. His is a highly technical business that depends on accurate day-t
Is Burt staying with the business? (Score:1)
In any case, keep at it, Burt.
Re: (Score:2)
consolidations (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
On a side note, I used to use Painter a lot several years ago and was surprised to see it's still around.
He's worked for them before. (Score:1)
Given that is *highly* classified work there must have been close ties, and high levels of trust involved between both parties for some time. This could be good news, to open up space proper the bigger aerospace companies need to get in on the act - just hope they don't stifle Rutan's creativity in the process.
That's a shame. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's neither here nor there, we sti
Cool. Think of the possibilities... (Score:2)
Cheers,
Dave
Scaled composites (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice while it lasted. (Score:1)
Northrop Grumman's "Skunk Works" equivalent? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What was the last REALLY GOOD product Northrop Grumman came up with?
Re: (Score:1)
Is this a trick question?
Alright! (Score:1, Funny)
Now to get a transfer!!!
proof of concepts (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Compete with Lockheed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Kind of a bummer (Score:2, Informative)
Still, it was probably inevitable, and I certainly still wish them all the best luck possible.
Selling out.... (Score:3, Insightful)
GJC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like seeing Bill Gates pay an open source project to get the rights to the code. Depressing.
GJC
Do the math, people (Score:2)
What awful news (Score:2)
Scaled's business structure (Score:2, Informative)
Northrop Grumman has been heavily involved in the Proteus program for several yea
So much for cheap spaceflight (Score:2)
One of the few companies likely to have the knowledge and balls to make cheap space flight possible is now owned by a company that has a real bottom-line incentive to keep spaceflight from getting too cheap.