Organization | Vehicle | Country | Year/Quarter | Main propulsion | Price | Ref | Thread |
Interorbital Systems (http://www.interorbital.com/) | NEPTUNE N5 | USA | 2016 Q1 | 3-stage hno3/turpentine | $0.25M | ref (http://www.milsatmagazine.com/story.php?number=1337072666) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34365.0) |
CTA (http://www.iae.cta.br/site/page/view/pt.vlm1.html) | VLM | Brazil/Ger | 2016 Q2 | 4-stage solid | ref (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/brazilian-military-news-reports-data-etc.t7113/page-28) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25591.0) | |
Celestia Aerospace (http://celestiaaerospace.com/) | Sagitarius | Spain | 2016 Q2 | airlaunch, solid ? | $0.24M | ref (http://orbiterchspacenews.blogspot.com/2015/07/celestia-aerospace-ready-to-design.html) | |
Rocket Lab (http://www.rocketlabusa.com/) | Electron | NZ/USA | 2016 Q3 | 2-stage kerolox | $4.9M | ref (http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11553132) | thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.0) |
Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com/satellite-launch/) | LauncherOne | USA | 2016 Q4 | airlaunch, 2-stage kerolox | <$10M | ref (http://www.virgingalactic.com/satellite-launch/l1-performance/) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29405.0) |
XCOR Aerospace (http://www.xcor.com) | Lynx Mark III | USA | 2017 Q1 | airlaunch | ref (http://aerospace.xcor.com/reusable-launch-vehicles/lynx-spacecraft/) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19033.0) | |
Swiss Space Systems (http://www.s-3.ch/) | SOAR | Switzerland | 2017 Q2 | airlaunch | <$10M | ref (http://spacenews.com/startup-spotlight-swiss-space-systems-s3/) | |
Firefly Space Systems (http://www.fireflyspace.com/) | Firefly | USA | 2017 Q2 | 2-stage, methalox | $8-9M | ref (http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-a) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33757.0) |
Horizon SAS (http://horizonsas.com/) | Black Arrow 2 | UK | 2017 Q2 | 2-stage, methalox | $7.5M | ref (http://seradata.com/SSI/2015/10/horizon-space-technologies-announces-new-black-arrow-2-rocket-at-uk-space-propulsion-workshop/) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38987) |
CubeCab (http://cubecab.com/) | CubeCab | USA | 2017 Q3 | airlaunch, no detail | $0.25M | ref (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/594302551350083584) | |
Generation Orbit (http://www.generationorbit.com/) | GO Launcher 2 | USA | 2017 Q4 | airlaunch | $2.5M | ref (http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2015/06/05/generation-orbit-gains-golauncher2-commitments-plans-golauncher-3/) | |
zero2infinity (http://www.bloostar.com/) | Bloostar | Spain | 2018 Q2 | Balloon + CH4/lox | $4.0M | ref (https://twitter.com/mgschaffer/status/654633354705375232) | |
InterStellar Technologies (http://www.istellartech.com/) | Pocky ? | Japan | 3 stage LOX/ethanol | ref (https://twitter.com/MarcKBoucher/status/654641152839258112) | |||
CONAE (http://www.conae.gov.ar/index.php/espanol/acceso-al-espacio/tronador-ii) | Tronador II | Argentina | 2.5-stage kerolox/hypergol | $6M | |||
Lin Industrial (http://www.spacelin.ru/) | Taimyr | Russia | 2 stage peroxide/kero | $0.18 M | ref (http://www.spacelin.ru/#!taymyr/c1wuk) | thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36301.0) | |
Tranquility Aerospace (http://www.tranquilityaerospace.com/) | Devon Two | UK | 2 stage peroxide/kero | ref (http://www.tranquilityaerospace.com/TranqWeb/DevonTwo.html) | |||
Garvey Spacecraft Corporation (http://www.garvspace.com/) | NLV | USA | 2 stage kerolox | ref (http://www.garvspace.com/NLV.htm) | |||
PLD Space (http://pldspace.com/) | Arion-2 | Spain | 2 stage kerolox | ref (http://danielmarin.naukas.com/2015/07/06/la-primera-prueba-de-un-motor-cohete-de-combustible-liquido-en-espana/) | thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37384.0) | ||
MISHAAL Aerospace (http://mishaalaerospace.com) | M-OV | USA | 2 stage hybrid LOX/HTPB | ref (http://mishaalaerospace.com/orbital-vehicle) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35978.0) | ||
Nammo (https://www.nammo.com/what-we-do/technology/hybrid-propulsion/) | North Star | Norway | 2020 | 3 stage perfoxide/rubber hybrid | ref (http://www.esc-aerospace.com/?p=3818) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37656.0) | |
Open Space Orbital (http://www.openspaceorbital.com/) | Neutrino 1 | Canada | 2020 | ref (http://spaceref.ca/commercial-space/open-space-orbital/a-new-canadian-rocket-company-aims-to-go-where-none-before-have-succeeded.html) | |||
SpaceLS (http://www.spacels.com/) | Prometheus-1 | UK | 3 stage peroxide/kero | ||||
Bagaveev Corporation (http://bagaveev.com/) | USA | ref (https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/bagaveev.com/Aboutus.htm) | |||||
Scorpius Space Launch Company (http://smad.com/) | Demi-Sprite | USA | $3.6M | ref (http://smad.com/launch/demi-sprite/) | |||
ARCA Space Corp. (http://www.arcaspace.com/) | Haas 2C | Romania/USA | 2-stage kerolox | ref (http://www.arcaspace.com/en/haas2c.htm) | |||
Lockheed Martin | Athena Ic | USA | ref (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2234/1) | ||||
--- unclear status --- | |||||||
Ventions LLC (http://ventions.com/) | SALVO | USA | unclear | airlaunch, 2-stage kerolox | ref (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H9C5dzotPI&feature=youtu.be) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30240.0) | |
Sandia National Lab (http://www.rocket.com/leonidas) | Super Strypi | USA | unclear | 3-stage solid | $12M | ref (http://www.defensedaily.com/lack-of-funding-places-ors-4-super-strypi-rockets-future-in-doubt-after-launch-failure/) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27685.80) |
Boeing (http://www.boeing.com/features/2014/03/bds-darpa-contract-03-27-14.page) | ALASA | USA | cancelled | airlaunch, 2-stage | $1M | ref (http://spacenews.com/darpa-airborne-launcher-effort-falters/) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34350.0) |
Feels like the 90's again.. Connestoga, Roton, Pioneer, Kelly..Hopefully some will survive and be successful, definitely a good portion of these new LVs will never fly or go out of business.
Feels like the 90's again.. Connestoga, Roton, Pioneer, Kelly..
Feels like the 90's again.. Connestoga, Roton, Pioneer, Kelly..
Yes, but a lot less extraordinaries here. Most companies seem to go for straightforward no nonsense technical solutions ( except airlaunch but thats my personal opinion ).
The key issue is more the viability of the market.
Yep fully aware. The only credible argument for the smallsat launchers is potential responsiveness.
A large majority of the candidate payloads are experiments, and experiments like short turnaround times. Iterating a Cubesat sensor or electronics payload can be done in months, not years, with an experienced team, because the basic building blocks are commoditized, pretty modular and readily available. Current launch opportunities however are still decidedly fickle.
This rapid turnaround ( or operationally responsive, in defense-speak ) aspect of demand did not exist in 90ies.
Sure, they'd like to have rapid turnaround, but do they have the money to spend on $5-$10 million per dedicated launch to get it a few months earlier versus a fraction of that cost on a shared ride?Most of the vehicles here plan to offer shared rides, so the math for individual payload customers is a bit different. 1U cubesat is 1kg, and somewhere between 1kg and a ton is probably an ideal LEO payload capacity that serves the near term market demand the best.
Clearly, there is a niche though as quite a few of the entrants in the table are signing up plenty of payloads before they have flown anything
Aside from Virgin Galactic signing up for a share of OneWeb's business (in return for Virgin investing in OneWeb, a start-up with few investors and a large need for capital, so perhaps not a sign of an unbiased customer choice), I'm not aware of very many payloads actually being signed up by any of these new small launch providers.Absence of proof is not proof of absence ;) I tried to collect some references up in the table that were discussing launch dates, i've come across various talks, podcast and conference materials where some of the folks involved talk about what they have signed up, too. InterOrbital for instance, in the video linked above, claims to have a suborbital high apogee launch sold out and a second one almost filling up.
Aside from Virgin Galactic signing up for a share of OneWeb's business (in return for Virgin investing in OneWeb, a start-up with few investors and a large need for capital, so perhaps not a sign of an unbiased customer choice), I'm not aware of very many payloads actually being signed up by any of these new small launch providers.Absence of proof is not proof of absence ;) I tried to collect some references up in the table that were discussing launch dates, i've come across various talks, podcast and conference materials where some of the folks involved talk about what they have signed up, too. InterOrbital for instance, in the video linked above, claims to have a suborbital high apogee launch sold out and a second one almost filling up.
I dont have the dedication and time to collect references for all these claims tho, the ever shifting first launch date claims are elusive enough.
The 2015 SPRSA symposium (https://www.sprsa.org/) had a bunch of presentations and talks where backlogs were discussed too, some talks are available through website. The individual NSF threads linked above have some announcements and details, too.
Rocketlab website booking system is already showing a few fully booked flights. There are 27 flights from 2016 to 2019, 16 of these are 71-100% booked. These are ride share flights, there maybe single customer flights eg MoonExpress, which a not listed on website.
As for the market demand, I would expect the large venture capital companies to have done their homework before investing 10s millions into likes of RocketLab and Firefly.
Feels like the 90's again.. Connestoga, Roton, Pioneer, Kelly..
Rocketlab website booking system is already showing a few fully booked flights. There are 27 flights from 2016 to 2019, 16 of these are 71-100% booked. These are ride share flights, there maybe single customer flights eg MoonExpress, which a not listed on website.
As for the market demand, I would expect the large venture capital companies to have done their homework before investing 10s millions into likes of RocketLab and Firefly.
NASA is going to announce Venture Class Launch Services providers next Wednesday, Oct. 15:Those being Virgin Galactic (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=47904), Firefly (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=47905), and Rocket Lab USA (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=47906).
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/10/07/nasa-announce-venture-class-launch-service-winners/
Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 9:54 AM on Thu, Oct 08, 2015:
(There have been rumors in industry that ALASA might never fly, out of concerns about flying that vehicle’s unproven propellant on an F-15.)
(https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/651863177370730496)
At least F15 has an ejection seat which is more than can be said for most of the other air launch systems.
Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 9:54 AM on Thu, Oct 08, 2015:
(There have been rumors in industry that ALASA might never fly, out of concerns about flying that vehicle’s unproven propellant on an F-15.)
(https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/651863177370730496)
At least F15 has an ejection seat which is more than can be said for most of the other air launch systems.
ALASA is using a monopropellant, so it can release all its energy very quickly if something goes wrong. If that happens while it's attached to the F-15, an ejection seat won't help -- the overpressure from the blast will kill the pilot before the ejection seat can get away, unless the problem is detected a couple of seconds before the boom.
Boeing has announced that it has retrofitted a number of retired Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter jets with equipment enabling them to be flown remotely without a pilot. In conjunction with the US Air Force, the company recently flew one of these unmanned jets, performing combat maneuvers and a perfect center line landing.http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-f16-jet-unmanned-drone/29203/
Known as QF-16's, they are solely for target practice by nexte generation fighter jets. QF-16's have replaced QF-4A's as the last one was destroyed over the Pacific Ocean as an aerial target.Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 9:54 AM on Thu, Oct 08, 2015:
(There have been rumors in industry that ALASA might never fly, out of concerns about flying that vehicle’s unproven propellant on an F-15.)
(https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/651863177370730496)
At least F15 has an ejection seat which is more than can be said for most of the other air launch systems.
ALASA is using a monopropellant, so it can release all its energy very quickly if something goes wrong. If that happens while it's attached to the F-15, an ejection seat won't help -- the overpressure from the blast will kill the pilot before the ejection seat can get away, unless the problem is detected a couple of seconds before the boom.
Possible solution?QuoteBoeing has announced that it has retrofitted a number of retired Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter jets with equipment enabling them to be flown remotely without a pilot. In conjunction with the US Air Force, the company recently flew one of these unmanned jets, performing combat maneuvers and a perfect center line landing.http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-f16-jet-unmanned-drone/29203/
ALASA is using a monopropellant, so it can release all its energy very quickly if something goes wrong. If that happens while it's attached to the F-15, an ejection seat won't help -- the overpressure from the blast will kill the pilot before the ejection seat can get away, unless the problem is detected a couple of seconds before the boom.
Possible solution?QuoteBoeing has announced that it has retrofitted a number of retired Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter jets with equipment enabling them to be flown remotely without a pilot. In conjunction with the US Air Force, the company recently flew one of these unmanned jets, performing combat maneuvers and a perfect center line landing.
“We are going to be doing three to four suborbital launches first — starting in 2017 to assure people — before we kick into orbital flights in the first quarter 2018,” said King. ( FireFly )
Richard DalBello, VP of business development and government relations at Virgin Galactic: “We hope to be starting test launches in the latter part of 2017 with commercial operations in 2018.
Other defense-driven rapid response vehicles are in the works as well, such as the U.S. Air Force Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) office’s Super Strypi rail-launched rocket, slated for its debut mission this month
One for the list: Nammo North Star Launch Vehicle (NSLV) from Norway using hybrid motors. First launch in 2020.Thanks, added. I knew of Nammo's role in Ariane work and defense industry, but not about the launcher plans. They actually seem to have reasonably gradual development plan from sounding rockets to orbital performance.
Currently there are at least eight companies developing vehicles. I'll ad a excel document later.
A helpful boost or "thumb on the scale"?All good questions. Two recent examples where NASA has tried to help out US based space startups: suborbital launch services and all sorts of incentives to GLXP competitors. Unclear if either has amounted to anything much. Also unclear why is this different from SBIR.
What are the deliverables for these contracts?
First launch? Seems like insufficient funding for that.
PowerPoint files for reviews? At least one of our members sees that kind of "help" as a distraction at best.
Of course, projecting launch with a resolution of less than a calendar quarter, or even a year, seems like a false precision for something as complex as a first launchExactly, that's why i left it at year/quarter. To quote Akin's laws again
23. The schedule you develop will seem like a complete work of fiction up until the time your customer fires you for not meeting it.
27. (Varsi's Law) Schedules only move in one direction.
A helpful boost or "thumb on the scale"?
Exceptions are when there's some sort of barrier to entry or commons issue or something of the sort that interferes with the natural functioning of a market, or where the government itself has a need for a service for which there is limited or no commercial market.This was somewhat explained in the press event. NASA wants to be collaborating with these companies early to have the launchers be able to meet their mission requirements, and possibly certification. So when they actually have a need for the launches they do not start at square one.
It's not clear that any of these exceptions apply in this case.
Bloostar / zero2infinity put a new website up today. They think they'll have significant advantages over pencil shaped rockets. Presenting at IAC2015 tooHelium balloons need very low wind speeds to launch, early morning normally best. This may limit there ability to hit launch windows.
http://www.bloostar.com/bloostar/#title-advantages
In other news, responsive web design single page marketing websites for all startups continue to suck
https://twitter.com/katrobison/status/654659932726280192/photo/1
https://twitter.com/MarcKBoucher/status/654629673792614400
Bloostar / zero2infinity put a new website up today. They think they'll have significant advantages over pencil shaped rockets. Presenting at IAC2015 tooHelium balloons need very low wind speeds to launch, early morning normally best. This may limit there ability to hit launch windows.
http://www.bloostar.com/bloostar/#title-advantages
In other news, responsive web design single page marketing websites for all startups continue to suck
https://twitter.com/katrobison/status/654659932726280192/photo/1
https://twitter.com/MarcKBoucher/status/654629673792614400
Not sure how they plan to handle boiloff during the ascent time.
August 18, 2003Took them 5 years after that to achieve orbit.
- The standard SXF is to carry 1400lbs to LEO, the heavy lift version is to carry 4500lbs.
- A standard SXF launch is expected to cost $6M, and $10M for heavy version.
- He believes there is a market for a $6M launch vehicle.
- SpaceX currently has 30 full-time employees, 15 part-time/consultant employees (30 = 5 techs + 22 engineers + 3 non-technical).
a lot snipped
Today I came across this site: Leafspace Primo (http://www.leafspace.eu/other-products/).Awesome , one more ! Have you seen any external references, articles or mentions outside of their own website? The site itself is pretty light on detail, although i did spot that the core team members come from Skyward Experimental Rocketry student association in Milan ( http://www.skywarder.eu/blog/en/ )
Italian company Leafspace has plans for a 2stage hybrid launch vehicle capable of launching 50 kg (~100lb) to 700km polar. The vehicle will weight 6,4 ton (1000kg) at liftoff (GLOW) and a launch is de supposed to cost 2mln. Euro.
Today I came across this site: Leafspace Primo (http://www.leafspace.eu/other-products/).Awesome , one more ! Have you seen any external references, articles or mentions outside of their own website? The site itself is pretty light on detail, although i did spot that the core team members come from Skyward Experimental Rocketry student association in Milan ( http://www.skywarder.eu/blog/en/ )
Italian company Leafspace has plans for a 2stage hybrid launch vehicle capable of launching 50 kg (~100lb) to 700km polar. The vehicle will weight 6,4 ton (1000kg) at liftoff (GLOW) and a launch is de supposed to cost 2mln. Euro.
Today I came across this site: Leafspace Primo (http://www.leafspace.eu/other-products/).A 5% mass fraction with hybrids fighting the inefficiencies of smaller scale?
Italian company Leafspace has plans for a 2stage hybrid launch vehicle capable of launching 50 kg (~100lb) to 700km polar. The vehicle will weight 6,4 ton (1000kg) at liftoff (GLOW) and a launch is de supposed to cost 2mln. Euro.
Edit: some side info. From 2008 to 2010 DLR, CNES and INTA investigated different concepts for nano-launch vehicles (Aldebaran). The vehicle from s3 was one of the concepts investigated. The program had a clear cost goal:
Payload to leo mass:
50kg <2,5 mln euro ~ 3mln dollar
150kg <5mln ~ 6mln
300kg <7mln ~ 8mln
I think we can add 10kg <1mln ~1,2mln
The problem is in the "rough" conversion:Ah. Under 1% mass fraction. Much less crazy. Still not sure it's possible
"vehicle will weight 6,4 ton (1000kg) at liftoff (GLOW)"
The original site states only 6.4 ton. Assuming SI units as they used everywhere else, that is 6.4 metric tonnes, or 6,400 kg — not 1,000 kg.
Like Sheldon said, blame it on Jimmy Carter . . .
Sorry for the confusion. With: ton (1000kg) . I tried to explain the unit, ton. So 6,4 ton = 6.400kg ~=12,800.lbs. {nitice the difference in the purpose for: '.' and ',' between the metric and imperial system}Use "tonnes" for "metric tons" to help clarify. Kilograms is usually even better.
It's a all confusing. I forgot the name of te mars mission that failed. ;p
Sorry for the confusion. With: ton (1000kg) . I tried to explain the unit, ton. So 6,4 ton = 6.400kg ~=12,800.lbs. {nitice the difference in the purpose for: '.' and ',' between the metric and imperial system}
It's a all confusing. I forgot the name of te mars mission that failed. ;p
Another new private small launcher company (http://www.onespacechina.com/), this time in China.Is there a report or news piece somewhere whats this about ? Just a website, so far
With this sudden wave of new launchers, it seems as if Earth is headed for a Krypton-style catastrophe and some groups know about it and rush into getting away...Definitely. This should have been a hint : clearly an optimized two-stage chlorine trifluoride booster
With this sudden wave of new launchers, it seems as if Earth is headed for a Krypton-style catastrophe and some groups know about it and rush into getting away...
It would have the capability of launching 150kg to leo, the first payload will be the shefix III experiment from DLR (Germany).Second payload. The first VLM test flight has been postponed to November 2018 (see here (http://www.aeb.gov.br/primeiro-voo-do-vlm-1-sera-em-novembro-de-2018/)), and S50 won't be qualified before 2017. SHEFEX III will launch (suborbital) on the second VLM flight sometime after that.
So when is the very actual currently planned first test launch of any of these configurations ? Sometime in 2017 ? I went through the thread here and could not figure it out : http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25591.60It would have the capability of launching 150kg to leo, the first payload will be the shefix III experiment from DLR (Germany).Second payload. The first VLM test flight has been postponed to November 2018 (see here (http://www.aeb.gov.br/primeiro-voo-do-vlm-1-sera-em-novembro-de-2018/)), and S50 won't be qualified before 2017. SHEFEX III will launch (suborbital) on the second VLM flight sometime after that.
Another company (http://www.tranquilityaerospace.com), this time in Britain. Aim to produce VTVL reusable peroxide/kerosene sounding rocket called Devon 1, then add an upper stage to produce the Devon 2 small orbital vehicle. Devon 2 is currently to have a 4kg payload and fly before the end of 2017. They're currently working on an expendable Devon 0 demonstrator, with a single 1kn engine; Devon 1 is to use five of the same engine.Has been in the table here for a while ;)
Another company (http://www.tranquilityaerospace.com), this time in Britain. Aim to produce VTVL reusable peroxide/kerosene sounding rocket called Devon 1, then add an upper stage to produce the Devon 2 small orbital vehicle. Devon 2 is currently to have a 4kg payload and fly before the end of 2017. They're currently working on an expendable Devon 0 demonstrator, with a single 1kn engine; Devon 1 is to use five of the same engine.Good update Kryten. Another small or should that be Micro LV to follow. They even plan to make booster reusable.
Another thing that tends to happen in boom-bust cycles is that the assets of the failed companies get bought up. For example, SpaceX does their testing in McGregor, Texas primarily because it was a former Beal Aerospace rocket testing site. So, even the inevitable failures of some of these startups could make for interesting happenings.It is not just physical assets that are recycled but also the former employees and their knowledge.
They've added some basic specs (http://www.onespacechina.com/technology/) to their website for the small launcher they're developing (500kg LEO, 350kg SSO, first flight by 2018), and an article about receiving angel investment (http://www.onespacechina.com/20151224/). My Chinese isn't remotely good enough nor the google translate version clear enough to work out how much they've actually received.Another new private small launcher company (http://www.onespacechina.com/), this time in China.Is there a report or news piece somewhere whats this about ? Just a website, so far
What I'm interested in is XS-1. Less $5 million price, but 400-1400kg payload to LEO. 10 launches in 10 days. That's what reuse can do.RocketLab is at 100 headcount, probably a bit more by the time they get to orbit although they are already saying they have difficulty growing in NZ and have imported a bunch from Australia. The intent is to eventually fly once a week.
Well, considering they won't need to be building dozens upon dozens of engines and large first stages all the time, I'd say Masten would be able to do it with a similar headcount as Rocketlab. But with higher payload.
There are perfectly good reasons for NASA to invest in small satellite launch technology. Weighing in the neighborhood of 50 to 400kg, small satellites have become one of the hottest areas of aerospace. Demand has increased for launch vehicles that can deliver these payloads to a Sun-synchronous orbit 400km or more above the Earth’s surface. For now, though, these smaller payloads must “ride share” with larger satellites on more powerful rockets. This can often delay their launch for a year or more.
Naturally the market has reacted to this, and more than half a dozen companies have been developing private launch systems to meet the demand. Proposals range from launching traditional rockets from the ground to setting them off from airplanes or balloons high in the atmosphere. It is a marketplace teeming with private capital. This seems like the opposite of what space technology, created to address areas the “industry cannot tackle today,” was intended to support.
Two more for the list, this time from Australia.
Gilmour Space Technologies
https://www.facebook.com/gstpropulsion/?fref=nf
22 July 2016 | Westmar, QLD
This morning, Gilmour Space Technologies successfully launched our first rocket. We believe it's the first launch of a privately developed hybrid sounding rocket, designed and built by a Singapore and Australian-based company.
It's time to change the game... Watch this space!
Quite a design: lox-hydrogen(!) with what's referred to as an aerospike nozzle, though I'd call it a spike, since it is not truncated.
Ripple Aeropsace AS was registered as a company on May 26th 2016. I would not expect too much from them in the near term.
Helge
Organization | Vehicle | Country | Year/Quarter | Main propulsion | Price | Ref | Thread |
Rocket Lab (http://www.rocketlabusa.com/) | Electron | NZ/USA | 2016 Q3 | 2-stage kerolox | $4.9M | ref (http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11553132) | thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.0) |
Firefly Space Systems (http://www.fireflyspace.com/) | Firefly | USA | 2017 Q2 | 2-stage, methalox | $8-9M | ref (http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-a) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33757.0) |
Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com/satellite-launch/) | LauncherOne | USA | 2017 Q3 | airlaunch, 2-stage kerolox | <$10M | ref (http://www.virgingalactic.com/satellite-launch/l1-performance/) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29405.0) |
Horizon SAS (http://horizonsas.com/) | Black Arrow 2 | UK | 2017 Q2 | 2-stage, methalox | $7.5M | ref (http://seradata.com/SSI/2015/10/horizon-space-technologies-announces-new-black-arrow-2-rocket-at-uk-space-propulsion-workshop/) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38987) |
CubeCab (http://cubecab.com/) | CubeCab | USA | 2017 Q3 | airlaunch, no detail | $0.25M | ref (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/594302551350083584) | |
Generation Orbit (http://www.generationorbit.com/) | GO Launcher 2 | USA | 2017 Q4 | airlaunch | $2.5M | ref (http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2015/06/05/generation-orbit-gains-golauncher2-commitments-plans-golauncher-3/) | |
zero2infinity (http://www.bloostar.com/) | Bloostar | Spain | 2018 Q2 | Balloon + CH4/lox | $4.0M | ref (https://twitter.com/mgschaffer/status/654633354705375232) | |
UP Aerospace (http://www.upaerospace.com/) | Spyder | USA | 2018 Q2 | 4-stage solid | ref (http://aviationweek.com/space/will-new-small-launch-vehicles-expand-smallsat-market) | ||
Rocket Crafters (http://rocketcrafters.space/) | Intrepid-1 | USA | 2018 Q4 | 2-stage hybrid | ref (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/08/08/smallsat-2016-updates-launch-vehicle-development/) | ||
Vector Space Systems (http://vectorspacesystems.com/) | Wolverine | USA | 2018 | 2 stage kerolox | ref (http://spacenews.com/vector-space-systems-plans-2018-first-flight-of-small-launch-vehicle/) | ||
InterStellar Technologies (http://www.istellartech.com/) | Pocky ? | Japan | 3 stage LOX/ethanol | ref (https://twitter.com/MarcKBoucher/status/654641152839258112) | |||
CONAE (http://www.conae.gov.ar/index.php/espanol/acceso-al-espacio/tronador-ii) | Tronador II | Argentina | 2.5-stage kerolox/hypergol | $6M | |||
Lin Industrial (http://www.spacelin.ru/) | Taimyr | Russia | 2 stage peroxide/kero | $0.18 M | ref (http://www.spacelin.ru/#!taymyr/c1wuk) | thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36301.0) | |
Tranquility Aerospace (http://www.tranquilityaerospace.com/) | Devon Two | UK | 2 stage peroxide/kero | ref (http://www.tranquilityaerospace.com/TranqWeb/DevonTwo.html) | |||
PLD Space (http://pldspace.com/) | Arion-2 | Spain | 2 stage kerolox | ref (http://danielmarin.naukas.com/2015/07/06/la-primera-prueba-de-un-motor-cohete-de-combustible-liquido-en-espana/) | thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37384.0) | ||
MISHAAL Aerospace (http://mishaalaerospace.com) | M-OV | USA | 2 stage hybrid LOX/HTPB | ref (http://mishaalaerospace.com/orbital-vehicle) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35978.0) | ||
Nammo (https://www.nammo.com/what-we-do/technology/hybrid-propulsion/) | North Star | Norway | 2020 | 3 stage perfoxide/rubber hybrid | ref (http://www.esc-aerospace.com/?p=3818) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37656.0) | |
Open Space Orbital (http://www.openspaceorbital.com/) | Neutrino 1 | Canada | 2020 | ref (http://spaceref.ca/commercial-space/open-space-orbital/a-new-canadian-rocket-company-aims-to-go-where-none-before-have-succeeded.html) | |||
SpaceLS (http://www.spacels.com/) | Prometheus-1 | UK | 3 stage peroxide/kero | ||||
Bagaveev Corporation (http://bagaveev.com/) | USA | ref (https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/bagaveev.com/Aboutus.htm) | |||||
Scorpius Space Launch Company (http://smad.com/) | Demi-Sprite | USA | $3.6M | ref (http://smad.com/launch/demi-sprite/) | |||
ARCA Space Corp. (http://www.arcaspace.com/) | Haas 2C | Romania/USA | 2-stage kerolox | ref (http://www.arcaspace.com/en/haas2c.htm) | |||
Gilmour space technologies (http://www.gspacetech.com/) | Eris | Australia/Singapore | hybrid | ||||
Ripple Aerospace (http://www.ripple-aerospace.no/) | Sea Serpent | Norway | 2-stage .. LOX/LH aerospike ? | ||||
Heliaq (http://heliaq.com/) | ALV | Australia | flyback+scramjet? | ref (http://aviationweek.com/space/first-flight-australian-subscale-reusable-launch-demonstrator) | |||
Lockheed Martin | Athena Ic | USA | ref (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2234/1) | ||||
--- unclear status --- | |||||||
Swiss Space Systems (http://www.s-3.ch/) | SOAR | Switzerland | unclear | airlaunch | <$10M | ref (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/06/swiss-space-systems-ceo-set-fire/) | |
XCOR Aerospace (http://www.xcor.com) | Lynx Mark III | USA | unclear | airlaunch | ref (http://aerospace.xcor.com/reusable-launch-vehicles/lynx-spacecraft/) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19033.0) | |
Ventions LLC (http://ventions.com/) | SALVO | USA | unclear | airlaunch, 2-stage kerolox | ref (http://bit.ly/2cF6fcu) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30240.0) | |
Sandia National Lab (http://www.rocket.com/leonidas) | Super Strypi | USA | unclear | 3-stage solid | $12M | ref (http://www.defensedaily.com/lack-of-funding-places-ors-4-super-strypi-rockets-future-in-doubt-after-launch-failure/) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27685.80) |
Interorbital Systems (http://www.interorbital.com/) | NEPTUNE N5 | USA | unclear | 3-stage hno3/turpentine | $0.25M | ref (http://bit.ly/2c6aV5E) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34365.0) |
CTA (http://www.iae.cta.br/site/page/view/pt.vlm1.html) | VLM | Brazil/Ger | unclear | 4-stage solid | ref (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/brazilian-military-news-reports-data-etc.t7113/page-28) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25591.0) | |
Celestia Aerospace (http://celestiaaerospace.com/) | Sagitarius | Spain | unclear | airlaunch, solid ? | $0.24M | ref (http://orbiterchspacenews.blogspot.com/2015/07/celestia-aerospace-ready-to-design.html) | |
Boeing (http://www.boeing.com/features/2014/03/bds-darpa-contract-03-27-14.page) | ALASA | USA | cancelled | airlaunch, 2-stage | $1M | ref (http://spacenews.com/darpa-airborne-launcher-effort-falters/) | thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34350.0) |
Wait a sec, what does the Year/Quarter collumn stand for? First test mission, first commercial missions or previously declared start of commercial flight?I've been trying to pin the first milestone flight of whatever hardware. Even if it's just a suborbital test, but it should be going to space. Some groups in the list have flown low altitude stuff, but nothing even remotely capable of going to space yet.
Anyone can crank out a press release and social media fluff, doesn't mean they are actually serious and viable. Admittedly, i haven't done a thorough job and it's better done on a wiki, and references to technical approach and the ever sliding first launch dates should actually be different.
Garvey is now Vector and is in part being funded by NASA and DARPA awards. See recent Vector thread post.Yeah, slipped there, updated now. I've probably missed a bunch of other updates posted up in the thread here ..
.. I actually think the ones who make fewer announcements are more serious.A good proxy for guessing the viability is the number of people involved, even though that info is not easily found in public. Nobody will go to space with a 5-person team moonlighting in a garage. Sizeable full time team hired and funds to keep them on through the first major business milestones is the best indicator of credibility
Sobre los precios, para Arion 1 (suborbital) entre 6.000 y 12.000 €/kg, y en Arion 2 (orbital) el rango sería de entre... (Translate:On prices for Arion 1 (suborbital) between 6,000 and 12,000 € / kg, and Arion 2 (orbital) the range would be between...
Yes the resource consent document was a monster for Kaitorete Spit. I had a look at it last year. When the local council dragged their heels and made all kinds of restrictions, Mahia seized the opportunity. They approved it in a week if I recall.It has cost Canterbury 200 jobs as Beck wanted to set up a factory nearby.
Canterbury is still not totally off of the table.. it's just that Rocketlab's current hopes are pinned on Mahia working out. If the Mahia experiment succeeds, I know some folks here are still hopeful Beck will consider setting up somewhere here also.Yes the resource consent document was a monster for Kaitorete Spit. I had a look at it last year. When the local council dragged their heels and made all kinds of restrictions, Mahia seized the opportunity. They approved it in a week if I recall.It has cost Canterbury 200 jobs as Beck wanted to set up a factory nearby.
"It's unfortunate the news about Firefly, because we all need these vehicles to work" – Brad Schneider, Rocket Lab, at @WSBR_events
"For all these vehicles, rate is essential...Without rate, you can't get the price people are looking for." @virgingalactic's Rich Dalbello
Vector & Virgin Galactic counting on customers to pay more per kilogram for schedule certainty and a better ride. #WSBR
Garvey: Vector still debating whether minimum launch rate is 12x or 24x a year. #WSBR
Garvey: Vector can stay alive on 12 launches a year. Schneider: Rocket Lab "will survive on well less than 12 a year." #WSBR
Schneider: Rocket Lab "will survive on well less than 12 a year." #WSBR
RL flight rate may well exceed 12 given lack of near term competition. VG is closest and they are year at least behind, even when operational maybe totally committed with OneWeb for while.
Schneider: Rocket Lab "will survive on well less than 12 a year." #WSBR
Schneider is correct. I think the economics work out operating profitable (ie., ignoring prior investment) at about 4-6 launches per annum at their cost/price level. I think RL have been very smart in managing costs, and esp. staff costs, in a way Firefly was not. Can you imagine what RL did/would do with $19M? That is probably around one year of cashflow at full operating capacity.
An update from Carlos Niederstrasser and Warren Frick of Orbital ATK who did the original survey that kicked off this thread, on ParabolicArc
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/10/03/plethora-small-sat-launchers/
Nope, Vector is right there in the first table. There is even an acknowledgement at the end to you all.
And by 'acknowledgement to you all' i meant that NasaSpaceFlight.com forum member contributions are mentionedNope, Vector is right there in the first table. There is even an acknowledgement at the end to you all.
I'm not with Vector. But my eyesight is going with age apparently.
Still missing a couple to my knowledge.
Time for an update on technologies that indicate that a project is not going anywhere:
Hydrogen Peroxide oxidizer
Blue Origin started with hydrogen peroxide. That is a good counter example at the company level, but it is also an example of a project with H2O2 going nowhere. You should note that BE-1 and BE-2 were discontinued, with BE-3 and BE-4 using LOx as the oxidizer. They switched for a reason. (H2O2 is not fun to work with)Time for an update on technologies that indicate that a project is not going anywhere:
Hydrogen Peroxide oxidizer
So you're saying the NSLV from Norway and Gilmour Space Technologies from Australia are going nowhere, even though they have tested engines using H2O2? That's pretty pessimistic!
Couldn't find Expace on the list.
http://spacenews.com/new-chinese-commercial-launch-company-advertises-high-launch-rate-low-price/
www.asianscientist.com/2016/09/columns/final-frontiers-expace-chinas-version-spacex-casic/
Blue Origin started with hydrogen peroxide. That is a good counter example at the company level, but it is also an example of a project with H2O2 going nowhere. You should note that BE-1 and BE-2 were discontinued, with BE-3 and BE-4 using LOx as the oxidizer. They switched for a reason. (H2O2 is not fun to work with).
What the world needs now is a generic/universal kick stage for a small launcher, to be able to propel very small payloads beyond LEO.Or a small electric upperstage for orbit manuver, distribute one constellation in one launch.
This is not a debatable issue, I am just following history. If someone uses XX technology, and it works, great, that technology gets taken off the list.
But if a technology has a 0 percent success rate in commercial rocketry, then it stays on the list.
If you think a company using that technology is going to succeed, then I invite you to invest in them, subject to applicable law, and the likelihood that you will lose your money.
What the world needs now is a generic/universal kick stage for a small launcher, to be able to propel very small payloads beyond LEO.
This is in the scale of satellite RCS:What the world needs now is a generic/universal kick stage for a small launcher, to be able to propel very small payloads beyond LEO.
At that scale what propulsion technology works with sufficient isp? Electric pump fed hypergolics maybe?
But if a technology has a 0 percent success rate in commercial rocketry, then it stays on the list.
I'm not posting direct links to sources, but the European projects don't want to ship >85%H2O2.
or other non cryogenic hydrocarbon) and LOx-LNG/Methane have no temp. difference.
So no chance on a SpaceX static test scenario.
I had also considered if peroxide could be used as a monopropellant thruster, but I am not sure if there is a good way to keep high concentration peroxide stable enough for a long duration mission.
I had also considered if peroxide could be used as a monopropellant thruster, but I am not sure if there is a good way to keep high concentration peroxide stable enough for a long duration mission.
My understanding is that if you can keep the peroxide below 5 C and above its freezing point, that the decomposition rate falls to zero.
@Danderman:
Your over looking there are currently new technologies coming to market.
I'm not posting direct links to sources, but the European projects don't want to ship >85%H2O2.
In my opinion HTP is a good replacement for hydrazine.
This is not a debatable issue, I am just following history. If someone uses XX technology, and it works, great, that technology gets taken off the list.
But if a technology has a 0 percent success rate in commercial rocketry, then it stays on the list.
If you think a company using that technology is going to succeed, then I invite you to invest in them, subject to applicable law, and the likelihood that you will lose your money.
What commercial firms have launched successfully using H2O2 as an oxidizer?Blue Origin, with Goddard and PM-2.
What commercial firms have launched successfully using H2O2 as an oxidizer?Blue Origin, with Goddard and PM-2.
Lin Industrial has got an explosion during their peroxide engine test a couple of days ago. One person was wounded.
Couldn't find Expace on the list.
http://spacenews.com/new-chinese-commercial-launch-company-advertises-high-launch-rate-low-price/
www.asianscientist.com/2016/09/columns/final-frontiers-expace-chinas-version-spacex-casic/
This is a ICBM derivative, Not really commercial.
Here is another company that started with H2O2 and will probably discontinue:Lin Industrial has got an explosion during their peroxide engine test a couple of days ago. One person was wounded.
A Danish company has purchased a launch on a small Chinese vehicle.
Gomspace signed a contract with Chinese company Landspace for the launch of a cluster of small satellites on a Landspace-1 rocket in 2018. The privately developed Landspace-1 is expected to make its first launch later this year or in 2018. [Xinhua]
It's in use commercially. I'd say it's worth considering for small vehicles. For big rockets, you might as well go with LOx.
Peroxide costs more if you buy it by the multiple ton than oxygen does, but peroxide is cheaper if you're just using a few liters here and there since it sticks around...
That really depends. A nanosat launcher may only use a couple tons, and initial tests can be done with a few dozen liters. If you're shooting for just the Karman Line, then you don't even need a ton.Peroxide costs more if you buy it by the multiple ton than oxygen does, but peroxide is cheaper if you're just using a few liters here and there since it sticks around...
I think a reasonable argument is that a few liters here and there doesn't make you a credible project to go to space, never-mind orbit.
If you aren't setting up to handle and use at least tens of tons of propellant on a regular basis, you aren't going to space anyway.
It absolutely does make a practical difference. Peroxide stores for a long time. LOx doesn't, needs to be replenished constantly. Because of surface area to volume ratio, this is more significant for larger vehicles. Thermal concerns are less of an issue for bigger vehicles.
Peroxide was used by Unreasonable Rocket's Blue Ball for the NGLLC, and did quite well considering it was basically a garage project.
Peroxide costs more if you buy it by the multiple ton than oxygen does, but peroxide is cheaper if you're just using a few liters here and there since it sticks around.
With peroxide, you can start with a mono prop for testing and graduate to a biprop. I just don't think you'd bother doing that for a large vehicle, so you don't get that advantage.
Again, I definitely think peroxide looks more interesting if you're building a smaller vehicle.
Shooting for just the Karman Line need tons too, for repeative ground testing (troubleshooting, engine reliability qualification, GNC and hovering). Suppose as small as 100kg each time.That really depends. A nanosat launcher may only use a couple tons, and initial tests can be done with a few dozen liters. If you're shooting for just the Karman Line, then you don't even need a ton.Peroxide costs more if you buy it by the multiple ton than oxygen does, but peroxide is cheaper if you're just using a few liters here and there since it sticks around...
I think a reasonable argument is that a few liters here and there doesn't make you a credible project to go to space, never-mind orbit.
If you aren't setting up to handle and use at least tens of tons of propellant on a regular basis, you aren't going to space anyway.
The Soyuz rocket uses peroxide today to drive turbopumps, and uses peroxide as a mono propellant on the capsule.Peroxide turbopump is a wise choice for small rockets, simpler gas generator system and no char pollution problem of kerosene gas generator (more severe on small scale).
It's in use commercially. I'd say it's worth considering for small vehicles. For big rockets, you might as well go with LOx.
Shooting for just the Karman Line need tons too, for repeative ground testing (troubleshooting, engine reliability qualification, GNC and hovering). Suppose as small as 100kg each time.Exactly. Nobody's going to space before they have burnt tens tons of propellant and hopefully very few facilities in the process.
The minimium may be the CSXT , ~200kg each launch a few times, total propellant cost around a couple of tons including ground tests.Shooting for just the Karman Line need tons too, for repeative ground testing (troubleshooting, engine reliability qualification, GNC and hovering). Suppose as small as 100kg each time.Exactly. Nobody's going to space before they have burnt tens tons of propellant and hopefully very few facilities in the process.
Solids are simpler and require less testing even when build in house. Its rather strange that most new emerging small launcher projects leaps to liquids, not solids.Idk but Super Strypi and SS-520 didn't do a good job of persuading people otherwise.
Where did this idea come from that there can only be One True Way to do everything?It absolutely does make a practical difference. Peroxide stores for a long time. LOx doesn't, needs to be replenished constantly. Because of surface area to volume ratio, this is more significant for larger vehicles. Thermal concerns are less of an issue for bigger vehicles.
Peroxide was used by Unreasonable Rocket's Blue Ball for the NGLLC, and did quite well considering it was basically a garage project.
Peroxide costs more if you buy it by the multiple ton than oxygen does, but peroxide is cheaper if you're just using a few liters here and there since it sticks around.
With peroxide, you can start with a mono prop for testing and graduate to a biprop. I just don't think you'd bother doing that for a large vehicle, so you don't get that advantage.
Again, I definitely think peroxide looks more interesting if you're building a smaller vehicle.
It's interesting then that Rocketlab (for one) don't agree with you. :)
As QG said, storing large qualities of peroxide is more costly than just getting LOX trucked in, if you have the option. There are OH&S issues with both, but as I posted, at end of the day if you can't get HTP anyplace nearby (we can't even buy RP1 - that has to be imported from the USA at horrendous $$ per liter!) then you really need to find an alternative... and air is everywhere.
Where did this idea come from that there can only be One True Way to do everything?
I like peroxide for the non-cryogenic simplicity, and the small batch advantages, and for the not-having-to-explain-why-you-want-LOX-in-Australia ease, but that's about it.
It's interesting then that Rocketlab (for one) don't agree with you. :)
L-4S modified from sounding rocket succeed in the 1970s.Solids are simpler and require less testing even when build in house. Its rather strange that most new emerging small launcher projects leaps to liquids, not solids.Idk but Super Strypi and SS-520 didn't do a good job of persuading people otherwise.
Of course, if you recover liquid engines, you could fuel them up fairly easily and fly again. For solids, you might as well build a new motor because reuse doesn't save money.From the SLS thread, which was going off topic.
That's why I think many companies are pursuing liquid engines. Combined with the fact that a much greater degree of control is possible with liquids and performance is significantly higher (Isp and mass fraction). For a solid rocket, you need more stages, and you need a final liquid stage anyway if you want anything like a precision orbital insertion (which most payloads want).
