Author Topic: Countdown to new smallsat launchers  (Read 403879 times)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #260 on: 08/15/2017 09:24 pm »
Cubecab doesn't have a dedicated thread here, and it appears for a good reason.

TRMO interview with Adrian Tymes, the CEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBbpAYARI8?t=1678

I'm halfway through and absolutely nothing about this sounds even remotely credible
Well I think his estimate about stuff having an orbital lifetime of 25 years at 400Km is low, given the estimate for Propero (at 500Km) is more like a century.

They also seem to be planning to use an F104 Starfighter for the first stage. I'm surprised any of them is still in flying order, although obviously if they can get to closer to M2 than M1 that would be a significant improvement on the size of the nozzle. Of course that's a pretty high lb/$ figure.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Ictogan

  • Aerospace engineering student
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Germany
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #261 on: 08/15/2017 09:55 pm »
Cubecab doesn't have a dedicated thread here, and it appears for a good reason.

TRMO interview with Adrian Tymes, the CEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBbpAYARI8?t=1678

I'm halfway through and absolutely nothing about this sounds even remotely credible
Well I think his estimate about stuff having an orbital lifetime of 25 years at 400Km is low, given the estimate for Propero (at 500Km) is more like a century.

They also seem to be planning to use an F104 Starfighter for the first stage. I'm surprised any of them is still in flying order, although obviously if they can get to closer to M2 than M1 that would be a significant improvement on the size of the nozzle. Of course that's a pretty high lb/$ figure.  :(
Not an expert on this, but the 25 years at 400km vs ca. 100 years at 500km seems entirely believable to me. Keep in mind that orbital decay is basically an exponential thing - the lower your orbit is, the more atmosphere to slow you down and the more atmosphere there is, the faster you will be losing orbital altitude.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #262 on: 08/15/2017 10:04 pm »
Cubecab doesn't have a dedicated thread here, and it appears for a good reason.

TRMO interview with Adrian Tymes, the CEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBbpAYARI8?t=1678

I'm halfway through and absolutely nothing about this sounds even remotely credible
Well I think his estimate about stuff having an orbital lifetime of 25 years at 400Km is low, given the estimate for Propero (at 500Km) is more like a century.

They also seem to be planning to use an F104 Starfighter for the first stage. I'm surprised any of them is still in flying order, although obviously if they can get to closer to M2 than M1 that would be a significant improvement on the size of the nozzle. Of course that's a pretty high lb/$ figure.  :(
Not an expert on this, but the 25 years at 400km vs ca. 100 years at 500km seems entirely believable to me. Keep in mind that orbital decay is basically an exponential thing - the lower your orbit is, the more atmosphere to slow you down and the more atmosphere there is, the faster you will be losing orbital altitude.

AFAIK cubesats tossed out of the ISS have orbital lifetimes under one year.
Didn't NASA approve launch of microsats from Cygnus around 500 km which had to meet the <25 year time limit to decay?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #263 on: 08/16/2017 02:39 am »
Assuming mean solar activity, the atmosphere at 400 km has a mass density that is about 5x the value at 500 km. As drag varies linearly with the mass density of the fluid, this matches well with the stated orbital decay estimates.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #264 on: 08/16/2017 08:15 am »
Quote
They also seem to be planning to use an F104 Starfighter for the first stage. I'm surprised any of them is still in flying order, although obviously if they can get to closer to M2 than M1 that would be a significant improvement on the size of the nozzle. Of course that's a pretty high lb/$ figure.  :(


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfighters_Inc
« Last Edit: 08/16/2017 08:16 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 548
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #265 on: 08/17/2017 01:10 am »
At the tail end of this article on a new Japanese joint venture:

Quote
Interstellar Technologies -- a Japanese rocket venture established by entrepreneur Takafumi Horie -- recently failed in the launch of its Momo rocket, but vows to carry on with its space program. Based in Japan's northern island of Hokkaido, the company hopes to launch a rocket capable of carrying ultra-small satellites in 2020.



https://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tech/Joint-venture-launches-4-Japanese-companies-into-minirocket-market
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39214
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32734
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #266 on: 09/06/2017 06:09 am »
Well, so I was at the Review of Australia's Space Industry Capability Adelaide Roundtable Meeting this morning and someone says they are from a company called Ripple Aerospace looking to launch satellites from South Australia. I was next to a guy from Southern Launch with the guy from Ripple next to him. I later went up to him to ask him a few questions about what they are doing. He's an Australian working for Ripple, which is based in Norway. They are looking to launch a sounding rocket called Agar 1 by the end of the year, with South Australia being considered as a possible launch site, as we have lots of empty ocean to the south. Their launch vehicle is called Sea Serpent, a LOX/LH2 two stage vehicle using aerospike engines. Payload is 2.6 t to LEO.