Of course, if you recover liquid engines, you could fuel them up fairly easily and fly again. For solids, you might as well build a new motor because reuse doesn't save money.From the SLS thread, which was going off topic.
That's why I think many companies are pursuing liquid engines. Combined with the fact that a much greater degree of control is possible with liquids and performance is significantly higher (Isp and mass fraction). For a solid rocket, you need more stages, and you need a final liquid stage anyway if you want anything like a precision orbital insertion (which most payloads want).
Expanding on this:
Look at Pegasus. It's 3 solid stages and a small liquid stage to null out the dispersion from the previous stages. Even though it's air-launched. To get it launched from the ground, you'd need another solid stage, like Taurus. So you're up to 5 stages, all of them with different combustion characteristics due to different chamber sizes, etc. and the last one (which is optional but a necessary for most payloads) is liquid anyway.
Even if solids are easier (they kind of are), the overall rocket needs 5 stages with a whole bunch of staging events and different tests needed on each. That's very complicated and likely to fail. Pegasus has a decent reliability, but it didn't start that way.
With liquids, you can use just two stages. And you can cluster, allowing you to use the same engine for both stages (although long-term, you'd probably be encouraged to change the upper stage for optimal performance).
Heck, you can even do it with a single stage if you have a pump fed engine of high performance. Probably a better approach would be like the Russians did with R7/Sputnik:
Parallel stages with everything using the same engine type and everything lit on the ground. Surprised no one has taken that approach, since it seems easiest to test. I think I'd take that approach if I were developing a LEO nanosat launcher. Atlas (the original) was similar, but just staged off the engines (which is more complicated than the R7 approach and also requires really good tank mass fraction).
Of course, if you recover liquid engines, you could fuel them up fairly easily and fly again. For solids, you might as well build a new motor because reuse doesn't save money.From the SLS thread, which was going off topic.
That's why I think many companies are pursuing liquid engines. Combined with the fact that a much greater degree of control is possible with liquids and performance is significantly higher (Isp and mass fraction). For a solid rocket, you need more stages, and you need a final liquid stage anyway if you want anything like a precision orbital insertion (which most payloads want).
Expanding on this:
Look at Pegasus. It's 3 solid stages and a small liquid stage to null out the dispersion from the previous stages. Even though it's air-launched. To get it launched from the ground, you'd need another solid stage, like Taurus. So you're up to 5 stages, all of them with different combustion characteristics due to different chamber sizes, etc. and the last one (which is optional but a necessary for most payloads) is liquid anyway.
Even if solids are easier (they kind of are), the overall rocket needs 5 stages with a whole bunch of staging events and different tests needed on each. That's very complicated and likely to fail. Pegasus has a decent reliability, but it didn't start that way.
With liquids, you can use just two stages. And you can cluster, allowing you to use the same engine for both stages (although long-term, you'd probably be encouraged to change the upper stage for optimal performance).
Heck, you can even do it with a single stage if you have a pump fed engine of high performance. Probably a better approach would be like the Russians did with R7/Sputnik:
Parallel stages with everything using the same engine type and everything lit on the ground. Surprised no one has taken that approach, since it seems easiest to test. I think I'd take that approach if I were developing a LEO nanosat launcher. Atlas (the original) was similar, but just staged off the engines (which is more complicated than the R7 approach and also requires really good tank mass fraction).
OTRAG?
I like peroxide for the non-cryogenic simplicity, and the small batch advantages, and for the not-having-to-explain-why-you-want-LOX-in-Australia ease, but that's about it.
You also need to explain why you need HTP in Australia, as its a chemical also used in drug making.
I like peroxide for the non-cryogenic simplicity, and the small batch advantages, and for the not-having-to-explain-why-you-want-LOX-in-Australia ease, but that's about it.
You also need to explain why you need HTP in Australia, as its a chemical also used in drug making.
Mates and I have bought tons of it without trouble. LOX is a game of 20 questions with "no" at the end.
Mates and I have bought tons of it without trouble. LOX is a game of 20 questions with "no" at the end.
That's pretty remarkable. Here in the States, I've purchased (pre 9/11) 40K lbm of 70% H2O2 (and then raised it to 85% using a wiped film vacuum distillation setup). All of that went though our Roton tip thrusters. LOX is trivially easy to get in tanker truck lots here, provided it goes into a vendor approved Dewar.
That's pretty remarkable.
3 solid stages +1 liquid stage from ground launch is OK, use a bigger first stage. The SS-520-4 have only 3stages. (Talking about its failure is unfair, no commercial launcher company reach orbit on maiden flight, even Pegasus and Falcon1).Of course, if you recover liquid engines, you could fuel them up fairly easily and fly again. For solids, you might as well build a new motor because reuse doesn't save money.From the SLS thread, which was going off topic.
That's why I think many companies are pursuing liquid engines. Combined with the fact that a much greater degree of control is possible with liquids and performance is significantly higher (Isp and mass fraction). For a solid rocket, you need more stages, and you need a final liquid stage anyway if you want anything like a precision orbital insertion (which most payloads want).
Expanding on this:
Look at Pegasus. It's 3 solid stages and a small liquid stage to null out the dispersion from the previous stages. Even though it's air-launched. To get it launched from the ground, you'd need another solid stage, like Taurus. So you're up to 5 stages, all of them with different combustion characteristics due to different chamber sizes, etc. and the last one (which is optional but a necessary for most payloads) is liquid anyway.
Even if solids are easier (they kind of are), the overall rocket needs 5 stages with a whole bunch of staging events and different tests needed on each. That's very complicated and likely to fail. Pegasus has a decent reliability, but it didn't start that way.
With liquids, you can use just two stages. And you can cluster, allowing you to use the same engine for both stages (although long-term, you'd probably be encouraged to change the upper stage for optimal performance).
Heck, you can even do it with a single stage if you have a pump fed engine of high performance. Probably a better approach would be like the Russians did with R7/Sputnik:
Parallel stages with everything using the same engine type and everything lit on the ground. Surprised no one has taken that approach, since it seems easiest to test. I think I'd take that approach if I were developing a LEO nanosat launcher. Atlas (the original) was similar, but just staged off the engines (which is more complicated than the R7 approach and also requires really good tank mass fraction).
Conestoga doesn't count, it was too cobbled together.Copying historical launcher is a good idea worthy of deep discussion. I would choose this route too.
I'm not saying it's the end-all, be-all approach, it's just the one I would try if I were to start a smallsat launcher company. And like R7, I'd probably go for a low-end turbopump as the initial approach (ask me 2 or 3 years ago, and I would've gone for pressurefed... but with metal 3d printing and the ability to do an electropump, I'd go that route... or possibly copy R7 again and use peroxide to drive the turbopump).
Mates and I have bought tons of it without trouble. LOX is a game of 20 questions with "no" at the end.
Mark Blair from the Australian Space Research Institute was able to get LOX for his Ausroc II vehicles in the 1990s.
Mark might be able to help you out.
That's pretty remarkable.
Just talked to my mate and he says "yes, but our process was horrible". Lots of wasted effort with sparging before moving to a evaporation process. He bought small quantities of 90% from a guy in Melbourne which was a lot cheaper (and better quality) than the 30% they were using to make 80%.
All of the rocket work I've seen Australians do with LOX has been at universities, where they just walk over to the chemistry building and ask for some. I'm sure if you had the money to throw around you could change the entire industry's attitude, but most amateurs don't have the clout. I've heard many stories about how easy it is to rent a dewar from one of our two industrial gas suppliers and get it filled with small amounts of LOX. I've personally discovered that getting the dewar is harder than they say, and they're much happier filling it with LN2 than LOX. At every stage they will say "what do you want it for?" If the answer is rockets, then nope, sorry. So you bend the truth and say it's for testing cryogenic fittings (well, it is!) and they say you only need LN2 for that. Apparently there's some welding process that uses LOX and they do most of their small batches for that, so if you can figure out those magic words they'll hand it over. Apparently the very big batches are either for medical use (good luck pretending to be a hospital) or for aquaculture. When you start looking up where to buy commercial fish raising equipment you know you've taken getting LOX too far.
Chemical regulation should not be major problem of small sat launcher companies. Except in house manufacture of APCP?Mark Blair from the Australian Space Research Institute was able to get LOX for his Ausroc II vehicles in the 1990s.
Ahh.. that pre-Sep-11 world.QuoteMark might be able to help you out.
Alas, I have reverted to less wholesome pursuits than rocketry. Fun to think about though.
Fish transporting trucks have LOX dewars onbord.
But how could you get a range for launch to space (even orbit) when getting a dewar of LOX is too dangerous?
So it is nearly worthless to care about availability issues for (supposed) small satellite launcher company situation. The company ought to afford BOTH LOX and HTP, if it could afford range and GNC for orbital launch.Fish transporting trucks have LOX dewars onbord.
But how could you get a range for launch to space (even orbit) when getting a dewar of LOX is too dangerous?
1. Throw money at the problem.
2. Bang your head against the wall until it cracks.
So it is nearly worthless to care about availability issues for (supposed) small satellite launcher company situation. The company ought to afford BOTH LOX and HTP, if it could afford range and GNC for orbital launch.
I am not sure Blue Origin's detailed reasons for moving on from hydrogen peroxide, whether it is related to performance, storage issues, or something else. What I do know is that a Blue Origin employee gave me the distinct impression that while they would keep their data on it in case they ever had a reason to go back, none of their forward plans involve H2O2.
I had also considered if peroxide could be used as a monopropellant thruster, but I am not sure if there is a good way to keep high concentration peroxide stable enough for a long duration mission.
A startup could either start with social networking and fundraising before going to development, or build a (BE-2 level) prototype with peroxide, for PR and fundraising, and discard it.So it is nearly worthless to care about availability issues for (supposed) small satellite launcher company situation. The company ought to afford BOTH LOX and HTP, if it could afford range and GNC for orbital launch.
When you live in a backwater you've gotta build your own roads.
Y'all realize that the R7 rocket family, which is BY FAR the world's most launched rocket (with 3 different launch sites) with over 1800 launches uses peroxide for the turbopumps, right?
Peroxide isn't that hard to get and isn't that hard to train people for. Same with LOx.
Expanding on this:
Look at Pegasus. It's 3 solid stages and a small liquid stage to null out the dispersion from the previous stages. Even though it's air-launched. To get it launched from the ground, you'd need another solid stage, like Taurus. So you're up to 5 stages, all of them with different combustion characteristics due to different chamber sizes, etc. and the last one (which is optional but a necessary for most payloads) is liquid anyway.
A startup could either start with social networking and fundraising before going to development, or build a (BE-2 level) prototype with peroxide, for PR and fundraising, and discard it.So it is nearly worthless to care about availability issues for (supposed) small satellite launcher company situation. The company ought to afford BOTH LOX and HTP, if it could afford range and GNC for orbital launch.
When you live in a backwater you've gotta build your own roads.
And later steps would go away from those minimal scale problems. They are painful steps but not core value of the project. Concerning too much on details loose focus on core value and doom the project.
And yet R7 continues to be operated and even recently expanded to use be the Europeans at their South American launch site.Y'all realize that the R7 rocket family, which is BY FAR the world's most launched rocket (with 3 different launch sites) with over 1800 launches uses peroxide for the turbopumps, right?
Peroxide isn't that hard to get and isn't that hard to train people for. Same with LOx.
R7 was designed for and operated by Red Army. Like torpedoes have had no problems burning peroxide either. Note that there are launch vehicles burning UDMH as well in more than one place, also hence apparently not that hard to get and train for.
Somewhat different constraints and rules for a new entrant trying to operate under modern regulatory environment and commercial supply chain.
Meh, there's also gasoline, propylene, ethylene, ethane, propane, and methane to name a few. I wouldn't limit it to just kerosene. I like that Vector is doing propylene (or was last time I checked). Higher Isp than RP-1, but much better density than methane.
Just for kicks, which New Space Launch companies are using hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizer, and which are using high performance solids?The first post of this thread has this answer.
It's worth noting that XCOR has tested rocket engines with kerosene, methane, isopropyl alcohol, and hydrogen as fuels.
It's worth noting that XCOR has tested rocket engines with kerosene, methane, isopropyl alcohol, and hydrogen as fuels.
We have also used nitrous oxide (as an oxidizer), ethane, propane, and a proprietary storable bipropellant combination. Personally, I am a fan of kerosene and LOX. Both are easy to get and easy to handle. I also think that kerosene coking issues are exaggerated. We have used it in reusable engines for years without issue.
Just for kicks, which New Space Launch companies are using hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizer, and which are using high performance solids?
But if you're building a new rocket with new engines, you ARE essentially reinventing the wheel already. So you might as well try do do a better job. And the flip side of "don't reinvent the wheel" is, if you're not doing anything different, how the heck do you propose to outcompete everyone else?
All solid designs have made orbit (Scout was pretty impressive on this score) and I've always wondered with better build methods and fuels if HTP or LOX could match the Isp of a fully solid stage.Just for kicks, which New Space Launch companies are using hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizer, and which are using high performance solids?
Gilmour Space Technologies here in Australia is using a hybrid motor with HTP.
https://www.facebook.com/gstpropulsion/?fref=nf
All solid designs have made orbit (Scout was pretty impressive on this score) and I've always wondered with better build methods and fuels if HTP or LOX could match the Isp of a fully solid stage.
Generally, LOX/RP-1 and HTP/RP-1 have better Isp than solids. However, only HTP/RP-1 has a better impulse density than solids. See my paper "High density liquid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle".I was posing the question in reference to the HTP Hybrid you mentioned Gilmour are working on.
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf
And the common incentive of failed exotic rockets before SpaceX ?But if you're building a new rocket with new engines, you ARE essentially reinventing the wheel already. So you might as well try do do a better job. And the flip side of "don't reinvent the wheel" is, if you're not doing anything different, how the heck do you propose to outcompete everyone else?
What a very good question.
Compare it to the struggle of SpaceShip2.Generally, LOX/RP-1 and HTP/RP-1 have better Isp than solids. However, only HTP/RP-1 has a better impulse density than solids. See my paper "High density liquid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle".I was posing the question in reference to the HTP Hybrid you mentioned Gilmour are working on.
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf
I recall AMROC felt they had a good shot at making orbit with a TSTO hybrid but that was with LOX. HTP sidesteps the issues with cryogenics and offers a pump drive medium as well as the possibility of a composite casing.
All good but IIRC their Isp was 10s of secs below solids.
As a side interest I've always wondered if a modern hybrid design (LOX or HTP) could the Shuttle SRB Isp without the safety issues. IIRC NASA said they could by switching to something like candle wax whose surface vaporized better, but I've no idea what happened to it.
SpaceX is interesting because they intentionally did pick a very basic rocket design. Kerolox, gas generator, aluminum alloy tanks, two stage, upper stage just a simple pressure fed kerolox engine. Then for F9, all they did is gang up a bunch of the first stage engines in a non-optimized grid pattern.And the common incentive of failed exotic rockets before SpaceX ?But if you're building a new rocket with new engines, you ARE essentially reinventing the wheel already. So you might as well try do do a better job. And the flip side of "don't reinvent the wheel" is, if you're not doing anything different, how the heck do you propose to outcompete everyone else?
What a very good question.
But if you're building a new rocket with new engines, you ARE essentially reinventing the wheel already. So you might as well try do do a better job. And the flip side of "don't reinvent the wheel" is, if you're not doing anything different, how the heck do you propose to outcompete everyone else?You innovate on business model, processes and procurement approach?
RL are trying few new technologies, fully 3D printed engines, electric turbopumps, composite tanks and stages. Automated manufacturing of tanks, not yet implemented as far as I know. Privately owned launch pad without launch restraints of government pads.But if you're building a new rocket with new engines, you ARE essentially reinventing the wheel already. So you might as well try do do a better job. And the flip side of "don't reinvent the wheel" is, if you're not doing anything different, how the heck do you propose to outcompete everyone else?You innovate on business model, processes and procurement approach?
VG are using 3D printed engines
I thought they were but not sure. Would be surprised if they didn't have high content of 3D printed parts.
VG are using 3D printed engines
I didn't know that, but that's really interesting. Those are quite big engines, are you sure they are printed?
I thought they were but not sure. Would be surprised if they didn't have high content of 3D printed parts.
VG are using 3D printed engines
I didn't know that, but that's really interesting. Those are quite big engines, are you sure they are printed?
I asked Whitesides about Virgin Galactic’s partnership with DMG MORI, a leading producer of machine tools who have developed a hybrid 3D printer that combines subtractive techniques, such as milling, with additive deposition via blown powder. “We’re a big believer in additive manufacturing, particularly in engine production,” he tells me.
We’re very proud to be working with DMG MORI. They have now produced what is called an additive and subtractive machine; it can form metal shapes [using an additive technique] and then change tools to take material out. [This process is often referred to as hybrid manufacturing] and that’s a very important thing because the [geometric] forms you get with additive metal manufacturing are not possible with a subtractive tool.
The CEO says Virgin Galactic’s “goal is to reduce the amount of time it takes to produce our engines from many months down to eventually weeks.” 3D printing will play an important role in this allowing them, “to essentially close the door on the machine we’ve purchased from DMG MORI and 2 or 3 weeks later open it and the engine comes out.”
Solids are simpler and require less testing even when build in house. Its rather strange that most new emerging small launcher projects leaps to liquids, not solids.
Handeling of AP oxidizer is simpler than Peroxide, while regulation issue is only slightly more difficult.
Handeling of AP oxidizer is simpler than Peroxide, while regulation issue is only slightly more difficult.
Not true on either statement
The video is impressive: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_KuGizBjDXoHandeling of AP oxidizer is simpler than Peroxide, while regulation issue is only slightly more difficult.
Not true on either statement
And when it goes wrong, it can really (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/30/us/fire-destroys-part-of-mx-missile-plant-and-kills-4.html) go (http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/26/us/morton-thiokol-rocket-unit-is-destroyed-by-blast-in-utah.html) wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEPCON_disaster).
The present Australian government is "receptive" to reviewing and (hopefully!) repealing the Space Act Agreement....!
The present Australian government is "receptive" to reviewing and (hopefully!) repealing the Space Act Agreement....!
What is the Space Act Agreement?
The present Australian government is "receptive" to reviewing and (hopefully!) repealing the Space Act Agreement....!
What is the Space Act Agreement?
I think he means the Space Activities Act (correct me if I'm wrong), which biggest flaw is that it predates the cubesat and small launch vehicle revolution.
http://tinyurl.com/h2vddhq
I think he means the Space Activities Act (correct me if I'm wrong), which biggest flaw is that it predates the cubesat and small launch vehicle revolution.Smallsats revolution is clearly happening, but this thread here is tracking the rapid non-happening of small launch vehicle revolution.
FWIW, Gilmour Space Technologies have a stand at the Avalon Airshow (Hall 2 Stand F24) all this week. I walked past yesterday on the way to a meeting (work takes priority) but they were busy talking to other folks and by the time I got back (after 5pm) they'd closed shop for the day and headed for the beer tent.
If anyone else is going to the Airshow, perhaps they can report back here on how they're going?
EDIT: The F-22 Raptor display was really cool to watch and the pilots great to talk to (gotta love that Yankee drawl).. but that's a subject for a different forum.
FWIW, Gilmour Space Technologies have a stand at the Avalon Airshow (Hall 2 Stand F24) all this week. I walked past yesterday on the way to a meeting (work takes priority) but they were busy talking to other folks and by the time I got back (after 5pm) they'd closed shop for the day and headed for the beer tent.
If anyone else is going to the Airshow, perhaps they can report back here on how they're going?
EDIT: The F-22 Raptor display was really cool to watch and the pilots great to talk to (gotta love that Yankee drawl).. but that's a subject for a different forum.
FWIW if someone's in Down Under maybe the Chinese institutions are worth a look too - I know that CALT has a booth at the Avalon Airshow and their Long March 11 would fit in nicely in this thread (already flight proven twice too). ;)
- Moonspike became Orbex http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/23/orbex-reveals-rocket-factory/
Sounds like they are more than powerpoint rocket company.- Moonspike became Orbex http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/23/orbex-reveals-rocket-factory/
Hmmm... I wonder if they're still pursuing cheap turbopumps.
After 2 years of testing, the European rocket company PLD Space has concluded the first sets of testing of their liquid rocket engine.
TEPREL Demo engine, was a calorimetric engine intended to demonstrate combustion stability as well as to acquire relevant information such as ignition and shut-down sequences, pressures and temperatures along the engine, thrust and propellant mass flow rates at different thrust profiles. Additionally, the engine served to test all associated hardware and software at PLD Space propulsion test facilities.
The company has posted a new video in its Youtube channel, as a tribute of those two years of engine testing. The company shows in the video this engineering and testing development focused on the startup and shut-down of the engine, the combustion stability and increase of thrust. During two years of optimizing the injection system, the company has increased the thrust of the engine from the initial value of 25kN to the current thrust of 32 kN at sea level.
TEPREL (Acronym for Spanish Launchers Propulsion Technology) testing program started in June 2015 and after dozens of tests at PLD Space´s facilities located at Teruel Airport, the company is now ready to face the next technical challenge, testing the regeneratively cooled engine called TEPREL-A.
TEPREL-A is a KeroLOX engine that will work nearly 2 minutes at full power, producing 32 kN at Sea Level, enough thrust to launch ARION 1 suborbital launcher into space.
PLD Space expect to perform this regeneratively cooled engine testing by next month. The new engine will help to close the design loop of the first flight qualification rocket engine that will boost ARION 1 test vehicle. This first test flight is currently planned for late 2018.
PARIS — As many as 50 small satellites awaiting launch this year will remain grounded because of a lack of suitable launch-service options, and many that find a launch will end up in less-than-ideal operating orbits, according to Britain’s Satellite Applications Catapult Ltd.
But in what may be a confirmation of markets’ tendency to overreact, the Catapult’s survey found more than 50 rockets dedicated to small-satellite launches now under development
Four Japanese firms from different industries are planning to set up a company to develop next-generation rockets for launching small satellites.
The use of small satellites for communications and observation purposes is spreading in the United States and other countries. Some start-up companies in Japan have launched efforts to develop rockets for launching small satellites at low costs.
Industry sources say Canon Electronics, IHI Aerospace, Shimizu Corporation and the Development Bank of Japan, or DBJ, plan to launch a firm to develop next-generation mini rockets.
Both Canon and IHI have been developing satellites. Shimizu is a major construction firm and the DBJ is a government-affiliated financial institution.
The sources say the new company will aim to enter the microsatellite launching business, whose market is projected to grow globally.
The 4 companies are reportedly hoping to gather their know-how in rocket development and put the new firm into operation soon.
Japan's space industry is lagging behind that of the US and other countries.
A law was enacted last November to encourage private companies to enter the industry.
The new company will be founded on Wednesday with capital of 200 million yen ($1.8 million). Canon Electronics will take a 70% stake. The three other parties will have stakes of 10%.
The business is not expected to get underway until at least the end of fiscal 2017. When it does begin operating, it will try to meet some of the surging demand to carry small satellites into space with a small, low-cost rocket.
The partners plan to develop the rocket using technology from the SS-520 minirocket owned by JAXA, Japan's space agency.
Cubecab doesn't have a dedicated thread here, and it appears for a good reason.Well I think his estimate about stuff having an orbital lifetime of 25 years at 400Km is low, given the estimate for Propero (at 500Km) is more like a century.
TRMO interview with Adrian Tymes, the CEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBbpAYARI8?t=1678
I'm halfway through and absolutely nothing about this sounds even remotely credible
Not an expert on this, but the 25 years at 400km vs ca. 100 years at 500km seems entirely believable to me. Keep in mind that orbital decay is basically an exponential thing - the lower your orbit is, the more atmosphere to slow you down and the more atmosphere there is, the faster you will be losing orbital altitude.Cubecab doesn't have a dedicated thread here, and it appears for a good reason.Well I think his estimate about stuff having an orbital lifetime of 25 years at 400Km is low, given the estimate for Propero (at 500Km) is more like a century.
TRMO interview with Adrian Tymes, the CEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBbpAYARI8?t=1678
I'm halfway through and absolutely nothing about this sounds even remotely credible
They also seem to be planning to use an F104 Starfighter for the first stage. I'm surprised any of them is still in flying order, although obviously if they can get to closer to M2 than M1 that would be a significant improvement on the size of the nozzle. Of course that's a pretty high lb/$ 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.Cubecab doesn't have a dedicated thread here, and it appears for a good reason.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.
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
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. :(
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. :(
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.
Ripple: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
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?
Ripple:Bigger problem I see is the values listed for maxQ, might be just a typo, but there is no way that speed is right.
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?
Ripple:Underwater ignition has been demonstrated plenty of times. See Seabee and Sea Horse.
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?
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.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.
https://rippleaerospace.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uED70pPkqlA
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.This all sounds vaguely familiar...
https://rippleaerospace.com/
Ripple:Bigger problem I see is the values listed for maxQ, might be just a typo, but there is no way that speed is right.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Lots of Soviet Union SLBM ignite pumpfed liquid engines underwater, with no problem.Ripple:Underwater ignition has been demonstrated plenty of times. See Seabee and Sea Horse.
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 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.
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.
Lots of Soviet Union SLBM ignite pumpfed liquid engines underwater, with no problem.So not an issue in the FSU, and therefore in principal solvable elsewhere.
Getting out of water is harder, with large dynamic forces disturbing GNC. Modern GNC software may solve it easier, north Korea have SLBM now.Given the UUSR was prepared to have a significant fraction of their ICBM fleet sea launched I think they solved it as well. Not to mention the semi-commercial ROKOT launches, from a re-purposed SLBM.
More problem occurs on reliability, assembling/testing/debugging, scrub after filling propellants, etc.I'd suggest it's more a different set than a more extensive set. I'd also note Russian liquid fuel SLBMs used the highly toxic NTO/UDMH combination. These are liquids with exposure limits on the same ROM as nerve gases, and need full body suits, like nerve gases, to be handled. :( That may be acceptable to the military but is deeply unwise in any kind of commercially funded LV design.
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.Maybe not, but this is not actually an SLBM, it's a big rocket that seems to be relying on the density of sea water to allow them to build a big rocket and then move it afterward. There are very substantial differences.
Better to start the BDB concept on launchpad first and move to sea later, instead of combining two risky attempt together.Not really. The ConOps is so different you might as well develop the whole process as you go. It also means you've fixed a problem in test that would have occurred in an actual launch, rather than it being due to the test conditions being different from an actual launch.
Without launchpad, the vehicle have to integrate certain functions of launchpad inside, and assembling / tesing on launchpad becomes impossible.Keep in mind there will be at least one ship towing this and SeaLaunch managed to successfully launch from floating platforms.
I'd assumed that the number was referring to a sub-sync GTO or something, so I didn't comment on it. That number on the diagram should be the final speed after losses, I am not sure how anyone could be expected to interpret it differently. If it is what you suggest, and it is listing the final rocket delta-V, it calls into question every number on the diagram, because if they did a simulation or calculations to get the rest of the numbers, they should have a real estimate for final velocity as well.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.
Also, I am not sure why they have a different altitude listed for "equatorial" is that supposed to represent the performance boost if it launched from the equator?
“I think it’s a function of time,” Bruno said. “Initially, they will begin and they will try and service the small satellite launch market. But as that becomes a real market, that attracts the rest of us. I think the real economics will favor rideshares as a solution so then it flips to the other side.”
Wow, who would have thought ?A dedicated small LV means smallsat gets delivered direct to its target orbit so doesn't need any extra DV. In case of rideshare typically main payload will not be going to smallsats target orbit. So additional DV will be required.
http://spacenews.com/big-launch-companies-predict-doom-for-upcoming-smallsat-launchers/Quote“I think it’s a function of time,” Bruno said. “Initially, they will begin and they will try and service the small satellite launch market. But as that becomes a real market, that attracts the rest of us. I think the real economics will favor rideshares as a solution so then it flips to the other side.”
Notably absent from the panel were anyone trying to build a smallsat launcher, Shotwell's Falcon 1 saga notwithstanding
A dedicated small LV means smallsat gets delivered direct to its target orbit so doesn't need any extra DV. In case of rideshare typically main payload will not be going to smallsats target orbit. So additional DV will be required.In an ELV it will be expended anyway.
Option 1) Use 2t US to deliver 50kg smallsat to target orbit after main mission. Not very efficient use of expensive US.
2) Use space tug eg Spacefight Services Sherpa. More efficient but definitely not free.Is anyone proposing to launch payloads on a smallsat LV for free?
3) Add extra propulsion to smallsat which adds costs. Launch by small LV is now an expensive option as smallsat is heavier and more expensive.Depends on mission.
Rideshare reduces launch opportunities, look at delays with Spaceflight Services dedicated F9 launch.That's an interesting one. Some say Ariane 5's problem is that it could launch 2 max size comm sats that was fairly easy to schedule. Now they've grown it's 1 full size and 1 medium size. IOW A5 would be fine if the people doing the developing had upgraded it's payload at the right time.
While initially ELV, small LV companies will most likely move to reuseable LVs to be more responsive and lower launch costs. They may start to grow and threaten lower end of main stream launch market.Do you have any references for that?
If SX "moved" to a (semi) reusable LV by ending production of their small LV and moving to a much bigger one, production of F1 should be discontinued AFTER success recovery of F9, instead of many years earlier.A dedicated small LV means smallsat gets delivered direct to its target orbit so doesn't need any extra DV. In case of rideshare typically main payload will not be going to smallsats target orbit. So additional DV will be required.In an ELV it will be expended anyway.
Option 1) Use 2t US to deliver 50kg smallsat to target orbit after main mission. Not very efficient use of expensive US.Quote from: TrevorMonty2) Use space tug eg Spacefight Services Sherpa. More efficient but definitely not free.Is anyone proposing to launch payloads on a smallsat LV for free?Quote from: TrevorMonty3) Add extra propulsion to smallsat which adds costs. Launch by small LV is now an expensive option as smallsat is heavier and more expensive.Depends on mission.Quote from: TrevorMontyRideshare reduces launch opportunities, look at delays with Spaceflight Services dedicated F9 launch.That's an interesting one. Some say Ariane 5's problem is that it could launch 2 max size comm sats that was fairly easy to schedule. Now they've grown it's 1 full size and 1 medium size. IOW A5 would be fine if the people doing the developing had upgraded it's payload at the right time.
OTOH FH is expected to be all ride share for comm sats. So how many will need to get together to do that?
Can the US deliver the necessary delta V to spread them out across the sky?Quote from: TrevorMontyWhile initially ELV, small LV companies will most likely move to reuseable LVs to be more responsive and lower launch costs. They may start to grow and threaten lower end of main stream launch market.Do you have any references for that?
If you're thinking of SX they "moved" to a (semi) reusable LV by ending production of their small LV and moving to a much bigger one. Doing it on an F1 would mean needing to throttle down 90-95% on landing. There are valves rated at 99:1 throttling, but the pressure loss through the injectors is a major PITA.
Australian company Equatorial Launch Australia is looking to set up a launch site in the Northern Territory. They already have a US$10,000 contract from NASA (I believe this is for launching suborbital payloads). The launch site is to be called the "Arnhem Space Centre".
https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/235m-plan-launch-space-industry-nt/3203973/
https://www.facebook.com/equatoriallaunchaustralia/
Apart from funding, two key issues for ELA involve security of land tenure and the demand for service.Apparently the ability to build an orbital rocket is not in dispute. It must be quite easy.
NASA and the Defence Department appear likely clients, although a number of private companies including SpaceX, Rocket Lab, Virgin Galactic and Vector Space could also create demand.How do SpaceX, RL, and VG "create demand"? RL and VG will fulfill demand, orbital and sub-orbital, respectively, and well before any new start-ups.
The site provides a commercial advantage, given the proposed facilities would be 12 degrees from the equator.No it doesn't.
The proximity to the equator lowers the launch costs by up to 50 per cent.
The suborbital market is said to be worth US$2 billion and is concentrated in the US.That valuation is far from proven, although the latter part is probably true. Most of the suborbital money comes from NASA, and if it ever hits billions, which is highly unlikely, it won't be spent in overseas, never mind the NT.
Re: Space Ops Australia
....
It does pretty much rule out polar orbits, which is a big part of any orbital launch market.
Is it possible that these people are sincere in believing that they will be a successful and competitive launch provider?
Re: Space Ops Australia
I think you mean ELA - not SOA..
You are correct.
So many of these popping up. Steven has his work cut out just posting links to them all.
“I believe we’ve lost five launches in two years,” Barna said of the company’s overall efforts to launch its cubesat constellation. “We’ve been bumped to other launches just as many times because of failures or delays, or just because the primary customer asked. If you haven’t consciously built an entire infrastructure around the flexibility to move launches, absorb delays and cancellations, and even adapt to geopolitical and regulatory challenges, then you just aren’t prepared to launch a satellite constellation.”
Quite possible.. with Rio Tinto pulling out it seems the locals are keen for something (anything!) to happen and hence are right behind the proposal - plus they have a $10,000 grant from NASA, right? ::)
EDIT: What I find extraordinary is an apparent (to me anyways) sudden upsurge in interest in commercial launch from down under. Is the government, dormant for so long, finally waking up? Or is it just because IAC2017 is on next week in Adelaide?
In other news, for those touting rideshare as solution to all smallsat launch needsI can understand why they were dropped from Minotaur, no commercial payloads allowed.
http://spacenews.com/minotaur-4s-canceled-commercial-cubesat-rideshares-could-spark-policy-changes/Quote“I believe we’ve lost five launches in two years,” Barna said of the company’s overall efforts to launch its cubesat constellation. “We’ve been bumped to other launches just as many times because of failures or delays, or just because the primary customer asked. If you haven’t consciously built an entire infrastructure around the flexibility to move launches, absorb delays and cancellations, and even adapt to geopolitical and regulatory challenges, then you just aren’t prepared to launch a satellite constellation.”
In other news, for those touting rideshare as solution to all smallsat launch needs
http://spacenews.com/minotaur-4s-canceled-commercial-cubesat-rideshares-could-spark-policy-changes/Quote“I believe we’ve lost five launches in two years,” Barna said of the company’s overall efforts to launch its cubesat constellation. “We’ve been bumped to other launches just as many times because of failures or delays, or just because the primary customer asked. If you haven’t consciously built an entire infrastructure around the flexibility to move launches, absorb delays and cancellations, and even adapt to geopolitical and regulatory challenges, then you just aren’t prepared to launch a satellite constellation.”
Wow, who would have thought ?A dedicated small LV means smallsat gets delivered direct to its target orbit so doesn't need any extra DV. In case of rideshare typically main payload will not be going to smallsats target orbit. So additional DV will be required.
http://spacenews.com/big-launch-companies-predict-doom-for-upcoming-smallsat-launchers/Quote“I think it’s a function of time,” Bruno said. “Initially, they will begin and they will try and service the small satellite launch market. But as that becomes a real market, that attracts the rest of us. I think the real economics will favor rideshares as a solution so then it flips to the other side.”
Notably absent from the panel were anyone trying to build a smallsat launcher, Shotwell's Falcon 1 saga notwithstanding
Option 1) Use 2t US to deliver 50kg smallsat to target orbit after main mission. Not very efficient use of expensive US.
2) Use space tug eg Spacefight Services Sherpa. More efficient but definitely not free.
3) Add extra propulsion to smallsat which adds costs. Launch by small LV is now an expensive option as smallsat is heavier and more expensive.
Rideshare reduces launch opportunities, look at delays with Spaceflight Services dedicated F9 launch.
While initially ELV, small LV companies will most likely move to reuseable LVs to be more responsive and lower launch costs. They may start to grow and threaten lower end of main stream launch market.
In other news, for those touting rideshare as solution to all smallsat launch needs
http://spacenews.com/minotaur-4s-canceled-commercial-cubesat-rideshares-could-spark-policy-changes/Quote“I believe we’ve lost five launches in two years,” Barna said of the company’s overall efforts to launch its cubesat constellation. “We’ve been bumped to other launches just as many times because of failures or delays, or just because the primary customer asked. If you haven’t consciously built an entire infrastructure around the flexibility to move launches, absorb delays and cancellations, and even adapt to geopolitical and regulatory challenges, then you just aren’t prepared to launch a satellite constellation.”
Australia will create its own space agency in an attempt to cash in on a $420 billion aeronautical industry and create thousands of new jobs.
The Federal Government will detail the long-term plans at the 68th International Astronautical Congress in Adelaide, where the Opposition will also reveal its own plan.
Probably deserves it's own thread in General section.
I had a look at their website (http://spinlaunch.com/) and it's nothing but a login screen. However, looking at the page source, the login screen is fake. They didn't even make it, it's a wordpress plugin;https://wordpress.org/plugins/fake-login-area/
Looks like a new startup founded by two SpaceX alumni:
Abl Space Systems
https://www.ablspacesystems.com/
650kg to LEO, 420kg to SSO on their RS-1 launch vehicle. 1st launch in 2021.
I would. IMO this is very exciting, the more the better. We have a second wave of companies basically being founded, with learnings from all the failings of the first ones, it will only improve how these businesses are set up in terms of team structure, suppliers, revenue models etc. I'm also liking the chances of one of them actually delivering a viable product/service, because its far from a done deal.
Do you think there is room for all of them?No of course not. Out of the 20 or more out there, only 1-2 maybe will work.
Spacex, ULA, both with smallsat offers; Spaceflight hoovering up the small payloads into deidcated Falcon 9 launches; Virgin Orbit, who have OneWeb sewn up; Rocket Lab, who are the closest of any of them to operations, lokcing up lots of the small piecemeal sats
Do you think there is room for all of them?No of course not. Out of the 20 or more out there, only 1-2 maybe will work.
At stage it is looking like RL and Virgin are only serious contenders in this race. Both are well fund and have launch facilities sorted, airplane in Virgin's case.
Boeing's XS1 is in different class but launch price should be competitive with Virgin.
I would. IMO this is very exciting, the more the better. We have a second wave of companies basically being founded, with learnings from all the failings of the first ones, it will only improve how these businesses are set up in terms of team structure, suppliers, revenue models etc. I'm also liking the chances of one of them actually delivering a viable product/service, because its far from a done deal.Probably more like the 3rd or 4th.
XS1 is funded, funding of other smallsat LVs is vague in lot of cases. Vector has good PR program but I don't know if they have money to complete a LV and setup production facitilities.At stage it is looking like RL and Virgin are only serious contenders in this race. Both are well fund and have launch facilities sorted, airplane in Virgin's case.
Boeing's XS1 is in different class but launch price should be competitive with Virgin.
That's an interesting trio, launching from ground, airborne, and hypersonic, respectively.
It is also a progression from nearly assured launch success to probable launch success to a long wait to see if they ever really get to try.
Surely there's a better candidate for third place among the dozen or more outfits discussed in this thread. YMMV
Meanwhile, a midterm evaluation(snip)
Organization Vehicle Country Year/Quarter Main propulsion Price Ref Thread Rocket Lab (http://www.rocketlabusa.com/) Electron NZ/USA 2016 Q3 2-stage kerolox $4.9M ref (http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11553132) thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35300.0) Firefly Space Systems (http://www.fireflyspace.com/) Firefly USA 2017 Q2 2-stage, methalox $8-9M ref (http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-a) thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33757.0) Virgin Galactic (http://www.virgingalactic.com/satellite-launch/) LauncherOne USA 2017 Q3 airlaunch, 2-stage kerolox <$10M ref (http://www.virgingalactic.com/satellite-launch/l1-performance/) thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29405.0) Horizon SAS (http://horizonsas.com/) Black Arrow 2 UK 2017 Q2 2-stage, methalox $7.5M ref (http://seradata.com/SSI/2015/10/horizon-space-technologies-announces-new-black-arrow-2-rocket-at-uk-space-propulsion-workshop/) thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38987) CubeCab (http://cubecab.com/) CubeCab USA 2017 Q3 airlaunch, no detail $0.25M ref (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/594302551350083584) Generation Orbit (http://www.generationorbit.com/) GO Launcher 2 USA 2017 Q4 airlaunch $2.5M ref (http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2015/06/05/generation-orbit-gains-golauncher2-commitments-plans-golauncher-3/)
Has this table been updated since this post over a year ago?No it has not :) I've got a spreadsheet and a script to spit the forum table code out somewhere, but i've been too lazy to go back and update all latest references. I'd move it to a public wiki, but then keeping links back to NSF subject threads would be tricky.
Beginning with Intrepid-1, with first launch planned for Q1 2019, Rocket Crafters plans to develop XL and XL+ variants to support an even broader spectrum of customer payload and space destinations.
I would love to see this list updated. Along with a note on most recent demonstrated development for each.
We are a small, highly entrepreneurial team of rocket engineers with deep technical expertise who love to build things and relish the idea of a grand challenge. We believe that space is the ultimate high ground, and we are on a mission to provide routine access to earth orbit for the entrepreneurs and enterprises that are launching a new generation of services powered by small satellites that will connect, observe, and influence our planet. Building on over a decade of technology development in rocket propulsion, structures, and avionics funded by NASA and DARPA, we are applying a fast-paced, hardware-focused, agile approach to space launch.
These guys have a linkedin page but no public name:
Stealth Space Company (https://us.linkedin.com/company/stealth-space-company)QuoteWe are a small, highly entrepreneurial team of rocket engineers with deep technical expertise who love to build things and relish the idea of a grand challenge. We believe that space is the ultimate high ground, and we are on a mission to provide routine access to earth orbit for the entrepreneurs and enterprises that are launching a new generation of services powered by small satellites that will connect, observe, and influence our planet. Building on over a decade of technology development in rocket propulsion, structures, and avionics funded by NASA and DARPA, we are applying a fast-paced, hardware-focused, agile approach to space launch.
Based on the location of their headquarters and the description, maybe a spinoff/evolution of Ventions (http://ventions.com/)?
Do you think there is room for all of them?No of course not. Out of the 20 or more out there, only 1-2 maybe will work.
Wow. That is lower than I would have said but still I was only going to say 3-4 :o)
Do you think there is room for all of them?No of course not. Out of the 20 or more out there, only 1-2 maybe will work.
Wow. That is lower than I would have said but still I was only going to say 3-4 :o)
Who would you pick in that 3 - 4?
You forgot Vector, long shot?.
Firefly better than long shot if they have solid financial backing.
These guys have a linkedin page but no public name:
Stealth Space Company (https://us.linkedin.com/company/stealth-space-company)QuoteWe are a small, highly entrepreneurial team of rocket engineers with deep technical expertise who love to build things and relish the idea of a grand challenge. We believe that space is the ultimate high ground, and we are on a mission to provide routine access to earth orbit for the entrepreneurs and enterprises that are launching a new generation of services powered by small satellites that will connect, observe, and influence our planet. Building on over a decade of technology development in rocket propulsion, structures, and avionics funded by NASA and DARPA, we are applying a fast-paced, hardware-focused, agile approach to space launch.
Based on the location of their headquarters and the description, maybe a spinoff/evolution of Ventions (http://ventions.com/)?
Another rocket company - 40 employees and several have titles like Propulsion Engineer, Head of Launch Infrastruture etc. Chris C Kemp is in charge.
Do you think there is room for all of them?No of course not. Out of the 20 or more out there, only 1-2 maybe will work.
Wow. That is lower than I would have said but still I was only going to say 3-4 :o)
Who would you pick in that 3 - 4?
Just looking at the USA:
Cream:
Virgin Orbit (because they have stamina, massive money, commitment and will get there one way or another)
Rocket Lab (because they have serious money and made very solid progress)
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)
Long shots:
Firefly Aerospace
Relativity
Very long shots:
Aphelion
ABL
Interorbital
Go Launcher
Vacuous Space Systems
EXOS
New Ascent
Odyne
Rocketcrafters
Scorpius
Stofiel Aerospace
Ventions
UP Orbital
Whittinghill
Launcherspace
Cloudix
DOA:
ARCA
CubeCab
Mishaal
Bagaveev
RocketStar
Spinlaunch
VALT
XCOR
bspace
Do you think there is room for all of them?No of course not. Out of the 20 or more out there, only 1-2 maybe will work.
Wow. That is lower than I would have said but still I was only going to say 3-4 :o)
Who would you pick in that 3 - 4?
Just looking at the USA:
Cream:
Virgin Orbit (because they have stamina, massive money, commitment and will get there one way or another)
Rocket Lab (because they have serious money and made very solid progress)
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)
Long shots:
Firefly Aerospace
Relativity
Very long shots:
Aphelion
ABL
Interorbital
Go Launcher
Vacuous Space Systems
EXOS
New Ascent
Odyne
Rocketcrafters
Scorpius
Stofiel Aerospace
Ventions
UP Orbital
Whittinghill
Launcherspace
Cloudix
DOA:
ARCA
CubeCab
Mishaal
Bagaveev
RocketStar
Spinlaunch
VALT
XCOR
bspace
If I were doing the list, I'd probably move a few around (I'd move Stratolaunch down to longshot, firefly down to very long shot, and move Ventions, Generation Orbit, and maybe Vector up from very longshot to longshot). But I generally agree with these rankings. I wish Masten was on this list, but at least right now even if they were, they'd be in the very longshot category.
~Jon
Just looking at the USA:
Cream:
Virgin Orbit (because they have stamina, massive money, commitment and will get there one way or another)
Rocket Lab (because they have serious money and made very solid progress)
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)
Long shots:
Firefly Aerospace
Relativity
Very long shots:
Aphelion
ABL
Interorbital
Go Launcher
Vacuous Space Systems
EXOS
New Ascent
Odyne
Rocketcrafters
Scorpius
Stofiel Aerospace
Ventions
UP Orbital
Whittinghill
Launcherspace
Cloudix
DOA:
ARCA
CubeCab
Mishaal
Bagaveev
RocketStar
Spinlaunch
VALT
XCOR
bspace
If I were doing the list, I'd probably move a few around (I'd move Stratolaunch down to longshot, firefly down to very long shot, and move Ventions, Generation Orbit, and maybe Vector up from very longshot to longshot). But I generally agree with these rankings. I wish Masten was on this list, but at least right now even if they were, they'd be in the very longshot category.
~Jon
If I were doing the list, I'd probably move a few around (I'd move Stratolaunch down to longshot, firefly down to very long shot, and move Ventions, Generation Orbit, and maybe Vector up from very longshot to longshot). But I generally agree with these rankings. I wish Masten was on this list, but at least right now even if they were, they'd be in the very longshot category.
~Jon
Generation Orbit doesn't seem focused on orbital launch right now, although they could still do it later.
Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (GO) is pleased to announce the award of a Follow-On Phase II SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research) contract from the Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerospace Systems Directorate, High Speed Systems Division (AFRL/RQH) for development and flight testing of the GOLauncher 1 (GO1). The single stage liquid rocket, launched from a Gulfstream III business jet, will conduct its inaugural flight test in 2019, reaching Mach 6 within the atmosphere. The flight will mark the initial operational capability of the world’s first commercially-available hypersonic test bed, empowering hypersonic researchers with affordable and flexible access to hypersonic flight environments.
Do you think there is room for all of them?No of course not. Out of the 20 or more out there, only 1-2 maybe will work.
Wow. That is lower than I would have said but still I was only going to say 3-4 :o)
Who would you pick in that 3 - 4?
Just looking at the USA:
Cream:
Virgin Orbit (because they have stamina, massive money, commitment and will get there one way or another)
Rocket Lab (because they have serious money and made very solid progress)
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)
Long shots:
Firefly Aerospace
Relativity
Very long shots:
Aphelion
ABL
Interorbital
Go Launcher
Vacuous Space Systems
EXOS
New Ascent
Odyne
Rocketcrafters
Scorpius
Stofiel Aerospace
Ventions
UP Orbital
Whittinghill
Launcherspace
Cloudix
DOA:
ARCA
CubeCab
Mishaal
Bagaveev
RocketStar
Spinlaunch
VALT
XCOR
bspace
Wow! :o Those companies are growing like mushrooms in autumn after a rainy summer.And most will fade away just as quickly.
I also think so, yes. There's no market yet for so many launcher companies. At least experienced engineers could recycle and join the surviving companies. :)Wow! :o Those companies are growing like mushrooms in autumn after a rainy summer.And most will fade away just as quickly.
A Renton-based aerospace firm will begin testing rocket engines next year in a facility under construction at the Port of Bremerton.
Radian Aerospace is involved in research and development of “aerospace hardware to serve a variety of customers,” according to a company representative.
...
Incorporated in 2016, Radian Aerospace shares leadership with Holder Aerospace, a Renton company headed by former astronaut Livingston Holder and aerospace executive Curtis Gifford.
[Kitsap Sun] Secretive aerospace firm to test rocket engines in Bremerton (http://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2017/12/03/secretive-aerospace-firm-test-rocket-engines-bremerton/906232001/)The engine is RP1/LOX.QuoteA Renton-based aerospace firm will begin testing rocket engines next year in a facility under construction at the Port of Bremerton.
Radian Aerospace is involved in research and development of “aerospace hardware to serve a variety of customers,” according to a company representative.
...
Incorporated in 2016, Radian Aerospace shares leadership with Holder Aerospace, a Renton company headed by former astronaut Livingston Holder and aerospace executive Curtis Gifford.
Anyone know what's up with this company?
I also think so, yes. There's no market yet for so many launcher companies. At least experienced engineers could recycle and join the surviving companies. :)Well the resurgence in actual paid-for jobs in rocket engineering is somewhat encouraging although you do wonder how much of it is is the result of VC investors with "spare" cash to invest and a need to invest it somewhere, hoping (somehow) they will be funding the next SpaceX. :(
Developing a small LV that will fly is only part of costs for these companies, building launch facilities and gearing up for large scale low cost manufacturing are the lions share of costs. RL latest round of investment was for something like $50M and that was for large manufacturing plus some rainy day money.Indeed.
Both LauncherOne and Vector are investing heavily in their production facilities, launch facilities are different again for these two companies, plane and mobile launcher.
RelativitySpace to 3D print complete LV.The problem all of these vehicles will have is that that every dollar spent on them will have to be directly paid off by the launches they provide.
relativity-space-aims-to-3d-print-entire-launch-vehicles/?utm_content=buffer45f27&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
This is not that new, their competitors (Vector, RL, Firefly, Launcheone) are also aiming to do this. Everybody 3D prints engines and composite fuel tanks are additively/robotically manufactured. Human labour involved in final assembly may vary between companies but all will try to reduce manhours required over time.
Relativity LV is 9+1 x15klbs Methane engines. Not stated but probably pressure feed as cheaper to build. 1250kg to LEO?.
At this payload range they would also be up against Firefly and Boeing XS1. If all US cost same to build it will be interesting competition against reuseable XS1 and cheap expendable boosters.
By 2021 RL should also be flying Electron successor, whatever that will be.
What we do know is it took SX about $200m to go from a flat lot to the first F9 launch, regardless of what industry cost models said it would cost.
Which is why I specified the first F9 launch in 2010. Obviously F9 has had a lot of mods since them but up to then SX had launche 5 F1's, 3 went bang, the 4th got to orbit with a mass simulator and only the 5th had an actual customers payload who got a working satellite on orbit.What we do know is it took SX about $200m to go from a flat lot to the first F9 launch, regardless of what industry cost models said it would cost.
More like $400M, and that's not for the current F9.
Airbreathing sucks.Not really a big surprise to anyone who knows anything about ramjets or pump design.
My turbopump project turns out to be ironically easier than my duct fan / ramjet projet up to now.
Hybrids already have more isp than solids for decades, real problems are mass ratio and endless of bugs.That's good to know. Perhaps you supply a reference where I can read more on them? What propellant combination did you have in mind?
When turbomachinery is not mature (corresponding to 1940s technology), ramjets looks promising. That's why Navaho and Burya are developed.Airbreathing sucks.Not really a big surprise to anyone who knows anything about ramjets or pump design.
My turbopump project turns out to be ironically easier than my duct fan / ramjet projet up to now.Quote from: KatanaHybrids already have more isp than solids for decades, real problems are mass ratio and endless of bugs.That's good to know. Perhaps you supply a reference where I can read more on them? What propellant combination did you have in mind?
Just a few points to consider.
That's why team formation and management is a serious challenge, up there with managing or coaching any top level team in any major sport. :(Just a few points to consider.
Great post, Thank you!
And now you have to find people who really think like that to get a team which gets things done. From time to time such a thing happens and the world is changed.
But when you have some decent turbomachinery, they have MUCH more bang per development effort than sluggish ramjets, though starting at a bit higher price.You seem to think "air breathing" begins and ends with ramjets.
LOX hydrocarbon (paraffin or PE) hybrids have theoretical isp same to kerosene, some test engines could even reach theoretical performance. However hybrids can't scale. This caused enormous trouble to SS2.Interesting report. The contractor on SS2 inherited their tech from Amroc, using HPTB and multiple ports.
https://web.stanford.edu/~cantwell/Recent_publications/Cantwell_IJEMCP_9_(4)_305-326_2010.pdf
But when you have some decent turbomachinery, they have MUCH more bang per development effort than sluggish ramjets, though starting at a bit higher price.You seem to think "air breathing" begins and ends with ramjets.Quote from: KatanaLOX hydrocarbon (paraffin or PE) hybrids have theoretical isp same to kerosene, some test engines could even reach theoretical performance. However hybrids can't scale. This caused enormous trouble to SS2.Interesting report. The contractor on SS2 inherited their tech from Amroc, using HPTB and multiple ports.
https://web.stanford.edu/~cantwell/Recent_publications/Cantwell_IJEMCP_9_(4)_305-326_2010.pdf
The work at Stamford and SPG suggests a newer design would have the regression rate of a solid without needing multiple ports, hence having higher fuel loading and a stronger structure, so they would scale up.
For high mach operation, all airbreathers are limited by fuel energy density v.s. incoming air energy density. Even scramjets can't be much better than ramjets (gaining better mach range but loose lots of T/W ratio). Skylon is also limited to mach 5.You seem to have a problem separating "Skylon," which is the vehicle concept, from SABRE, which is the engine.
For low mach operation, RBCC/TBCC/skylon are much more complex than either ramjets or pure rockets.As always that depends where you draw the system boundaries. When you include "accelerate from zero speed" or "Don't burn through your entire propellant supply in 10 minutes" it turns out TBCC (which SABRE is a form of) as the SR71 and Concorde were ((in super cruise it's been estimated about 68% of Concorde thrust was generated by its inlets, much like the SR71, but without needing continuous after burner).
If ramjets can't compete on R&D COST v.s. pure rockets (F9R style vtvl), nothing else can.A low Mach ramjet can compete on R&D but you're comparing Apples with Oranges. One is a system that's basically a cruise engine and the other a semi-reusable launch system to full orbit. Like all air breathers (or systems with air breathing modes) it scores on the Isp front. In atmosphere the SSME got c380secs. A bad airbreather gets 2000secs. That has huge implications for mass fraction of the vehicle.
Even ramjets of 1950s (Talos, Bomarc, Navaho) have much worse Thrust / R&D cost ratio compared to rockets of 1950s, either engine or vehicle.I see, you equate the engine with the vehicle.
No other airbreathers could be cheaper.
35 small launch vehicles (<1000 kg @ LEO) claim to be under development worldwide. An additional 30 that I'm watching for further information. 8 have terminated since I started tracking. #SmallSat #Rocket #Crazy
Quote35 small launch vehicles (<1000 kg @ LEO) claim to be under development worldwide. An additional 30 that I'm watching for further information. 8 have terminated since I started tracking. #SmallSat #Rocket #Crazy
https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/949850176650346496 (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/949850176650346496)
The "defunct" bar grows faster than the "operational" one.
The "defunct" bar grows faster than the "operational" one.
The "defunct" bar grows faster than the "operational" one.
That is as you would expect. 80/20 - 80% of the gain from 20% of the work. At that rate you should expect there to be 10-15 companies actually building something that flies, and of those you would expect the same 80/20 principle to apply, and to end up with just 2-3 with surviving, thriving businesses. Anyone who gets to flight with a "me-too" approach is probably already doomed.
New Zealand has trumped Australia in the space race, with a spaceflight start-up successfully launching a rocket from its own launch pad on the North Island.
With Electron succesful launch, smallsat LVs are finally here. By end of 2018 Vector and Virgin should be operational.Should be ... sure. But I'm dubious they will be. we will see.
In the news today:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/new-zealand-successfully-launches-first-rocket-into-space/9347886QuoteNew Zealand has trumped Australia in the space race, with a spaceflight start-up successfully launching a rocket from its own launch pad on the North Island.
Frankly, I didn't know it was a race, given that the Kiwis started long before us.
Indeed.
I think once two of them are in operation it’s going to be tough for any new commercial companies to compete. At that point it’s much easier for an existing company to simply build more rockets than for someone to design something from scratch. You’d need to invest a ton of money into a step change of rocket technology to compete and I don’t see many VCs being willing to so that. You’ll probably see some new government backed entries but going the pure commercial route will be brutal.
Electric pumps with jettison of used batteries, carbon fibre fuel tanks, 3D printed engines and private launch site.Indeed.
I think once two of them are in operation it’s going to be tough for any new commercial companies to compete. At that point it’s much easier for an existing company to simply build more rockets than for someone to design something from scratch. You’d need to invest a ton of money into a step change of rocket technology to compete and I don’t see many VCs being willing to so that. You’ll probably see some new government backed entries but going the pure commercial route will be brutal.
It's still a fully expendable LOX/RP1 LV. The question is what are the new things they bring to the table that every other MFG does not?
In the news today:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/new-zealand-successfully-launches-first-rocket-into-space/9347886QuoteNew Zealand has trumped Australia in the space race, with a spaceflight start-up successfully launching a rocket from its own launch pad on the North Island.
Frankly, I didn't know it was a race, given that the Kiwis started long before us.
We started long before the Kiwis in 1967! For orbital launches we're still ahead by one (Sparta-Redstone and Black Arrow with one launch each). Expect that record to be broken soon. Hopefully Gilmour can get us back in the race.
65 companies/start ups are currently working on small launch vehicles. 30 of those are of mostly unknown status.
(As presented on the 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. January 7–11, 2018 Washington DC)
Stealth space catapult startup SpinLaunch is raising $30M
BY JOSH CONSTINE
3 hours ago
What if instead of blasting cargo into space on a rocket, we could fling it into space using a catapult? That’s the big, possibly crazy, possibly genius idea behind SpinLaunch. It was secretly founded in 2014 by Jonathan Yaney, who built solar-powered drone startup Titan Aerospace and sold it to Google. Now TechCrunch has learned from three sources that SpinLaunch is raising a massive $30 million Series A to develop its catapult technology.
QuoteStealth space catapult startup SpinLaunch is raising $30M
BY JOSH CONSTINE
3 hours ago
What if instead of blasting cargo into space on a rocket, we could fling it into space using a catapult? That’s the big, possibly crazy, possibly genius idea behind SpinLaunch. It was secretly founded in 2014 by Jonathan Yaney, who built solar-powered drone startup Titan Aerospace and sold it to Google. Now TechCrunch has learned from three sources that SpinLaunch is raising a massive $30 million Series A to develop its catapult technology.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/spinlaunch/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
That seems to share some attributes with a miniature launch loop. I suspect it also shares some of the problems inherent in launch loops.
That seems to share some attributes with a miniature launch loop. I suspect it also shares some of the problems inherent in launch loops.
Oooooh this is what it reminds me of. Probably a nearly-identical concept, and just as utterly stupid ;D https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/391496725/the-slingatron-building-a-railroad-to-space
OK Theoretically you can do a slow spin up in some kind of evacuated chamber or tunnel (not too stressful) before hitting the launch direction. Historically the big problem with all mass driver concepts is they are difficult to point in different directions.QuoteStealth space catapult startup SpinLaunch is raising $30M
BY JOSH CONSTINE
3 hours ago
What if instead of blasting cargo into space on a rocket, we could fling it into space using a catapult? That’s the big, possibly crazy, possibly genius idea behind SpinLaunch. It was secretly founded in 2014 by Jonathan Yaney, who built solar-powered drone startup Titan Aerospace and sold it to Google. Now TechCrunch has learned from three sources that SpinLaunch is raising a massive $30 million Series A to develop its catapult technology.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/spinlaunch/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
That seems to share some attributes with a miniature launch loop. I suspect it also shares some of the problems inherent in launch loops.
Oooooh this is what it reminds me of. Probably a nearly-identical concept, and just as utterly stupid ;D https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/391496725/the-slingatron-building-a-railroad-to-space
No, their concept is a lot more simple and elegant than the slingatron. There are still some high pucker factor issues to resolve IMO (the biggest one being the dynamics of going from vacuum to air IMO), but from what I've seen of their approach it's actually fairly clever and well thought-out. They still have an expendable rocket in there, so I'm somewhat skeptical they'll be able to hit the price they're talking about, but if they can both raise the money they need, and make their system work reliably, I think they've got a shot of filling a niche even if they miss their target by a factor of 2. Though I think their concept would be much more useful for propellantless launch of ISRU materials from the lunar surface...
~Jon
How did the Hawaii legislature bill even get started? Funding SpinLaunch feels like a very strange way to spend more than $20 million of public money.
How did the Hawaii legislature bill even get started? Funding SpinLaunch feels like a very strange way to spend more than $20 million of public money.
It also seems odd given the recent problems with the TMT. How would that cause cultural concerns with some native Hawaiians but objects in the same area leaving at orbital velocities somehow be OK?
It doesn't exit the launcher at orbital velocities, rather it is comparable to tube artillery projectile velocity.
Modern Artillery seems to max out around 1000m/s. If we assume the "first stage" will provide a speed similar to conventional first stages on a 2 stage rocket, that would mean around 2000m/s (Mach 6).I think you'll find most expendable rockets split the Mach range roughly in half and the first stage shuts down around M10.
By the name of the company, i would suspect they're going for something like a centrifuge launcher.
Their rocket (second stage) is shaped like a reentry vehicle on an ICBM.Or like the Sprint ABM, which is what you'd expect if you wanted to do high Mach numbers at near sea level pressure.
If they run in a vacuum first, during the firing the launch vehicle shouldn't experience more than 1 Mach more while exiting the mechanism.This statement makes no sense. 1000m/s is about 3Mach numbers with a SL Mach velocity of 340m/s
There might be ways to further reduce the pressure difference when exiting the "launcher", but it might be unnecessary.Depends on the radius and the acceleration.
The rocket part has to be able to withstand some 1000g, so it should be beefy enough to survive the transition.Trouble is not the LV, it's how much effort will customers have to put in to make payloads that can survive their launch plan.
I think you'll find most expendable rockets split the Mach range roughly in half and the first stage shuts down around M10.I was comparing with Falcon 9 , Electron seems to stage at a similar speed.
Quote from: Bananas_on_MarsIf they run in a vacuum first, during the firing the launch vehicle shouldn't experience more than 1 Mach more while exiting the mechanism.This statement makes no sense. 1000m/s is about 3Mach numbers with a SL Mach velocity of 340m/sQuote from: Bananas_on_MarsThere might be ways to further reduce the pressure difference when exiting the "launcher", but it might be unnecessary.Depends on the radius and the acceleration.
I did a quick calculation, a centrifugal launcher that supplies 2000m/s and has a 20m radius would mean about 20.000g...Quote from: Bananas_on_MarsThe rocket part has to be able to withstand some 1000g, so it should be beefy enough to survive the transition.Trouble is not the LV, it's how much effort will customers have to put in to make payloads that can survive their launch plan.
It doesn't exit the launcher at orbital velocities, rather it is comparable to tube artillery projectile velocity.
Modern Artillery seems to max out around 1000m/s. If we assume the "first stage" will provide a speed similar to conventional first stages on a 2 stage rocket, that would mean around 2000m/s (Mach 6).
By the name of the company, i would suspect they're going for something like a centrifuge launcher.
Their rocket (second stage) is shaped like a reentry vehicle on an ICBM.
If they run in a vacuum first, during the firing the launch vehicle shouldn't experience more than 1 Mach more while exiting the mechanism.
There might be ways to further reduce the pressure difference when exiting the "launcher", but it might be unnecessary.
The rocket part has to be able to withstand some 1000g, so it should be beefy enough to survive the transition.
Edit:
I found an article about a similar concept, maybe Spinlaunch is even an spin-off (pun intended) of Hyper V technologies mentioned here (https://www.space.com/23015-slingatron-reusable-launch-system.html)
HMXHMX, would you say this lot are serious and plausible then, according to your knowledge and experience?
My issue with this approach is that, however you do it, the g-forces involved are going to be order(s) of magnitude higher than in a conventional launch (someone correct me if I'm wrong). This would require specific builds for anyone planning to launch with them. For instance, my assumption would be that a conventional cubesat wouldn't work. This creates a chicked-and-egg problem. Why would anybody change they design and build practices for a specific launcher like this, and on the other hand, why would this launcher be build if there aren't any suitable payloads going for it?
Two ways to sort this problem that I see is that either they offer launches so much cheaper than any other alternative that people are willing to custom build for them, or that the launch isn't anywhere near as high-g as I'm thinking it'll be. Either seems unlikely to me, but lets hope I'm proven wrong.
I was comparing with Falcon 9 , Electron seems to stage at a similar speed.However as SX boosters fly a trajectory that allows recovery they seem to put more burden on the upper stage in terms of the split of delta V to get to orbit.
Those are 2 stage rockets without boosters.
I guess i have to reword my thoughts, because i think you misunderstood me.Ahh. This makes much more sense. In fact IIRC you need something like a 2 bar absolute pressure difference to get M1 flow through a nozzle. It's not so much the density it's the relative density between near zero (say 1 Pa Vs 100 000 Pa in the atmosphere).
If the acceleration takes place in a vakuum, and the mechanism is located at sealevel, there's a pressure difference of ~ 1 bar. When the projectile leaves the mechanism, the ambient air rushing in can't be faster than Mach 1, so that adds maximum 1 Mach to the relative airspeed while the projectile leaves the mechanism.
You can temporarily reduce ambient pressure at the outlet through some funny means (a carefully timed explosion might do, or with jet engines combined with something like a venturi nozzle).
I did a quick calculation, a centrifugal launcher that supplies 2000m/s and has a 20m radius would mean about 20.000g...Is that a decimal point or have you mis placed a comma? 20g is less than an ICBM warhead at burn out. 20 000g is more like those GPS guided artillery shells the USN is currently using. Obviously both are possible but the latter needs a much more specialized skill set to build. Likewise quite small increases in diameter can lower the centripetal g load quite a lot.
Quote from: Bananas_on_MarsI did a quick calculation, a centrifugal launcher that supplies 2000m/s and has a 20m radius would mean about 20.000g...Is that a decimal point or have you mis placed a comma? 20g is less than an ICBM warhead at burn out. 20 000g is more like those GPS guided artillery shells the USN is currently using. Obviously both are possible but the latter needs a much more specialized skill set to build. Likewise quite small increases in diameter can lower the centripetal g load quite a lot.
Sorry, german here, it's Twenty thousand g, we use a point for separating thousands, and a comma for decimal point.That explains it. It's tricky keeping track of all the cultural variances when numbers are concerned.
Didn't think about the audience here.
20k, on the order of an artillery shell. It definitely seems unreasonable. Even if your launch cost was much cheaper, it would require anyone who wanted to fly on their spinning death machine to overbuild their satellites, making them either less capable or increasing their weight...True, but not necessarily a show stopper. I guess it depends on how those loads compare to those on the funfair ride known as the "Wall of Death."
Also gravity scales linearly with diameter for the given tangential speed. I am guessing you were thinking of small decreases in tangential speed will decrease the g load a lot.Yes. Anything that can cut down the peak acceleration has to be a key design parameter. The joker is bigger radius --> bigger volume to evacuate.
People – the name is SPIN-launch. Think it through.
Who said the spinning would be done in atmosphere? It’s definitely not a gun, BTW.People – the name is SPIN-launch. Think it through.
They're not going to do an atmospheric tether spin catapult?!? Right?
I read elsewhere, speculatively they are spin launching a light gas gun to a high altitude, then fire the projectile from the gun, and gun lands in a reusable fashion. Somewhat rube goldberg and probably not scalable, even if feasible.
This (spinlaunch) is one of those concept that sound more and more bonkers the more you read about it. It’s a complete non-starter in every practical sense. If they can get funding, it will be an interesting failure. Mark my words. Prove me wrong! :DOf course, but it’d be super cool to watch, so shush, you! 😂
Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Ze75nn72M) an interview from Max Haot from a new rocket company called LAUNCHER that's based in New York.Wow. 9 years to orbit. I appreciate the realism in their timeline. I hope the team is making income from other jobs.
A little bit different approach, but pretty appealing IMO.
Their Twitter Account (https://twitter.com/launcherspace)
and a bare homepage (https://launcherspace.com)
Yes, i fear they might be a little late to the show, but if their plans work out only partially, they might still be able to make a living by selling their engines... though their plans are quite ambitious, developing a RP1 ORSC with about 10 mio $...Good point! There should be room for engine suppliers for companies that prefer COTS components were like ABL Space Systems
New Engine-1 🔥 from today - 6 second run followed by a 15 second run. Next week - 30+ goal.
Smallsat launch providers face pricing pressure from Chinese vehicles
by Jeff Foust — March 19, 2018
WASHINGTON — Companies that are developing small launch vehicles or who provide rideshare launch services say they expect new Chinese launch vehicles to drive down launch prices, raising concerns among some of unfair competition.
No ITAR?QuoteSmallsat launch providers face pricing pressure from Chinese vehicles
by Jeff Foust — March 19, 2018
WASHINGTON — Companies that are developing small launch vehicles or who provide rideshare launch services say they expect new Chinese launch vehicles to drive down launch prices, raising concerns among some of unfair competition.
http://spacenews.com/smallsat-launch-providers-face-pricing-pressure-from-chinese-vehicles/
No ITAR?
No ITAR?
ITAR is a US regulation.
For some reason, FutureSpaceTourist's Astra Space topic was locked, so I'll post this here. Chris Kemp, CEO of Astra Space (AKA "Stealth Space Startup") will be on a panel at 2018's Space Tech Symposium in Berkeley, CA. His panel is 6:45-7:25pm PST, April 30.
https://stac.berkeley.edu/sts
And another short video from the "Launcher" control room (https://twitter.com/launcherspace/status/980830441920905216?s=19) for their test stand.
Watch live from our test site a static fire attempt of Launcher's 3d printed Engine-1 (E-1): LOX/RP-1, regen chamber, 500 pounds-force of thrust, Augmented spark igniter (GOX/RP-1), all 3D printed in three Inconel 718 parts. Whats' new: Updated chamber design with improved cooling.
And another short video from the "Launcher" control room (https://twitter.com/launcherspace/status/980830441920905216?s=19) for their test stand.
Launcher is currently hosting a livestream for an Engine-1 test firing. Expected in less than 15 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClpfWREerz8Xdt-UNJHeJ5A/liveQuoteWatch live from our test site a static fire attempt of Launcher's 3d printed Engine-1 (E-1): LOX/RP-1, regen chamber, 500 pounds-force of thrust, Augmented spark igniter (GOX/RP-1), all 3D printed in three Inconel 718 parts. Whats' new: Updated chamber design with improved cooling.
EDIT (5:25 EDT): Now "probably 10 minutes away."
EDIT (5:32 EDT): T-45s
EDIT (5:34 EDT): Successful test! 30 second run, max (mentioned) chamber pressure 280 psi.
The team cohesion is also fascinating and deeply satisfying.
Here's the archive link:
That is a lot of good news. Gradually getting through the presentations.
Has anybody heard about these Aevum guys? Airlaunched, completely new airplane design as far as I can tell. Supposed to start launching next year. Are they for real? Their segment starts at 1:38
Their site mentions a ground test of a subscale vehicle and tests of subsystems already done, but it's also very heavy on the feelgood stuff. Not to be a cynic, but that always makes me cautious. How have these guys managed to stay under the radar if they actually tested all their subsystems?
The presentation is quite inconsistent as well. Their mission is to improve communications and internet. But they want to achieve this by creating a launch vehicle that incidentally allows payloads to launch at 1100$/kg?! Not by designing the satellite network themselves. And actually, it's the autopilot of the airlaunch vehicle they're designing. They're not vertically integrated, so I assume the airplane and rocket themselves are built by contractors?
Unusually, they're apparently not looking for money. Which is the only reason I'm not quite sure what to make of them.
Robin Hague, Skyrora: now planning initial suborbital test flight next summer. Using hydrogen peroxide and kerosene propellants since they’re non-cryogenic and dense; reduces volume and weight of vehicle. #FIA18 #LaunchUK
A satellite launch operator is to begin an engine testing programme at Cornwall Airport in Newquay.
Skyora will begin testing its liquid engine at the site, which is aiming to be an operational spaceport in 2021, by the end of the year.
The announcement was made at the Farnborough International Airshow.
Skyrora will carry out a series of test firings at Newquay for their LEO engine, which will eventually be used to propel their satellite launch vehicle’s upper stage.
The company will use a hardened aircraft shelter which was previously used by the Bloodhound Super Sonic Car project for rocket tests in preparation for a world land speed record attempt next year.
Skyrora’s deployment at Cornwall Airport Newquay is being supported by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), through its Enterprise Zone Infrastructure Fund.
Daniel Smith, director of business development at Skyrora, said: "Newquay is a great fit for us because of the enthusiasm and support from the team, combined with the immediate availability of the facility, providing us with a perfect short-term solution while we work towards establishing our own strategic capability north of the border for our larger engines."
Mark Duddridge, chairman of the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly LEP, said: "Our recently published Space Action Plan outlines how we intend to build a Ł1bn space economy by 2030, so we are delighted to welcome Skyrora to Cornwall where we are laying the foundations for tomorrow’s global space industry."
Spaceport Cornwall director Miles Carden said: "This partnership demonstrates the collaborative culture throughout the UK space sector to offer a world class satellite launch environment from research to design, test, launch and tracking."
Did you know that @SmallSat makes their conference proceedings available online for *free*?
#smallsat
Copies of my #SmallLVSurvey paper can be found at:
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2018/TPS09-2018/
Tweet from C. G. Niederstrasser: (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/1027283557327294464)A very interesting read, although I wish people would learn that spell check <> proof reading (or even getting Windows to read it aloud). :(QuoteDid you know that @SmallSat makes their conference proceedings available online for *free*?
#smallsat
Copies of my #SmallLVSurvey paper can be found at:
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2018/TPS09-2018/
Let's see how many run the maze and survive till next year.
Tweet from C. G. Niederstrasser: (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/1027283557327294464)QuoteDid you know that @SmallSat makes their conference proceedings available online for *free*?
#smallsat
Copies of my #SmallLVSurvey paper can be found at:
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2018/TPS09-2018/
8) Most people seem to be confining their thinking to LEO. What could you put in Lunar orbit? Mars? Venus? Sun Synch? Solar? Can you turn a cubesat into an interplanetary probe? If you can do it its a market segment (probably not a very big market segment) and every launch helps.
8) Most people seem to be confining their thinking to LEO. What could you put in Lunar orbit? Mars? Venus? Sun Synch? Solar? Can you turn a cubesat into an interplanetary probe? If you can do it its a market segment (probably not a very big market segment) and every launch helps.
A SEP upperstage tug for cubesat riding on big launchers could reach any orbit above, and challange the concept of "dedicated small launcher for dedicated orbit".
That's (potentially) an intriguing piece of enabling technology for cubesat payloads. IIRC 3U is about the biggest a cubesat gets. Obvious questions would be8) Most people seem to be confining their thinking to LEO. What could you put in Lunar orbit? Mars? Venus? Sun Synch? Solar? Can you turn a cubesat into an interplanetary probe? If you can do it its a market segment (probably not a very big market segment) and every launch helps.
A SEP upperstage tug for cubesat riding on big launchers could reach any orbit above, and challange the concept of "dedicated small launcher for dedicated orbit".
That's (potentially) an intriguing piece of enabling technology for cubesat payloads. IIRC 3U is about the biggest a cubesat gets. Obvious questions would be8) Most people seem to be confining their thinking to LEO. What could you put in Lunar orbit? Mars? Venus? Sun Synch? Solar? Can you turn a cubesat into an interplanetary probe? If you can do it its a market segment (probably not a very big market segment) and every launch helps.
A SEP upperstage tug for cubesat riding on big launchers could reach any orbit above, and challange the concept of "dedicated small launcher for dedicated orbit".
1) Would the tug have to provide braking burns on the target orbit, and if so can it get back from the orbit multiple times?
2)Is the market big enough to justify it as a primary payload, or would the tug need to go as a secondary?
3) Since propellant load is critical for it to be useful (unless on orbit refueling is planned) if it had to go as a secondary could some kind of "LCROSS" architecture, using the whole PLA as the tugs structure, be an option?
If the tug itself is a Cubesat, it could go as a secondary and be disposable.That's (potentially) an intriguing piece of enabling technology for cubesat payloads. IIRC 3U is about the biggest a cubesat gets. Obvious questions would be8) Most people seem to be confining their thinking to LEO. What could you put in Lunar orbit? Mars? Venus? Sun Synch? Solar? Can you turn a cubesat into an interplanetary probe? If you can do it its a market segment (probably not a very big market segment) and every launch helps.
A SEP upperstage tug for cubesat riding on big launchers could reach any orbit above, and challange the concept of "dedicated small launcher for dedicated orbit".
1) Would the tug have to provide braking burns on the target orbit, and if so can it get back from the orbit multiple times?
2)Is the market big enough to justify it as a primary payload, or would the tug need to go as a secondary?
3) Since propellant load is critical for it to be useful (unless on orbit refueling is planned) if it had to go as a secondary could some kind of "LCROSS" architecture, using the whole PLA as the tugs structure, be an option?
8) Most people seem to be confining their thinking to LEO. What could you put in Lunar orbit? Mars? Venus? Sun Synch? Solar? Can you turn a cubesat into an interplanetary probe? If you can do it its a market segment (probably not a very big market segment) and every launch helps.
A SEP upperstage tug for cubesat riding on big launchers could reach any orbit above, and challange the concept of "dedicated small launcher for dedicated orbit".
Interesting article by Jerry Roberts of Stofiel Aerospace on Fox News website:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/18/evolution-space-travel-new-gold-rush-has-begun.html (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/18/evolution-space-travel-new-gold-rush-has-begun.html)
Interesting paragraph:
"I joined the effort to reach space in 1959 when, right out of college, I was hired by McDonald Aircraft. Contracted by NASA to develop the means to get into space we didn’t have a working rocket and we didn’t have any idea how, or if, we could keep an astronaut alive."
Tugs are very useful, but recent chemical propulsion tugs are too big and dangerous to be accepted as Cubesat class rideshare payload.8) Most people seem to be confining their thinking to LEO. What could you put in Lunar orbit? Mars? Venus? Sun Synch? Solar? Can you turn a cubesat into an interplanetary probe? If you can do it its a market segment (probably not a very big market segment) and every launch helps.
A SEP upperstage tug for cubesat riding on big launchers could reach any orbit above, and challange the concept of "dedicated small launcher for dedicated orbit".
Tugs/additional small upper stages in general (don't have to be SEP or on large launchers) give more functionality to the deployments. The D-Orbit ION flying next year on Vega does that sort of thing (not sure what the propulsion system is?). Rocket Lab has their small upper stage. Doesn't ISRO also have something to deploy to multiple orbits? If Spaceflight ever gets around to making the propulsive SHERPA it would also be in that niche, and MOOG advertises that capability already. There have been similar things on military GEO launches.
Considering Jerry Roberts the writer of the article was referring to himself working there, I wonder who made the error. My guess it was a copy editor who saw McDonnell Aircraft and thought it was spelled wrong and not the author, but who knows. I'm not too sure many of these editors were even alive when McDonnell aircraft existed before their merger with Douglas Aircraft. It just makes me feel old to think about it.Interesting article by Jerry Roberts of Stofiel Aerospace on Fox News website:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/18/evolution-space-travel-new-gold-rush-has-begun.html (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/18/evolution-space-travel-new-gold-rush-has-begun.html)
Interesting paragraph:
"I joined the effort to reach space in 1959 when, right out of college, I was hired by McDonald Aircraft. Contracted by NASA to develop the means to get into space we didn’t have a working rocket and we didn’t have any idea how, or if, we could keep an astronaut alive."
Sigh, Fox News couldn't get their facts straight. :( Think that is suppose to be McDonnell Aircraft. They were based out of St.Louis at that time.
If the tug itself is a Cubesat, it could go as a secondary and be disposable.My instinct is the market isn't there (yet) for a cubesat tug as a primary, so probably a secondary.
The next question: different sized tugs for different payload Cubesats? Or multi payload Cubesats per tug?
Or: talking about such details are too early before specify actual SEP technology.
8) Most people seem to be confining their thinking to LEO. What could you put in Lunar orbit? Mars? Venus? Sun Synch? Solar? Can you turn a cubesat into an interplanetary probe? If you can do it its a market segment (probably not a very big market segment) and every launch helps.
A SEP upperstage tug for cubesat riding on big launchers could reach any orbit above, and challange the concept of "dedicated small launcher for dedicated orbit".
8) Most people seem to be confining their thinking to LEO. What could you put in Lunar orbit? Mars? Venus? Sun Synch? Solar? Can you turn a cubesat into an interplanetary probe? If you can do it its a market segment (probably not a very big market segment) and every launch helps.
A SEP upperstage tug for cubesat riding on big launchers could reach any orbit above, and challange the concept of "dedicated small launcher for dedicated orbit".
Refueling the dedicated launch upper stage in LEO also allows you to do the same thing, but a lot faster... We're presenting a paper looking at some of the orbital dynamics implications of dedicated deep space smallsat missions using refueled upper stages at a conference on Wednesday.
~Jon
Tweet from C. G. Niederstrasser: (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/1027283557327294464)QuoteDid you know that @SmallSat makes their conference proceedings available online for *free*?
#smallsat
Copies of my #SmallLVSurvey paper can be found at:
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2018/TPS09-2018/
I couldn’t find Relativity Space in the document. I thought that was odd considering they appear to have a solid plan, funding and engagement with NASA with their use of Stennis facilities.
Good point! Reading is fundamental. My bad.Tweet from C. G. Niederstrasser: (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/1027283557327294464)QuoteDid you know that @SmallSat makes their conference proceedings available online for *free*?
#smallsat
Copies of my #SmallLVSurvey paper can be found at:
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2018/TPS09-2018/
I couldn’t find Relativity Space in the document. I thought that was odd considering they appear to have a solid plan, funding and engagement with NASA with their use of Stennis facilities.
I just noticed that the survey only includes vehicles with maximum claimed payload to LEO of 1000kg or less, and Terran 1 (https://www.relativityspace.com/terran/) is listed at 1250kg to 185-km orbit on the Relativity site.
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Microlaunchers_new_ways_to_access_spaceWhile europe is studying small LVs, the competition is building and launching them. By end of 2019 Vector, RL and Virgin will be launching regularly covering 60-500kg market. Firefly and Relativity should become operational by 2021 with 1000-1250 class launchers.
Some info on the current European small launchers under development
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Microlaunchers_new_ways_to_access_spaceWhile europe is studying small LVs, the competition is building and launching them. By end of 2019 Vector, RL and Virgin will be launching regularly covering 60-500kg market. Firefly and Relativity should become operational by 2021 with 1000-1250 class launchers.
Some info on the current European small launchers under development
Current launch cost for the first three is about $20-30k per kg. More if rideshare and probably lot less if buy bulk launchers.
The 1000kg LVs are about $10k per kg.
All these prices will have good margins in them to help recover high setup costs. Expect them to drop as competition hots up and production costs fall.
While europe is studying small LVs, the competition is building and launching them.
By end of 2019 Vector, RL and Virgin will be launching regularly covering 60-500kg market.
Firefly and Relativity should become operational by 2021 with 1000-1250 class launchers.
What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
No Astra Space? They have "launched" a couple of big rockets. I also think Vector has a better shot than Firefly or Relativity. Cantrell may do a lot of over the top sales pitching (successfully, I may say) but Garvey's tech is real.
Firefly has experienced leadership and seems to have financial backing.What's so complicated about the launch infrastructure? I get it's not a simple task, but i don't think it's harder than building a rocket and its engines from scratch.
Not so sure of Relativity as launch provider, 3d printing tanks and engines is one thing. Building all infrastructure to support a LV is totally different.
I can see a market for their 3D printing technology which maybe the path they take.
I few months back I posted this list of potential winners/losers in the USA only:-
Cream:
Virgin Orbit (because they have stamina, massive money, commitment and will get there one way or another)
Rocket Lab (because they have serious money and made very solid progress)
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)
Long shots:
Firefly Aerospace
Relativity
Considering that ARCA are about to test their LAS25D 245 kN and D3 Aerospike engine soon (they say 20 December), they might have moved into Very Long Shots.
https://www.facebook.com/arcaspace/
What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
No Astra Space? They have "launched" a couple of big rockets. I also think Vector has a better shot than Firefly or Relativity. Cantrell may do a lot of over the top sales pitching (successfully, I may say) but Garvey's tech is real.
Firefly's and Relativity's and other company's tech is real as well. Not sure how launching undersized, non representative tanks 2000 feet off the ground without any guidance gives them a "much better" chance than the other outfits there. IMO, it's the same rockets that Garvey has been launching a decade ago, just with big scaffolding.
edit: as a comparison, Exos's SARGE reached 28 km altitude.
Nah. There's 0 chance Firefly or Relativity get anything in orbit before Vector. Vector now has enough money to get ex-Spacex and Virgin from the local talent. Vector also has had guided rockets for a while now. Firefly is somewhat screwed getting people to Austin, sketchy funding, Boeing/Lockheed executives, etc. And Relativity is a 3D printing company that may or may not build a rocket.
Nah. There's 0 chance Firefly or Relativity get anything in orbit before Vector. Vector now has enough money to get ex-Spacex and Virgin from the local talent. Vector also has had guided rockets for a while now. Firefly is somewhat screwed getting people to Austin, sketchy funding, Boeing/Lockheed executives, etc. And Relativity is a 3D printing company that may or may not build a rocket.
0 chance? Wow, you are really bullish on Vector. Do you have any inside information to build that point of view? Because in my view based on what we have seen, Vector only slightly more credible than ARCA. Their "block 0" launches have been far from impressive (and not guided), and weren't they supposed to have orbital flights by this past summer? Vector is much hype and mock-ups, but they don't have much real to show for it.
No, I see Firefly as far more capable than Vector. Their engine test program alone is leaps ahead.
I personally put EXOS farther ahead because as an integrated launch system it is nearly complete with its test program and ready to go operational.
I personally put EXOS farther ahead because as an integrated launch system it is nearly complete with its test program and ready to go operational.
For orbital launch?
Nah. There's 0 chance Firefly or Relativity get anything in orbit before Vector. Vector now has enough money to get ex-Spacex and Virgin from the local talent. Vector also has had guided rockets for a while now. Firefly is somewhat screwed getting people to Austin, sketchy funding, Boeing/Lockheed executives, etc. And Relativity is a 3D printing company that may or may not build a rocket.
0 chance? Wow, you are really bullish on Vector. Do you have any inside information to build that point of view? Because in my view based on what we have seen, Vector only slightly more credible than ARCA. Their "block 0" launches have been far from impressive (and not guided), and weren't they supposed to have orbital flights by this past summer? Vector is much hype and mock-ups, but they don't have much real to show for it.
No, I see Firefly as far more capable than Vector. Their engine test program alone is leaps ahead.
Vector has been doing engine test fires as well. Check out their Twitter feed sometime.
Cantrell was talking about getting rockets shipped to Kodiak this season, but now they're apparently launching from some amateur rocket site in California to under 10,000 feet. Have I missed something?
Considering that ARCA are about to test their LAS25D 245 kN and D3 Aerospike engine soon (they say 20 December), they might have moved into Very Long Shots.That looks like a linear aerospike at the back end of solid stage. Is that right?
https://www.facebook.com/arcaspace/
[EDIT So the linear aerospike is a pressure fed HTP thruster, rather than a biprop?
Considering that ARCA are about to test their LAS25D 245 kN and D3 Aerospike engine soon (they say 20 December), they might have moved into Very Long Shots.That looks like a linear aerospike at the back end of solid stage. Is that right?
https://www.facebook.com/arcaspace/
*snip*
Over 35 MW of electrical power seem to feed into what look like heater elements at the bottom of the tank.conductors look a bit undersized for that.
Over 35 MW of electrical power
Am I right in understanding ARCA are trying for 'autogenous' pressure-fed engines using actively heated propellants? Rocket Lab's Rutherfords use 37kW of pump power per engine (so 0.3MW for the first stage) so at 33MW they're a single order of magnitude from a flight-tested system.