https://rippleaerospace.com/

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #267 on: 09/06/2017 06:47 am »
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1254
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 722
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #268 on: 09/06/2017 07:59 am »
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
I advise you to look into the Sea Dragon concept. While certainly unconventional, this approach has been suggested before. Purging and overcoming the water pressure is certainly within the capacities of orbit-capable rocketry engineers

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #269 on: 09/06/2017 09:19 am »
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
Bigger problem I see is the values listed for maxQ, might be just a typo, but there is no way that speed is right.

Online Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 1053
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #270 on: 09/06/2017 02:02 pm »
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
Underwater ignition has been demonstrated plenty of times. See Seabee and Sea Horse.

I suspect the fuelling would be at sea, this was the plan for Sea Dragon. Like you say, towing it fuelled will lead to big time ice formation, unless the insulation is massive. Not that hydrolox fuelling at sea would be a walk in the park.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #271 on: 09/06/2017 04:08 pm »
Well, so I was at the Review of Australia's Space Industry Capability Adelaide Roundtable Meeting this morning and someone says they are from a company called Ripple Aerospace looking to launch satellites from South Australia. I was next to a guy from Southern Launch with the guy from Ripple next to him. I later went up to him to ask him a few questions about what they are doing. He's an Australian working for Ripple, which is based in Norway. They are looking to launch a sounding rocket called Agar 1 by the end of the year, with South Australia being considered as a possible launch site, as we have lots of empty ocean to the south. Their launch vehicle is called Sea Serpent, a LOX/LH2 two stage vehicle using aerospike engines. Payload is 2.6 t to LEO.

https://rippleaerospace.com/


They have been around for a couple of years as a startup to my knowledge. Daniel Cottitta, who I think is formerly connected to www.rocketstar.nyc, is involved as CTO, but mostly they seem to be young guys with an offbeat idea. The scale and unusual nature of the project puts it in the marginal list for me.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2017 04:08 pm by ringsider »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #272 on: 09/06/2017 05:27 pm »
Well, so I was at the Review of Australia's Space Industry Capability Adelaide Roundtable Meeting this morning and someone says they are from a company called Ripple Aerospace looking to launch satellites from South Australia. I was next to a guy from Southern Launch with the guy from Ripple next to him. I later went up to him to ask him a few questions about what they are doing. He's an Australian working for Ripple, which is based in Norway. They are looking to launch a sounding rocket called Agar 1 by the end of the year, with South Australia being considered as a possible launch site, as we have lots of empty ocean to the south. Their launch vehicle is called Sea Serpent, a LOX/LH2 two stage vehicle using aerospike engines. Payload is 2.6 t to LEO.

https://rippleaerospace.com/
This all sounds vaguely familiar...

Some time ago NASA were considering ways to keep the ISS supplied with low value consumables IE Toilet paper and water. It's got the same cost per unit mass as actual "high value" stuff but its intrinsic value is much lower. NASA said they'd look at a launch system with a 77% reliability if it was a lot cheaper to launch low intrinsic worth payloads.

This design (loosely) reminds me of the concept Space Systems Loral came up with. They were talking LO2/LH2 but pressure fed and GH2 as the pressurizing gas to carry 1 tonne to ISS orbit, using composite construction.  I think the engine was that "vortex" design from Vortec to simplify the cooling but still make it easily testable, but it could have been a plug nozzle. Yes it sounds risky, but that's the point. If one goes bang, you simply order another, as it's only low value cargo. Think of it as the "Liberty ship" of space launch. I don't think there are any of those in a museum, but at the time they got the job done.

Note that Norway does have a lot of shipyards, so that's a strength, but it's going to give a very odd looking LV. If they are running the design-to-cost playbook then it's be welded steel and pretty big, that also makes it quite robust (imaging not an SX booster but the Shuttle SRB's, built in one piece).

Ice surpression is not as tough as people may think. Reaction Engines worked out that a fairly thin layer of 60 Kg m^3 foam (1cm IIRC, but it's been a while) would surpress condensation inside Skylon even of the LH2 tank. Now a 2 layer propellant tank system is not SOP for most LV's but if you're building it in a shipyard anyway....

And before you can say "Yo, heave, ho" the Norsemen have arrived.  :)
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline groundbound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #273 on: 09/06/2017 06:11 pm »
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
Bigger problem I see is the values listed for maxQ, might be just a typo, but there is no way that speed is right.