I guess it's safer than feeding back combustion products directly to the tanks (without the separate paths of FFSC) and easier than trying to pipe combustion products through loops in the tank. I'd have though pumping fuel & oxidiser separately though chamber walls or bell and feeding the hot fluids/gas back to the tank (to avoid mixing) would be lighter than a secondary heater system, or even a separate one-shot chemical heat (or gas!) generator, though I can see a direct electric heater being easier and cheaper to implement as proof of concept.
It's official! Next stop: Space!
Rocket: Cowbell
Engine: Proprietary aerospike
Planned altitude: 50 Miles
Launch location: Barge launch, off Cape Canaveral
#CarpeAstra #aerospike #cowbell #rocketlaunch #space #rocketstar
Cream:https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-program/
...
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)
What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
PGA engine programme to continue for now.Cream:https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-program/
...
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)
What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
... ayep
PGA engine programme to continue for now.Cream:https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-program/
...
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)
What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
... ayep
Wrong thread for this discussion, reply on Stratolaunch one.PGA engine programme to continue for now.Cream:https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-program/
...
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)
What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
... ayep
Source? Also why have an engine without a vehicle?
ARCA has their test article on the test stand.
"Day and night views of Launch Assist System 25D awaiting first test firing at ARCA's test facility. The engine is expected to produce at the end of the test firing campaign 25 metric tons of thrust. Immediately after these tests the aerospike rocket engine tests will follow."
https://twitter.com/arcaspace/status/1099182486175797248
ARCA has their test article on the test stand.
"Day and night views of Launch Assist System 25D awaiting first test firing at ARCA's test facility. The engine is expected to produce at the end of the test firing campaign 25 metric tons of thrust. Immediately after these tests the aerospike rocket engine tests will follow."
*snip*
I never understood why they had to have that long tank on the "stand". It makes much more sense to have the tanks on the ground like every other test stand in the world...
I guess it would be asking for a lot to expect a lot of logic from these guys... So it became December -> January for the firing because of snow. January -> March for no apparent reason?
SpaceNews reports that Dr. Fred Kennedy, who is director of DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office (TTO), has been tapped to run the Defense Department’s new Space Development Agency.
www.parabolicarc.com/2019/02/24/griffin-taps-darpa-official-head-space-development-agency/
"Like Griffin, Kennedy has criticized the procurement culture in the Defense Department for choosing to pursue costly in-house developments instead of buying technology available in the open market at far less cost. Both have been proponents of deploying smaller, cheaper satellites in large numbers to make U.S. space systems more resilient to disruptions or hostile attacks."
How this relates to this thread, is long term there is likely to be shift from large expensive DoD satellite, to lots of lower cost smallsats. Which can only be good thing for smallsat launch vehicle providers.
Now, lured by the prospect of thousands of small satellites needing rides to orbit, companies over the last four years have worked on more than 100 little launchers, with about 40 currently in development or testing.
The CEO of Firefly says "I’m really glad Rocket Lab has a 150-kg launcher because if they were launching a 1-metric-ton now at the [flight] rate they’re talking about, it would be very difficult to justify these companies.".
Av Week has an article Little Launchers Lining Up (https://aviationweek.com/commercializing-space/survey-finds-40-little-launchers-development) (paywall). Some highlights are:I can see a huge shakeout coming. With expendables (and AFAIK they are all expendables, with some lip service to recovery "At a later date") it's all about the track record. Showing you can launch to orbit without blowing up.
They have a table of 39 launchers in development worldwide, each with organization, name of rocket, country, and estimated launch date. 44 more are mentioned without dates. There is also a big table of where the funding is coming from. Much of this data comes from a watch list kept by Carlos Niederstrasser of Northrop Grumman, so at least some of the big companies are paying attention.
Foremost are are the ones that are working already: Pegasus, Minotaur, Rocket Lab, plus they say 3 Chinese vehicles are operational. Of the "upcoming soon" the ones they treat most seriously seem to be Virgin, Vector, Relativity, and Firefly.
Everyone sees a shakeout coming, and a huge first-mover advantage. The CEO of Firefly says "I’m really glad Rocket Lab has a 150-kg launcher because if they were launching a 1-metric-ton now at the [flight] rate they’re talking about, it would be very difficult to justify these companies.".
Ben Brockert (@wikkit) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Sun, Mar 10, 2019:I've read this and it sounds bad but they are claiming there were 40 cubesats and that suggests keeping a lot of customers up to date. I could quite easily see the launch environment changing and different customers being told different things (which were true at the time they were told them).
Really interesting summary of a customer's experience on a recent satellite rideshare. https://t.co/q8idnjzVxr (I'm glad I didn't mute an otherwise silly thread.)
(https://twitter.com/wikkit/status/1104462349182726144?s=03)
This customer's bad experience is more poor service by rideshare provider not necessarily reflection of LV or its operator. Luckily there is more than one company offering rideshare services.
Slipped launch dates is just part of business regardless of LV size, for small rideshare customers its a case of take it or leave it. If you leave it don't expect another launch any time soon.
While lot of focus is on LV, its final deployment by kickstage or ESPA ring that is critical and part of this customers criticisms.
Rocket Labs Curie kick stage is important selling point for them and I can see why now. Its not just deployment but also notifying customer of exact deployment location (orbit and direction of deployment). Being able to raise and lower the orbit between deployments is another big bonus.
They have a table of 39 launchers in development worldwide, each with organization, name of rocket, country, and estimated launch date. 44 more are mentioned without dates. There is also a big table of where the funding is coming from. Much of this data comes from a watch list kept by Carlos Niederstrasser of Northrop Grumman, so at least some of the big companies are paying attention.
Foremost are are the ones that are working already: Pegasus, Minotaur, Rocket Lab, plus they say 3 Chinese vehicles are operational. Of the "upcoming soon" the ones they treat most seriously seem to be Virgin, Vector, Relativity, and Firefly.
Ben Brockert (@wikkit) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Sun, Mar 10, 2019:I've read this and it sounds bad but they are claiming there were 40 cubesats and that suggests keeping a lot of customers up to date. I could quite easily see the launch environment changing and different customers being told different things (which were true at the time they were told them).
Really interesting summary of a customer's experience on a recent satellite rideshare. https://t.co/q8idnjzVxr (I'm glad I didn't mute an otherwise silly thread.)
(https://twitter.com/wikkit/status/1104462349182726144?s=03)
This customer's bad experience is more poor service by rideshare provider not necessarily reflection of LV or its operator. Luckily there is more than one company offering rideshare services.
Slipped launch dates is just part of business regardless of LV size, for small rideshare customers its a case of take it or leave it. If you leave it don't expect another launch any time soon.
While lot of focus is on LV, its final deployment by kickstage or ESPA ring that is critical and part of this customers criticisms.
Rocket Labs Curie kick stage is important selling point for them and I can see why now. Its not just deployment but also notifying customer of exact deployment location (orbit and direction of deployment). Being able to raise and lower the orbit between deployments is another big bonus.
An LV that cannot set a regular launch schedule is not a service, it's still in development.
Av Week has an article Little Launchers Lining Up (https://aviationweek.com/commercializing-space/survey-finds-40-little-launchers-development) (paywall). Some highlights are:QuoteNow, lured by the prospect of thousands of small satellites needing rides to orbit, companies over the last four years have worked on more than 100 little launchers, with about 40 currently in development or testing.
They have a table of 39 launchers in development worldwide, each with organization, name of rocket, country, and estimated launch date. 44 more are mentioned without dates. There is also a big table of where the funding is coming from. Much of this data comes from a watch list kept by Carlos Niederstrasser of Northrop Grumman, so at least some of the big companies are paying attention.
Foremost are are the ones that are working already: Pegasus, Minotaur, Rocket Lab, plus they say 3 Chinese vehicles are operational. Of the "upcoming soon" the ones they treat most seriously seem to be Virgin, Vector, Relativity, and Firefly.
Everyone sees a shakeout coming, and a huge first-mover advantage. The CEO of Firefly says "I’m really glad Rocket Lab has a 150-kg launcher because if they were launching a 1-metric-ton now at the [flight] rate they’re talking about, it would be very difficult to justify these companies.".
CAST = China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation DCTA = Departamento de Ciencia e Tecnologia Aeroespacial Linksapce = Linksapce Aerospace Technology Group |
After more than 15 years intensive investigations on transpiration cooled CMC high performance rocket thrust chamber technology it can be stated, that transpiration cooled inner CMC liners can be operated damage free and under high pressure conditions in cryogenic stage propulsion. ...
A New Space companyPartners: IAF, ESA, Zenovision, OHB, DLR, University of Stuttgart, University of Kaiserslautern, University of Heilbronn
Innovative Launcher technologies
Hypersonix from Australia. Spartan launch vehicle with Boomerang reusable first stage. 150 kg to SSO using expendable third stage. This scheme has been presented before by Heliaq as the Austral Launch Vehicle. Looks pretty complicated.
http://hypersonix.space/
http://heliaq.com/
I got to hear a short talk by one of the founders of Isar Aerospace yesterday. I didn't get to take notes and it was somewhat superficial, but I'll try to remember as much as I can:
- They have secured/are looking for the order of €100m in funding
- They started out developing engines for sale but now want to build an entire 500kg-1t launch vehicle
- Currently around 20 engineers, end of year ~50 mostly engineers, 150 needed for the first launch
- They specifically want to not do any development in the US to circumvent ITAR and be able to sell engines and technology on the world market
- One of their primary investors is a former SpaceX VP and early employee who is now helping out in sales. Between the lines he indicated they are in talks with actual customers
- They're looking at an orbital launch in 2021 from an undisclosed government-provided launch pad
I got to hear a short talk by one of the founders of Isar Aerospace yesterday. I didn't get to take notes and it was somewhat superficial, but I'll try to remember as much as I can:
- They have secured/are looking for the order of €100m in funding
- They started out developing engines for sale but now want to build an entire 500kg-1t launch vehicle
- Currently around 20 engineers, end of year ~50 mostly engineers, 150 needed for the first launch
- They specifically want to not do any development in the US to circumvent ITAR and be able to sell engines and technology on the world market
- One of their primary investors is a former SpaceX VP and early employee who is now helping out in sales. Between the lines he indicated they are in talks with actual customers
- They're looking at an orbital launch in 2021 from an undisclosed government-provided launch pad
Interesting. We've had a couple of relative latecomers now announcing ~1ton to LEO launch vehicles, counting ABL and now Isar. I'm calling them "latecomers" to mean that they appear to not have made or tested much hardware, putting them well behind both Firefly and Relativity- but both of them intend to launch by 2021, so perhaps they've done more development than I know about, though my cynical side says those dates are not at all realistic. Looks like Isar's launch vehicle architecture is conceptual because although they do list the thrust of a single Ariel engine, they do not show the aft end of the vehicle and list its thrust as "plenty."
Maybe these guys have an interesting angle with ITAR though.
I saw a comment a couple of days ago about the "great consolidation" now Rocket Lab is starting to fly regularly, and I do think that is an interesting topic. We certainly start to see some companies failing for various reasons e.g. Aphelion, ARCA, XCOR.
I few months back I posted this list of potential winners/losers in the USA only:-
Cream:
Virgin Orbit (because they have stamina, massive money, commitment and will get there one way or another)
Rocket Lab (because they have serious money and made very solid progress)
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)
Long shots:
Firefly Aerospace
Relativity
Very long shots:
Aphelion
ABL
Interorbital
Go Launcher
Vacuous Space Systems AKA Vector
EXOS
New Ascent
Odyne
Rocketcrafters
Scorpius
Stofiel Aerospace
Ventions
UP Orbital
Whittinghill
Launcherspace
Cloudix
DOA:
ARCA
CubeCab
Mishaal
Bagaveev
RocketStar
Spinlaunch
VALT
XCOR
bspace
I guess we could add some international names to that list as well like OneSpace, Landspace, PLD, Gilmour, Interorbital Japan and Orbex Space but I leave that area alone for now.
What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
I saw a comment a couple of days ago about the "great consolidation" now Rocket Lab is starting to fly regularly, and I do think that is an interesting topic. We certainly start to see some companies failing for various reasons e.g. Aphelion, ARCA, XCOR.
I few months back I posted this list of potential winners/losers in the USA only:-
Cream:
Virgin Orbit (because they have stamina, massive money, commitment and will get there one way or another)
Rocket Lab (because they have serious money and made very solid progress)
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)
Long shots:
Firefly Aerospace
Relativity
Very long shots:
Aphelion
ABL
Interorbital
Go Launcher
Vacuous Space Systems AKA Vector
EXOS
New Ascent
Odyne
Rocketcrafters
Scorpius
Stofiel Aerospace
Ventions
UP Orbital
Whittinghill
Launcherspace
Cloudix
DOA:
ARCA
CubeCab
Mishaal
Bagaveev
RocketStar
Spinlaunch
VALT
XCOR
bspace
I guess we could add some international names to that list as well like OneSpace, Landspace, PLD, Gilmour, Interorbital Japan and Orbex Space but I leave that area alone for now.
What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
This topic again comes up in an interview with Peter Beck:-
As he watches his competitors, Beck says he can get a good idea of how far the companies are coming along. "If they're making a big song-and-dance about engine tests, you know they’re miles away," he said. Even full stage tests, he says, is an indication that they're a long way away.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/rocket-lab-widens-its-lead-in-small-launch-will-many-others-survive/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/rocket-lab-widens-its-lead-in-small-launch-will-many-others-survive/)
He's right. I think in all these markets if you are just starting to test engines or haven't even got to that point you are basically dead unless your uncle is a billionaire.
Everybody talks about consolidation, but actually the only companies that will really consolidate (i.e. die) are those that started too late to have any chance - most of the others who started 3-5 years ago are way behinf Rocket Lab but are far ahead of new groups. They have money, customers, technology, staff - such that when the new guys show up there is no investor money left available, all the customers are locked in, the key staff have jobs, lots of innovative tech has IP protection.
But I don't see all the 100+ projects dying - many are just dreamers who will keep going, pretending they have a chance for decades with a website and a story but no money or real technology. There a few like that in every list.
This topic again comes up in an interview with Peter Beck:-
As he watches his competitors, Beck says he can get a good idea of how far the companies are coming along. "If they're making a big song-and-dance about engine tests, you know they’re miles away," he said. Even full stage tests, he says, is an indication that they're a long way away.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/rocket-lab-widens-its-lead-in-small-launch-will-many-others-survive/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/rocket-lab-widens-its-lead-in-small-launch-will-many-others-survive/)
He's right. I think in all these markets if you are just starting to test engines or haven't even got to that point you are basically dead unless your uncle is a billionaire.
Everybody talks about consolidation, but actually the only companies that will really consolidate (i.e. die) are those that started too late to have any chance - most of the others who started 3-5 years ago are way behinf Rocket Lab but are far ahead of new groups. They have money, customers, technology, staff - such that when the new guys show up there is no investor money left available, all the customers are locked in, the key staff have jobs, lots of innovative tech has IP protection.
But I don't see all the 100+ projects dying - many are just dreamers who will keep going, pretending they have a chance for decades with a website and a story but no money or real technology. There a few like that in every list.
I used to say "If there company is talking about how they are going after suborbital flights or the "sounding rocket market" then they are years away from getting to orbit..."
LOL "circumventing ITAR". Nothing gets the USG in a tizzy much more than someone pointing out how they are circumventing the USA's global reach.Let's be completely clear.
What other interpretation is there except the American one? We write the rules, we get to interpret them (for the greater good, obviously).LOL "circumventing ITAR". Nothing gets the USG in a tizzy much more than someone pointing out how they are circumventing the USA's global reach.Let's be completely clear.
No one in the West wants to "circumvent ITAR"
What they mean is circumvent the American interpretation of ITAR rules which is very expensive and very US-centric. :(
XCOR's Congressional Liaison called the closest thing they've ever seen to a protection racket, with it's prior restraint of free speech. :(
I think the point that PB is making is that we have a plethora of rocket companies acting like they are in a race to reach orbit, but really, they are in a race to own a market. Arguably, the distance from a company that has one orbital launch to launch provider is greater than the distance from startup to company with one orbital launch- especially in terms of man hours and in terms of dollars.No company stays in the gap between "reaching orbit" and "becoming launch provider".
No company stays in the gap between "reaching orbit" and "becoming launch provider".
Maybe it's impossible to reach orbit without being prepared as a launch provider, technically, financially, and in terms of team and management.
No company stays in the gap between "reaching orbit" and "becoming launch provider".
Ok, sure, at least not historically. Not on purpose. But when you have a hoard of companies with minimal funding racing to get to orbit with whatever the hell vehicle they can throw together, you might have some of them unable to progress even after success reaching orbit.
Even if not, as others have pointed out, there's a serious time lag between getting a single vehicle up and actually being able to sell a reliable product. If you're rocketlab, looking back over your shoulder at 100 different companies that claim to have the same goal as you, it's good to know that you're that far ahead. Whether or not that's the easy part is kind of immaterial to whether it's expensive or time consuming.Maybe it's impossible to reach orbit without being prepared as a launch provider, technically, financially, and in terms of team and management.
I think this is just a weird concept. There are technical barriers that could potentially exist between these two states- say you've got a stage sep sytem that works 50% of the time- sure you get to space but how often? And financially it makes perhaps even less sense, as it's easy to imagine a vehicle that just isn't that competitive economically getting pushed out of the market without selling much at all.
Despite not seeing why that would be the case, I'll still hope that you're right- would be a shame to see someone fly and then go home without doing what they came to do.
Skyroot, founded by former Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) scientists Pawan Kumar Chandana, Naga Bharath Daka and Vasudevan Gnanagandhi, expects to demonstrate its first rocket by 2021, which it says could potentially reduce launch costs by a third.
Skyroot Aerospace Private Limited incorporated with MCA on 12 June 2018.
Vikram, named after Dr. Vikram Sarabhai, the father of Indian Space Program, is a series of launch vehicles especially crafted for the small satellite market. Built on common architecture and covering a wide range of payloads, they offer the most affordable and on demand ride to space.
Skyrora will make three test launches over the next 12 months, the first expected to take place over the next few months, as part of its effort to certify its Skyrora XL satellite launch vehicle that will be 10 metres tall and will be able to loft a 100 kilogram payload into low-Earth orbit. The company conducted one of its first tests near Evanton, Scotland, in August 2018 when it launched its SkyLark Nano sounding rocket to an altitude of 6 kilometres, reaching a speed of Mach 1.45.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., June 18, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- NSR’s Smallsat Launch Vehicle Markets, 2nd Edition report, released today, concludes the dedicated commercial small satellite launch market will see a rapid ramp-up period resulting in over $2.2B in revenue over the next 10 years, overcoming supply chain constraints, new technology risks, and solidifying its place in the market as a proven competitor.
Unless I’m missing something that doesn’t look good at all! Just over $200M per year launch revenue for 10 years to reach that number? If it is aggregate, that is super small and not even close to venture backable. If it is $2B/year every single year, that’s better, but still not huge for cubesats.
I wonder what split of initial deployment vs resupply they included, or Govt expectations.
Av Week has an article Little Launchers Lining Up (https://aviationweek.com/commercializing-space/survey-finds-40-little-launchers-development) (paywall). Some highlights are:QuoteNow, lured by the prospect of thousands of small satellites needing rides to orbit, companies over the last four years have worked on more than 100 little launchers, with about 40 currently in development or testing.
They have a table of 39 launchers in development worldwide, each with organization, name of rocket, country, and estimated launch date. 44 more are mentioned without dates. There is also a big table of where the funding is coming from. Much of this data comes from a watch list kept by Carlos Niederstrasser of Northrop Grumman, so at least some of the big companies are paying attention.
Foremost are are the ones that are working already: Pegasus, Minotaur, Rocket Lab, plus they say 3 Chinese vehicles are operational. Of the "upcoming soon" the ones they treat most seriously seem to be Virgin, Vector, Relativity, and Firefly.
Everyone sees a shakeout coming, and a huge first-mover advantage. The CEO of Firefly says "I’m really glad Rocket Lab has a 150-kg launcher because if they were launching a 1-metric-ton now at the [flight] rate they’re talking about, it would be very difficult to justify these companies.".
The same Carlos Niederstrasser gave a paper at the 32nd Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4118&context=smallsat) which has this list, albeit the one below is sorted by launch date. Beyond the six demonstrated system, several are past their "Latest Launch Date" only a few, like Launcher One, showing likelihood of making their dates.
Organization Vehicle Name Country Latest Launch Date Launched
Northrop Grumman Pegasus XL USA 5-Apr-1990 Northrop Grumman Minotaur I USA 27-Jan-2000 CAST Chang Zheng 11 China 25-Sep-2015 ExPace Kuaizhou-1A China 9-Jan-2017 CAST Kaituozhe-2 China 3-Mar-2017 Rocket Lab Electron USA/New Zealand 21-Jan-2018 Not yet launched Celestia Aerospace Sagitarius Space Arrow CM Spain 2016 SpaceLS Prometheus-1 United Kingdom Q4 2017 zero2infinity Bloostar Spain 2017 Virgin Orbit LauncherOne USA H1 2018 LandSpace LandSpace-1 China H2 2018 Vector Space Systems Vector-R USA H2 2018 LEO Launcher Chariot USA Q4 2018 bspace Volant USA 2018 OneSpace Technology OS-M1 China 2018 RocketStar Star-Lord USA 2018 ISRO PSLV Light India Q1 2019 Rocketcrafters Intrepid-1 USA Q1 2019 Firefly Aerospace Firefly USA Q3 2019 Bagaveev Corporation Bagaveev USA 2019 DCTS VLM-1 Brazil 2019 Space Ops Rocky 1 Australia 2019 Stofiel Aerospace Boreas-Hermes USA 2019 ABL Space Systems RS1 USA Q3 2020 Gilmour Space Technologies Eris Australia/Singapore Q4 2020 CONAE Tronador II Argentina 2020 CubeCab Cab-3A USA 2020 ESA Space Rider Europe 2020 Linkspace NewLine-1 China 2020 Orbital Access Orbital 500R United Kingdom 2020 PLD Space Arion 2 Spain 3Q 2021 Aphelion Orbitals Helios USA 2021 Launcher Rocket-1 USA 2025 Cloud IX Unknown USA Interorbital Systems NEPTUNE N1 USA Orbex Orbex United Kingdom Skyrora Skyrora XL UK/Ukraine SpinLaunch Unknown USA Stratolaunch Pegasus (Strato) USA VALT Enterprises VALT USA
CAST = China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation
DCTA = Departamento de Ciencia e Tecnologia Aeroespacial
Linksapce = Linksapce Aerospace Technology Group
I see the two smallsat launchers due to have their maiden flight this month, are not even mentioned in this list. Any particular reason why that would be?
I see the two smallsat launchers due to have their maiden flight this month, are not even mentioned in this list. Any particular reason why that would be?
If you want to help maintain the list, maybe you should actually say what launchers you're talking about.
This particular list was quoted from an article. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to identify reliable sources of info to improve the list in this thread. The two launchers I'm talking about are Hyperbola-1 and Jielong-1 (Smart Dragon). Both Chinese.The 2019 article (paywalled) did list Hyperbola-1, though the (public) 2018 article from the same researcher did not. First flight was listed as Q3 2019. So at least this company (iSpace), and an approximate schedule. seems to be reasonably well known.
So my question was more whether these launchers became public knowledge after this article was published, or whether the Chinese can get a launcher from paper to first launch that fast, or if there's any other reason to omit them from this list.
I see the two smallsat launchers due to have their maiden flight this month, are not even mentioned in this list. Any particular reason why that would be?
If you want to help maintain the list, maybe you should actually say what launchers you're talking about.
This particular list was quoted from an article. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to identify reliable sources of info to improve the list in this thread. The two launchers I'm talking about are Hyperbola-1 and Jielong-1 (Smart Dragon). Both Chinese.
So my question was more whether these launchersbecame public knowledge after this article was published, or whether the Chinese can get a launcherfrom paper to first launch that fast, or if there's any other reason to omit them from this list.
Since Nanoracks can launch small sats with some reliability at a given price, a customer would have to be incentivized by new launch companies by a significantly better price to switch from Nanoracks - or really need different orbital parameters.
Av Week has an article Little Launchers Lining Up (https://aviationweek.com/commercializing-space/survey-finds-40-little-launchers-development) (paywall). Some highlights are:QuoteNow, lured by the prospect of thousands of small satellites needing rides to orbit, companies over the last four years have worked on more than 100 little launchers, with about 40 currently in development or testing.
They have a table of 39 launchers in development worldwide, each with organization, name of rocket, country, and estimated launch date. 44 more are mentioned without dates. There is also a big table of where the funding is coming from. Much of this data comes from a watch list kept by Carlos Niederstrasser of Northrop Grumman, so at least some of the big companies are paying attention.
Foremost are are the ones that are working already: Pegasus, Minotaur, Rocket Lab, plus they say 3 Chinese vehicles are operational. Of the "upcoming soon" the ones they treat most seriously seem to be Virgin, Vector, Relativity, and Firefly.
Everyone sees a shakeout coming, and a huge first-mover advantage. The CEO of Firefly says "I’m really glad Rocket Lab has a 150-kg launcher because if they were launching a 1-metric-ton now at the [flight] rate they’re talking about, it would be very difficult to justify these companies.".
The same Carlos Niederstrasser gave a paper at the 32nd Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4118&context=smallsat) which has this list, albeit the one below is sorted by launch date. Beyond the six demonstrated system, several are past their "Latest Launch Date" only a few, like Launcher One, showing likelihood of making their dates.
Organization Vehicle Name Country Latest Launch Date Launched
Northrop Grumman Pegasus XL USA 5-Apr-1990 Northrop Grumman Minotaur I USA 27-Jan-2000 CAST Chang Zheng 11 China 25-Sep-2015 ExPace Kuaizhou-1A China 9-Jan-2017 CAST Kaituozhe-2 China 3-Mar-2017 Rocket Lab Electron USA/New Zealand 21-Jan-2018 Not yet launched Celestia Aerospace Sagitarius Space Arrow CM Spain 2016 SpaceLS Prometheus-1 United Kingdom Q4 2017 zero2infinity Bloostar Spain 2017 Virgin Orbit LauncherOne USA H1 2018 LandSpace LandSpace-1 China H2 2018 Vector Space Systems Vector-R USA H2 2018 LEO Launcher Chariot USA Q4 2018 bspace Volant USA 2018 OneSpace Technology OS-M1 China 2018 RocketStar Star-Lord USA 2018 ISRO PSLV Light India Q1 2019 Rocketcrafters Intrepid-1 USA Q1 2019 Firefly Aerospace Firefly USA Q3 2019 Bagaveev Corporation Bagaveev USA 2019 DCTS VLM-1 Brazil 2019 Space Ops Rocky 1 Australia 2019 Stofiel Aerospace Boreas-Hermes USA 2019 ABL Space Systems RS1 USA Q3 2020 Gilmour Space Technologies Eris Australia/Singapore Q4 2020 CONAE Tronador II Argentina 2020 CubeCab Cab-3A USA 2020 ESA Space Rider Europe 2020 Linkspace NewLine-1 China 2020 Orbital Access Orbital 500R United Kingdom 2020 PLD Space Arion 2 Spain 3Q 2021 Aphelion Orbitals Helios USA 2021 Launcher Rocket-1 USA 2025 Cloud IX Unknown USA Interorbital Systems NEPTUNE N1 USA Orbex Orbex United Kingdom Skyrora Skyrora XL UK/Ukraine SpinLaunch Unknown USA Stratolaunch Pegasus (Strato) USA VALT Enterprises VALT USA
CAST = China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation
DCTA = Departamento de Ciencia e Tecnologia Aeroespacial
Linksapce = Linksapce Aerospace Technology Group
Relativity Space - Terran 1 as well. Launch at end of 2020, and latest articles peg their team at almost 100 people. Also have a launch site at the Cape, and huge development facilities at NASA Stennis Space Center.Relativity doesn't show up in the report because the report uses 1000 kg to LEO as the cutoff for defining "small." Terran 1 has an advertised capability of 1250 kg.
Beijing-based startup iSpace is planning up to eight commercial rocket launches next year, after last week becoming China’s first privately funded firm to put a satellite into orbit, its executives told Reuters.
...
The price tag to launch a rocket is 4.5 million euros ($5 million), Yao added.
ARCA have a white paper on their technology. They heat the water to 250 C and 4 MPa. 93% of the heating is performed using an external power source and 7% using onboard lithium polymer batteries. Isp ranges from 50 to 67 seconds. I think the way this works is that the water is stored at below the boiling point for the given pressure. The heaters at the base are then used to heat the water above the boiling point so it converts to steam with the gas released through the nozzle.
For the LAS 50R, dry mass is 4.8 t, propellant mass 18 t and Isp is 67 seconds. Second stage mass is 6 t. This gives a delta-V of 67*g*ln(1+18/(4.8+6)) = 644 m/s (2320 km/s compared to 2300 km/h in the paper). Note that due to gravity and drag losses, the actual velocity at cutoff will be less.
For a thrust of 50 t (giving an initial acceleration of 50/(4.8+18+6) = 1.74g) the "burn" time is 18*67/50 = 24.1 s (slightly more than the 23 s given in the paper). For 4 MPa pressure and 50 t of thrust, the "effective" exit area is 50,000*g/4,000,000 = 0.123 m˛.
ARCA have a white paper on their technology. They heat the water to 250 C and 4 MPa. 93% of the heating is performed using an external power source and 7% using onboard lithium polymer batteries. Isp ranges from 50 to 67 seconds. I think the way this works is that the water is stored at below the boiling point for the given pressure. The heaters at the base are then used to heat the water above the boiling point so it converts to steam with the gas released through the nozzle.
For the LAS 50R, dry mass is 4.8 t, propellant mass 18 t and Isp is 67 seconds. Second stage mass is 6 t. This gives a delta-V of 67*g*ln(1+18/(4.8+6)) = 644 m/s (2320 km/s compared to 2300 km/h in the paper). Note that due to gravity and drag losses, the actual velocity at cutoff will be less.
For a thrust of 50 t (giving an initial acceleration of 50/(4.8+18+6) = 1.74g) the "burn" time is 18*67/50 = 24.1 s (slightly more than the 23 s given in the paper). For 4 MPa pressure and 50 t of thrust, the "effective" exit area is 50,000*g/4,000,000 = 0.123 m˛.
Then "burn"out should be around 10 km altitude and about Mach 1.2, which is a lot better than most airlaunch systems (especially considering most of the velocity is vertical), but still a very, very long ways from orbit. What is the the upper stage delta-v capability?
ARCA have a white paper on their technology. They heat the water to 250 C and 4 MPa. 93% of the heating is performed using an external power source and 7% using onboard lithium polymer batteries. Isp ranges from 50 to 67 seconds. I think the way this works is that the water is stored at below the boiling point for the given pressure. The heaters at the base are then used to heat the water above the boiling point so it converts to steam with the gas released through the nozzle.
For the LAS 50R, dry mass is 4.8 t, propellant mass 18 t and Isp is 67 seconds. Second stage mass is 6 t. This gives a delta-V of 67*g*ln(1+18/(4.8+6)) = 644 m/s (2320 km/s compared to 2300 km/h in the paper). Note that due to gravity and drag losses, the actual velocity at cutoff will be less.
For a thrust of 50 t (giving an initial acceleration of 50/(4.8+18+6) = 1.74g) the "burn" time is 18*67/50 = 24.1 s (slightly more than the 23 s given in the paper). For 4 MPa pressure and 50 t of thrust, the "effective" exit area is 50,000*g/4,000,000 = 0.123 m˛.
Then "burn"out should be around 10 km altitude and about Mach 1.2, which is a lot better than most airlaunch systems (especially considering most of the velocity is vertical), but still a very, very long ways from orbit. What is the the upper stage delta-v capability?
If you put state owned launchers on that list, why leave out Long March 11? Purely based on number of launches, they're tied with RL
Maiden flight of the planned rocket is set for late 2021, OHB Chief Executive Officer Marco Fuchs said in an interview. The company has a team of about 35 employees in Augsburg, southern Germany, working on a so-called mini launcher designed to bring small payloads into orbit and with a low-cost approach, the CEO said. Key components of the rocket have already been developed and tested.
That's "Elon Musk" and you asked why has this not happened
Where is all this ???
All plagiarize the ideas of Ilon Mask and the large expansible missiles...
Northrop Grumman, United Launch Alliance, SpaceX, Xbow Launch Systems, Firefly Aerospace, Aevum, Rocket Lab and Vox Space have all received contracts under the US Air Force's $986 million Orbital Services Program-4. The launch contracts are for small to medium payloads
Aevum, Inc. provides comprehensive space logistics service to enable commercial and Government customers to deploy small payloads in low Earth orbit (LEO).
This will be the first U.S. Air Force mission for Aevum, Inc. and will be launched from Cecil Air and Space Port in Jacksonville, Fla. The initial launch capability of the ASLON-45 mission is scheduled for the third quarter of 2021.
XBow Launch Services? A Huntsville AL company that received a Phase 1 SBIR (https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1220395) to do additive manufacturing of solid propellants.
Their web site is only a photo of a rail launched rocket silhouetted against a sunset.
It's been widely reported that there may be as many as 140 small sat launch vehicles in development. The goal is to develop these light launch vehicles to deliver small sats, mostly to LEO.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how this will play out. Right now the players seem to be:
Rocket Lab - the only small sat rockets in the market as of yet.
Virgin Orbit - who may launch early next year.
Firefly - actually faced bankruptcy in 2016, but have a Ukrainian backer now.
Relativity - who just raised $140m in VC.
ABL Systems - not that much known about them.
It seems to me that if all of these come into the market (as well as some others still in stealth) there will be something of a rocket bubble.
So, who will win? On what basis? What is it that will separate the winners from the losers?
The crowded potential competitive landscape you outlined was already a tough one that would likely have meant many companies would find it difficult to secure enough funding to even finish developing their launcher. Those few who did field a vehicle would be scrambling to compete with each other and with options on larger launchers for a limited number of payloads making it challenging to develop a solid flight history anytime soon and to ensure they had enough ongoing revenue to survive. That was before things got truly grim.Cheap rideshares are somewhat of a red herring: rideshares have always been cheaper than proposed dedicated smallsat launchers. Smallsat launchers are attractive even with the increased cost because of their other properties: the ability to launch to an orbit of your choice, at a time of your choice. That has quite a lot of value in and of itself, even before you get into the logistical headaches of actually assembling a rideshare (go ask anyone involved in SSO-A). If you goal is just to get a thing into an orbit, any orbit, eventually; then rideshares are great. If you need your satellites to go into a specific orbit, you either need to wait for a launch that happens to be going close enough to the orbit you need for your on-board propulsion (you do have some, right?) to get you there, or build a dedicated kickstage that both fits in the deployment mechanism and doesn't end up costing as much as the satellite itself. Maybe you want to phase your launch to insert your satellite into an existing constellation? Sorry, your schedule is set by someone else.
Then this happened (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48741.msg1985695#msg1985695) shortly after this happened (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48741.msg1982739#msg1982739). SpaceX is putting enormous downward price pressure on these small launchers and with things like fairing reuse and continued optimization of their fleet/operations, it seems likely that they will have enough slack in their costs to keep it moving downward in response to market competition. Will they be able to address and aggressively compete for all of the orbits and launch windows that that these small launchers can? No. Will they be able to address enough of the market that it basically sucks the air out of the room? Seems likely.
The F9 rideshare program alone, as it stands today, is enough to cause major upheaval. Now ask yourself what happens to these companies, most of whom are still developing vehicles that will have their first flight in the next 1-3 years, if SpaceX successfully fields the Starship in the next 1-3 years. Then there is the New Glen...will Blue Origin have a rideshare program too? They'll have a vehicle with a roomy fairing and extra mass margin vs. the typical payload sizes so it's hard to see why they wouldn't. It seems to me that it is a great time to be a company like Momentous and a lousy time to be a small launcher.
The companies who *might* survive are the ones who have a strong business plan focus on something other than surviving on revenue from launches. The examples I am aware of:
Rocket Labs is getting into helping companies develop payloads (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47848.msg1933576#msg1933576)
Relativity is developing IP and equipment to do large format metal 3d printing beyond simply using it to print their rockets.
If anyone is aware of other companies that have a more nuanced business plan than just simply fielding a launch vehicle, it'd be great if you could post it.
The crowded potential competitive landscape you outlined was already a tough one that would likely have meant many companies would find it difficult to secure enough funding to even finish developing their launcher. Those few who did field a vehicle would be scrambling to compete with each other and with options on larger launchers for a limited number of payloads making it challenging to develop a solid flight history anytime soon and to ensure they had enough ongoing revenue to survive. That was before things got truly grim.Cheap rideshares are somewhat of a red herring: rideshares have always been cheaper than proposed dedicated smallsat launchers. Smallsat launchers are attractive even with the increased cost because of their other properties: the ability to launch to an orbit of your choice, at a time of your choice. That has quite a lot of value in and of itself, even before you get into the logistical headaches of actually assembling a rideshare (go ask anyone involved in SSO-A). If you goal is just to get a thing into an orbit, any orbit, eventually; then rideshares are great. If you need your satellites to go into a specific orbit, you either need to wait for a launch that happens to be going close enough to the orbit you need for your on-board propulsion (you do have some, right?) to get you there, or build a dedicated kickstage that both fits in the deployment mechanism and doesn't end up costing as much as the satellite itself. Maybe you want to phase your launch to insert your satellite into an existing constellation? Sorry, your schedule is set by someone else.
Then this happened (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48741.msg1985695#msg1985695) shortly after this happened (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48741.msg1982739#msg1982739). SpaceX is putting enormous downward price pressure on these small launchers and with things like fairing reuse and continued optimization of their fleet/operations, it seems likely that they will have enough slack in their costs to keep it moving downward in response to market competition. Will they be able to address and aggressively compete for all of the orbits and launch windows that that these small launchers can? No. Will they be able to address enough of the market that it basically sucks the air out of the room? Seems likely.
The F9 rideshare program alone, as it stands today, is enough to cause major upheaval. Now ask yourself what happens to these companies, most of whom are still developing vehicles that will have their first flight in the next 1-3 years, if SpaceX successfully fields the Starship in the next 1-3 years. Then there is the New Glen...will Blue Origin have a rideshare program too? They'll have a vehicle with a roomy fairing and extra mass margin vs. the typical payload sizes so it's hard to see why they wouldn't. It seems to me that it is a great time to be a company like Momentous and a lousy time to be a small launcher.
The companies who *might* survive are the ones who have a strong business plan focus on something other than surviving on revenue from launches. The examples I am aware of:
Rocket Labs is getting into helping companies develop payloads (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47848.msg1933576#msg1933576)
Relativity is developing IP and equipment to do large format metal 3d printing beyond simply using it to print their rockets.
If anyone is aware of other companies that have a more nuanced business plan than just simply fielding a launch vehicle, it'd be great if you could post it.
::EDIT:: Of course, if a dedicated reusable 'bigsat' launcher carrying just your smallsat ends up being cheaper than a dedicated smallsat launch anyway...
Momentus are offering an OTV, which will take yours and other sats to their target orbit, its not free so need factor in the overall price.The crowded potential competitive landscape you outlined was already a tough one that would likely have meant many companies would find it difficult to secure enough funding to even finish developing their launcher. Those few who did field a vehicle would be scrambling to compete with each other and with options on larger launchers for a limited number of payloads making it challenging to develop a solid flight history anytime soon and to ensure they had enough ongoing revenue to survive. That was before things got truly grim.Cheap rideshares are somewhat of a red herring: rideshares have always been cheaper than proposed dedicated smallsat launchers. Smallsat launchers are attractive even with the increased cost because of their other properties: the ability to launch to an orbit of your choice, at a time of your choice. That has quite a lot of value in and of itself, even before you get into the logistical headaches of actually assembling a rideshare (go ask anyone involved in SSO-A). If you goal is just to get a thing into an orbit, any orbit, eventually; then rideshares are great. If you need your satellites to go into a specific orbit, you either need to wait for a launch that happens to be going close enough to the orbit you need for your on-board propulsion (you do have some, right?) to get you there, or build a dedicated kickstage that both fits in the deployment mechanism and doesn't end up costing as much as the satellite itself. Maybe you want to phase your launch to insert your satellite into an existing constellation? Sorry, your schedule is set by someone else.
Then <a href="https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48741.msg1985695#msg1985695">this happened</a> shortly after <a href="https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48741.msg1982739#msg1982739">this happened</a>. SpaceX is putting enormous downward price pressure on these small launchers and with things like fairing reuse and continued optimization of their fleet/operations, it seems likely that they will have enough slack in their costs to keep it moving downward in response to market competition. Will they be able to address and aggressively compete for all of the orbits and launch windows that that these small launchers can? No. Will they be able to address enough of the market that it basically sucks the air out of the room? Seems likely.
The F9 rideshare program alone, as it stands today, is enough to cause major upheaval. Now ask yourself what happens to these companies, most of whom are still developing vehicles that will have their first flight in the next 1-3 years, if SpaceX successfully fields the Starship in the next 1-3 years. Then there is the New Glen...will Blue Origin have a rideshare program too? They'll have a vehicle with a roomy fairing and extra mass margin vs. the typical payload sizes so it's hard to see why they wouldn't. It seems to me that it is a great time to be a company like Momentous and a lousy time to be a small launcher.
The companies who *might* survive are the ones who have a strong business plan focus on something other than surviving on revenue from launches. The examples I am aware of:
Rocket Labs is getting into <a href="https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47848.msg1933576#msg1933576">helping companies develop payloads</a>
Relativity is developing IP and equipment to do large format metal 3d printing beyond simply using it to print their rockets.
If anyone is aware of other companies that have a more nuanced business plan than just simply fielding a launch vehicle, it'd be great if you could post it.
::EDIT:: Of course, if a dedicated reusable 'bigsat' launcher carrying just your smallsat ends up being cheaper than a dedicated smallsat launch anyway...
Or your big launcher big enough to carry a kick stage for every one of those smallsats, and a wholly owned subsidiary potentially bearing the brunt of the overhead cost of a kick stage/space tug production line. Let alone the regular service that makes smallsat companies more independent.
The crowded potential competitive landscape you outlined was already a tough one that would likely have meant many companies would find it difficult to secure enough funding to even finish developing their launcher. Those few who did field a vehicle would be scrambling to compete with each other and with options on larger launchers for a limited number of payloads making it challenging to develop a solid flight history anytime soon and to ensure they had enough ongoing revenue to survive. That was before things got truly grim.Cheap rideshares are somewhat of a red herring: rideshares have always been cheaper than proposed dedicated smallsat launchers. Smallsat launchers are attractive even with the increased cost because of their other properties: the ability to launch to an orbit of your choice, at a time of your choice. That has quite a lot of value in and of itself, even before you get into the logistical headaches of actually assembling a rideshare (go ask anyone involved in SSO-A). If you goal is just to get a thing into an orbit, any orbit, eventually; then rideshares are great. If you need your satellites to go into a specific orbit, you either need to wait for a launch that happens to be going close enough to the orbit you need for your on-board propulsion (you do have some, right?) to get you there, or build a dedicated kickstage that both fits in the deployment mechanism and doesn't end up costing as much as the satellite itself. Maybe you want to phase your launch to insert your satellite into an existing constellation? Sorry, your schedule is set by someone else.
Then this happened (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48741.msg1985695#msg1985695) shortly after this happened (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48741.msg1982739#msg1982739). SpaceX is putting enormous downward price pressure on these small launchers and with things like fairing reuse and continued optimization of their fleet/operations, it seems likely that they will have enough slack in their costs to keep it moving downward in response to market competition. Will they be able to address and aggressively compete for all of the orbits and launch windows that that these small launchers can? No. Will they be able to address enough of the market that it basically sucks the air out of the room? Seems likely.
The F9 rideshare program alone, as it stands today, is enough to cause major upheaval. Now ask yourself what happens to these companies, most of whom are still developing vehicles that will have their first flight in the next 1-3 years, if SpaceX successfully fields the Starship in the next 1-3 years. Then there is the New Glen...will Blue Origin have a rideshare program too? They'll have a vehicle with a roomy fairing and extra mass margin vs. the typical payload sizes so it's hard to see why they wouldn't. It seems to me that it is a great time to be a company like Momentous and a lousy time to be a small launcher.
The companies who *might* survive are the ones who have a strong business plan focus on something other than surviving on revenue from launches. The examples I am aware of:
Rocket Labs is getting into helping companies develop payloads (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47848.msg1933576#msg1933576)
Relativity is developing IP and equipment to do large format metal 3d printing beyond simply using it to print their rockets.
If anyone is aware of other companies that have a more nuanced business plan than just simply fielding a launch vehicle, it'd be great if you could post it.
::EDIT:: Of course, if a dedicated reusable 'bigsat' launcher carrying just your smallsat ends up being cheaper than a dedicated smallsat launch anyway...
Or your big launcher big enough to carry a kick stage for every one of those smallsats, and a wholly owned subsidiary potentially bearing the brunt of the overhead cost of a kick stage/space tug production line. Let alone the regular service that makes smallsat companies more independent.
Space News has an article on Carlos Niederstrasser's paper on the current state of smallsat launch vehicle development as presented at IAC.
https://spacenews.com/carlos-launch-vehicle-update-iac/
I still haven't found a public source for this year's paper, but this article has good detail and leads with the main tracking figure. The "total" is up to 148, but that includes 41 "unknown or defunct." The actual development list, is just 41. Every category grew since last year, but the development list only grew by 3. I expect next year the development list might shrink as a couple more having initial launches will really increase the pressure to either show something or drop out.
Space News has an article on Carlos Niederstrasser's paper on the current state of smallsat launch vehicle development as presented at IAC.
https://spacenews.com/carlos-launch-vehicle-update-iac/
I still haven't found a public source for this year's paper, but this article has good detail and leads with the main tracking figure. The "total" is up to 148, but that includes 41 "unknown or defunct." The actual development list, is just 41. Every category grew since last year, but the development list only grew by 3. I expect next year the development list might shrink as a couple more having initial launches will really increase the pressure to either show something or drop out.
Niederstrasser's numbers are highly misleading.
Even in the shorter "under development" category he still includes several types of groups as if they were serious contenders:
- dead efforts except for zombie websites e.g. Rocketstar, Orbital Access, Cubecab, Zero2Infinity, Celestia, Bagaveev(?)
- groups who started one year ago but are listed as launching in 2020 or 2021 e.g. Isar Aerospace, X-Bow, Space One, ESI
- groups who are short of resources / crowdfunding e.g. Phoenix (ex-Aphelion), ARCA, LEO Aerospace, bluShift, b2space
- groups who are struggling to deliver / technically inexperienced e.g. PLD Space, Astra, Gilmour, Interstellar
- groups who seem to be creating lifestyle businesses e.g. Interorbital
- zombie projects that will not die e.g Tronador 2
If you take those out you get down to a more sensible list of approx. 10-15.
And even there you have to filter between the likes of Virgin Orbit, who have hundreds of millions of dollars, launch pad deals, a long line of customers, government support, hugely experienced staff, massive facilities - and companies like Aevum.
It's unfortunate his study get so much attention. I genuinely think this forum could do better than that paper.
(snipped)
...
If you take those out you get down to a more sensible list of approx. 10-15.
And even there you have to filter between the likes of Virgin Orbit, who have hundreds of millions of dollars, launch pad deals, a long line of customers, government support, hugely experienced staff, massive facilities - and companies like Aevum.
It's unfortunate his study get so much attention. I genuinely think this forum could do better than that paper.
It's unfortunate his study get so much attention. I genuinely think this forum could do better than that paper.It is the only list I have seen that even attempts to exhaustively account for all of the companies out there. Obviously, 90% of the companies will probably fail, and most of them could be called out fairly quickly as non-viable if sufficient information is available from them. But there is not enough public information to do this for all of them, and the final line drawn would be fairly arbitrary anyway. The total number of companies that are trying at any level, and how many have failed so far are interesting metrics that say a lot about the state of the industry.
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) flight since thread opening:
...(snip)...
Somebody posted this up on Reddit:
http://www.spaceworkscommercial.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Nano-Microsatellite-Market-Forecast-8th-Edition-2018.pdf (http://www.spaceworkscommercial.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Nano-Microsatellite-Market-Forecast-8th-Edition-2018.pdf)
(https://i.redd.it/p5cr07d9duo01.jpg)
Not sure what they're basing any ranking on. What's IOC mean - "entry into service date"?
#2 is "Kuaizhou 1A. The list says "successful launch and satellite deployment". Did this become Hyperbola-1 or Jielong-1?
Listen to podcast on Black Arrow. They plan to sealaunch from ship, due to limited launch site oprions in UK.<rolls eyes>
https://blackarrow-space.uk
LVs are their long term business plan, near term is building composite tanks for aerospace industry. Unlike lot of small LV companies its not case of space or bust, they have viable alternative business plan.
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) flight since thread opening:
...(snip)...
OK, so in addition to the ones I listed, we have two dark horse candidates (Astra & X-Bow), and Perigee who competes in the <50kg space.
It's unfortunate his study get so much attention. I genuinely think this forum could do better than that paper.It is the only list I have seen that even attempts to exhaustively account for all of the companies out there. Obviously, 90% of the companies will probably fail, and most of them could be called out fairly quickly as non-viable if sufficient information is available from them. But there is not enough public information to do this for all of them, and the final line drawn would be fairly arbitrary anyway. The total number of companies that are trying at any level, and how many have failed so far are interesting metrics that say a lot about the state of the industry.
Don't dismiss something just because it doesn't communicate the specific piece of information you want or use your specific judging criteria. It is obviously useful to create a shortlist of which companies are actually known to be on track to get a launch in the next couple years, and multiple people have done so on this thread. That doesn't mean that the total number of claimed competitors is useless information, for example, rates of new companies joining and rates of failure can be extracted and tell a story.
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) flight since thread opening:
2018-01 Electron US/NZ Rocket Lab
2019-07 Hyperbola-1 China iSpace
2019-08 Jielong-1 China Chinarocket (state-owned)
Planned or expected (NET)
2019-11 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40634.msg1991386#msg1991386) LauncherOne US Virgin
2019 (https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=230288) Astra US Astra
2019 (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_chr/lau2019.htm) Simorgh Iran (state-owned)
2019 (https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/chinas-latest-kuaizhou-rocket-nearing-first-launch/) Kuaizhou-11 China (state-owned)
2019 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-space/second-chinese-rocket-startup-fails-to-put-satellite-into-orbit-state-media-idUSKCN1R906L) OS-M1 China OneSpace
2020-Q1 (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/) SSLV India ISRO (state-owned)
2020-03 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg2007490#msg2007490) Firefly α US/Ukr Firefly
2020-07 (https://spacenews.com/backed-by-samsung-south-korean-startup-perigee-aims-for-2020-maiden-launch/) Blue Whale 1 Korea Perigee
2020 (https://spacenews.com/new-chinese-commercial-rocket-firms-move-toward-maiden-launches/) Ceres-1 China Galactic Energy
2020 (https://www.ablspacesystems.com/) RS1 US ABL
2020 (https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-10-20/Chinese-company-releases-launch-plan-of-commercial-rockets-KWtFWKrEIM/index.html) Jielong-2 China Chinarocket (state-owned)
2020 (https://technode.com/2019/03/01/chinese-rocket-startup-wants-to-achieve-spacex-success-in-50-less-time-than-elon-musk/) Nebula-1 China Deep Blue
2020? (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2004055#msg2004055) Super Strypi US X-Bow
2021 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/amidst-heavy-competition-relatively-space-secures-140-million-in-funding/) Terran 1 US Relativity
2021 (https://spacenews.com/landspace-ispace-and-linkspace-of-china-claim-progress-on-new-launchers/) Newline-1 China LinkSpace
All the rest (realistically) 2022+.
Failed: Vector
[2019-10-29: updated SSLV]
Good information ringsider, thanks. That kind of argues for the original list I posted as the most likely list of plausibles.
In staring at the vehicles on this list I've come to see that there isn't one group of competitors, there are actually two. The vehicles break out into smallsat vehicles (Electron, Prime, LauncherOne) and much larger (3x-5x the size) vehicles for medium to heavy satellites (Firefly Alpha, Terran 1, RS1).
The bigger rockets don't actually have to worry about competing against smallsat launchers for a lot of the primary payload range they are capable of launching but could potentially aggregate/rideshare smallsats to steal payloads from the smallsat launchers (and in turn they are all subject to that happening from SpaceX & others on the big vehicles).
I am curious about the actual addressable market size. Does anyone know a good reference for how many payloads of a given weight class generally launch every year? https://www.nanosats.eu/ seems to have some good info but I haven't seen it broken out in a way that would be useful to figuring out how many payloads these launchers are actually likely to be fighting over.
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) flight since thread opening:
2018-01 Electron US/NZ Rocket Lab
2019-07 Hyperbola-1 China iSpace
2019-08 Jielong-1 China Chinarocket (state-owned)
Planned or expected (NET)
2019-11 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40634.msg1991386#msg1991386) LauncherOne US Virgin
2019 (https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=230288) Astra US Astra
2019 (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_chr/lau2019.htm) Simorgh Iran (state-owned)
2019 (https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/chinas-latest-kuaizhou-rocket-nearing-first-launch/) Kuaizhou-11 China (state-owned)
2019 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-space/second-chinese-rocket-startup-fails-to-put-satellite-into-orbit-state-media-idUSKCN1R906L) OS-M1 China OneSpace
2020-Q1 (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/) SSLV India ISRO (state-owned)
2020-03 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg2007490#msg2007490) Firefly α US/Ukr Firefly
2020-07 (https://spacenews.com/backed-by-samsung-south-korean-startup-perigee-aims-for-2020-maiden-launch/) Blue Whale 1 Korea Perigee
2020 (https://spacenews.com/new-chinese-commercial-rocket-firms-move-toward-maiden-launches/) Ceres-1 China Galactic Energy
2020 (https://www.ablspacesystems.com/) RS1 US ABL
2020 (https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-10-20/Chinese-company-releases-launch-plan-of-commercial-rockets-KWtFWKrEIM/index.html) Jielong-2 China Chinarocket (state-owned)
2020 (https://technode.com/2019/03/01/chinese-rocket-startup-wants-to-achieve-spacex-success-in-50-less-time-than-elon-musk/) Nebula-1 China Deep Blue
2020? (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2004055#msg2004055) Super Strypi US X-Bow
2021 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/amidst-heavy-competition-relatively-space-secures-140-million-in-funding/) Terran 1 US Relativity
2021 (https://spacenews.com/landspace-ispace-and-linkspace-of-china-claim-progress-on-new-launchers/) Newline-1 China LinkSpace
All the rest (realistically) 2022+.
Failed: Vector
[2019-10-29: updated SSLV]
The only company, that imho, should be add in this list is Launcher Space...they are coming very slow...but they have the money and the product, for survive...and put something that actually fly in the next years...
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47486.msg1913440#msg1913440
Firstly there is a huge amount of quite public information on almost all the vehicles in his study. See above for the so-called secret one, X-Bow. I put that together in half an hour. You could do that for all the 100+ groups on his list in a week or two, and not to go to that level is a poor methodology.Much of what you put together is simply not relevant for his paper, and you for some strange reason included a link to the wiki page of a different rocket that flew and failed once 4 years ago. Anyway, you do not have access to the full data set to know exactly how much research was done to categorize them. The air force launch contract they got is enough to list them as development for the purposes of that paper, and is the source of an important metric you left out of your research, payload >400 lb (180 kg)
Secondly I disagree about the metric: that is like saying "this is how many people say they want to be an astronaut" rather than "thes are the 12 astronaut candidates selected by NASA". It should be obvious that just wanting to be an astronaut doesn't make it either possible or likely. More important are things that qualfiy you to be an astronaut, like educational background in hard subjects, aerospace experience, physical fitness, size and weight, visual acuity. You are overweight, didn't get a degree, never piloted an aircraft and you want to be an astronaut? Awesome, this is why we have video games.If you are researching public opinion of the space program, effects of NASA public outreach on STEM education, or other things like that, then you really don't care how many current astronaut candidates there are, but a poll on who wants to be an astronaut would be quite useful.
I think that list is worse than useless, I think it is actively misleading, because it is built on criteria that are too inclusive, like listing everybody who wants to be an astronaut, without asking the critical questions about qualifications. So we know there are a lot of people who would like to be an astronaut? Great - who didn't know that?Really you know that a lot of people want to be astronaut? What are the figures on that? How has it changed since SpaceX got to orbit? Also, while you are at it, how many people think that NASA disbanded at the end of the shuttle era?
Beyond that his list is not even exhaustive, as it doesn't include several firms e.g. Agnikul in India (http://www.agnikul.in/) and others I could name. So what metric are we getting? The wrong numerator over the wrong denominator.Is it missing from the most recent list? I haven't seen the full report for this year, so I wouldn't know what is in it, if it is missing, then I am sure he would be happy if you e-mailed him to let him know. It is not reasonable to expect any one person to be guaranteed to find every single launch vehicle company on the planet. If you have a more exhaustive list than his, please share.
And I could make it worse, by opening a few bogus launcher company websites for the next survey, and forcing him to include them in his list. I might just do that; I might just build a couple of new launcher firms and let him include them and then debunk his methodology by revealing they are totally fictitious, and that his survey doesn't discriminate effectively.And now you seem to be suggesting that you are going to intentionally lie, setting up fake companies to mess with the results of a published paper.
Much of what you put together is simply not relevant for his paper, and you for some strange reason included a link to the wiki page of a different rocket that flew and failed once 4 years ago.
And now you seem to be suggesting that you are going to intentionally lie, setting up fake companies to mess with the results of a published paper.
I'd comment on that, but maybe you should just read that previous sentence I wrote a couple of times and reflect on it. Imagine what you would think if you heard someone say they were going to do that in some other context.
And I should know that how? The wiki article doesn't mention the LEONIDAS name. And if they have access to resources that already made an orbital launch attempt, your claim that they have no hope of getting to orbit within 3 years is not reflective of the facts.Much of what you put together is simply not relevant for his paper, and you for some strange reason included a link to the wiki page of a different rocket that flew and failed once 4 years ago.
The strange reason is the one I wrote above: text written by X-Bow in support of the Hawaii launch site states that the X-Bow concept is based on LEONIDAS, which is Spark AKA Super Strypi:-
Oh you mean like the scientists who published a bunch of totally bogus papers to expose the scandal of academic publishing?You are arguing strawmen here. What you are claiming is not the same as what you referenced, and even if you succeeded, adding 3 more to the watch list would not really change much. There are certainly ones currently on the list that are either too incompetent to ever get anywhere, or possibly outright frauds. It doesn't matter, as there is no rigorous criteria to split them into unarguable categories.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
Appalling.
And anyway, I actually intend to actively develop those rockets, eventually. Really. Sure - I don't have any money, or a team, or a rocket factory, or customers. But I - I should say "we" - will have a Twitter account and a single page website, and I sincerely intend to build those damn rockets, one day.
I expect a few new efforts will pop up in the next year or so. Will you spot the imposter? There's nothing fake about them if they fulfill the criteria, right?
The strange reason is the one I wrote above: text written by X-Bow in support of the Hawaii launch site states that the X-Bow concept is based on LEONIDAS, which is Spark AKA Super Strypi:-
And I should know that how? The wiki article doesn't mention the LEONIDAS name.
What you are claiming is not the same as what you referenced, and even if you succeeded, adding 3 more to the watch list would not really change much.
There are certainly ones currently on the list that are either too incompetent to ever get anywhere, or possibly outright frauds. It doesn't matter, as there is no rigorous criteria to split them into unarguable categories.
Again, if you can do better than the paper, feel free to. If you aren't going to do so, then stop insisting that metrics and viability, and what is worth tracking, should all be determined at your discretion.
In staring at the vehicles on this list I've come to see that there isn't one group of competitors, there are actually two. The vehicles break out into smallsat vehicles (Electron, Prime, LauncherOne) and much larger (3x-5x the size) vehicles for medium to heavy satellites (Firefly Alpha, Terran 1, RS1).
I am sorry I replied to your most recent post too quickly. Your post states that LEONIDAS was Spark, but Spark is a rocket and LEONIDAS a DoD program, and I remembered there were no other alternate names for the rocket in the page, and didn't go back to see the connection.The strange reason is the one I wrote above: text written by X-Bow in support of the Hawaii launch site states that the X-Bow concept is based on LEONIDAS, which is Spark AKA Super Strypi:-
And I should know that how? The wiki article doesn't mention the LEONIDAS name.
By reading. Because, actually, the LEONIDAS name is in the very first paragraph of the Wiki article:-
A little courtesy from you would be nice. You are blatantly exaggerating what I said. I simply described what you are doing and suggested you think about how that sounds. Apparently your conclusion was that you are being nefarious, and are the worst villain since Dr. No, but that is your opinion of yourself, not mine.What you are claiming is not the same as what you referenced, and even if you succeeded, adding 3 more to the watch list would not really change much.Two minutes ago I was the worst villain since Dr No. Now my nefarious plans are irrelevant. A little consistency would be nice.
Really? You have a magic algorithm that can perfectly categorize startups? Please share. Smart people invest in startups that fail all the time, because you simply can't always know. (and vice versa, startups that become hugely successful can have lots of criticism in their early days with accusations that they are crazy, or could never succeed.)QuoteThere are certainly ones currently on the list that are either too incompetent to ever get anywhere, or possibly outright frauds. It doesn't matter, as there is no rigorous criteria to split them into unarguable categories.Sure there are. The fact that you don't know how doesn't mean it can't be done.
But then again the fact that you say there are "outright frauds" is pretty rigorous. Care to name those groups you suspect of being fraudulent? Not to say is highly unethical if you have information that could protect people from damage.And again, you change what I said. I did not say that there are any frauds in the group, just that it was possible that there are. With well over a hundred small rocket startups, there is clearly a lot of hype around them, and it seems like a prime market for a fraudulent group to target. I haven't seen statistics on rates of fraudulent startups, but with the opportunity and the number of startups in that segment, it does not seem unlikely that there is one or more fraudulent groups in the list.
You are basing most of your argument of why the article is bad on you doing better. This isn't some mult-million dollar project, it is just a list of company names with status labelled. It is also possible to criticize something without claiming that your way is the only way, or claiming that you would do a better job in their position. You have tried to argue not that the list could be improved, but that the list is worthless. It is the only list I know of with the level of thoroughness it has. Unless you can point to a more thorough one, there contains information not easily available elsewhere.QuoteAgain, if you can do better than the paper, feel free to. If you aren't going to do so, then stop insisting that metrics and viability, and what is worth tracking, should all be determined at your discretion.I suspect that the irony of that argument, from someone who can't read the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article, escapes you entirely. My sympathies.
Here is my challenge to you: next time you have any complaint about any thing - product or service - don't you dare complain about how they choose to do it unless you have gone out and built a better car, airline, tax system, computer, mobile network, medical insurance network, weather forecasting system, movie production company, book publisher, traffic management system, banking conglomerate, political party - whatever - yourself.
Because by your own standards that would be hypocritical.
In staring at the vehicles on this list I've come to see that there isn't one group of competitors, there are actually two. The vehicles break out into smallsat vehicles (Electron, Prime, LauncherOne) and much larger (3x-5x the size) vehicles for medium to heavy satellites (Firefly Alpha, Terran 1, RS1).
Cheap rideshares are somewhat of a red herring: rideshares have always been cheaper than proposed dedicated smallsat launchers.
Smallsat launchers are attractive even with the increased cost because of their other properties: the ability to launch to an orbit of your choice, at a time of your choice.
That has quite a lot of value in and of itself, even before you get into the logistical headaches of actually assembling a rideshare (go ask anyone involved in SSO-A).
Firefly are developing SEP OTV capable of delivering 500kg to GEO and can host payloads.
Similar to RL Curie and Photon but lot more capable.
I think Virgin are also developing OTV for BLEO missions.
With OTV delivering satellite directly to its preferred orbit it on only needs station keep propulsion. Something rideshares can't offer unless satellite uses 3rd party OTV like Momentus.
These OTVs can also double as satellite buses with hosted payloads eg Photon. Customers design payload while the launch provider delivers it to orbit on OTV and manages it for on going fee. This may end up being bigger market for these small LV providers.
Edit: One other thought on this. For hosted payloads if there is LV failure customer is only out of pocket for lost payload not the satellite bus.
Good information ringsider, thanks. That kind of argues for the original list I posted as the most likely list of plausibles.
In staring at the vehicles on this list I've come to see that there isn't one group of competitors, there are actually two. The vehicles break out into smallsat vehicles (Electron, Prime, LauncherOne) and much larger (3x-5x the size) vehicles for medium to heavy satellites (Firefly Alpha, Terran 1, RS1).
The bigger rockets don't actually have to worry about competing against smallsat launchers for a lot of the primary payload range they are capable of launching but could potentially aggregate/rideshare smallsats to steal payloads from the smallsat launchers (and in turn they are all subject to that happening from SpaceX & others on the big vehicles).
I am curious about the actual addressable market size. Does anyone know a good reference for how many payloads of a given weight class generally launch every year? https://www.nanosats.eu/ seems to have some good info but I haven't seen it broken out in a way that would be useful to figuring out how many payloads these launchers are actually likely to be fighting over.
The BIG question, is after reach 800 cubesats launch, per year, the trend will continue growth, or will stop...?
Cheap rideshares are somewhat of a red herring: rideshares have always been cheaper than proposed dedicated smallsat launchers.
They have been getting cheaper -- much cheaper -- and the opportunities for them more numerous.Smallsat launchers are attractive even with the increased cost because of their other properties: the ability to launch to an orbit of your choice, at a time of your choice.
That's always the claim of the smallsat launchers. Of course they're going to claim that because it's all they can claim. It's always what companies that can't compete on price claim -- that they are providing other benefits that more than make up for the difference in price. Often, it's just wishful thinking.
There are two very powerful factors that argue against this line of reasoning. The first is that the cost difference is so great. It's not just 10% or 20% or even 50%. It's multiple times the cost to go with the smallsat launcher. The other factor that goes agains the smallsat launchers is that the people developing smallsats tend to be extremely price-sensitive. The launch is the dominant cost for many developers of smallsats. They just can't afford to pay so much more for the dedicated launches.
And the larger the market for smallsat launch, the more dedicated rideshare missions there will be on the large launchers. That means more different orbits served more frequently. So, the larger the market, the less attractive dedicated smallsat launchers become. The smallsat launchers can't win -- too small a market and they don't have enough business to survive, and too large a market and it all goes to rideshare.
The fact is that SSO-A was a success. And SpaceX, having seen it first hand, decided to get into the business of repeating dedicated rideshare missions often, and doing rideshare on Starlink launches. SpaceX should know, and they think the logistical problems are worth it.
The BIG question, is after reach 800 cubesats launch, per year, the trend will continue growth, or will stop...?
While we are on the topic of ridesharing, I think the following article is very interesting:Likes of Momentus could offer rideshares inside rideshares. They book a smallsat spot for their OTV with SpaceX then sell cubesat spots on OTV to individual customers.
https://spacenews.com/spaceflight-herded-64-cubesats-onto-a-single-falcon-9-it-has-the-scratch-marks-to-prove-it/ (https://spacenews.com/spaceflight-herded-64-cubesats-onto-a-single-falcon-9-it-has-the-scratch-marks-to-prove-it/)
It discusses the spacex SSO-A mission in a lot of detail, including the problems with such a large rideshare mission, but also some solutions.
About the quote earlier in this thread:The fact is that SSO-A was a success. And SpaceX, having seen it first hand, decided to get into the business of repeating dedicated rideshare missions often, and doing rideshare on Starlink launches. SpaceX should know, and they think the logistical problems are worth it.
Was it such a resounding success though? Spaceflight seems less than enthousiastic about doing the same thing again:
As for Spaceflight, the company doesn’t have plans for a mission similar in scale to SSO-A for the near future. “Keeping 50-plus customers on one mission is extremely hard,” Roberts said, with the company instead focusing on smaller rideshare missions.
To be fair, they add that they would do another mission if the market demands it, but their response appears to indicate they'd rather go for the smallsat launchers. Obviously their opinion of SpaceX may have been colored by the initial spacex SHERPA rideshare mission with formosat-5. That mission was delayed to the point where spaceflight cancelled it in frustration.
The new Spacex approach for offering rideshares could work much better than how Spaceflight approached it, or it could not. Spaceflight is not exactly inexperienced in these matters, so their experience counts for something.
We will have to see how it pans out, but my guess is that there will certainly be room for (some) small launch vehicles.
Cheap rideshares are somewhat of a red herring: rideshares have always been cheaper than proposed dedicated smallsat launchers.
They have been getting cheaper -- much cheaper -- and the opportunities for them more numerous.Smallsat launchers are attractive even with the increased cost because of their other properties: the ability to launch to an orbit of your choice, at a time of your choice.
That's always the claim of the smallsat launchers. Of course they're going to claim that because it's all they can claim. It's always what companies that can't compete on price claim -- that they are providing other benefits that more than make up for the difference in price. Often, it's just wishful thinking.
There are two very powerful factors that argue against this line of reasoning. The first is that the cost difference is so great. It's not just 10% or 20% or even 50%. It's multiple times the cost to go with the smallsat launcher. The other factor that goes agains the smallsat launchers is that the people developing smallsats tend to be extremely price-sensitive. The launch is the dominant cost for many developers of smallsats. They just can't afford to pay so much more for the dedicated launches.
And the larger the market for smallsat launch, the more dedicated rideshare missions there will be on the large launchers. That means more different orbits served more frequently. So, the larger the market, the less attractive dedicated smallsat launchers become. The smallsat launchers can't win -- too small a market and they don't have enough business to survive, and too large a market and it all goes to rideshare.
Wishful thinking that already launched 5 times this year on RocketLab rather than waiting for rideshares on SpaceX
, and most of the SpaceX smallsat launches being spare capacity on Starlink launches rather entire launches. Meaning different pricing (the main goal is likely to reduce the cost of deploying Starlink), specific target orbits, launch times not dependable (Starlink launches are being postponed).
A bit early to call, and even in a worst case scenario, there definitely seem to be niches where smallsat companies can in fact survive comfortably.
Especially if they provide highly flexible satellite design solutions rather than just a launch service.
In staring at the vehicles on this list I've come to see that there isn't one group of competitors, there are actually two. The vehicles break out into smallsat vehicles (Electron, Prime, LauncherOne) and much larger (3x-5x the size) vehicles for medium to heavy satellites (Firefly Alpha, Terran 1, RS1).
Here is a payload to 500 km SSO comparison for some more launchers, including old rockets:
50 Blue Whale 1 Perigee
~65 Astra Astra
100 Zero Interstellar
150 Electron Rocket Lab
150 Prime Orbex
200 Eris-S Gilmour
~220 Super Stripy X-Bow
~270 Pegasus NGIS
300 LauncherOne Virgin
300 SSLV ISRO
300 Miura 5 PLD Space
400 Rocket-1 Launcher Space
590 Epsilon JAXA
650 Firefly Alpha Firefly
700 Spectrum Isar Aerospace
875 RS1 ABL
900 Terran 1 Relativity
~900 Minotaur-C NGIS
I would say we have more than two categories here, though from 300 to 600 there really is a big gap, with just Launcher Space sitting inbetween.
Antrix said they are expecting 60 SSLV launches per year in the medium term. So the 300 kg spot may not be that bad ... (at least if you offer a highly competitive price, which Virgin does not).
I think laziness is a bit harsh.
By reading. Because, actually, the LEONIDAS name is in the very first paragraph of the Wiki article:-
"SPARK, or Spaceborne Payload Assist Rocket - Kauai, also known as Super Strypi, is an American expendable launch systemdeveloped by the University of Hawaii, Sandiaand Aerojet Rocketdyne.Designed to place miniaturized satellites into low Earth and sun-synchronous orbits, it is a derivative of the Strypi rocket which was developed in the 1960s in support of nuclear weapons testing. SPARK is being developed under the Low Earth Orbiting Nanosatellite Integrated Defense Autonomous System (LEONIDAS) program, funded by the Operationally Responsive Space Office of the United States Department of Defense."
I don't mind if you have another opinion but I won't stand for laziness.
ISRO SSLV & JAXA Epsilon: I deliberately left out government sponsored launchers on the assumption they wouldn't compete effectively commercially but if they do then I think it is legit to include them
I think that SSLV will become the commercially most successful non-reusable smallsat laucher. It is low-cost in production and operation, launches sold for ~ 3,5 M$, and it is highly responsive.
A SSO-A related bit here, but if Spaceflight Industries wants to really push the needle on SSO customers, they can take their corncob approach to the next level.
Their next rideshare should be a Archinaut/Spiderfab based rideshare mission, where the majority of customers are standardized interface payloads (think MagTag attached). The rideshare bus builds out it's own truss to be a space corral aggregate satellite, while building individual sats with customer payloads and common cubesat buses for customers unsatisfied with the main bus orbit (which means either building up customer sats with propulsion integrated buses, or sats+rideshare OTV). Think taking the A-train SSO observation cluster concept to the next level. Then you are left with the envious choice of delivering the next rideshare bus to an existing populated one to expand it, or shift the next bus to a different SSO position and building another aggregate/build base.
Expanding an SSO observation cluster (operating as a space corral aggregate satellite) means you have a regular destination for smallsat launchers as well as larger rideshare buses.
I would say we have more than two categories here, though from 300 to 600 there really is a big gap, with just Launcher Space sitting inbetween.
Antrix said they are expecting 60 SSLV launches per year in the medium term. So the 300 kg spot may not be that bad ... (at least if you offer a highly competitive price, which Virgin does not).
A SSO-A related bit here, but if Spaceflight Industries wants to really push the needle on SSO customers, they can take their corncob approach to the next level.
Their next rideshare should be a Archinaut/Spiderfab based rideshare mission, where the majority of customers are standardized interface payloads (think MagTag attached). The rideshare bus builds out it's own truss to be a space corral aggregate satellite, while building individual sats with customer payloads and common cubesat buses for customers unsatisfied with the main bus orbit (which means either building up customer sats with propulsion integrated buses, or sats+rideshare OTV). Think taking the A-train SSO observation cluster concept to the next level. Then you are left with the envious choice of delivering the next rideshare bus to an existing populated one to expand it, or shift the next bus to a different SSO position and building another aggregate/build base.
Expanding an SSO observation cluster (operating as a space corral aggregate satellite) means you have a regular destination for smallsat launchers as well as larger rideshare buses.
So you're basically saying that instead of having them all freeflying, smallsats (which don't need to be in some specific different orbit) could be clumped together, thereby simplifying the mission by eliminating the difficulties of identifying and tracking each one (https://spacenews.com/spaceflight-herded-64-cubesats-onto-a-single-falcon-9-it-has-the-scratch-marks-to-prove-it/)?
Cheap rideshares are somewhat of a red herring: rideshares have always been cheaper than proposed dedicated smallsat launchers.
They have been getting cheaper -- much cheaper -- and the opportunities for them more numerous.Smallsat launchers are attractive even with the increased cost because of their other properties: the ability to launch to an orbit of your choice, at a time of your choice.
That's always the claim of the smallsat launchers. Of course they're going to claim that because it's all they can claim. It's always what companies that can't compete on price claim -- that they are providing other benefits that more than make up for the difference in price. Often, it's just wishful thinking.
There are two very powerful factors that argue against this line of reasoning. The first is that the cost difference is so great. It's not just 10% or 20% or even 50%. It's multiple times the cost to go with the smallsat launcher. The other factor that goes agains the smallsat launchers is that the people developing smallsats tend to be extremely price-sensitive. The launch is the dominant cost for many developers of smallsats. They just can't afford to pay so much more for the dedicated launches.
And the larger the market for smallsat launch, the more dedicated rideshare missions there will be on the large launchers. That means more different orbits served more frequently. So, the larger the market, the less attractive dedicated smallsat launchers become. The smallsat launchers can't win -- too small a market and they don't have enough business to survive, and too large a market and it all goes to rideshare.
Wishful thinking that already launched 5 times this year on RocketLab rather than waiting for rideshares on SpaceX
Nobody said the the smallsat launchers would never get any launches at all. The question people are debating is how much market share they will get and whether it will be enough to justify the investments in these smallsat launch companies.
So far, RocketLab's launches aren't enough to justify the investment made to develop Electron. SpaceX only just recently announced their rideshare program. Most of the smallsat launchers haven't yet launched anything. It's too early to declare victory for any side in this debate.
, and most of the SpaceX smallsat launches being spare capacity on Starlink launches rather entire launches. Meaning different pricing (the main goal is likely to reduce the cost of deploying Starlink), specific target orbits, launch times not dependable (Starlink launches are being postponed).
If anything, rideshare on Starlinnk launches could be cheaper because the flights are going no matter what. Cheaper rideshare just makes my case better.
Starlink launches are just starting, so any delays at the start of the program don't make it likely there will be ongoing delays once they get the kinks worked out and they're in a regular cadence.[/quote]
Especially if they provide highly flexible satellite design solutions rather than just a launch service.
If the smallsat launchers aren't economically competitive, any satellite design solution that is tied to them will be at a disadvantage compared to satellite design solutions that aren't tied to the albatross of an expensive launch provider.
The smallsat business will be big enough to support multiple design services. Those that are independent of a more expensive launch provider will out-compete those that are. Some launch providers might pivot to being only satellite design houses if their satellite design business is good but their launch business is not economical.
So far, RocketLab's launches aren't enough to justify the investment made to develop Electron.
We agree on this point.
I think some of these payload delivery buses will struggle because in the end they need the rocket to get their solution to space. Their bet is they can squeeze a margin between the end customr and the rocket operator, but that has to either come from the rocket operator lowering prices or the end customer paying more for the service. If you are building and flying the rocket why would you allow someone to insert themselves like that and capture value that you create on a regular basis? Once in a while? Sure. But not super regularly, which limits the volume they can supply.
A SSO-A related bit here, but if Spaceflight Industries wants to really push the needle on SSO customers, they can take their corncob approach to the next level.
Their next rideshare should be a Archinaut/Spiderfab based rideshare mission, where the majority of customers are standardized interface payloads (think MagTag attached). The rideshare bus builds out it's own truss to be a space corral aggregate satellite, while building individual sats with customer payloads and common cubesat buses for customers unsatisfied with the main bus orbit (which means either building up customer sats with propulsion integrated buses, or sats+rideshare OTV). Think taking the A-train SSO observation cluster concept to the next level. Then you are left with the envious choice of delivering the next rideshare bus to an existing populated one to expand it, or shift the next bus to a different SSO position and building another aggregate/build base.
Expanding an SSO observation cluster (operating as a space corral aggregate satellite) means you have a regular destination for smallsat launchers as well as larger rideshare buses.
So you're basically saying that instead of having them all freeflying, smallsats (which don't need to be in some specific different orbit) could be clumped together, thereby simplifying the mission by eliminating the difficulties of identifying and tracking each one (https://spacenews.com/spaceflight-herded-64-cubesats-onto-a-single-falcon-9-it-has-the-scratch-marks-to-prove-it/)?
Well, your basic SSO payload categories (which may overlap) are
1. earth observation
2. high latitude relay
3. demos
Remote sensing customers usually have a desire to fly over a specific spot at local noon (thus selecting SSO), but don't care how, and may not even be that specific if their sensor payload can slew. The relay type customer may not be that specific in position (constellation spread dependent but the complete set may be shiftable) but need SSO for high latitude coverage. The demos fall into sensor types (which may need high power) or propulsion types (definitely need power). Being a demo, the sensor types may be more tolerant of not being able to specify SSO position as long as they have power. The propulsion demos are a bit tougher though. Do you really want to mount them on the aggregate coral sat directly (more power, but potentially disturb other customers), or branch off to swapping propulsion demos on an OTV (reusable freeflyer effectively) that is based at the aggregate coral sat, after the OTV is done moving built sats to their own SSO positions?
A rough guess is 3 or 4 SSO aggregate coral sats could provide the minimum baseline for "socketed" payloads to hang off of and still have good global coverage of spots near local noon (assuming some slew is acceptable). Since you are building an aggregate coral sat, you only need to deliver payloads, solar array parts, cabling, truss structure materials, and the initial builder, along with any standard buses and their parts for socketed payloads that will be free flying later. The builder doubles as a berthing mechanism system for capturing deliveries.
The archinaut demo flight using a Photon base platform could be the seed for an aggregate coral if you wanted the build base up and running before the big rideshare bus arrives. Sensor payload benefit by avoiding deployable structures, leaving that to the builder, plus checkout of everything that isn't the payload by the aggregate coral sat operator during the build. If the sensor payload itself needs deployable parts (antennas, optics, etc), the builder can make it (and probably fix it if they screwed up). This allows sensor payload makers to focus on their core value addition. As for the propulsion demos, if mounted on the aggregate, there is a higher amount of power available than a typical cubesat chassis, plus the ability to do a propulsion checkout, perhaps before attaching to some other bus+tankage. Even if a sensor payload is destined to go off platform as a free flyer, you can check out the core components (payload, propulsion, host bus ACS/comms/power) before release.
Likes of Momentus could offer rideshares inside rideshares. They book a smallsat spot for their OTV with SpaceX then sell cubesat spots on OTV to individual customers.
Well, your basic SSO payload categories (which may overlap) are
1. earth observation
2. high latitude relay
3. demos
Remote sensing customers usually have a desire to fly over a specific spot at local noon (thus selecting SSO), but don't care how, and may not even be that specific if their sensor payload can slew. The relay type customer may not be that specific in position (constellation spread dependent but the complete set may be shiftable) but need SSO for high latitude coverage. The demos fall into sensor types (which may need high power) or propulsion types (definitely need power). Being a demo, the sensor types may be more tolerant of not being able to specify SSO position as long as they have power. The propulsion demos are a bit tougher though. Do you really want to mount them on the aggregate coral sat directly (more power, but potentially disturb other customers), or branch off to swapping propulsion demos on an OTV (reusable freeflyer effectively) that is based at the aggregate coral sat, after the OTV is done moving built sats to their own SSO positions?
A rough guess is 3 or 4 SSO aggregate coral sats could provide the minimum baseline for "socketed" payloads to hang off of and still have good global coverage of spots near local noon (assuming some slew is acceptable). Since you are building an aggregate coral sat, you only need to deliver payloads, solar array parts, cabling, truss structure materials, and the initial builder, along with any standard buses and their parts for socketed payloads that will be free flying later. The builder doubles as a berthing mechanism system for capturing deliveries.
The archinaut demo flight using a Photon base platform could be the seed for an aggregate coral if you wanted the build base up and running before the big rideshare bus arrives. Sensor payload benefit by avoiding deployable structures, leaving that to the builder, plus checkout of everything that isn't the payload by the aggregate coral sat operator during the build. If the sensor payload itself needs deployable parts (antennas, optics, etc), the builder can make it (and probably fix it if they screwed up). This allows sensor payload makers to focus on their core value addition. As for the propulsion demos, if mounted on the aggregate, there is a higher amount of power available than a typical cubesat chassis, plus the ability to do a propulsion checkout, perhaps before attaching to some other bus+tankage. Even if a sensor payload is destined to go off platform as a free flyer, you can check out the core components (payload, propulsion, host bus ACS/comms/power) before release.
So it would be something like this?
https://spacenews.com/loft-orbital-raises-3-2-million-to-build-condo-constellation-for-those-who-dont-want-to-own-satellites/
Where did you find this graph? And when was it last updated? Seems like 2019 is a bad year even for cubesats.
Where did you find this graph? And when was it last updated? Seems like 2019 is a bad year even for cubesats.
From here:
https://www.nanosats.eu/
Yeah, 2019, was not a good year, for the launch sector...
With few small LVs offering BLEO launch capabilities, I'm expecting more BLEO missions in next few years. Sounds like RL might do some lunar missions next year, based on Photon announcements.Although delta V seems like the long pole in the tent I think there are multiple ways to handle it, needing various levels of cooperation with the LV.
NB there are handful of lunar cubesats that were built for Orion EM1 mission, these are prime candidates for RL.
Edit: Between these small LV 3rd stages and smallsat plasma propulsion systems like Phase Four Maxwell missions of 6-8km/s are within capabilities of 130kg wet smallsats.
As rough estimate Virgin LauncherOne could deliver 130kg smallsat to earth escape(3.2km/s), 95kg dry mass plus 35kg fuel DV =3km/s. Alternatively 75kg dry mass + 55kg fuel = 5.3km/s.
Seriously? While we all bag on overdone CGI of 'plans', this looks like it was made on a kids learning game program. I mean...come on..
Indeed.Seriously? While we all bag on overdone CGI of 'plans', this looks like it was made on a kids learning game program. I mean...come on..
If you are referring to the "japanese private launch site 1.jpg" image, that is not CGI. It is a physical model!
People seem to forget that until SX every successful LV was a)Fully expendable and b)Built wholly to a governments requirements c)Wholly (or in large part) funded by that government.
The only thing the "commercial" LV builders had in common was their failure to put anything into orbit. :(
People seem to forget that until SX every successful LV was a)Fully expendable and b)Built wholly to a governments requirements c)Wholly (or in large part) funded by that government.
The only thing the "commercial" LV builders had in common was their failure to put anything into orbit. :(
People also seem to forget that Pegasus was the first commercially developed launch vehicle! :-)
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/Pegasus/Pages/default.aspx
"World's first privately developed space launch vehicle."
<snip>
Which begs the question: most of Pegasus launches happened in the 90's. What happened afterward? Just the dotcom crisis? I would expect their launches returning to normal afterwards. But they never recovered. Or is this a complex issue I should be asking about in the historical section?
People seem to forget that until SX every successful LV was a)Fully expendable and b)Built wholly to a governments requirements c)Wholly (or in large part) funded by that government.
The only thing the "commercial" LV builders had in common was their failure to put anything into orbit. :(
People also seem to forget that Pegasus was the first commercially developed launch vehicle! :-)
https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/Pegasus/Pages/default.aspx
"World's first privately developed space launch vehicle."
“If you look at what SpaceX has done, it’s $5,000 per kilogram,” Ferrario said. “That is several times less than prices we are used to seeing. This means it becomes more convenient to have regular rideshare launches and then leave it to in-space transportation businesses to do the last mile.”
Interesting, how many small space tugs with SEP, are being development in the moment...and all are very happy with the rideshare of Spacex...Some interesting trades for smallsat companies.Quote“If you look at what SpaceX has done, it’s $5,000 per kilogram,” Ferrario said. “That is several times less than prices we are used to seeing. This means it becomes more convenient to have regular rideshare launches and then leave it to in-space transportation businesses to do the last mile.”
https://spacenews.com/spacex-cheap-rideshare-flights-change-propulsion-equation/
Today that's true. But what happened after 1998 that made them go from 6 launches every year (like RocketLab this year, apparently 'priced out of the market' at the time) down to 1 or 2 a year.
What about the Conestoga I?
Today that's true. But what happened after 1998 that made them go from 6 launches every year (like RocketLab this year, apparently 'priced out of the market' at the time) down to 1 or 2 a year.
That's basically about the same time as the first elements of ISS were being launched. All those small payloads that were being individually launched on separate satellites were now being sent to the ISS.
What about the Conestoga I?
It came after Pegasus and was not successful, spectacularly failing on its first and only launch in 1995. Despite what all the Youtubers are saying, Conestoga I was not the first private orbital launch vehicle.
Tywin speaks about Conestoga I which flew in 1982, not Conestoga 1620 (1995)
Pegasus being private is debatable. They had quite a lot of DARPA funding at the time, who were pursuing (as they continue to pursue) cheaper on demand access to space.
Conestoga: First private orbital class rocket launched
Pegasus: First private orbital rocket launched successfully to orbit
Falcon 1: First liquid fuelled private orbital rocket launched to orbit
Electron: First orbital rocket launched from a private launch range
Tywin speaks about Conestoga I which flew in 1982, not Conestoga 1620 (1995)
I guess that depends on what we mean. Since we all love all LVs and everyone deserves a consolation prize ;) how about the following:
Conestoga: First private orbital class rocket launched
Pegasus: First private orbital rocket launched successfully to orbit
Falcon 1: First liquid fuelled private orbital rocket launched to orbit
Electron: First orbital rocket launched from a private launch range
Pegasus being private is debatable. They had quite a lot of DARPA funding at the time, who were pursuing (as they continue to pursuing) cheaper on demand access to space.
If you include the suborbital one stage Conestoga-1, you should perhaps also include SSI's liquid fueled Percheron, which also made it to the launch pad and which pre-dated Conestoga-1. It had a launch pad explosion on 05 August 1981.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/percheron.htm
Also a bit off topic (please excuse the newbie question): how do I 'like' someones post?
Also a bit off topic (please excuse the newbie question): how do I 'like' someones post?