9.2 kps LEO speed also seems unusual.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39214
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32734
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #274 on: 09/07/2017 04:23 am »
Here's the website for Southern Launch. They are looking to develop a launch site somewhere along the southern coast of Australia.

https://www.southernlaunch.space/
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #275 on: 09/07/2017 08:53 am »
9.2 kps LEO speed also seems unusual.
That's actually explainable. 9200 m/s is a rule of thumb orbital speed for LO2/LH2 rockets including all losses, which are usually expected to be a bit higher with LO2/LH2, in the same way old rocket engineering books list 30kfps (9144m/s) as the round number to achieve orbit.

What's rare is quoting it as it's a placeholder. Smart rocket developers optimize their trajectories to reduce losses because every m/s you can reduce them by means you can either deliver the payload with a smaller rocket or a bigger payload.

MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Nomic

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #276 on: 09/07/2017 08:57 am »
Well, so I was at the Review of Australia's Space Industry Capability Adelaide Roundtable Meeting this morning and someone says they are from a company called Ripple Aerospace looking to launch satellites from South Australia. I was next to a guy from Southern Launch with the guy from Ripple next to him. I later went up to him to ask him a few questions about what they are doing. He's an Australian working for Ripple, which is based in Norway. They are looking to launch a sounding rocket called Agar 1 by the end of the year, with South Australia being considered as a possible launch site, as we have lots of empty ocean to the south. Their launch vehicle is called Sea Serpent, a LOX/LH2 two stage vehicle using aerospike engines. Payload is 2.6 t to LEO.

2.3% payload fraction, parachute recovery of both stages, seems optimistic.

Unlike seadragon and Loral aquarius they are looking at pump fed engines, for sea level (literally) launch,  probably a better idea.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #277 on: 09/08/2017 12:50 am »
9.2 kps LEO speed also seems unusual.
That's actually explainable. 9200 m/s is a rule of thumb orbital speed for LO2/LH2 rockets including all losses, which are usually expected to be a bit higher with LO2/LH2, in the same way old rocket engineering books list 30kfps (9144m/s) as the round number to achieve orbit.

What's rare is quoting it as it's a placeholder. Smart rocket developers optimize their trajectories to reduce losses because every m/s you can reduce them by means you can either deliver the payload with a smaller rocket or a bigger payload.

If they are running with a mini Sea Dragon, then they would be epitomizing the Big Dumb Booster concept, which implies they may care less about the trajectory optimization if it makes manufacturing cheaper. Fuel is cheap, brute forcing it is in theory easier, much more so if you are doing a floating launch as there are almost no launchpad/TEL considerations.

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #278 on: 09/08/2017 10:55 am »
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
Underwater ignition has been demonstrated plenty of times. See Seabee and Sea Horse.

I suspect the fuelling would be at sea, this was the plan for Sea Dragon. Like you say, towing it fuelled will lead to big time ice formation, unless the insulation is massive. Not that hydrolox fuelling at sea would be a walk in the park.
Lots of Soviet Union SLBM ignite pumpfed liquid engines underwater, with no problem.

Getting out of water is harder,  with large dynamic forces disturbing GNC. Modern GNC software may solve it easier, north Korea have SLBM now.

More problem occurs on reliability, assembling/testing/debugging, scrub after filling propellants, etc.

Generally, SLBM are neither cheaper nor easier than land based ICBM counterparts. Even silo based / TEL vehicle based ICBM tend to begin with launch pad during development.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2017 11:23 am by Katana »

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
« Reply #279 on: 09/08/2017 11:32 am »
9.2 kps LEO speed also seems unusual.
That's actually explainable. 9200 m/s is a rule of thumb orbital speed for LO2/LH2 rockets including all losses, which are usually expected to be a bit higher with LO2/LH2, in the same way old rocket engineering books list 30kfps (9144m/s) as the round number to achieve orbit.

What's rare is quoting it as it's a placeholder. Smart rocket developers optimize their trajectories to reduce losses because every m/s you can reduce them by means you can either deliver the payload with a smaller rocket or a bigger payload.

If they are running with a mini Sea Dragon, then they would be epitomizing the Big Dumb Booster concept, which implies they may care less about the trajectory optimization if it makes manufacturing cheaper. Fuel is cheap, brute forcing it is in theory easier, much more so if you are doing a floating launch as there are almost no launchpad/TEL considerations.

Better to start the BDB concept on launchpad first and move to sea later, instead of combining two risky attempt together.

No launchpad = worst launchpad.

Without launchpad, the vehicle have to integrate certain functions of launchpad inside, and assembling / tesing on launchpad becomes impossible.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1