Top right of each post ;)
China showed how it's done today, with two KZ-1A launches within six hours, both from road-mobile launchers at Taiyuan. That's an unmatched quick-reaction surge capability, being used in part to build a high resolution "remote sensing" constellation that will ultimately image the entire world every 10 minutes or so. What happened to US plans for smallsat quick-response launch?
- Ed Kyle
DARPA challenge is down to only one "Stealth Team" (thought to be Astra Space by some), the others (including Virgin) having dropped out. Astra would use RP/LOX, so I don't see how this is "responsive".China showed how it's done today, with two KZ-1A launches within six hours, both from road-mobile launchers at Taiyuan. That's an unmatched quick-reaction surge capability, being used in part to build a high resolution "remote sensing" constellation that will ultimately image the entire world every 10 minutes or so. What happened to US plans for smallsat quick-response launch?
- Ed Kyle
The DARPA launch challenge. https://www.darpa.mil/launchchallenge
Boeing Phantom Express XS-1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XS-1_(spacecraft)
DARPA challenge is down to only one "Stealth Team" (thought to be Astra Space by some), the others (including Virgin) having dropped out. Astra would use RP/LOX, so I don't see how this is "responsive".XS-1 is fully funded with a program goal of demonstrating 10 launches in 10 days. It is reasonable to doubt whether the program will meet its goals (DARPA specifically funds high risk, high return things) and it also is reasonable to question whether it would actually transition into a operational launcher after the program, but reusing the same booster 10 times in 10 days seems a more significant capability than reusing just the pad 2 times in 6 hours. However you count it, both demonstrate improving launch rates.
Phantom Express, LH2/LOX powered, needing good weather at a runway somewhere, would be even less responsive, IMO.
I doubt that either is an all-out awash in money development effort, and neither could launch two payloads within six hours like KZ-1A. The big problem, really, is that since the Pershing II's were sliced into pieces, the U.S. has had no road-mobile missiles that could serve as a fast-response building block.
- Ed Kyle
XS-1 is fully funded with a program goal of demonstrating 10 launches in 10 days. It is reasonable to doubt whether the program will meet its goals (DARPA specifically funds high risk, high return things) and it also is reasonable to question whether it would actually transition into a operational launcher after the program, but reusing the same booster 10 times in 10 days seems a more significant capability than reusing just the pad 2 times in 6 hours. However you count it, both demonstrate improving launch rates.I look at it this way. Responsive launch would most-likely be needed in an emergency, perhaps even war-time situation. Why not use military (missile-based, solid-propellant, always-ready) systems to address this problem?
I look at it this way. Responsive launch would most-likely be needed in an emergency, perhaps even war-time situation. Why not use military (missile-based, solid-propellant, always-ready) systems to address this problem?Because they are expensive, low performance (poor Isp Vs nearly any liquid system) and high accelerations (perfectly fine for warheads, not so good for general satellite launch).
- Ed Kyle
And it's going to be some time still before a new small sat launcher beats their 39 successful launches. That would be a nice measure of success of the current flurry of new launchers. Even combined, they don't have accumulated 39 launches yet.I'd guess a couple of things. In no particular order the launch aircraft is now about 3 decades older than it was (and it wasn't that young to start with). Secondly a lot of the cost is in the solid rockets that make up most of the vehicle.
Which begs the question: most of Pegasus launches happened in the 90's. What happened afterward? Just the dotcom crisis? I would expect their launches returning to normal afterwards. But they never recovered. Or is this a complex issue I should be asking about in the historical section?
Responsive launch implies national emergency. Cost is not, should not be, the primary issue there.I look at it this way. Responsive launch would most-likely be needed in an emergency, perhaps even war-time situation. Why not use military (missile-based, solid-propellant, always-ready) systems to address this problem?Because they are expensive, low performance (poor Isp Vs nearly any liquid system) and high accelerations (perfectly fine for warheads, not so good for general satellite launch).
- Ed Kyle
Whoa, where did this (tiSpace) come from?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49583.msg2029701#msg2029701
Demo flight is sitting on the pad awaiting launch
Similar general price bracket per launch as an Electron
Substantially better payload capacity than an Electron
Substantially better cost per kg than an Electron
Not chinese so no unusual restrictions on flying USA payloads
If their demo launch goes well, Rocket Labs could be facing genuine competition sooner than expected.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-astra-rocket/
Astra orbital flight is NET February 21st. Not sure what to put it down as, this article just calls it 'Astra' and FAA licence is for flights of 'Rocket 3'.
https://www.space.com/amp/orbex-rocket-factory-first-look-photos.html?__twitter_impression=true
Payload is 180kg not sure if that is LEO or SSO. 1stage is 6x7klbs. Plan to be reuseable, RL recovery efforts should give them some encouragement as the LVs are very close in size.
Some BS about their LVs fuel efficiency
" Each Prime rocket is approximately 50 times more fuel-efficient than other small-satellite launch vehicles, which use up to 440,000 lbs. (200,000 kg) of fossil fuels. "
Don't mention that other LV can also lift 50 times more mass to orbit.
Most such SSO are a type of LEO.snipThat payload statistic is definitely for SSO because they can’t actually launch to LEO from their planned launch site in Scotland.
Of courseMost such SSO are a type of LEO.snipThat payload statistic is definitely for SSO because they can’t actually launch to LEO from their planned launch site in Scotland.
Eldorado will later this year begin launching into low earth orbit CubeSats up to 12 kilograms in weight.
We took 50-year-old ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (the same solid fuel used in the Space Shuttle’s strap-on boosters) and improved it using modern materials, processes, and some common sense. NO 3D printing! The result is a cheaper rocket that can sit on the shelf for years then be launched as-needed within hours.
Our rocket is eight times more efficient than the SS-520 and the ONLY difference is air launching. With continued solid fuel development we confidently expect our 1050 kg rocket to eventually put 40 kg in orbit — 27 times more efficient than the $4.4 million SS-520-5.
There’s actually plenty of clever IP inside Eldorado, but what mainly keeps another startup from just copying our work is the required fleet of Mach 2.2+ launch aircraft. We bought all of them, you see… all of them on the planet.
I just got off the phone with Rick Svetkoff, the founder and owner of Starfighters Aerospace. Remember how earlier in this thread I mentioned there was a contact form on the Starfighters.net website? Well, I used it. And he got in touch with me.
To be blunt: Starfighters has NOT BEEN SOLD. There was never any negotiation for its sale, nor is there any potential of a sale in the future.
He did confirm that Eldorado was in TALKS to potentially PARTNER with Starfighters (as many other companies have done– see the Starfighters.net website for a list of companies, including CubeCab), but that the talks were preliminary only and there was no signing of any “term sheet”, which means that no money has changed hands, and there is no contract yet for any money to change hands.
Is there an updated version of the original list?
Is there an updated version of the original list?
It would be interesting to see it and compare it to previous versions, perhaps from the end of each of the three years since the OP.
After all this time there is one repeatedly launching small rocket (Rocketlab’s Electron),
a proven vehicle with no known customers (Pegasus),
two (?) successful demonstration launches from China (both of which stretch the definition of “private”) without second launches,
a few with assembled rockets closing in on debut (Astra, LauncherOne, others?)
a few failed attempts (Strypi? Others?),
and a bunch of groups with various amounts of hardware.
edit: Then there are “efforts” with hot air and PowerPoint presentations.
I can't believe how private launcher startups are still able to convince investors for funding knowing the super-saturated launcher market in these days. In the next couple of years it would be interesting to see the bubble exploding.
Is there an updated version of the original list?
U're aware of the list which is regularly posted and maintained in this thread? Last instance is 10 posts upwards.
Is there an updated version of the original list?
U're aware of the list which is regularly posted and maintained in this thread? Last instance is 10 posts upwards.
That WAS my question and I was not aware of it.
It would be great if there was one place to look for a link to the most recent update
Thank you.
I see Kuaizhou 1A is missing. Do you count it as an evolution of Kuaizhou 1 which launched before the opening of this thread?
Space One is still penciled in for 2021H2 shortly after their launchpad construction is completed...
Space One is still penciled in for 2021H2 shortly after their launchpad construction is completed...
Space One was founded in late 2017. I am not aware of any company that made it to orbit in less than five years, so I would put their first launch rather in the 2022/2023 timeframe.
The actual development work was started several years before Space One was officially founded (and only because it is a convenient corporate structure to isolate Canon Electronics). The launchpad construction is on schedule, but whether the rocket will fly in 2021 as announced may be up for debate.
Small launch startup Leo Aerospace suspends operations
by Jeff Foust — March 16, 2020
WASHINGTON — A startup developing a balloon-borne small launch vehicle has gone into “hibernation” after struggling to raise money, a fate that may be facing many other companies in the sector.
A Wuhan-based Chinese commercial launch service provider is preparing a next launch from Jiuquan launch center following the lifting of lockdown measures at the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak. The Expace Kuaizhou-1A rocket, Xingyun-2 (01, 02) narrowband IoT satellites and test teams have arrived at Jiuquan in the Gobi Desert for launch in mid to late April. Expace is situated in the Wuhan National Space Industry Base for commercial space activities. The firm is a spinoff from defense contractor CASIC and its subsidiary, China Sanjiang Space Group.
I see Kuaizhou 1A is missing. Do you count it as an evolution of Kuaizhou 1 which launched before the opening of this thread?
yes
I see Kuaizhou 1A is missing. Do you count it as an evolution of Kuaizhou 1 which launched before the opening of this thread?
yes
Kuaizhou 1A and 11 are not considered to be the same rocket in this list.
Here's what OCR and Bing translation give. Doesn't seem to say what the rocket is, but the picture shows a KZ-1A.
"Said
Today, 8 p.m., Room Live
Secretary. On sputum foil. In order to make it easier for the novicegui to pick up the anger to build their own rocket, we invited clear
Let's explain it to everyone. Good advance wish everyone pushed to the favourite rocket about
Hui Sputum Heng happiness is true Remember 7
Before the spell is also true, remember the return of the beans two receive"
Here's what OCR and Bing translation give. Doesn't seem to say what the rocket is, but the picture shows a KZ-1A.
"Said
Today, 8 p.m., Room Live
Secretary. On sputum foil. In order to make it easier for the novicegui to pick up the anger to build their own rocket, we invited clear
Let's explain it to everyone. Good advance wish everyone pushed to the favourite rocket about
Hui Sputum Heng happiness is true Remember 7
Before the spell is also true, remember the return of the beans two receive"
Machine learning. It's brilliant.Here's what OCR and Bing translation give. Doesn't seem to say what the rocket is, but the picture shows a KZ-1A.
"Said
Today, 8 p.m., Room Live
Secretary. On sputum foil. In order to make it easier for the novicegui to pick up the anger to build their own rocket, we invited clear
Let's explain it to everyone. Good advance wish everyone pushed to the favourite rocket about
Hui Sputum Heng happiness is true Remember 7
Before the spell is also true, remember the return of the beans two receive"
Did anybody read this? It's Hall of Fame level translation.
And the first successfull smallsat maiden launcher of this decade is ... Qased of Iran, operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.Hmm.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50687.msg2071630#msg2071630
SMC says a new study “confirms the heavy lift launch market is unlikely to support more than two U.S. launch providers in the long term, and highlights the short term schedule risks of transitioning to new providers.” bit.ly/35mCjJv
This assumption is probably also true for Small launch.
SpaceX rideshare program putting downward pressure on prices
by Sandra Erwin — May 18, 2020
Planet VP Mike Safyan: “We are seeing launch providers starting to get more creative.”
WASHINGTON — SpaceX for years has been a driving force in lowering the cost of launching large satellites to orbit. The rideshare program the company started in August is now also putting downward pressure on the cost of launching small satellites.
"QuoteSpaceX rideshare program putting downward pressure on prices
by Sandra Erwin — May 18, 2020
Planet VP Mike Safyan: “We are seeing launch providers starting to get more creative.”
WASHINGTON — SpaceX for years has been a driving force in lowering the cost of launching large satellites to orbit. The rideshare program the company started in August is now also putting downward pressure on the cost of launching small satellites.
https://spacenews.com/spacex-rideshare-program-putting-downward-pressure-on-prices/
"QuoteSpaceX rideshare program putting downward pressure on prices
by Sandra Erwin — May 18, 2020
Planet VP Mike Safyan: “We are seeing launch providers starting to get more creative.”
WASHINGTON — SpaceX for years has been a driving force in lowering the cost of launching large satellites to orbit. The rideshare program the company started in August is now also putting downward pressure on the cost of launching small satellites.
https://spacenews.com/spacex-rideshare-program-putting-downward-pressure-on-prices/
It’s the equivalent of taking the bus versus an Uber. If there are no buses going to the desired orbit, one option is to pay a higher price for a dedicated launch. Another is to hire space tugs that are now being offered as a service.
“That can get you that last mile while still taking advantage of the bigger rideshare rockets,” said Safyan. “I think we’ll see more of that as years go on.”
"
Momentus Aerospace is one company offering space tugs.
Updated: First launcher in the RFA family designated RFA-1:QuoteRFA-1 is a small liquid fueled orbital launch vehicle, which is being developed by Rocket Factory Augsburg (RFA), Germany, a subsidiary of OHB System.
...
LINK: https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/rfa-1.htm
Another NZ launch vehicle company.Given how much XCOR struggled to get their Lynx design to flight status they are making some bold claims about what they can do and how. It looks like it's too small for a pilot so some kind of drone?
I read about Dawn a couple years but forgot about them. In mean time they've been flying small demo rocket plane. Just released MK11 Aurora which will be capable of multiple suborbital flights a day to 100km.
This should start earning them revenue.
ESA has helped with engine development.
Next step build bigger version to deploy 2nd stage for orbital missions.
Finding experienced talent in NZ shouldn't be problem with RL in country.
https://www.dawnaerospace.com/deliver
.@RocketLab, @Virgin_Orbit and @Firefly_Space join @jeff_foust on Monday to discuss the state of the small launch industry. Register now to save your spot.
Another NZ launch vehicle company.
I read about Dawn a couple years but forgot about them. In mean time they've been flying small demo rocket plane. Just released MK11 Aurora which will be capable of multiple suborbital flights a day to 100km.
This should start earning them revenue.
ESA has helped with engine development.
Next step build bigger version to deploy 2nd stage for orbital missions.
Finding experienced talent in NZ shouldn't be problem with RL in country.
https://www.dawnaerospace.com/deliver (https://www.dawnaerospace.com/deliver)
Given its suborbital payload not cubesat that will be deployed into orbit sizing isn't that important.
https://twitter.com/spacenews_inc/status/1288482166062682113Quote.@RocketLab, @Virgin_Orbit and @Firefly_Space join @jeff_foust on Monday to discuss the state of the small launch industry. Register now to save your spot.
https://spacenews.com/spacenews-at-smallsat-webinars-register-now-to-reserve-your-spot/
SkySats 19-21 To Launch On SpaceX Falcon 9 Rideshare Mission (https://planet.com/pulse/skysats-19-21-to-launch-on-spacex-falcon-9-rideshare-mission/)Planet is just one specific customer with specific needs, but it's interesting to see some of the possibilities of frequent rideshare launches as compared to dedicated rides not just claimed by a provider but called out by a customer.
Mike Safyan | August 14, 2020
Planet is set to launch three more new SkySats (SkySats 19-21) into Low Earth Orbit on August 18th (date subject to change), rounding out the fleet of SkySats already in operations and joining SkySats 16-18 that successfully launched aboard the SpaceX Falcon 9 in June.
Planet SkySats 1-15 operate in Sun Synchronous Orbits, a specific type of Low Earth Orbit that results in the Earth’s surface always being illuminated by the Sun at the same angle when the satellite is capturing imagery. Half of the SkySats currently pass overhead in a morning crossing plane, while the other half moves in an afternoon crossing plane, so together they provide the twice-daily coverage of anywhere on Earth.
Both sets of new SkySats, 16-18 and 19-21, will operate in a “mid-inclination” orbit of 53 degrees that complements the sun synchronous fleet, and will offer more targeted coverage and imaging capacity in the latitude bands between +53 degrees and -53 degrees where the majority of human activity occurs. By taking advantage of SpaceX’s rideshare program, we were able to get these satellites launched much faster compared to a dedicated launch. In addition, by splitting the payload across two launches, we’re able to phase the mid-inclination SkySats into their respective planes much faster as well, all of which results in Planet’s customers benefiting from these enhanced products much sooner than any other provider can offer.
SkySats 19-21 will be launched aboard SpaceX’s Falcon 9, a two-stage reusable rocket that has successfully flown satellites and cargo over 80 times to orbit. They will do so as rideshare payloads on SpaceX’s Starlink satellites, and will launch from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Base in Florida.
The rapid launch of SkySats 16-21, as well as the development of our enhanced 50 cm imagery, are just a few examples of how Planet continues to push the envelope to provide industry-leading geospatial offerings that continuously improve over time.
Photo: Planet SkySats 19-21 mounted on the Starlink launch adapter, ready for flight. Image provided by SpaceX.
A rush of private investment into the small launch industry in recent years was fueled by the belief that there would be both significant commercial and government demand, she noted. But Starzyk argued that circumstances have changed. “There’s no commercial market that is going to support multiple small launchers by any means.”
The most disruptive event has been SpaceX offering rideshare services at a cadence and price point that small launch providers could not possibly compete against, she said.
A key selling point for small launchers is that it give satellite operators more control over orbit and schedules compared to secondary payload opportunities that traditionally have been few and far between. “That advantage is wiped out by SpaceX offering flights every two weeks,” she added. “SpaceX answers most of the wants of the smallsat community. So where is the value added of the small launch on the commercial side?”
There's another piece on SpaceNews about possible pressure SpaceX's offering is putting on smallsat launchers: Government’s role in the small launch market not quite black and white (https://spacenews.com/governments-role-in-the-small-launch-market-not-quite-black-and-white/)QuoteA rush of private investment into the small launch industry in recent years was fueled by the belief that there would be both significant commercial and government demand, she noted. But Starzyk argued that circumstances have changed. “There’s no commercial market that is going to support multiple small launchers by any means.”
The most disruptive event has been SpaceX offering rideshare services at a cadence and price point that small launch providers could not possibly compete against, she said.
A key selling point for small launchers is that it give satellite operators more control over orbit and schedules compared to secondary payload opportunities that traditionally have been few and far between. “That advantage is wiped out by SpaceX offering flights every two weeks,” she added. “SpaceX answers most of the wants of the smallsat community. So where is the value added of the small launch on the commercial side?”
But two companies in the US found suborbital niches.
UP Aerospace with Spaceloft XL (smaller payloads) and Spyder that are also taking the suborbital ... orbital approach.
And Blue Origin New Shepard (Large payloads/ ISS lockers) before New Glenn.
New Shepard has only flown test flights, not any flights for customers at all. That's not really finding a niche.Last I checked, they had paying customers on the last couple flights, they aren't ready for people yet, but payloads are flying. The flight rate argument you mentioned for the other company would be a more useful one to consider for New Shepard.
New Shepard has only flown test flights, not any flights for customers at all. That's not really finding a niche.Last I checked, they had paying customers on the last couple flights, they aren't ready for people yet, but payloads are flying. The flight rate argument you mentioned for the other company would be a more useful one to consider for New Shepard.
Answer 2: SpaceX wants to block a small launcher firm like Rocket Lab competing for USG resources and contracts that might allow them to be a future heavy launch competitor. So they take away their customers. It is actually an anti-competitive move by SpaceX.
Anyone aware of Kepler Aerospace, who appear to be planning an entry into the air-launch market?
There's very little in the way of solid info on their website; but the following two paragraphs stand out.
By upgrading and reengineering proven advanced aviation technnologies, Kepler is developing both highly efficient and economically viable satelite delivery systems.
Kepler has several technologies in the fields of microwave, propulsion and energy and has recently filed for 8 Trademarks in both the flight and defence use categories.
They came to my attention from a post on the PPruNe forums where they were named as the buyer of the Vickers VC10 which has been stored at Dunsfold since it retired from the RAF as a Tanker. Kepler have seemingly paid for it to be returned to flight status, purchased the ex-RAF sims and allegedly are looking at purchasing another two retired airframes.
It seems an interesting choice of airframe since there are no examples currently flying and this airframe hasn't flown since retirement in 2013 (although it seems to have been maintained in airworthy condition). Lots of discussion on the other forum https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/635036-vc-10-fly-again-tanker.html.
Wow! After a huge week for Southern Launch, we've had time to process all that we have achieved over the past 10 days. To successfully launch not just one, but TWO space-capable rockets before noon on the 19th of September, was a remarkable achievement by the team. We demonstrated that we can provide our customers with safe & responsive access to space. Our processes and protocols were followed flawlessly throughout all 3 launch attempts (including the first launch attempt and misfire on the 15th) thanks to the leadership from our Launch Director, Alexander Linossier.
Cross-posting from https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46926.80 for those that missed it:
From Southern Launch:QuoteWow! After a huge week for Southern Launch, we've had time to process all that we have achieved over the past 10 days. To successfully launch not just one, but TWO space-capable rockets before noon on the 19th of September, was a remarkable achievement by the team. We demonstrated that we can provide our customers with safe & responsive access to space. Our processes and protocols were followed flawlessly throughout all 3 launch attempts (including the first launch attempt and misfire on the 15th) thanks to the leadership from our Launch Director, Alexander Linossier.
TWO commercial launches within an hour of each other is pretty impressive!
Here's another one! Jarmyn Enterprise Space Pty Ltd is based right here in Adelaide in the suburb of Mawson Lakes! They are designing a single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicle using methalox that puts 50 kg into LEO. The vehicle is called Hawk Jnr.Doing SSTO first up is very risky, every extra kg dry mass is 1kg less of payload. I think its worth a shot with successful 2stage to base it on, more likely to hit dry mass design figures.
https://www.jarmynenteprisespace.com.au/hawk-jnr
I think the idea of a smallsat SSTO is worth investigating, so I will be keeping an eye of this project.Why would you say that?
Why would you say that?That's for vertical take off SSTO, where T/W ratio must exceed 1:1 just to lift off. HTOL opens more options if you have a suitable engine.
Some things don’t scale well, like computers and transmitters, and so are proportionally greater burdens to small vehicles. This is critical, probably fatal, to small SSTO, which need high mass fractions per the rocket equation.
And if they achieve the high mass fraction, final acceleration becomes untenably high without extremely low throttling.
We have seen lots of attempts at reducing the costs, recurring and initial. SSTO is not common for good reasons.
I think the idea of a smallsat SSTO is worth investigating, so I will be keeping an eye of this project.I note they are planning to do this with what looks like a launcher of standard aspect ratio.
I think the idea of a smallsat SSTO is worth investigating, so I will be keeping an eye of this project.Why would you say that?
Some things don’t scale well, like computers and transmitters, and so are proportionally greater burdens to small vehicles. This is critical, probably fatal, to small SSTO, which need high mass fractions per the rocket equation.
And if they achieve the high mass fraction, final acceleration becomes untenably high without extremely low throttling.
We have seen lots of attempts at reducing the costs, recurring and initial. SSTO is not common for good reasons.
All that being said, while I think their worth keeping an eye on, they'll still probably die out along with most smallsat launchers. And even if they get to launching, their site says their payload is 50kg, which really is about as bad as you can get when it comes to scaling your SSTO (I was assuming it would be something like 300 kg when I made my first post), and doesn't seems like a number that would compete on the market anyway.
Why would you say that?That's for vertical take off SSTO, where T/W ratio must exceed 1:1 just to lift off. HTOL opens more options if you have a suitable engine.
Some things don’t scale well, like computers and transmitters, and so are proportionally greater burdens to small vehicles. This is critical, probably fatal, to small SSTO, which need high mass fractions per the rocket equation.
And if they achieve the high mass fraction, final acceleration becomes untenably high without extremely low throttling.
We have seen lots of attempts at reducing the costs, recurring and initial. SSTO is not common for good reasons.
And frankly, in an age when orbital rockets land "just like in Buck Rogers" I don't see why we should be dismissive of the idea that they could launch that way too.Becase for a VTOL design you get 2-3x the payload on a TSTO that you get on a SSTO?
Generically these smallsat launch concepts have been called "bricklifters" given their payload is around the mass of a housebrick. I suppose they should be called cubesat launchers but I don't think there's a mass limit on the cubesat spec's, just what you can pack into a litre of volume.Looking at the currently-active version of the CubeSat spec (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5418c831e4b0fa4ecac1bacd/t/56e9b62337013b6c063a655a/1458157095454/cds_rev13_final2.pdf), there is a firm upper limit on mass for a 1U unit: 1.33 kg. It actually seems like this is going to change in the next revision (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5418c831e4b0fa4ecac1bacd/t/5f24997b6deea10cc52bb016/1596234122437/CDS+REV14+2020-07-31+DRAFT.pdf), going up to 2 kg. But in either case, there is a well-defined upper bound. To what extent launchers care about that boundary is a separate question, but it is part of the spec nonetheless.
Generically these smallsat launch concepts have been called "bricklifters" given their payload is around the mass of a housebrick. I suppose they should be called cubesat launchers but I don't think there's a mass limit on the cubesat spec's, just what you can pack into a litre of volume.Looking at the currently-active version of the CubeSat spec (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5418c831e4b0fa4ecac1bacd/t/56e9b62337013b6c063a655a/1458157095454/cds_rev13_final2.pdf), there is a firm upper limit on mass for a 1U unit: 1.33 kg. It actually seems like this is going to change in the next revision (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5418c831e4b0fa4ecac1bacd/t/5f24997b6deea10cc52bb016/1596234122437/CDS+REV14+2020-07-31+DRAFT.pdf), going up to 2 kg. But in either case, there is a well-defined upper bound. To what extent launchers care about that boundary is a separate question, but it is part of the spec nonetheless.
SSTO (gloss over the 30kg bit) to grab venture-capital bucks for the shiny SSTO buzzword, then stack a shorter version of your SSTO stage on top with a bell extension and have a practical TSTO with reasonable payload. Or just make your single stage so danged cheap (Somewhat Big Dumb Booster) that it's still viable even when only launching a handful of cubesats.
The 'lets build a tiny FFSC Methalox engine' bit does seem a step too far into untrodden ground to get it done on the cheap, though.
SSTO (gloss over the 30kg bit) to grab venture-capital bucks for the shiny SSTO buzzword, then stack a shorter version of your SSTO stage on top with a bell extension and have a practical TSTO with reasonable payload. Or just make your single stage so danged cheap (Somewhat Big Dumb Booster) that it's still viable even when only launching a handful of cubesats.
The 'lets build a tiny FFSC Methalox engine' bit does seem a step too far into untrodden ground to get it done on the cheap, though.
I dunno, with the recent discussion on plastic engines, the bar may have been lowered for small engine development?
It's why John Whiteheads team at Sandia developed reciprocating positive displacement pumps at small scale.SSTO (gloss over the 30kg bit) to grab venture-capital bucks for the shiny SSTO buzzword, then stack a shorter version of your SSTO stage on top with a bell extension and have a practical TSTO with reasonable payload. Or just make your single stage so danged cheap (Somewhat Big Dumb Booster) that it's still viable even when only launching a handful of cubesats.
The 'lets build a tiny FFSC Methalox engine' bit does seem a step too far into untrodden ground to get it done on the cheap, though.
I dunno, with the recent discussion on plastic engines, the bar may have been lowered for small engine development?
Turbo pumps scale badly enough that going electric is not only a valid option, but possibly better at that scale. Having two even smaller ones makes no sense at all. Not to mention neither coking nor a tiny isp increase is worth noting for this application.
Perhaps you should look at the original paper on the subject. here (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344076226_Plastic_Rocket_Engines_for_New_Space_Propulsion_RD)
I dunno, with the recent discussion on plastic engines, the bar may have been lowered for small engine development? Either way, the original Bricklifter/Mockingbird concept is the concept of record that nobody seems to be actively emulating, which always struck me as odd.
Looking at the currently-active version of the CubeSat spec (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5418c831e4b0fa4ecac1bacd/t/56e9b62337013b6c063a655a/1458157095454/cds_rev13_final2.pdf), there is a firm upper limit on mass for a 1U unit: 1.33 kg. It actually seems like this is going to change in the next revision (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5418c831e4b0fa4ecac1bacd/t/5f24997b6deea10cc52bb016/1596234122437/CDS+REV14+2020-07-31+DRAFT.pdf), going up to 2 kg. But in either case, there is a well-defined upper bound. To what extent launchers care about that boundary is a separate question, but it is part of the spec nonetheless.I stand corrected.
Now, if they were proposing some crazy new tech to make their SSTO work (aerospike, air-breathing, beamed power, etc.), then I would call this is nonsense. But they talk about using existing technologies. And when you consider the greatly increased performance of modern engines, the decreased size of computers (at least when compared to the rest of spaceflight history), and new materials technologies like composite cryogenic tanks... I think it's a concept viable enough to warrant an attempt.SSTO ELV has been theoretically possible since the early 1960's with the Titan stages (whose design brief was basically "Deliver the Atlas ICBM payload but don't use pressure stabilization to do it").
You are right about drag, LVs are through worst of atmosphere with first minute and clear of it after 2minutes which leaves another 7-8minutes of flight in vacuum to reach orbit.Now, if they were proposing some crazy new tech to make their SSTO work (aerospike, air-breathing, beamed power, etc.), then I would call this is nonsense. But they talk about using existing technologies. And when you consider the greatly increased performance of modern engines, the decreased size of computers (at least when compared to the rest of spaceflight history), and new materials technologies like composite cryogenic tanks... I think it's a concept viable enough to warrant an attempt.SSTO ELV has been theoretically possible since the early 1960's with the Titan stages (whose design brief was basically "Deliver the Atlas ICBM payload but don't use pressure stabilization to do it").
Ultimate engine performance is set by the thermodynamics of the F/O combination. And note SX built possibly the largest composite LOX tank ever and rejected it in favor of a steel grade around since at least the early 1950's.
SSTO is a good idea only if it allows you to offer a cheaper launch price and need fewer launches to break
even.
SSTO is about as much a "slot in" concept to a design as building a heavy lift LV out of 3 regular boosters. In that case the core becomes a very different design because of the different stress paths unless you retain a totally common design and every booster gets heavier to cope with the off chance it will have to serve as a core in a 3 stick launch one day.
There's a whole playbook of design choices and hacks that engine and stage designers have developed to improve performance. Some can be retrofitted but others have to be in the design from day 1, starting with fuel and aspect ratio choices. Some have never been tried (differential throttling has been talked about for decades) How serious a design team is about SSTO can be gauged by how much the team has considered or incorporated these options in their design.
But the killer is payload fraction. AFAIK no VTO SSTO has promised payload mass fraction of a TSTO (c2-3.5% of GTOM) because the structurally mass fraction is tight.
So as a VC (just to be clear I'm not a VC IRL) why should I put my $ in your startup when the next guy I'm seeing will give me 2-3x the payload for the same investment (just like every other VTO TSTO startup that's looking for my funding in fact)?
Because anyone saying they can offer TSTO payload fraction in a SSTO will need to consider every aspect of their design from the ground up. It would be quite a potentially interesting idea though. 1 set of GNC, engines structure etc. Might be cheaper.
BTW historically spherical tanks (maximum volume, minimum surface area --> minimum mass) have been rejected on the grounds of drag and mfg complexity but (depending on the size) there are at least 2 ways to make pretty big spherical tanks either by spinning halves or by hydroforming from cylinders. Both are 1 step processes. Water jet cutting allows part to be cut in two while preserving the properties of the base alloy (no heat affected zone) and Holko at Ames in the early 70's demonstrated (and patented) ways to do large size diffusion bonding with low imposed pressures provided the surfaces were very flat (16microinches, which is viable with sanding) and edge sealed. You need a big furnace (or high temperature heat blankets and lots of HT insulation on top of them) but you don't need the big press as well and you don't need a vacuum to make it work.
The drag issue should be put in perspective. Saturn V had 40m/s drag losses but more like 1200 m/s gravity losses. IE 30x higher. Drag is really a thing for cruise vehicles and LV that's cruising is in serious trouble. :(
We'll see where they go with their design.
The cost to design an 'enormous' (for cubesats, small for 'regular' launch vehicles) SSTO stage is not significantly different from designing a small TSTO stage, and you only need to design one of them. If your response to "but the payload fraction!" is "So what?", why not build a 'mass inefficient' rocket that gets a payload to orbit with the cost to develop one stage, rather than the cost to develop two stages (and additional R&D time for staging)? By the time you're even concerned about increased BoM cost and operations costs, you've by definition already succeeded in getting your rocket to orbit and generating revenue.The key issue has always been that vehicle mass control must be ruthless :(
You are right about drag, LVs are through worst of atmosphere with first minute and clear of it after 2minutes which leaves another 7-8minutes of flight in vacuum to reach orbit.Drag loss is one of those things that needs a whole trajectory integration to get a realistic estimate of.
The "Lower the drag loss by leaving the atmosphere ASAP" give high gravity losses (long period in pure vertical flight) and high steering losses (as the nozzle is substantially off axis WRT to the instantaneous direction of the vehicle when you decide to start tipping the vehicle).
Perhaps you should look at the original paper on the subject. here (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344076226_Plastic_Rocket_Engines_for_New_Space_Propulsion_RD)
I dunno, with the recent discussion on plastic engines, the bar may have been lowered for small engine development? Either way, the original Bricklifter/Mockingbird concept is the concept of record that nobody seems to be actively emulating, which always struck me as odd.
That's a long way from a "plastic" engine, but it suggests directions for research.
Mockingbird was a reciprocating engine concept specifically because turbo pumps are difficult at this scale and they wanted to show better than pressure fed was possible at this scale, which they did.
Looking at the currently-active version of the CubeSat spec (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5418c831e4b0fa4ecac1bacd/t/56e9b62337013b6c063a655a/1458157095454/cds_rev13_final2.pdf), there is a firm upper limit on mass for a 1U unit: 1.33 kg. It actually seems like this is going to change in the next revision (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5418c831e4b0fa4ecac1bacd/t/5f24997b6deea10cc52bb016/1596234122437/CDS+REV14+2020-07-31+DRAFT.pdf), going up to 2 kg. But in either case, there is a well-defined upper bound. To what extent launchers care about that boundary is a separate question, but it is part of the spec nonetheless.I stand corrected.
When I'm considering outer mass limits I go worst case with Tungsten. That's 20Kg/l. Obviously I don't anyone's going to make a cubesat that's a solid lump of tungsten but if your launcher could lift it then anything lighter will be pretty easy.
OTOH this obsession with fineness ratio means you end up with very narrow launchers on which to mount your payload. If people are looking at SSTO seriously they have to consider the mass per unit length of payload fairing (which got the DC-Y plan to put the payload bay between the tanks.
You are right about drag, LVs are through worst of atmosphere with first minute and clear of it after 2minutes which leaves another 7-8minutes of flight in vacuum to reach orbit.
It's why John Whiteheads team at Sandia developed reciprocating positive displacement pumps at small scale.SSTO (gloss over the 30kg bit) to grab venture-capital bucks for the shiny SSTO buzzword, then stack a shorter version of your SSTO stage on top with a bell extension and have a practical TSTO with reasonable payload. Or just make your single stage so danged cheap (Somewhat Big Dumb Booster) that it's still viable even when only launching a handful of cubesats.
The 'lets build a tiny FFSC Methalox engine' bit does seem a step too far into untrodden ground to get it done on the cheap, though.
I dunno, with the recent discussion on plastic engines, the bar may have been lowered for small engine development?
Turbo pumps scale badly enough that going electric is not only a valid option, but possibly better at that scale. Having two even smaller ones makes no sense at all. Not to mention neither coking nor a tiny isp increase is worth noting for this application.
VTO SSTO is a radical strategy. IMHO the only serious attempts in the US have been Rotary Rocket and DC-X. Everything else in the US has been Vugraphs and Powerpoints.
This is so wrong, I don't even know where to start.Then perhaps you shouldn't? :(
All a rocket needs to do is a slight initial pitch maneuver after lift-off - gravity does the rest.
So it doesn't look like the bar has been lowered for small engines unless you switch to electric drive, or move to reciprocating pumps. Small turbines remain in a particularly tricky corner of the development parameter map. :(Perhaps you should look at the original paper on the subject. here (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344076226_Plastic_Rocket_Engines_for_New_Space_Propulsion_RD)
I dunno, with the recent discussion on plastic engines, the bar may have been lowered for small engine development? Either way, the original Bricklifter/Mockingbird concept is the concept of record that nobody seems to be actively emulating, which always struck me as odd.
That's a long way from a "plastic" engine, but it suggests directions for research.
Mockingbird was a reciprocating engine concept specifically because turbo pumps are difficult at this scale and they wanted to show better than pressure fed was possible at this scale, which they did.
I meant plastic engines for an easier dev cycle allowing high physical iteration, not the final engine.
Also, due to nomenclature, I feel I should point out for those reading that the rough 5000lbs rule of thumb for turbopumps vs something else (reciprocating, specifically Whitehead envisioning a third gas driving a piston pump) is specifically referring to the difficulty of manufacturing/designing the turbine driving the compressor pump (axial or centrifugal). Which is why when Rocketlabs substituted an electric motor for the turbine, they get most of the turbopump benefits.
I suspect the reason why Delta 7925 has a lower gravity loss is the higher initial acceleration from all those solids. Same with the Space Shuttle. Drag losses are mainly related to the mass to area ratio of the vehicle. A higher mass vehicle for the same area will have less drag losses, which I like to call the Titanic effect. The bigger your vehicle is, the less drag loss you will have, which is evident in the Saturn V.Certainly possible. I think it's quite easy to view the 7925's as a 3 or even 4 stage vehicle, given the solid clusters as they fire.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Jim Cantrell is back in small LV business with new company called Phantom. Must of found a Billionaire backer that wants to become Millionaire.Yikes. Any business venture with Cantrell seems ... very risky.
https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/1322399546350002177?s=09
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.So a man walked away from SpaceX because he thought it would never turn a profit is trying to emulate them.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.So a man walked away from SpaceX because he thought it would never turn a profit is trying to emulate them.
Again.
His investors had better hope his decision making skills and ability to tell the difference between winners and losers has improved with bankruptcy
I will wish them well.
Then, less than a year later, Cantrell quit suddenly. "Elon yelled at me one too many times," he says. "I was done. And frankly, I just wasn't interested in what he was doing at the time. I really didn't think he treated this as a commercial activity." (SpaceX did not return requests for comment on Cantrell's accounts of the company's early days.)https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/vector-building-rockets-jim-cantrell-spacex.html
Quote(SpaceX did not return requests for comment on Cantrell's accounts of the company's early days.)
I think the quote was that Elon yelled at him one too many times.Note that pronoun.QuoteThen, less than a year later, Cantrell quit suddenly. "Elon yelled at me one too many times," he says. "I was done. And frankly, I just wasn't interested in what he was doing at the time. I really didn't think he treated this as a commercial activity." (SpaceX did not return requests for comment on Cantrell's accounts of the company's early days.)https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/vector-building-rockets-jim-cantrell-spacex.html
I just wasn't interested in what he was doing at the time.Which is probably a fairly OK attitude at ULA but not going to go down well in a small startup.
The Chinese is now 2-1 to everyone else in this world for small satellite start-up LSPs reaching orbit since the 2010s IIRC.... ::)And both are solid fueled as well.
https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1324981493807026176
The Gushenxing-1 is a 4 stage rocket, probably based on demilitarized solid motors from the DF-21 missile. Stage 1 and 2 are 1.4m in diameter, Stage 3 is 1.2m in dia. Stage 4 is a liquid orbit insertion stage.
China's government sells demilitarized large solid rocket motors to commercial startup companies, allowing those companies to develop satellite launch vehicles rapidly
So I don't see this in anyway comparable to the rest of the world where smallsat launchers are liquid fueled and developed from scratch.
So I don't see this in anyway comparable to the rest of the world where smallsat launchers are liquid fueled and developed from scratch.Indeed. What exactly is the "development" work they are doing here?
- Integrating motors into stagesSo I don't see this in anyway comparable to the rest of the world where smallsat launchers are liquid fueled and developed from scratch.Indeed. What exactly is the "development" work they are doing here?
Someone is doing some non-trivial engineering. Ceres-1 has three solid motor stages. If it is based on DF-21/25/26, etc., which use two solid motor stages, some design and development has occurred. Note that the CEO of Galactic Energy formerly worked at CALT. Either Galactic Energy has a development team, or that work is farmed out and the company is primarily used to raise commercial capital. Fascinating that China has enabled so many similar efforts, using numerous combinations of missile motors.Starting with ex missile SRMs is good idea, allows them to get it orbital LV flying early. Now they are flying start developing liquid engines and stages, starting with US and work down to a reuseable booster.
- Ed Kyle
Remove those requirements for stability and longevity, and what you have are metal tubes with a hollow polymer cast into them, where that polymer happens to be highly flammable. If you can stomach handling them, the actual motors themselves can be manufactured simply and cheaply.Wrong.
May I view what is happening in China with their solid small launchers based on surplus ICBM motors as very efficient. I want to turn this discussion around. Why has the US wasted this capability and has it relied on foreign launchers (PSLV) for small commercial satellites.Ask Congress and prior administrations that question. The use of Surplus Motors was curtailed to government launches primarily to allow for ex Soviet missiles to enter orbital conversion to allow civil launches of our payload on them to keep them busy. Second primary reason was it would drop the bottom out of the global market, cause problems and international controversy. Now that China has done just that it is time to reconsider as motor storage and maintenance costs inflate year by year. Third primary reason is that MDA et al has first dibs on motors for targets, experiments and inactive reserves.
The US developed: Pegasus, Minotaur I, IV/V/VI, C, Athena and Falcon 1. All were either to expansive or unreliable. Why does the US have such a bad track record on the development of small launchers?
MayI view what is happening in China with their solid small launchers based on surplus ICBM motors as very efficient.
I want to turn this discussion around.
Why has the US wasted this capability and has it relied on foreign launchers (PSLV) for small commercial satellites.(?)
The US developed: Pegasus, Minotaur I, IV/V/VI, C, Athena and Falcon 1. All were either to(o) exp(e)nsive or unreliable.
Why does the US have such a bad track record on the development of small launchers?
The US developed: Pegasus, Minotaur I, IV/V/VI, C, Athena and Falcon 1. All were either to expansive or unreliable. Why does the US have such a bad track record on the development of small launchers?I would argue against including Pegasus in a "bad track record" list. It has been flying since 1990, essentially taking over for NASA's old Scout after STS-51L. Pegasus flew almost three times per year during the 1990s. It hasn't failed since 1996! It was designed primarily for government work during the latter days of the Cold War, so it simply isn't cost competitive these days. After its early days, Pegasus and its ground-launched cousin Taurus essentially lost work to the government-supported Minotaurs, which also earned money for Orbital. Pegasus did spawn other, more lucrative work for Orbital etc., with around 19 suborbital flights from the Pegasus family, primarily ABM related. During the 1970s, before STS took over, Scout averaged about three launches per year. When you add up all the Pegasus/Taurus/Minotaur/"Taurus-Lite"/Hyper-X launches flown until now, they turn out to average (guess-what?) three per year.
MayI view what is happening in China with their solid small launchers based on surplus ICBM motors as very efficient.
I want to turn this discussion around.
Why has the US wasted this capability and has it relied on foreign launchers (PSLV) for small commercial satellites.(?)
The US developed: Pegasus, Minotaur I, IV/V/VI, C, Athena and Falcon 1. All were either to(o) exp(e)nsive or unreliable.
Why does the US have such a bad track record on the development of small launchers?
The "US" did not develop Falcon 1, nor did it use solid rocket motors.
SpaceX developed the liquid fueled Falcon 1, as we all well know.
Falcon 9 is perhaps the dominant rocket in the commercial market....
<snip>
This success is the result of allowing the marketplace to function, albeit with some support.
Using surplus rockets would not do that.
Launching some of the small number of satellites on them suppresses the market that drove the success.
(Also what russianhalo117 said. It's multifaceted.)
Perhaps you can see the systemic reason why no derivative solid rocket has been a success.
The same goes for smallsat launchers.
<snip>
IMO. Most solid fueled rockets and most small launchers have about the same overhead (pad, payload processing,etc.) as large liquid launchers to tossed up small mostly non-commercial payloads at a much higher cost per kg to LEO.
Commercial payloads are either large or huge GEO comsats along with SSO Earth observation satellites. Which solid fueled rockets and small launchers are not capable of orbiting or too expensive.You might like to check that opinion.
Commercial payloads are either large or huge GEO comsats along with SSO Earth observation satellites. Which solid fueled rockets and small launchers are not capable of orbiting or too expensive.You might like to check that opinion.
AFAIK quite a lot of SSO small sats have been launched by Pegasus and Rocket Lab. Scout was also a popular choice for small SSO satellites in the Explorer and Discovery series.
You are correct that a small liquid fueled rocket needs the same pad services as a large rocket and those are dis economies of scale. :(
OTOH they may be offset because the size of things like tanks and pumps for propellant may be more OTS at small launcher size while the multi ton payload carriers may take special order, long lead time hardware to handle the volume and the speed of filling needed.
The Pegasus XL is unlikely to fly again. Mainly due to it's $40M price tag (circa 2018) to fly 450 kg to LEO. It is the most expensive US launch vehicle currently with a launch cost of about $89000 per kg. The Minotaur-C and other similar solid fueled launchers have a price range between $20000 and $50000 per kg to LEO. IMO, most small launchers are only viable if the bigger launchers costs a few magnitudes more to launch per mission.My point, was that there is a significant market for the launching of small earth observation satellites (and constellations of the same) to SSO which small LV's can address. anything for which people want repeated common exposure conditions in fact.
You last point about launchers with OTS hardware seems unlikely. AIUI most launcher hardware bigger than bolts & screws is more or less bespoken and only manufactured after an order is placed.I was specifically talking about the ground support equipment around a launch pad. Fueling a Saturn V took a take farm of LH2 storage spheres, but a small LV can be loaded from a road tanker or two.
With recovery of Electron via parachute (so far) appearing successful this puts them even further ahead of the other small sat launchers that still haven't made orbit.Good question.
If parachute recovery is demonstrated to be relatively easy will other launchers follow suit? Firefly's Alpha looks like it would be viable for helicopter capture in terms of total mass.
Time will tell if Beck has blind sided every other competitor, who was caught short but is agile enough to be playing catch up and who has been thinking on similar lines since day one and planning to move straight into it (although I would have guessed if anyone had that plan they would have made a point of emphasizing it when they came out of stealth mode).A couple of companies (Orbex (https://www.space.com/orbex-rocket-factory-first-look-photos.html), Isar Aerospace (https://spacenews.com/german-launch-startup-raises-17-million-with-help-from-airbus-ventures-and-an-ex-spacex-employee/), PLD Space (https://www.fromspacewithlove.com/pld-space/)) have discussed reuse previously, so it wouldn't come completely out of the blue with them.
A couple of companies (Orbex (https://www.space.com/orbex-rocket-factory-first-look-photos.html), Isar Aerospace (https://spacenews.com/german-launch-startup-raises-17-million-with-help-from-airbus-ventures-and-an-ex-spacex-employee/), PLD Space (https://www.fromspacewithlove.com/pld-space/)) have discussed reuse previously, so it wouldn't come completely out of the blue with them.Thanks for those links.
A couple of companies (Orbex (https://www.space.com/orbex-rocket-factory-first-look-photos.html), Isar Aerospace (https://spacenews.com/german-launch-startup-raises-17-million-with-help-from-airbus-ventures-and-an-ex-spacex-employee/), PLD Space (https://www.fromspacewithlove.com/pld-space/)) have discussed reuse previously, so it wouldn't come completely out of the blue with them.Don't forget OHB daughter company RFA (https://www.rfa.space/), with their RFA one Launcher. And the most interesting ones are more secretive.
Don't forget OHB daughter company RFA (https://www.rfa.space/), with their RFA one Launcher. And the most interesting ones are more secretive.Perhaps the time has come for some of the players to consider partnering up? Different partners contributing different strengths.
I think PLDspace is the least mature of them all in nearly all technical aspects.
The EU is funding a lot of low TRL R&D projects for reusability. It might enable full small launcher reusability. :o :-X
Orbex is losing acces to this because of it being a British/Danish company. Brexit ::) :-X
But Orbex is the only one that has done full engine tests. (PLD space is developing a suborbital rocket)
Most of these small LVs can use RL's recovery system which means they can start with ELV and add recovery system without having to design new RLV.A couple of companies (Orbex (https://www.space.com/orbex-rocket-factory-first-look-photos.html), Isar Aerospace (https://spacenews.com/german-launch-startup-raises-17-million-with-help-from-airbus-ventures-and-an-ex-spacex-employee/), PLD Space (https://www.fromspacewithlove.com/pld-space/)) have discussed reuse previously, so it wouldn't come completely out of the blue with them.Thanks for those links.
Based on a quick look over PLD looks like the furthest into recovery development with parachute work. The others have made mention of recovery but it's unclear if that's months, or years, away from becoming a part of actual hardware.
There's a pretty big difference between "It's on our (eventual) road map" and "We're drop testing stag simulators under helicopters." :(
None of them have achieved first flight and given how difficult that has proved for other competitors that's a big achievement right there. I'll wish them all luck. 2021 and 2021 should both be pretty exciting years. :)
Most of these small LVs can use RL's recovery system which means they can start with ELV and add recovery system without having to design new RLV.No, they can use the outline of a stage recovery plan that RL have developed. Parachutes that open at M2 are far from OTS kit. RL developed that capability in house. Software to predict parachute inflation at >M1 is somewhat specialized given that a 'chute is totally unlike aircraft in terms of "floppiness".
I'd guess they'd add reentry control thrusters and start collecting reentry data after first few flights.
Being late to this market may actually be and advantage now. RL invested lot money in building factory to produce 12-20 ELVs are year. New comers only need to produce handful of LVs a year knowing they will be flying RLVs within couple years with factory mainly building expendable 2nd stages and fairing.That's a semi reusable vehicle. If they want to launch 12-20x a year that's still going to need a substantial factory because they will still be throwing away US and probably fairings each time. They will also need to establish a track record, like all ELV's.
Beck has confirmed reuse of Electron is all go, in doing so RL have raised bar for their small LV competitors. Good news for competitors, RL has shown them are way to do reuse which most can use, larger ones may need reentry burn but they also have more mass margins to play with. Most importantly their investors shouldn't have any problems backing low risk upgrade which generates high returns.
At this stage an operational ELV would be massive achievement for RL's competitors, reuse will be ways down track for most of them.
Time will tell if Beck has blind sided every other competitor, who was caught short but is agile enough to be playing catch up and who has been thinking on similar lines since day one and planning to move straight into it (although I would have guessed if anyone had that plan they would have made a point of emphasizing it when they came out of stealth mode).
2021 (https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Isar_Aerospace_prepares_the_launch_of_its_rockets_from_space_centre_CSG_999.html) Spectrum Germany ISAR Aerospace
Failed: Vector, Boeing XS-1
I can't find any previous mentions of it here, but this sounds like an other company working on a new rocket?
https://www.spaceryde.com/ (https://www.spaceryde.com/)
They want to launch from a stratospheric balloon, and have prototyped out the balloon and carrier for the rocket, that I can see.
I can't find any previous mentions of it here, but this sounds like an other company working on a new rocket?Does this make the rocket single stage? If it doesn't then you have yet another TSTO ELV and a balloon.
https://www.spaceryde.com/ (https://www.spaceryde.com/)
They want to launch from a stratospheric balloon, and have prototyped out the balloon and carrier for the rocket, that I can see.
So you either need to make very cheap balloonsEvery weather balloon released has been disposable, they're mass-produced cheap commodity items. $100/kg lifted is a reasonable ballpark estimate if you were to cluster CotS balloons, cost/kg lifted would reduce as diameter increases.
That's Kg of complete rocket, not just the payload.So you either need to make very cheap balloonsEvery weather balloon released has been disposable, they're mass-produced cheap commodity items. $100/kg lifted is a reasonable ballpark estimate if you were to cluster CotS balloons, cost/kg lifted would reduce as diameter increases.
Here is an article on the topic of smallsat launchers:
Ten companies bid for NASA small launch vehicle contract
https://spacenews.com/ten-companies-bid-for-nasa-small-launch-vehicle-contract/
Phantom Space Corporation was founded to revolutionize the way we transport satellites and space assets into space, through space, and back to Earth. Our compliment of launch, propulsion and satellite solutions lowers the entry barriers to space access and enables a widening demographic access to space and space technology.
Phantom Space is a late stage start-up and has been quietly working on satellite, propulsion and launch vehicle systems since its founding in 2019. We bring decades of experience in launch, propulsion, and satellite systems from SpaceX, Commercial startups, DoD space, Vector Launch and NASA.
Phoenix Launch Systems, Inc. is a nanosatellite systems and service company on a mission to operate the first dedicated cubesat-class reusable launch system that allows for regular, scheduled orbital access at an unprecedented rate and cost. We are developing technologies to enable a complete end-to-end solution for reliable commercial access to space. We provide launch services with our Phoenix vehicle as well as cubesat systems sales and mission integration services.
Phoenix Launch Systems was incorporated in early 2019 by a group of both new and experienced aerospace engineers. Phoenix Launch Systems’ nanolauncher heritage traces back to the 1990s, and its mission hence has expanded from technology development to the creation of a dedicated nanosatellite launch service and turnkey space utilization solutions. Development work has been ongoing since 2016 – prior to our incorporation – for our nanosatellite hardware line and launch vehicle technology.
So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
The second one will be one of these: Virgin LauncherOne, Astra Rocket and ABL RS1. Next shot on Wednesday (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51425.0) for LauncherOne!
So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
The second one will be one of these: Virgin LauncherOne, Astra Rocket and ABL RS1. Next shot on Wednesday (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51425.0) for LauncherOne!
https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/pegasus-rocket/
Orbital Sciences was "New Space" before there was such a thing. It even developed its own Little-LEO comsat constellation for its own rocket to launch!
Please note the difference between privately developed and privately funded. Pegasus development was a joint venture between Orbital Sciences and very-old-space Hercules. Hercules supplied the solid engines, which were based on government-funded development for ICBMs. SpaceX, on the other hand, developed everything from scratch without government-funded tech.
Antonio Elias wrote that the Hercules motors were "loosely based" on the Midgetman motors, but that they were custom sized for Pegasus. Also, this all happened in 1987, a much different era in spaceflight. NASA had just been ordered to remove commercial satellites from STS. Numerous companies proposed brand new launch vehicles to fill the void, but revised Delta/Atlas/Titan were refunded and restarted instead. There was only one exception: Pegasus.So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
The second one will be one of these: Virgin LauncherOne, Astra Rocket and ABL RS1. Next shot on Wednesday (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51425.0) for LauncherOne!
https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/pegasus-rocket/
Orbital Sciences was "New Space" before there was such a thing. It even developed its own Little-LEO comsat constellation for its own rocket to launch!
(bold added by me)
Please note the difference between privately developed and privately funded. Pegasus development was a joint venture between Orbital Sciences and very-old-space Hercules. Hercules supplied the solid engines, which were based on government-funded development for ICBMs. SpaceX, on the other hand, developed everything from scratch without government-funded tech.
DARPA actually owns some of the Pegasus technolgy. Don't think that this is the case with SpaceX or Rocket Lab. (But it's the same with all the Chinese private rockets that launched so far, they licensed solid motor tech from government. So SpaceX and Rocket Lab are really special, worldwide.)
It used experience gained, sure, but it's definitely not a Fastrac or Bantam engine. I've noticed this claim gain currency in the last few years as SpaceX's success has become undeniable and folks have to use SOMETHING to argue it's not a big deal.Please note the difference between privately developed and privately funded. Pegasus development was a joint venture between Orbital Sciences and very-old-space Hercules. Hercules supplied the solid engines, which were based on government-funded development for ICBMs. SpaceX, on the other hand, developed everything from scratch without government-funded tech.
The Merlin engine used technology from NASA's Fastrac program.
https://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket-engine-turbopumps/
"Barber-Nichols used its experience gained on the Fastrac and Bantam projects to rapidly develop the Merlin Turbopump."
Another European entry, ENVOL. Hybrid propulsion microlauncher NET 2024
https://envol-h2020.eu/
ENVOL main objective is to provide Europe its prime commercial, competitive and green launch service, utilizing a true New Space approach to offer low-cost, frequent and flexible access to space to small satellites in the range of 100 to 200 kg to polar and sun-synchronous orbits in the altitude range 600 to 800 km by 2024.https://www.gtd.eu/fr/news-and-events/gtd-be-part-envol-consortia-tech-breaking-microlauncher-nanosats
Another European entry, ENVOL. Hybrid propulsion microlauncher NET 2024
https://envol-h2020.eu/
The Team page (https://envol-h2020.eu/team/) looks impressive. This is not a powerpoint project but an aerospace industry consortium. Nammo Raufoss is project coordinator; EU gave 4 M€ in 2020: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/870385
They are developing a Microlauncher:QuoteENVOL main objective is to provide Europe its prime commercial, competitive and green launch service, utilizing a true New Space approach to offer low-cost, frequent and flexible access to space to small satellites in the range of 100 to 200 kg to polar and sun-synchronous orbits in the altitude range 600 to 800 km by 2024.https://www.gtd.eu/fr/news-and-events/gtd-be-part-envol-consortia-tech-breaking-microlauncher-nanosats
Another European entry, ENVOL. Hybrid propulsion microlauncher NET 2024
https://envol-h2020.eu/
The Team page (https://envol-h2020.eu/team/) looks impressive. This is not a powerpoint project but an aerospace industry consortium. Nammo Raufoss is project coordinator; EU gave 4 M€ in 2020: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/870385
They are developing a Microlauncher:QuoteENVOL main objective is to provide Europe its prime commercial, competitive and green launch service, utilizing a true New Space approach to offer low-cost, frequent and flexible access to space to small satellites in the range of 100 to 200 kg to polar and sun-synchronous orbits in the altitude range 600 to 800 km by 2024.https://www.gtd.eu/fr/news-and-events/gtd-be-part-envol-consortia-tech-breaking-microlauncher-nanosats
Another European entry, ENVOL. Hybrid propulsion microlauncher NET 2024I found ENVOL (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/870385) at least half a year ago. This is the continuation of the SMILE project.
https://envol-h2020.eu/
Antonio Elias wrote that the Hercules motors were "loosely based" on the Midgetman motors, but that they were custom sized for Pegasus. Also, this all happened in 1987, a much different era in spaceflight. NASA had just been ordered to remove commercial satellites from STS. Numerous companies proposed brand new launch vehicles to fill the void, but revised Delta/Atlas/Titan were refunded and restarted instead. There was only one exception: Pegasus.So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
The second one will be one of these: Virgin LauncherOne, Astra Rocket and ABL RS1. Next shot on Wednesday (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51425.0) for LauncherOne!
https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/pegasus-rocket/
Orbital Sciences was "New Space" before there was such a thing. It even developed its own Little-LEO comsat constellation for its own rocket to launch!
(bold added by me)
Please note the difference between privately developed and privately funded. Pegasus development was a joint venture between Orbital Sciences and very-old-space Hercules. Hercules supplied the solid engines, which were based on government-funded development for ICBMs. SpaceX, on the other hand, developed everything from scratch without government-funded tech.
DARPA actually owns some of the Pegasus technolgy. Don't think that this is the case with SpaceX or Rocket Lab. (But it's the same with all the Chinese private rockets that launched so far, they licensed solid motor tech from government. So SpaceX and Rocket Lab are really special, worldwide.)
- Ed Kyle
https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889 (https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889)QuoteAccording to telemetry, LauncherOne has reached orbit! Everyone on the team who is not in mission control right now is going absolutely bonkers. Even the folks on comms are trying really hard not to sound too excited.
I find it interesting that Virgin Orbit's time between first and second launch attempts was only four days shorter than Rocket Lab's. What's even more odd is that both made their first attempt on May 25th of their respective years (2017 and 2020).https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889 (https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889)QuoteAccording to telemetry, LauncherOne has reached orbit! Everyone on the team who is not in mission control right now is going absolutely bonkers. Even the folks on comms are trying really hard not to sound too excited.
Another one above the line!
Quoting:
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) orbital flight since thread opening:
2018-01 Electron US/NZ Rocket Lab
2019-07 Hyperbola-1 China iSpace
2019-08 Jielong-1 China Chinarocket (state-owned)
2020-04 Qased Iran (military)
2020-11 Ceres-1 China Galactic Energy
2021-01 LauncherOne US Virgin Orbit
Announced or expected (NET)
2021-Q1 Firefly α US/Ukr Firefly
2021-Q1 Rocket US Astra
etc...
https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889 (https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889)QuoteAccording to telemetry, LauncherOne has reached orbit! Everyone on the team who is not in mission control right now is going absolutely bonkers. Even the folks on comms are trying really hard not to sound too excited.
Another one above the line!
Quoting:
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) orbital flight since thread opening:
2018-01 Electron US/NZ Rocket Lab
2019-07 Hyperbola-1 China iSpace
2019-08 Jielong-1 China Chinarocket (state-owned)
2020-04 Qased Iran (military)
2020-11 Ceres-1 China Galactic Energy
2021-01 LauncherOne US Virgin Orbit
Announced or expected (NET)
2021-Q1 Firefly α US/Ukr Firefly
2021-Q1 Rocket US Astra
etc...
Phantom Space (Jim Cantrell's ship-of-Theseus from Vector that's using Ursa Major Technologies engines) says they're working on a development pathfinder and should have it finished by end of Q1 this year. Seems like rapid development given the company's age, but with their lineage and not needing to build the actual engines, maybe not surprising.Here specs from their webpage. SSO and LEO payloads masses are quite bit higher than Electon which uses 9x 5,800lbs Rutherford engines. On paper Electron has considerably more thrust. Not sure why there is such large difference.
https://twitter.com/PhantomSpaceInc/status/1351004034602315776
RocketLab is now 15 for 17, with launch 18 coming up tomorrow.
Has any other launcher on the list made orbit more than once?
(Perhaps I can make a post with links for each.
I was unsuccessful in finding threads on most of the Chinese small rockets.
Here is a thread on the Kuaizhou-11 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43652.0) whose maiden launch failed.
The thread for Glactic Energy (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46704.0) stops before the successful launch of Ceres-1.)
RocketLab is now 15 for 17, with launch 18 coming up tomorrow.
Has any other launcher on the list made orbit more than once?
(Perhaps I can make a post with links for each.
I was unsuccessful in finding threads on most of the Chinese small rockets.
Here is a thread on the Kuaizhou-11 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43652.0) whose maiden launch failed.
The thread for Glactic Energy (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46704.0) stops before the successful launch of Ceres-1.)
None of the others have launched more than once yet. Hyperbola-1's 2nd flight is supposed to be around Q1 2021 but news are pretty unclear at present.
A comparison of some smallsat launchers that have reached orbit.
PL to
500 km
LEO/S GLOW
-----------------------------------------
Pegasus XL 260 kg 23,130 kg
Falcon 1 290 kg 33,230 kg
Electron/Curie 200 kg 12,550 kg
SS-520 3 kg 2,600 kg
Hyperbola-1 260 kg 31,000 kg
Jielong 1 200 kg 23,100 kg
Ceres-1 260 kg 31,000 kg
LauncherOne 300 kg 25,855 kg
-----------------------------------------
- Ed Kyle
A comparison of some smallsat launchers that have reached orbit.
PL to
500 km
LEO/S GLOW
-----------------------------------------
Pegasus XL 260 kg 23,130 kg
Falcon 1 290 kg 33,230 kg
Electron/Curie 200 kg 12,550 kg
SS-520 3 kg 2,600 kg
Hyperbola-1 260 kg 31,000 kg
Jielong 1 200 kg 23,100 kg
Ceres-1 260 kg 31,000 kg
LauncherOne 300 kg 25,855 kg
-----------------------------------------
- Ed Kyle
I thought I'd add the Payload/Gross Lift Off Weight ratio for comparison. Electron is the best by far out of the lot, performing 37% better than LauncherOne, which has the assistance of air launch!
PL to 500 km LEO/S GLOW PL/GLOW (%)
----------------------------------------------------
Pegasus XL 260 kg 23,130 kg 1.12
Falcon 1 290 kg 33,230 kg 0.87
Electron/Curie 200 kg 12,550 kg 1.59
SS-520 3 kg 2,600 kg 0.12
Hyperbola-1 260 kg 31,000 kg 0.84
Jielong 1 200 kg 23,100 kg 0.87
Ceres-1 260 kg 31,000 kg 0.84
LauncherOne 300 kg 25,855 kg 1.16
----------------------------------------------------
Looks like old numbers for Launcher One. The V2.1 payload user guide has updated numbers. Looks like at least 500 kg to 500 km SSO.
Plus, Electron is carbon fiber, doesn't have stresses from airlaunch, and has a kickstage which acts as a third stage.
Ah, good catch! Thank you!Plus, Electron is carbon fiber, doesn't have stresses from airlaunch, and has a kickstage which acts as a third stage.
My understanding is that LauncherOne is also carbon fiber: their website describe the vehicle as being "All Carbon Structures: All-carbon composite design, including linerless tanks, minimizing mass." Which doesn't explain why it's white, while Electron and Firefly Alpha (also a carbon-composite design) leave the black structure unpainted. Maybe they're more concerned about boil-off relative to those two ground-based systems which can replenish LOX up until just before launch?
The white is an extra insulation layer; you can see the gap in a lot of construction photos, especially near the ends of the tanks.Plus, Electron is carbon fiber, doesn't have stresses from airlaunch, and has a kickstage which acts as a third stage.
My understanding is that LauncherOne is also carbon fiber: their website describe the vehicle as being "All Carbon Structures: All-carbon composite design, including linerless tanks, minimizing mass." Which doesn't explain why it's white, while Electron and Firefly Alpha (also a carbon-composite design) leave the black structure unpainted. Maybe they're more concerned about boil-off relative to those two ground-based systems which can replenish LOX up until just before launch?
Aren't most launch vehicles also just painted white using electrostatic paint? I never understood how RocketLab got away without using any paint.
There was some drastic changes to this rocket with respect to the one on the 1st launch.
https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1356184380108988416?s=19
Cosmic_Penguin
·
Feb 1, 2021
Weird. Sounds like the rumored theory that they and other Chinese private LSPs bought off-the-shelf SRMs for their first rockets from their competitors, but got their supplies cut afterward is actually true?
This is why I think that the Chinese “private” small rocket companies using solid fuel rockets are not like the other smallsat launchers.
The launch of Hyperbola Y2 failed.
I’m not a big fan of LauncherOne but at least they have a production rocket.There was some drastic changes to this rocket with respect to the one on the 1st launch.
https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1356184380108988416?s=19Quote
Cosmic_Penguin
·
Feb 1, 2021
Weird. Sounds like the rumored theory that they and other Chinese private LSPs bought off-the-shelf SRMs for their first rockets from their competitors, but got their supplies cut afterward is actually true?
Update 02-26: Firefly slips from Q1, Astra slips from Q2(if there won't be another test launch inbetween), SSLV confirmed for (early) Q2, OS-M re-added, Vikram added, RFA One slips from 2022 to 2023
Note 03-02: Astra confirmed for summer
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) orbital flight since thread opening:
2018-01 Electron US/NZ Rocket Lab
2018-03 SS-520 Japan Nissan
2019-07 Hyperbola-1 China iSpace
2019-08 Jielong-1 China Chinarocket (state-owned)
2020-04 Qased Iran (military)
2020-11 Ceres-1 China Galactic Energy
2021-01 LauncherOne US Virgin Orbit
Announced or expected (NET)
2021-Q2 (https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/isro-gears-up-to-launch-its-newgeneration-mini-rocket-on-maiden-flight/2036148) SSLV India ISRO (state-owned)
2021-Q2 (https://spacenews.com/three-companies-win-nasa-small-launch-contracts/) Firefly α US/Ukr Firefly
2021-Q2 (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/rocket-startup-abl-space-aims-for-first-rs1-launch-in-a-few-months.html) RS1 US ABL
2021-Q3 (https://spacenews.com/astras-100-year-plan-qa-with-ceo-chris-kemp/) Rocket US Astra
2021 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32345.msg2174745#msg2174745) Simorgh Iran (state-owned)
2021 (https://www.getrevue.co/profile/aj_fi/issues/china-space-news-update-issue-1-32594) OS-M China OneSpace
2021 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-contractor-plans-more-than-40-launches-in-2020/) Jielong-2 China Chinarocket (state-owned)
2021 Kuaizhou-11 China ExPace (state-owned)
2021 (https://thealphacentauri.net/61775-kitayskie-chastnye-kompanii/) Nebula-1 China Deep Blue
2022 Terran 1 US Relativity
2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43529.msg2124941#msg2124941) (unnamed) Japan Space One
2022 (https://orbex.space/news/orbex-secures-24-million-funding-round-for-uk-space-launch) Prime UK Orbex
2022 (https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/pact-with-isro-boosts-skyroot-s-bid-to-launch-india-s-first-private-rocket-121020301470_1.html) Vikram India Skyroot
2022 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/09/a-german-rocket-startup-seeks-to-disrupt-the-european-launch-industry/) Spectrum Germany ISAR Aerospace
2022 (https://www.gspacetech.com/launch) Eris Australia Gilmour
Some of the 2022 dates (like Spectrum and Eris) are very optimistic. 2023+ not listed, as launch dates so far in the future are too unreliable. Bogus projects not listed.
Unclear - no update on launch date:
- Super Stripy derivate (X-Bow/US), announced for 2019
- Blue Whale 1 (Perigee/Korea), announced for 2020
- Hapith V (Tispace/Taiwan), announced for 2020
- Newline-1 (Linkspace/China), announced for 2021 in early 2019
Canceled: Boeing XS-1, Zhuque-1 (Landspace/China)
<snip>
Nissan would be very surprised to hear they launched a rocket.
Canon Electronics/Space One is still penciled in for fall 2021 after launchpad completion, but rumor mill says 2022 at least.
I am amazed that no one has thought to buy RD-120K engines from Yuzhmash and built a medium lift LV around that available and tested engine.
Visited the Jarmyn booth yesterday at the Australian Space Forum. They are still working on their SSTO methalox launch vehicle here in Adelaide. They had a 3D printed model of their engine on display, which uses an extendable nozzle for vacuum operation. They are currently looking for investors. Launch date of the Hawk Jr vehicle with 50 kg payload is 2025. They are not planning on using a kick stage (I expect that will change once they start launching).
In sea level configuration, their Swift engine varies from a thrust of 395 kN to 415 kN at 15 km with 343 s Isp. Vacuum configuration varies from 415 kN at 15 km to 435 kN in vacuum with 360 s Isp. Engine mode is full flow staged combustion!
https://www.jarmynenteprisespace.com.au
Here's a video of their booth, showing a scale model of Hawk Jr.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6782934846764326912/
Rocketlab has repeated their successful launch 16 times.
Has any of the other ones "above the line" done a successful flight?
Some pages had Ceres-1 scheduling a second flight last month, but it does not appear on NSF's "Chinese Launch Schedule".
And Astra is somewhat "ahead of the competition" after at least launching twice.
In the light of many launch companies going public with SPACs, it looks like SEC is reevaluating the rules for SPACs: https://spacenews.com/spac-rule-changes-add-complexity-and-delays-for-space-companies-eying-public-markets/Not good news for startups that don't have revenue stream yet and were relying on money from merger. Eg Astra, Momentus
Stefan Powell of Dawn Aerospace on FISO last week.
http://fiso.spiritastro.net/telecon/Powell_4-28-21/
Not lot new, have finally gain flight clearance for Aurora II to start test flights out of South Island airfield. Don't think its actually flown yet.
Sold a few of their cubesat thrusters with some in space. 285ISP VAC is quite respectable from their pressure fed Nitrous/Propane thrusters. No mention of Aurora engine my guess is its same fuel combination.
Aurora III is now being designed for 250kg to orbit. My guess is its still a powerpoint LV at this stage. Successful flights of II should help with fund raising.
Aurora can glide back to airfield from 300km down range.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
There's also ArcaSpace's EcoRocket, with its maiden flight still scheduled for June 2021. I didn't see it mentioned in this thread
There's also ArcaSpace's EcoRocket, with its maiden flight still scheduled for June 2021. I didn't see it mentioned in this thread
They've got their own thread. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50041.0) This one is generally used for companies which don't have the fame (or notoriety) to merit standalone threads.
If you're specifically asking why they're not in PM3's latest schedule (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2217098#msg2217098), I can't speak with certainty, but I expect that reflects PM3's belief in the likelihood that ARCAspace will launch a vehicle to orbit.
If you're specifically asking why they're not in PM3's latest schedule (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2217098#msg2217098), I can't speak with certainty, but I expect that reflects PM3's belief in the likelihood that ARCAspace will launch a vehicle to orbit.
I haven't noticed that someone mentioned Skyrora in this thread. Perhaps I just haven't noticed it, so correct me if I'm wrong. Skyrora is a Scottish smallsat launcher and launch vehicle manufacturer, and they plan to launch their most famous spacecraft Skyrora XL rocket (https://www.skyrora.com/skyrora-xl) in 2022.
I haven't noticed that someone mentioned Skyrora in this thread. Perhaps I just haven't noticed it, so correct me if I'm wrong. Skyrora is a Scottish smallsat launcher and launch vehicle manufacturer, and they plan to launch their most famous spacecraft Skyrora XL rocket (https://www.skyrora.com/skyrora-xl) in 2022.
Rocketlab has repeated their successful launch 16 times.
Has any of the other ones "above the line" done a successful flight?
Some pages had Ceres-1 scheduling a second flight last month, but it does not appear on NSF's "Chinese Launch Schedule".
And Astra is somewhat "ahead of the competition" after at least launching twice.
Well, everything "above the line" has had at least one successful launch, but Hyperbola-1 is the only one (other than Electron) which has attempted a launch after their first successful launch, and that second launch wasn't successful.
Oddly enough, only Electron, LauncherOne, and SS-520 had an unsuccessful flight before their first successful flights: the others flew successfully the first time. Note that for the SS-520, I'm not counting its first two suborbital launches, since arguably those aren't the same vehicle. (Although IIRC there was some reason to question whether the second launch of Hyperbola-1 was the same vehicle as the first, but I digress...)
Smallsats failure more often than traditional large satellites with 8% lost due to LV failure.
I've only got this chart to go off, don't have access to article. Not sure if that 8% is LV failures of large LVs doing rideshares. Small LV failures would account for very few losses as there is only Electron's two recent failures and odd new small LV on maiden flights.
Small LVs fail more often but then again most are still going through their maiden flights, while large LVs have been around lot longer and very few of them clean sheet designs. Most took flight proven HW from previous generation LVs, F9 included.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1397935426376175619?s=19
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
X-Bow Systems' website (http://xbowsystems.com/), which used to have (https://web.archive.org/web/20200925151240/http://xbowsystems.com/) a logo and literally nothing else...now has a generic Website Under Construction image and nothing else. I don't know if that makes them more or less likely to still exist.They had some R&D awards. No evidence of ever planning to fly anything at this time.
For context, I believe X-Bow Systems are the current holders of the IP for the SPARK/Super Strypi rocket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_(rocket)), but despite a test launch in 2015, there doesn't seem to be a lot of public evidence that it still exists, either.
X-Bow Systems' website (http://xbowsystems.com/), which used to have (https://web.archive.org/web/20200925151240/http://xbowsystems.com/) a logo and literally nothing else...now has a generic Website Under Construction image and nothing else. I don't know if that makes them more or less likely to still exist.
X-Bow Systems' website (http://xbowsystems.com/), which used to have (https://web.archive.org/web/20200925151240/http://xbowsystems.com/) a logo and literally nothing else...now has a generic Website Under Construction image and nothing else. I don't know if that makes them more or less likely to still exist.
Website is back and says "A Solid Revolution", obviously referring to the solid engines of Super Stripy.
Also important: so far there are no clear commercially successful small launchers since the opening of this thread.
The new launchers to launch in the remainder of 2021 outnumber the total number of new launchers so far. It'll be interesting to see how many actually succeed.
Also important: so far there are no clear commercially successful small launchers since the opening of this thread.
Anybody investing in new LV needs to plan for 1-2 failures in first few flights.The new launchers to launch in the remainder of 2021 outnumber the total number of new launchers so far. It'll be interesting to see how many actually succeed.
Also important: so far there are no clear commercially successful small launchers since the opening of this thread.
Also important: there are likely to be others out there (including some on the list already) who are too publicity-averse to tell anyone what they're up to in this space until they actually get something off of the launch pad - simply because they're "new" (untried, unproven) and widespread reports of "failure" would see the end of whatever meagre funding they already have.
Also important: there are likely to be others out there (including some on the list already) who are too publicity-averse to tell anyone what they're up to in this space until they actually get something off of the launch pad - simply because they're "new" (untried, unproven) and widespread reports of "failure" would see the end of whatever meagre funding they already have.Anybody investing in new LV needs to plan for 1-2 failures in first few flights.
Your 'Dark Horse' scenario isn't really possible. Astra tried it, but we still knew a lot about them from public sources before they 'went public', especially as they approached orbital attempts. You might avoid talking to the press, but you can't avoid talking to the FAA or FCC.
The new launchers to launch in the remainder of 2021 outnumber the total number of new launchers so far. It'll be interesting to see how many actually succeed.
Also important: so far there are no clear commercially successful small launchers since the opening of this thread.
Time to add Taiwanese company tiSPACE's "Hapith I" to the list?? Potentially 2 launches from the Southern Launch's new Whalers Way Orbital Launch Complex before December 2021.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46926.msg2281329#msg2281329
Time to add Taiwanese company tiSPACE's "Hapith I" to the list?? Potentially 2 launches from the Southern Launch's new Whalers Way Orbital Launch Complex before December 2021.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46926.msg2281329#msg2281329
Hapith I is suborbital, right? I thought that was why it was omitted, while the orbital Hapith V is listed (under the "Unclear - no update on launch date" section).
Dawn have started test flights of MK2 Aurora spaceplane, these are with jet engines. Jets are probably good idea at this stage while they fine tune autopilot, lot more forgiving than rockets. Rocket engine is in final stages of development. Airfield is on approach road to Mt Cook village. Covid might be plus to Dawn as air traffic is down considerable without overseas tourists.Stefan Powell of Dawn Aerospace on FISO last week.
http://fiso.spiritastro.net/telecon/Powell_4-28-21/
Not lot new, have finally gain flight clearance for Aurora II to start test flights out of South Island airfield. Don't think its actually flown yet.
Sold a few of their cubesat thrusters with some in space. 285ISP VAC is quite respectable from their pressure fed Nitrous/Propane thrusters. No mention of Aurora engine my guess is its same fuel combination.
Aurora III is now being designed for 250kg to orbit. My guess is its still a powerpoint LV at this stage. Successful flights of II should help with fund raising.
Aurora can glide back to airfield from 300km down range.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Huh, although the presentation in that link (as well as their website describing the Mk-II (https://www.dawnaerospace.com/dawn-mkii-aurora)) says "50-100 kg payloads to any orbit" for the Mk-III, the audio itself (around 36 minutes in) does mention 250 kg to orbit. Apparently such a PowerPoint LV that they haven't fully updated their PowerPoints...
Update 08-31: Astra NET 2021 after failure; Firefly and ARCA Q3 => September; Nebula-1 likely slips to 2022; Eris 2023 (estimate) => 2022 (as announced (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43040.msg2284403#msg2284403))
Update 09-03: Firefly NET 2022 after failure
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) orbital flight since thread opening:
2018-01 Electron US/NZ Rocket Lab
2018-03 SS-520 Japan IHI/JAXA
2019-07 Hyperbola-1 China iSpace
2019-08 Jielong-1 China Chinarocket (state-owned)
2020-04 Qased Iran (military)
2020-11 Ceres-1 China Galactic Energy
2021-01 LauncherOne US Virgin Orbit
Announced or expected (NET)
2021 (https://spacenews.com/mystery-surrounds-chinese-private-rocket-launch-attempt/) Kuaizhou-11 China ExPace (state-owned)
2021 (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/05/lockheed-martin-buys-up-to-58-launches-from-rocket-builder-abl-space.html) RS1 US ABL
2021 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32345.msg2174745#msg2174745) Simorgh Iran ISA (state-owned)
2021 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52951.0) Zoljanah Iran (military?)
2021 (https://www.getrevue.co/profile/aj_fi/issues/china-space-news-update-issue-1-32594) OS-M China OneSpace
2021 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-ispace-suffers-failure-with-second-orbital-launch-attempt/) Jielong-2 China Chinarocket (state-owned)
2021 Rocket 3 US Astra
2021 (https://newsonair.com/2021/08/18/indian-space-agency-geared-to-test-solid-fuel-motor-for-small-rocket/) SSLV India ISRO (state-owned)
2022 (https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/20/relativity-is-pushing-back-the-demo-launch-of-its-terran-1-rocket-to-early-2022/) Terran 1 US Relativity
2022 (https://spacenews.com/chinese-space-firm-launches-and-lands-small-test-rocket/) Nebula-1 China Deep Blue
2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43529.msg2124941#msg2124941) Kairos Japan Space One / Canon
2022 Firefly α US/Ukr Firefly
2022 (https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/pact-with-isro-boosts-skyroot-s-bid-to-launch-india-s-first-private-rocket-121020301470_1.html) Vikram India Skyroot
2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43040.msg2284403#msg2284403) Eris Australia Gilmour
2022 (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/06/astra-ceo-chris-kemp-previews-rocket-4-0-daily-launches-and-a-smarter-planet/) Rocket 4 US Astra
2023 (https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/14/orbex_interview/) Prime UK Orbex
2023 Spectrum Germany ISAR Aerospace
2023 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2021/01/11/british-launch-company-skyrora-completes-testing-on-rocket-upper-stage--and-hopes-to-reach-space-this-year/?sh=33b9e159d3fb) Skyrora XL UK/Ukr Skyrora
2023 RFA One Germany RFA / OHB
Intentionally not listed:
- ARCA EcoRocket (2021-09), too dubious
- Aevum Ravn (2021), too dubious
- HyImpulse SL1 (2023) => NET 2024 with usual delays
- Interstellar Zero (2023) => NET 2024 with usual delays
- everything announced for ≥ 2024, those dates are too unreliable
Unclear - no update on launch date:
- Super Stripy derivate (X-Bow/US), announced for 2019
- Blue Whale 1 (Perigee/Korea), announced for 2020
- Hapith V (Tispace/Taiwan), announced for 2020
- Newline-1 (Linkspace/China), announced for 2021 in early 2019
Canceled:
- Boeing XS-1
- Zhuque-1 (Landspace/China)
The dates in the list are not direct quotes. I evaluate all available information and adjust implausible dates by +1 year.
You could say some are buying in e.g. propulsion technology; but that is also true of Firefly for example, and it still took them 7-8 years. What makes you believe the German launchers will be launching by 2022-2023, for example, with that background evidence? It would be more like 2025 based on what others have done.
I don't believe into any of those dates. SSLV probably will not launch in 2021, Vikram and Rocket 4 not in 2022 and Skyrora not in 2023. No idea if and when any German launcher will make it to orbit. If you think you are able to estimate all that e.g. from company founding dates, feel free to take over and produce the first ever realistic launch schedule. :)
And yet another launcher company to add in the list: Pangea Aerospace (https://www.pangeaaerospace.com). Recently created, in 2018.
That is probably Launcher thread but I can't find it.
ThanksThat is probably Launcher thread but I can't find it.
FYI: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47486.0
Rolling through my Twitter feed, and saw two new launch companies announced this morning. That brings us to 165. This is getting ridiculous, folks. Stop building launch companies and start building things to be launched.
Meagan Crawford @MeaganMCrawford
Rolling through my Twitter feed, and saw two new launch companies announced this morning. That brings us to 165. This is getting ridiculous, folks. Stop building launch companies and start building things to be launched.
I’d like to see that list of 165
My primary issue with PM3’s list is that there could be an easier way to find the most recent update, which is fun to read even if one doesn’t follow this thread every day.
My primary issue with PM3’s list is that there could be an easier way to find the most recent update, which is fun to read even if one doesn’t follow this thread every day.
My list is suspended due to ringsider's criticism of my methology. I based it on the launch dates published by the rocket builders*, which he (correctly) percieved as disinformation. The purpose of those dates is mostly collecting naive investor's money and snatching launch contracts, not informing about a real launch schedule.
(* with some minor reality adjustments by my own estimates)
Still, it was fun to maintain the list, and it was better than nothing. If there is some consensus here that the list should be continued they way it was, I could do that and put it into a separate thread.
I understand ringsider's criticism, but I think that a list should still be maintained, and basing it as much as possible on the official dates is the only way to keep it "impartial". Speculating about which could be the real dates is a good thing since almost no company sticks to the announced ones, but those speculations could be influenced by individual perceptions and prejudices and could make the list too biased.
(Btw keeping track of how many times a company officially postpones its maiden flight date could be a good indicator of the reliability of those announcements and another metric to compare companies and business plans)
The list is also missing Nammo with the suborbital Nucleus sounding rocket 70kg to >100km that can be ordered.
They are working on the UM-2 100kN turbopump feed engine, that will be used in Nucleus XL and for several orbital launchers studies. I expect some news later this year. ... :-X ;)
I suspect the real issue is that more than a few of these companies launch with really big dreams and then, over years of little progress, side slowly down the ladder into oblivion. Behaviour like that is really tricky to capture in a list without high-quality inside knowledge of each company and where they are really at - not just their press releases.
I notice the list started in 2015. That's a pretty good run! Are you volunteering, JEF_300??
I suspect the real issue is that more than a few of these companies launch with really big dreams and then, over years of little progress, side slowly down the ladder into oblivion. Behaviour like that is really tricky to capture in a list without high-quality inside knowledge of each company and where they are really at - not just their press releases.
I notice the list started in 2015. That's a pretty good run! Are you volunteering, JEF_300??
Well, I'm much more likely to setup a Google Sheets spreadsheet that people can comment on than to try to run a list fully on the forum. I probably wouldn't update it myself much at all, just let you guys suggest updates as you see that they're needed, and then approve them. And then maybe I'd take a screenshot and post that on here once every two months or something. I don't know that I'm volunteering to do that just yet, but you can probably tell that I'm thinking about it semi-seriously.
One thing that might help back up that sort of judgement is justifying it in more detail. I know once or twice, I was unsure why PM3 made a particular decision with regards to placement, and they were able to give some links to support their choices. Putting that information into the post itself may make people more comfortable with those decisions, and also give them the sources they need to come to their own conclusions. This does make it more time-consuming to create and maintain the list, of course, and I'm not sure how the formatting would work: one link per entry may not be enough, especially if further discussion were necessary to explain why you do or don't entirely believe that source.
My primary issue with PM3’s list is that there could be an easier way to find the most recent update, which is fun to read even if one doesn’t follow this thread every day.
My list is suspended due to ringsider's criticism of my methology. I based it on the launch dates published by the rocket builders*, which he (correctly) percieved as disinformation. The purpose of those dates is mostly collecting naive investor's money and snatching launch contracts, not informing about a real launch schedule.
(* with some minor reality adjustments by my own estimates)
Still, it was fun to maintain the list, and it was better than nothing. If there is some consensus here that the list should be continued they way it was, I could do that and put it into a separate thread.
So what does this tell us?
Looks good! Tiny update: As announced, Hapith V launch from Southern Launch's facility in South Australia was supposed to happen before 31 December this year, but is currently held up awaiting approvals from various powers that be.
Looks good! Tiny update: As announced, Hapith V launch from Southern Launch's facility in South Australia was supposed to happen before 31 December this year, but is currently held up awaiting approvals from various powers that be.
Was that Hapith V, or a second attempt at Hapith I?
Relativity’s Josh Brost on the inevitable question about small launch vehicle oversupply: 150+ ventures working on launches, but far smaller number have raised sufficient funding. Optimistic each one that develops a vehicle could have big enough market to survive. #satinnovation
For everyone who wants to continue maintaining these lists, here's a recent comprehensive survey of smallsat launchers presented at the 35th Small Satellite Conference in August (contains big lists of companies and their proposed launch vehicles):
Small Launchers in a Pandemic World - 2021 Edition of the Annual Industry Survey (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5036&context=smallsat)
Also attached below for posterity.
Looks good! Tiny update: As announced, Hapith V launch from Southern Launch's facility in South Australia was supposed to happen before 31 December this year, but is currently held up awaiting approvals from various powers that be.
Was that Hapith V, or a second attempt at Hapith I?
VS02 = Hapith I, VS03 = Hapith V - both (maybe) before their permit expires
Meanwhile, work continues on the three-stage Hapith-5 smallsat launcher, which Chen said is scheduled to make its maiden flight “around the third quarter of 2022.” He said the first flight will carry a 150-kilogram satellite to sun-synchronous orbit. The vehicle will eventually carry 300 kilograms of satellite payload to SSO.
Here's another one from Australia. Orbit Industries to air launch of a solid rocket into orbit in 2024. The carrier aircraft is called Orbit Boy.
"Emerging Australian space company Orbit Industries (OI) is developing an 'Uber'-like on-demand launch service, and seeking $3 million from investors before an expected launch in 2024."
https://www.spaceconnectonline.com.au/operations/5021-australian-startup-orbit-industries-develops-uber-like-launch-services
"In addition, Orbit’s team comprises Lyubomyr Sabadosh (Managing Director of the advisory board), Volodymyr Usov (Director) and Yurii Alekseev (Founder), who were all former Chairmen of Ukraine’s State Space Agency and have a combined experience of 150 successful launches completed with the agency."
https://stockhead.com.au/tech/meet-orbit-industries-the-aussie-space-tech-company-set-to-become-the-uber-of-space/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/orbit-industries
Orbit Boy (UK) and Italspazio (Italy) signed an agreement to jointly develop an Air-Launch Space System for the delivery of microsatellites into Orbit from the territory of Italy, based on the ground infrastructure of the Comiso Air Base.
Skyrora-XL to be launched in 2022 from Shetlands:
https://twitter.com/Skyrora_Ltd/status/1447835867364663299
Announced first launch of Terran 1:
2018-03: "late 2020 (https://www.reddit.com/r/RelativitySpace/comments/9u5405/noone_terran_1_1250_kg_to_leo_is_scheduled_for/)" (in ~31 months)
2019-04: "very end of 2020 (https://spacenews.com/spaceflight-signs-contract-with-relativity-for-launches/)" (in 19 months)
2019-10: "early 2021 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/amidst-heavy-competition-relatively-space-secures-140-million-in-funding/)" (in ~16 months)
2020-03: "fall 2021 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/relativity-space-has-big-dreams-is-the-company-for-real/)" (in ~20 months)
2021-08: "early 2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40975.msg2280466#msg2280466) (in ~6 months)
This timeline is too bumpy to project it into the future. Clearly the rocket will not launch in early 2022, but when?
Firefly milestones:
- initial 2nd stage static fire in April 2019 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/firefly-has-successfully-tested-the-upper-stage-of-its-alpha-rocket/)
- initial 1st stage static fire in Jan. 2020 (https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/01/23/firefly-confirms-anomaly-and-fire-during-first-stage-hotfire-test/)
- first launch attempt in September 2021
Relativity is still before all that, they have just started tank testing, not integrated any stage. Development process may be different than at Firefly, but still ... a launch in 2022 looks very ambitious to me. Did I miss some hidden magic at Relativity?
Any company founded in 2018 saying they will be orbital by 2021 or 2022 is not to be taken seriously.
Isn't Firefly also using Ukrainian engine tech now?
Off-topic, but see latest long-form interview with Tom Markusic by Everyday Astronaut. Only turbopump assembly is "Ukranian heritage." All other engine tech is SSME/American heritage (e.g., copper lined/nickel-cobalt plated chamber) or Firefly internal (e.g., tap-off cycle components, injectors).
Agnikul Cosmos Signs MOU to Use ISRO Facilities to Develop Launch Vehicle (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/09/17/agnikul-cosmos-signs-mou-to-use-isro-facilities-to-develop-launch-vehicle/) [dated Sept. 17]QuoteAgnikul aims to complete its first launch in 2022. The company has signed an agreement with the Alaska Aerospace Corporation (AAC) to launch from the Pacific Spaceport Complex — Alaska on Kodiak Island.
Agnikul and Alaska Aerospace Corporation are working together to obtain regulatory and export control approvals from the Indian and American governments for an initial test launch sometime next year.
Cross-post: indian company Agnikul plans to launch its Agnibaan launch vehicle from Kodiak starting from 2022; I have no idea of how reliable those statements are.Agnikul Cosmos Signs MOU to Use ISRO Facilities to Develop Launch Vehicle (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/09/17/agnikul-cosmos-signs-mou-to-use-isro-facilities-to-develop-launch-vehicle/) [dated Sept. 17]QuoteAgnikul aims to complete its first launch in 2022. The company has signed an agreement with the Alaska Aerospace Corporation (AAC) to launch from the Pacific Spaceport Complex — Alaska on Kodiak Island.
Agnikul and Alaska Aerospace Corporation are working together to obtain regulatory and export control approvals from the Indian and American governments for an initial test launch sometime next year.
Not a lot of actual metal flying in the air from these companies, that’s a bit ominous. Some companies have been listed here for years, and their status is still 3 years from first flight.Startups fold all time, its not just aerospace thing.
[...]This one could possibly be upgraded from "dubious" to merely "aggressive schedule". Jonathan Goff, head of Altius and was lead of propulsion at Masten, has had an inside look at SpinLaunch and believes it can work (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45852.msg2310004#msg2310004). So at least one credible professional, with inside insight, thinks it's not completely dubious.
Intentionally not listed:
[...]
- SpinLaunch [2022+ (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/spinlaunch-completes-first-test-flight-of-alternative-rocket.html)], too dubious
DLR has tested a MethaLox aerospike engine for the first time, on behalf of the start-up Pangea Aerospace.Pangea Aerospace aerospike engine hot run
The DLR and Pangea Aerospace teams successfully conducted several hot-run tests using the European Research and Technology Test Stand P8.
Aerospike technology promises significantly higher efficiency compared to conventional propulsion systems.
[...]This one could possibly be upgraded from "dubious" to merely "aggressive schedule". Jonathan Goff, head of Altius and was lead of propulsion at Masten, has had an inside look at SpinLaunch and believes it can work (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45852.msg2310004#msg2310004). So at least one credible professional, with inside insight, thinks it's not completely dubious.
Intentionally not listed:
[...]
- SpinLaunch [2022+ (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/spinlaunch-completes-first-test-flight-of-alternative-rocket.html)], too dubious
- moved Jielong-2 to the "unclear" section due to news blackoutJielong-2 seems to have been abandoned, the first launch of Jielong-3 is expected in 2022.
- moved Jielong-2 to the "unclear" section due to news blackoutJielong-2 seems to have been abandoned, the first launch of Jielong-3 is expected in 2022.
http://www.spacechina.com/n25/n2014789/n2014809/c3302102/content.html
I just stumbled across the Argentinean company TLON Space, which is developing a tiny orbital launch vehicle, planned to be launched in 2022.
https://tlon.space/
It is a small liquid fuel launch vehicle of only 10 m height ans 0.35 m diameter, capable of placing 25 kg into low earth orbit. The engines are called ATM-4R1 for stage 1, and VAC-4R2 for stage 2. Apparently stage 1 is to be recoverable by parachute.
The interesting point is, that they have conducted 5 suborbital atmospheric test flights of prototypes (although no altitude was given).
Also in the FCC ODAR for the SAI-2 cubesat, the Aventura I is listed as the planned launch vehicle.
https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-AI-Incorporated/0173-EX-CN-2021/284565
Does anyone else have some information on this company and their launch vehicle?
Stoke are starting with reuseable 2nd stage then booster. Strange way of doing things for startup. Better to build booster first along with low cost expendable 2nd stage and start earning money, then tackle more difficult reuseable 2nd stage. While recovering 2nd stage is quite feasible the issue is more what is payload hit and cost of turning stage around.
I think ABL is still lurking in the shadows.Must have something go for them to have LM as investor and customer.
A new podcast from "Space in 60" interviewing the president and VP of Vaya Space. Appears to have been recorded late last year. Many bold claims are made throughout.
http://www.spacein60.com/episodes (http://www.spacein60.com/episodes)
(Seems that I can't link to just this episode, but you can find it by searching for 'Vaya Space')
Most conference panels are fairly anodyne affairs. Participants, even competitors in the same field, stick to their talking points and, at most, only politely disagree with one another. It often requires prodding from the panel’s moderator, or audience questions, to bring differences among the panelists into sharper focus.
Sometimes, though, such prodding isn’t required. The right mix of personalities on a panel can turn it into something like MTV’s “The Real World” from 30 years ago, “when people stop being polite and start getting real.” That was the case a couple times during the SmallSat Symposium earlier this month in Mountain View, California, amid discussions about the hypercompetitive launch market for smallsats.
Smallsat launch and the real world (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4334/1)Quote from: thespacereview.comMost conference panels are fairly anodyne affairs. Participants, even competitors in the same field, stick to their talking points and, at most, only politely disagree with one another. It often requires prodding from the panel’s moderator, or audience questions, to bring differences among the panelists into sharper focus.
Sometimes, though, such prodding isn’t required. The right mix of personalities on a panel can turn it into something like MTV’s “The Real World” from 30 years ago, “when people stop being polite and start getting real.” That was the case a couple times during the SmallSat Symposium earlier this month in Mountain View, California, amid discussions about the hypercompetitive launch market for smallsats.
It does make sense to consider a market for single satellite launches to replace individual satellites in a large constellation. Replacing a single satellite in a plane can be messy.Yes, consider it. If the price of the small launcher mission is lower than the single-mission price to the customer of a larger launcher, and there are enough missions, then you have a business. But massive constellations are generally structured to avoid the need. They have in-orbit spares in each plane, launched along with the rest of the plane on a shared launcher. In the case of Starlink, they will use SpaceX launchers preferentially because Starlink gets a good internal price.
The Chinese company Galactic Energy has launched their second Ceres-1 rocket to orbit today.
I believe they are only the 5th orbital launch service provider to reach orbit more than once that are generally described as majority privately funded.
1. Orbital Sciences Corporation (July 17, 1991 - Pegasus)
2. SpaceX (July 14, 2009 - Falcon 1)
3. Rocket Lab (November 11, 2018 - Electron)
4. Virgin Orbit (June 30, 2021 - LauncherOne)
5. Galactic Energy (December 7, 2021 - Ceres-1)
2 others have reached orbit once so far:
a. iSpace (July 25, 2019 - Hyperbola-1)
b. Astra (November 20, 2021 - Rocket 3.3)
Correct me if I’m wrong. :)
Launch costs vs time costs.Smallsat launch and the real world (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4334/1)Quote from: thespacereview.comMost conference panels are fairly anodyne affairs. Participants, even competitors in the same field, stick to their talking points and, at most, only politely disagree with one another. It often requires prodding from the panel’s moderator, or audience questions, to bring differences among the panelists into sharper focus.
Sometimes, though, such prodding isn’t required. The right mix of personalities on a panel can turn it into something like MTV’s “The Real World” from 30 years ago, “when people stop being polite and start getting real.” That was the case a couple times during the SmallSat Symposium earlier this month in Mountain View, California, amid discussions about the hypercompetitive launch market for smallsats.
Astra continues to discuss their vision of a launch market where megaconstellation operators churn out hundreds of identical satellites (so losing a few is unimportant), but apparently those operators want to launch the satellites one at a time, rather than any sort of plane-at-a-time deployment. There's a lot of uncertainty about the future of small satellites, how many megaconstellations will exist beyond Starlink, and whether dedicated rides will have value over rideshares for any but the most specialized missions once rideshares become more frequent and standardized, but it's hard to see Astra's hypothesized future as self-consistent, let alone plausible.
(I'm posting in this thread vs. the Astra one because I'm thinking about the future of the small launch market generally, just using Astra's perspective as a jumping-off point.)
I would also throw out that every time there have been wide-spread predictions of a massive growth in the size of the satellite market, it has turned out to instead be a relatively small increase in the satellite market. Remember back when the all the satellite for the many many new massive geo-constellations were gonna pay for the development of the EELVs?That's the kicker. Even Falcon 9's large cost/mass reduction did not spur a major change until SpaceX started building payloads to take advantage of it themselves.
Launch costs vs time costs.Smallsat launch and the real world (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4334/1)Quote from: thespacereview.comMost conference panels are fairly anodyne affairs. Participants, even competitors in the same field, stick to their talking points and, at most, only politely disagree with one another. It often requires prodding from the panel’s moderator, or audience questions, to bring differences among the panelists into sharper focus.
Sometimes, though, such prodding isn’t required. The right mix of personalities on a panel can turn it into something like MTV’s “The Real World” from 30 years ago, “when people stop being polite and start getting real.” That was the case a couple times during the SmallSat Symposium earlier this month in Mountain View, California, amid discussions about the hypercompetitive launch market for smallsats.
Astra continues to discuss their vision of a launch market where megaconstellation operators churn out hundreds of identical satellites (so losing a few is unimportant), but apparently those operators want to launch the satellites one at a time, rather than any sort of plane-at-a-time deployment. There's a lot of uncertainty about the future of small satellites, how many megaconstellations will exist beyond Starlink, and whether dedicated rides will have value over rideshares for any but the most specialized missions once rideshares become more frequent and standardized, but it's hard to see Astra's hypothesized future as self-consistent, let alone plausible.
(I'm posting in this thread vs. the Astra one because I'm thinking about the future of the small launch market generally, just using Astra's perspective as a jumping-off point.)
Launching in a batch and phasing to active orbits takes time. Starlink for example is on the order of 2 months for 'single ring' launches, and 4 months for 'dual ring' launches (2 months for the first wring, and another two for the second) between launching and the satellites being in their final slots and actively serving customers. How much is 2/4 months of revenue generated vs. the launch costs saved by launching in batches vs. direct injection? The fewer satellites par plane (and thus more phasing time per batch) the greater the lost revenue opportunity from waiting for your satellites to drift to their operational slots.
I guess it's time to update the list with ZK-1A
Terran R? 2025?
You forgot Ariane 6.Terran R? 2025?
PM3's list is "new smallsat launchers," Terran R (and Neutron and Firefly Beta) aren't small-lift launch vehicles. In theory one could create a separate list for new commercial medium-or-larger launch vehicles, but it would consist of exactly those three (plus Starship, I suppose, and maybe New Glenn and Vulcan), so no need to maintain a regularly-updated list.
PM3's list is "new smallsat launchers," Terran R (and Neutron and Firefly Beta) aren't small-lift launch vehicles. In theory one could create a separate list for new commercial medium-or-larger launch vehicles, but it would consist of exactly those three (plus Starship, I suppose, and maybe New Glenn and Vulcan), so no need to maintain a regularly-updated list.
PM3's list is "new smallsat launchers," Terran R (and Neutron and Firefly Beta) aren't small-lift launch vehicles. In theory one could create a separate list for new commercial medium-or-larger launch vehicles, but it would consist of exactly those three (plus Starship, I suppose, and maybe New Glenn and Vulcan), so no need to maintain a regularly-updated list.
921, Angara A5V, Ariane 6, CZ-9, Gravity-1, H3, Firefly Beta, Jielong-3, Neutron, New Glenn, Pallas-1, SLS, Soyuz-5, Soyuz-6, Starship, Terran R, Tianlong-2, Vulcan, Zhuque 2, ZK-2
8 Chinese, 7 American, 3 Russian, 1 Japanese, 1 European. With the Chinese being mostly medium size launchers, the other mostly heavy. But this is getting offtopic.
Well, I did specifically say "commercial," which excludes things like SLS, all the Russian vehicles, (maybe) all the Chinese ones (honestly, I've made little effort to determine to what extent any of their "private" companies truly are commercial), and debatably Ariane 6 (although I guess they're vaguely similar to Vulcan in terms of government funding). Although since your list (and this thread itself) makes no such distinction, perhaps I shouldn't have done so in the first place.
I guess it's time to update the list with ZK-1A
ZK-1A lifts 1.5 t to 500 km SSO. This probably translates to > 2 t to 200 km LEO, which makes it a medium size launcher.
The CAS Space website (http://www.cas-space.com/product?t=1) says 2 t to LEO, but I assume this refers to > 200 km height. E. g. for the ZK-2, their LEO reference height is 400 km.
Most of these solid rocket orbital launchers from China seem to have been based on missile motors, but I'm not sure about ZK-1A (Lijian 1). It is reported to be 2.65 meters diameter. DF-31/41 are skinnier, reportedly.
Pretty amazing how many companies are still developing <500 kg to LEO smallsat launchers. Every commercial company that has reached the pad with one has now pivoted away. There is no market.
What is the minimum payload to orbit also remains highly up for debate. Obviously, highly dependent on pricing too, but it may not be 1,000 kg either. We'll see!
For everyone who wants to continue maintaining these lists, here's a recent comprehensive survey of smallsat launchers presented at the 35th Small Satellite Conference in August (contains big lists of companies and their proposed launch vehicles):
Small Launchers in a Pandemic World - 2021 Edition of the Annual Industry Survey (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5036&context=smallsat)
Also attached below for posterity.
Quote from the abstract: There is evidence that this could be the year when the small launch market finally becomes saturated.
So it began. :popcorn:
PS: Look at the Defunct bar.
What’s the smallest commercial LV that will launch in the next year or so?
What’s the smallest commercial LV that will launch in the next year or so?
The smallest announced to launch is Tlon's Aventura I (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55333.0), 25 kg to SSO.
https://tlon.space/aventura-i/
I didn’t see an indication that they will launch any time soon.
That would be Electron ;)I didn’t see an indication that they will launch any time soon.
See https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55333.msg2346245#msg2346245.
The next smallest with some (slight) chance to launch within 12 months is Orbex' Prime, 200 kg to LEO.
The smallest that will definitely launch within a year is Firefly Alpha, 1000 kg to LEO. It is scheduled to launch on Sunday (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56403.0).
The smallest that will definitely launch within a year is Firefly Alpha, 1000 kg to LEO. It is scheduled to launch on Sunday (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56403.0).That would be Electron ;)
Is this the famous Kiwi banter:
Is this the famous Kiwi banter:
Just a bit surprised that there is no mention of ABL since that is other company that is most likely to launch this year. Maybe not considered a threat?
So there are 3 that might launch in the next 2 months? Firefly, ABL, and Terran?
Why not Terran (specifically vs ABL - Firefly's prior launch attempt I can see making them more likely)?
Private orbital LSPs started in the 2010s reaching orbit:
1. @RocketLab Electron (2018/01/21)
2. @VirginOrbit LauncherOne (2021/01/17)
3. @Astra Rocket 3.x (2021/11/20)
4. @Firefly_Space Alpha (2022/10/01)
a. iSpace Hyperbola-1 (2019/07/25)
b. Galactic Energy Ceres-1 (2020/11/07)
Firefly joins the club, is ABL up next?
This is yet another direct blow to all small and medium size rocket startups. Most will go out of business as their TAM [Total Available Market] shrinks further. Payloads will re-orient strategies to take advantage of rideshare costs, first on F9 and later on Starship.
Re lower entry price point for 50kg payloads on F9 rideshare:The same cries of imminent sky-falling were made when the Transport rideshares were announced (reiterating the same doom-and-gloom from when SSA-A was announced in 2015). The bottom has resolutely continued to fail to fall out of the dedicated small launch market, because small launch customers are not using price-per-unit mass alone for choosing their launches. For example, their satellites actually need to get to their desired target orbit, of which Transporter missions offer only a limited selection and limited launch opportunities.
https://twitter.com/spaceabhi/status/1582770402488504321QuoteThis is yet another direct blow to all small and medium size rocket startups. Most will go out of business as their TAM [Total Available Market] shrinks further. Payloads will re-orient strategies to take advantage of rideshare costs, first on F9 and later on Starship.
That said, there's a reason that Rocket Lab (for example) designed Electron to launch weekly, but now their goal is launching twice a month by the end of Q4 2024. As Peter Beck himself has said, their cadence is limited by demand. So anything that lowers demand reduces the number of companies which can break even selling launch.Re lower entry price point for 50kg payloads on F9 rideshare:The same cries of imminent sky-falling were made when the Transport rideshares were announced (reiterating the same doom-and-gloom from when SSA-A was announced in 2015). The bottom has resolutely continued to fail to fall out of the dedicated small launch market, because small launch customers are not using price-per-unit mass alone for choosing their launches. For example, their satellites actually need to get to their desired target orbit, of which Transporter missions offer only a limited selection and limited launch opportunities.
https://twitter.com/spaceabhi/status/1582770402488504321QuoteThis is yet another direct blow to all small and medium size rocket startups. Most will go out of business as their TAM [Total Available Market] shrinks further. Payloads will re-orient strategies to take advantage of rideshare costs, first on F9 and later on Starship.
Re lower entry price point for 50kg payloads on F9 rideshare:The same cries of imminent sky-falling were made when the Transport rideshares were announced (reiterating the same doom-and-gloom from when SSA-A was announced in 2015). The bottom has resolutely continued to fail to fall out of the dedicated small launch market, because small launch customers are not using price-per-unit mass alone for choosing their launches. For example, their satellites actually need to get to their desired target orbit, of which Transporter missions offer only a limited selection and limited launch opportunities.
https://twitter.com/spaceabhi/status/1582770402488504321QuoteThis is yet another direct blow to all small and medium size rocket startups. Most will go out of business as their TAM [Total Available Market] shrinks further. Payloads will re-orient strategies to take advantage of rideshare costs, first on F9 and later on Starship.
That said, there's a reason that Rocket Lab (for example) designed Electron to launch weekly, but now their goal is launching twice a month by the end of Q4 2024. As Peter Beck himself has said, their cadence is limited by demand. So anything that lowers demand reduces the number of companies which can break even selling launch.Re lower entry price point for 50kg payloads on F9 rideshare:The same cries of imminent sky-falling were made when the Transport rideshares were announced (reiterating the same doom-and-gloom from when SSA-A was announced in 2015). The bottom has resolutely continued to fail to fall out of the dedicated small launch market, because small launch customers are not using price-per-unit mass alone for choosing their launches. For example, their satellites actually need to get to their desired target orbit, of which Transporter missions offer only a limited selection and limited launch opportunities.
https://twitter.com/spaceabhi/status/1582770402488504321QuoteThis is yet another direct blow to all small and medium size rocket startups. Most will go out of business as their TAM [Total Available Market] shrinks further. Payloads will re-orient strategies to take advantage of rideshare costs, first on F9 and later on Starship.
There will likely remain enough demand for at least one company to find it worthwhile to serve this segment (if only for the free launches to test hardware for their spacecraft components business), but it's looking less and less likely there's room for a second provider, let alone a third or fourth.
On the other hand, SpaceX's rideshare program gives a toe in the door for smallsat companies. F9 is a known quantity to investors. That creates permission for smallsats to be developed. That creates a certain volume for the smallsat industry overall. Which dedicated smallsat launchers can then upsell.But they will not be competing against F9 rideshare. They will compete against Starship rideshare. SpaceX can substitute a rideshare dispenser for a single one of the 27 pairs of Starlink V2.0 in the Pez dispenser. That's more than 3 tonnes, so call it 2 tonnes of smallsats and one tonne of dispenser.
It's going to weed out the uncompetitive all-expendable smallsat launchers, but there's room for reusable ones, like Stoke, who should easily be able to beat the F9 rideshare price.
Yeah, but Starship won't be smooth and operational right away. May take a few years to get to F9 level of reliability, etc. I say about 5 years. So overall, I agree, but there's still room for a fully reusable medium/smallsat launcher like Stoke to compete with Starship rideshare.On the other hand, SpaceX's rideshare program gives a toe in the door for smallsat companies. F9 is a known quantity to investors. That creates permission for smallsats to be developed. That creates a certain volume for the smallsat industry overall. Which dedicated smallsat launchers can then upsell.But they will not be competing against F9 rideshare. They will compete against Starship rideshare. SpaceX can substitute a rideshare dispenser for a single one of the 27 pairs of Starlink V2.0 in the Pez dispenser. That's more than 3 tonnes, so call it 2 tonnes of smallsats and one tonne of dispenser.
It's going to weed out the uncompetitive all-expendable smallsat launchers, but there's room for reusable ones, like Stoke, who should easily be able to beat the F9 rideshare price.
You imply that Stoke (and others) will become "smooth and operational" before Starship does. Is this likely?Yeah, but Starship won't be smooth and operational right away. May take a few years to get to F9 level of reliability, etc. I say about 5 years. So overall, I agree, but there's still room for a fully reusable medium/smallsat launcher like Stoke to compete with Starship rideshare.On the other hand, SpaceX's rideshare program gives a toe in the door for smallsat companies. F9 is a known quantity to investors. That creates permission for smallsats to be developed. That creates a certain volume for the smallsat industry overall. Which dedicated smallsat launchers can then upsell.But they will not be competing against F9 rideshare. They will compete against Starship rideshare. SpaceX can substitute a rideshare dispenser for a single one of the 27 pairs of Starlink V2.0 in the Pez dispenser. That's more than 3 tonnes, so call it 2 tonnes of smallsats and one tonne of dispenser.
It's going to weed out the uncompetitive all-expendable smallsat launchers, but there's room for reusable ones, like Stoke, who should easily be able to beat the F9 rideshare price.
Not really what I meant.You imply that Stoke (and others) will become "smooth and operational" before Starship does. Is this likely?Yeah, but Starship won't be smooth and operational right away. May take a few years to get to F9 level of reliability, etc. I say about 5 years. So overall, I agree, but there's still room for a fully reusable medium/smallsat launcher like Stoke to compete with Starship rideshare.On the other hand, SpaceX's rideshare program gives a toe in the door for smallsat companies. F9 is a known quantity to investors. That creates permission for smallsats to be developed. That creates a certain volume for the smallsat industry overall. Which dedicated smallsat launchers can then upsell.But they will not be competing against F9 rideshare. They will compete against Starship rideshare. SpaceX can substitute a rideshare dispenser for a single one of the 27 pairs of Starlink V2.0 in the Pez dispenser. That's more than 3 tonnes, so call it 2 tonnes of smallsats and one tonne of dispenser.
It's going to weed out the uncompetitive all-expendable smallsat launchers, but there's room for reusable ones, like Stoke, who should easily be able to beat the F9 rideshare price.
Not really what I meant.You imply that Stoke (and others) will become "smooth and operational" before Starship does. Is this likely?Yeah, but Starship won't be smooth and operational right away. May take a few years to get to F9 level of reliability, etc. I say about 5 years. So overall, I agree, but there's still room for a fully reusable medium/smallsat launcher like Stoke to compete with Starship rideshare.On the other hand, SpaceX's rideshare program gives a toe in the door for smallsat companies. F9 is a known quantity to investors. That creates permission for smallsats to be developed. That creates a certain volume for the smallsat industry overall. Which dedicated smallsat launchers can then upsell.But they will not be competing against F9 rideshare. They will compete against Starship rideshare. SpaceX can substitute a rideshare dispenser for a single one of the 27 pairs of Starlink V2.0 in the Pez dispenser. That's more than 3 tonnes, so call it 2 tonnes of smallsats and one tonne of dispenser.
It's going to weed out the uncompetitive all-expendable smallsat launchers, but there's room for reusable ones, like Stoke, who should easily be able to beat the F9 rideshare price.
I think RocketLab might get smooth operation of their reusable Electron before Starship does.
But to compete against Starship, you'll need full reuse, like Stoke. A fully reusable smallsat launcher could still compete with Starship smallsat rideshare.
So, is…No. Just arguing it's possible to carve out a niche and survive is not saying someone's gonna dethrone SpaceX. Come on.Blue OriginVirgin OrbitRocketlabAstraFireflyRelativity
Stoke…the latest posterboy for an imminent SpaceX competitor then? Based on…a brief video of a sci-fi looking ring of small thrusters firing while suspended on a test frame?...
Reusing Electron would put Electron in a better position to compete with Falcon 9, which they already do even while expendable (by offering dedicated service).Not really what I meant.You imply that Stoke (and others) will become "smooth and operational" before Starship does. Is this likely?Yeah, but Starship won't be smooth and operational right away. May take a few years to get to F9 level of reliability, etc. I say about 5 years. So overall, I agree, but there's still room for a fully reusable medium/smallsat launcher like Stoke to compete with Starship rideshare.On the other hand, SpaceX's rideshare program gives a toe in the door for smallsat companies. F9 is a known quantity to investors. That creates permission for smallsats to be developed. That creates a certain volume for the smallsat industry overall. Which dedicated smallsat launchers can then upsell.But they will not be competing against F9 rideshare. They will compete against Starship rideshare. SpaceX can substitute a rideshare dispenser for a single one of the 27 pairs of Starlink V2.0 in the Pez dispenser. That's more than 3 tonnes, so call it 2 tonnes of smallsats and one tonne of dispenser.
It's going to weed out the uncompetitive all-expendable smallsat launchers, but there's room for reusable ones, like Stoke, who should easily be able to beat the F9 rideshare price.
I think RocketLab might get smooth operation of their reusable Electron before Starship does.
But to compete against Starship, you'll need full reuse, like Stoke. A fully reusable smallsat launcher could still compete with Starship smallsat rideshare.
Electron hasn’t even re-used a booster yet we are at least a decade away from a full re-use small launcher if one ever even exists. Small launchers don’t make sense and the lack of success of Electron in the market is proof of that. Even if they drop their cost of the rocket itself, RL is currently losing money on every launch so they would need to hold their price and try to break even. And that’s a proven reliable vehicle that the US government uses so it’s even worse for their competitors.
So, is…No. Just arguing it's possible to carve out a niche and survive is not saying someone's gonna dethrone SpaceX. Come on.Blue OriginVirgin OrbitRocketlabAstraFireflyRelativity
Stoke…the latest posterboy for an imminent SpaceX competitor then? Based on…a brief video of a sci-fi looking ring of small thrusters firing while suspended on a test frame?...
Reusing Electron would put Electron in a better position to compete with Falcon 9, which they already do even while expendable (by offering dedicated service).Not really what I meant.You imply that Stoke (and others) will become "smooth and operational" before Starship does. Is this likely?Yeah, but Starship won't be smooth and operational right away. May take a few years to get to F9 level of reliability, etc. I say about 5 years. So overall, I agree, but there's still room for a fully reusable medium/smallsat launcher like Stoke to compete with Starship rideshare.On the other hand, SpaceX's rideshare program gives a toe in the door for smallsat companies. F9 is a known quantity to investors. That creates permission for smallsats to be developed. That creates a certain volume for the smallsat industry overall. Which dedicated smallsat launchers can then upsell.But they will not be competing against F9 rideshare. They will compete against Starship rideshare. SpaceX can substitute a rideshare dispenser for a single one of the 27 pairs of Starlink V2.0 in the Pez dispenser. That's more than 3 tonnes, so call it 2 tonnes of smallsats and one tonne of dispenser.
It's going to weed out the uncompetitive all-expendable smallsat launchers, but there's room for reusable ones, like Stoke, who should easily be able to beat the F9 rideshare price.
I think RocketLab might get smooth operation of their reusable Electron before Starship does.
But to compete against Starship, you'll need full reuse, like Stoke. A fully reusable smallsat launcher could still compete with Starship smallsat rideshare.
Electron hasn’t even re-used a booster yet we are at least a decade away from a full re-use small launcher if one ever even exists. Small launchers don’t make sense and the lack of success of Electron in the market is proof of that. Even if they drop their cost of the rocket itself, RL is currently losing money on every launch so they would need to hold their price and try to break even. And that’s a proven reliable vehicle that the US government uses so it’s even worse for their competitors.
And I don't see why we need be a decade away from a fully reusable smallsat launcher. In fact, they arguably make MORE sense to fully reuse than larger vehicles since they could in principle fly thousands of payloads per year.
Even with the competition only against Falcon rideshare and other similar services - do any of the small launch companies actually make money outside of repeated VC funding rounds? I'm not aware of any so far.
Even with the competition only against Falcon rideshare and other similar services - do any of the small launch companies actually make money outside of repeated VC funding rounds? I'm not aware of any so far.Almost certainly none make enough money off the launch. Launch rates too low, and launch in general is very low-margin anyway, which is why the more successful of these companies have started to branch out into satellites and services, which are both higher margin. Like how SoaceX branched out to Dragon and Starlink.
And I don't see why we need be a decade away from a fully reusable smallsat launcher. In fact, they arguably make MORE sense to fully reuse than larger vehicles since they could in principle fly thousands of payloads per year.
https://spacenews.com/space-companies-face-difficult-investment-environment/
Jared Issacman repeats what we have been discussing here for years: Only a few of those rocket startups will survive. Or maybe none, as Gwynne Shotwell predicted.
I think there’s a couple really good space companies that have been smart on their capital allocation, they bought other businesses, they diversified their revenue streams, they’re more vertically integrated. I think they’ll succeed.
<snip>In theory something like a converted oil tanker with about 100 launch silos and a large helopad in the pacific near the Island of Hawaii. The helopad is for receiving encapsulated payloads. With a small launcher the ship could remain manned during launch, it isn't that different from a large missile launching from an Aegis warship. Of course finding enough payloads might be a problem with the current dominate launch provider around.
I see this as the ultimate reason why small launchers can't compete with larger systems in the commercial mass market (constellations and rideshares). You can certainly argue that 60 launches per year of a small system could be very competitive with a medium system launching 6 times a year. But what kind of terrestrial launch site is going to allow 600 launches a year of small system in order to compete with medium system that launches 60 times a year?
<snip>
It’s not just the launch site it’s the integration support and initial conops for the satellites. There is also no customer need. If you are putting a lot of satellites up they are almost always going to a handful of places and it’s easiest to launch them in planes.Do you meant different orbital inclinations and altitudes?
It’s not just the launch site it’s the integration support and initial conops for the satellites. There is also no customer need. If you are putting a lot of satellites up they are almost always going to a handful of places and it’s easiest to launch them in planes.Do you meant different orbital inclinations and altitudes?
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1583136827803697157?s=21&t=ZJa2XDL5dM8BD20wNvE2lwSelf generated demand, without starlink F9 would sitting around a dozen a year.
Quite possibly, but so far this year they have seventeen non-Starlink launches. If that rate continues to the end of the year, they will have about 21 non-Starlink launches. in 2022.https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1583136827803697157?s=21&t=ZJa2XDL5dM8BD20wNvE2lwSelf generated demand, without starlink F9 would sitting around a dozen a year.
True, but of the 17 non-Starlink launches, three were Transporter missions, three were Crew Dragon missions, and one was a Cargo Dragon mission. Arguably those fall under "self-generated demand" as well. The concept of "if you build launch capacity, demand will rise to meet it" has been pretty thoroughly debunked. You need to operate on both sides of the equation, growing the demand yourself.Quite possibly, but so far this year they have seventeen non-Starlink launches. If that rate continues to the end of the year, they will have about 21 non-Starlink launches. in 2022.https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1583136827803697157?s=21&t=ZJa2XDL5dM8BD20wNvE2lwSelf generated demand, without starlink F9 would sitting around a dozen a year.
Are you arguing that no new launch company can be successful unless it will have self-generated demand?True, but of the 17 non-Starlink launches, three were Transporter missions, three were Crew Dragon missions, and one was a Cargo Dragon mission. Arguably those fall under "self-generated demand" as well. The concept of "if you build launch capacity, demand will rise to meet it" has been pretty thoroughly debunked. You need to operate on both sides of the equation, growing the demand yourself.Quite possibly, but so far this year they have seventeen non-Starlink launches. If that rate continues to the end of the year, they will have about 21 non-Starlink launches. in 2022.https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1583136827803697157?s=21&t=ZJa2XDL5dM8BD20wNvE2lwSelf generated demand, without starlink F9 would sitting around a dozen a year.
If "success" means "at least 15 launches per year," then yes. Although I'm a little loose about "self-generated": counting the Transporter launches is already slightly cheating, and I'd also count building satellites (or satellite components) in-house so potential customers have an easier (and hopefully cheaper) path to begin space operations. Basically, demand isn't going to grow just because launch capacity did: what else are you doing to drag customers kicking and screaming onto your launch vehicles?True, but of the 17 non-Starlink launches, three were Transporter missions, three were Crew Dragon missions, and one was a Cargo Dragon mission. Arguably those fall under "self-generated demand" as well. The concept of "if you build launch capacity, demand will rise to meet it" has been pretty thoroughly debunked. You need to operate on both sides of the equation, growing the demand yourself.Are you arguing that no new launch company can be successful unless it will have self-generated demand?
Dragon (crew & cargo) and rideshares are funded by customers. Starlink missions with rideshares are partially funded by customers.True, but of the 17 non-Starlink launches, three were Transporter missions, three were Crew Dragon missions, and one was a Cargo Dragon mission. Arguably those fall under "self-generated demand" as well. The concept of "if you build launch capacity, demand will rise to meet it" has been pretty thoroughly debunked. You need to operate on both sides of the equation, growing the demand yourself.Quite possibly, but so far this year they have seventeen non-Starlink launches. If that rate continues to the end of the year, they will have about 21 non-Starlink launches. in 2022.https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1583136827803697157?s=21&t=ZJa2XDL5dM8BD20wNvE2lwSelf generated demand, without starlink F9 would sitting around a dozen a year.
If "success" means "at least 15 launches per year," then yes. Although I'm a little loose about "self-generated": counting the Transporter launches is already slightly cheating, and I'd also count building satellites (or satellite components) in-house so potential customers have an easier (and hopefully cheaper) path to begin space operations. Basically, demand isn't going to grow just because launch capacity did: what else are you doing to drag customers kicking and screaming onto your launch vehicles?True, but of the 17 non-Starlink launches, three were Transporter missions, three were Crew Dragon missions, and one was a Cargo Dragon mission. Arguably those fall under "self-generated demand" as well. The concept of "if you build launch capacity, demand will rise to meet it" has been pretty thoroughly debunked. You need to operate on both sides of the equation, growing the demand yourself.Are you arguing that no new launch company can be successful unless it will have self-generated demand?
Dragon (crew & cargo) and rideshares are funded by customers. Starlink missions with rideshares are partially funded by customers.Like I said, I'm being loose about what "self-generated" means: it's not limited to "100% self-funded." It's simply acknowledging that "if you build [launch capacity], they will come" doesn't work, because Space is Hard applies to building spacecraft as well. So unless you're substantially moving the needle on the payload side too, removing one bottleneck isn't going to unleash anything.
You’re just reinforcing the point made by Eric.I don't think I'm disagreeing with Eric, honestly: at the very least, I was always extremely skeptical of Astra's claims that they would be launching weekly if not daily within a year or two (and that the economics of their fully-expendable launcher only made sense at those sorts of scales). And not to belabor the obvious, but although I keep alluding to Rocket Lab's strategy with becoming an end-to-end provider, nonetheless I think their goal of launching every other week by the end of 2024 (and that doesn't mean throughout 2024, but rather reaching that cadence in Q4 2024 and sustaining it throughout 2025) is still rather optimistic.
The concept of "if you build launch capacity, demand will rise to meet it" has been pretty thoroughly debunked. You need to operate on both sides of the equation, growing the demand yourself.
If you want to hit a high cadence at least for the near future you really need a large constellation on your manifest. There are only a couple of those to around unfortunately and it’s why I think people are much too quick to dismiss Ariane/ULA as competitors to these new launchers.Now I'm even more confused. You need a constellation for a high launch cadence, but constellation launches are well-served by larger launch vehicles, not smallsat launchers, because multiple satellites in a constellation tend to go into orbits that are compatible with a single launch. In addition, launches for a constellation tend to be scheduled to match the output of the satellite factory, so launch-on-demand is not useful for the bulk of the constellation. I conclude that a constellation is not a high-volume steady customer for a smallsat launcher.
If you want to hit a high cadence at least for the near future you really need a large constellation on your manifest. There are only a couple of those to around unfortunately and it’s why I think people are much too quick to dismiss Ariane/ULA as competitors to these new launchers.Now I'm even more confused. You need a constellation for a high launch cadence, but constellation launches are well-served by larger launch vehicles, not smallsat launchers, because multiple satellites in a constellation tend to go into orbits that are compatible with a single launch. In addition, launches for a constellation tend to be scheduled to match the output of the satellite factory, so launch-on-demand is not useful for the bulk of the constellation. I conclude that a constellation is not a high-volume steady customer for a smallsat launcher.
A smallsat launcher cpuild be used for launch-on-demand replacement of failed constellation satellites, but it's more cost-effective to use in-space spares, and the volume is low in any event.
If you want to hit a high cadence at least for the near future you really need a large constellation on your manifest. There are only a couple of those to around unfortunately and it’s why I think people are much too quick to dismiss Ariane/ULA as competitors to these new launchers.Now I'm even more confused. You need a constellation for a high launch cadence, but constellation launches are well-served by larger launch vehicles, not smallsat launchers, because multiple satellites in a constellation tend to go into orbits that are compatible with a single launch. In addition, launches for a constellation tend to be scheduled to match the output of the satellite factory, so launch-on-demand is not useful for the bulk of the constellation. I conclude that a constellation is not a high-volume steady customer for a smallsat launcher.
A smallsat launcher cpuild be used for launch-on-demand replacement of failed constellation satellites, but it's more cost-effective to use in-space spares, and the volume is low in any event.
I think I wasn’t clear, I agree with you. The only way to have a high cadence is a large constellation customer. Those customers want medium lift or bigger. Therefore the small launchers will continue to struggle.
Kuiper Project - Even with all the launch vehicle orders, it has yet to launch a single Kuiper satellite. That might cause some issues with the FCC if they are unable to launch at least half it's 3276 satellite constellation by the July 2026 deadline. Per the same document with the FCC, they have until July 2029 to launch the rest. The test satellites will be launched on RS1 which is a smallsat launcher - that has yet to fly.Actually, the test satellites were moved to the debut launch of Vulcan:
Though Zhuque-2, unlike Zhuque-1 has not been cancelled
60% of the 5,966 smallsats launched between 2018 –2022 were carried on Starlink & OneWeb launch vehicles.
Download the full report: https://brycetech.com/reports/report-documents/Bryce_Smallsats_2023.pdf
#Smallsats #Launch #Data
That's not what the chart shows. The chart shows that 70% were launched on F9, which included 60% that are "Starlink and Oneweb on F9". An additional 7% are "Oneweb on Soyuz".Quote60% of the 5,966 smallsats launched between 2018 –2022 were carried on Starlink & OneWeb launch vehicles.
Interesting factroid - Think the 44 smallsats in the other vehicle pie segment included the 10 rideshare CubeSats on the SLS.Quote60% of the 5,966 smallsats launched between 2018 –2022 were carried on Starlink & OneWeb launch vehicles.
A few years ago, rideshare launches seemed like they might become a thing of the past. The rise of small launch vehicles, with dozens in development, promised more frequent, tailored access to space for most smallsat developers, who would be able to get their satellites into their desired orbit when they needed to. In that scenario, only the most cost-conscious customers would stick with rideshare.
It hasn’t worked out that way so far, though. The last year has been filled with delays, failures and bankruptcies. The first launches of ABL Space Systems’ RS1 and Relativity Space’s Terran 1 both failed earlier this year, with Relativity subsequently deciding to retire the Terran 1 to focus on the much larger Terran R. Astra retired the failure-prone Rocket 3.3 to work on the larger Rocket 4. Launcher halted plans to develop its own launch vehicle after being acquired by space station developer Vast. And, most spectacularly, Virgin Orbit filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April, three months after a launch failure, with its assets auctioned off in May.
For now, rideshare companies don’t see much competition from small launch vehicles. “Rocket Lab is the only company up and running providing recurring launches with Electron, and they have a limit in terms of capacity,” said Panesi. “All the other newcomers still have to demonstrate they can make it.”
Perhaps the thread should be renamed to Countdown to new smallsat launcher companies going out of business. I think the only small launcher company that will survive the next few years will be Rocketlab with their Electron. Even Rocketlab are dev. the larger Neutron and may eventually phase out Electron. There is no future for small LV's as the market is moving towards large constellations and rideshares. LV companies either go to at least medium lift or go bust.I doubt Electron will become obsolete, if there is 10-15 launches a year should worth keeping around.
The remaining market would have to support the recovery of development costs for such a vehicle
With SPAC companies VC investors have already recovered their investment. Shareholders of public listed companies hold out for higher share price and maybe some dividends when company is profitable and not spending fortune on R&D.The remaining market would have to support the recovery of development costs for such a vehicle
This is not the right way to think about this sector. Recovery of R&D costs is not a factor for a VC investor.
Optimist article on UK small LV.I agree that article is way over optimistic on small LV's. SaxaVord and Sutherland spaceports will likely have to upgrade their facilities to accommodate at least MLV's in the future as LV companies upgrade to at least MLV or pack up.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/aug/27/well-launch-rockets-every-month-britain-finally-joins-the-space-race-skyrora-cumbernauld
“In a few years, we hope to launch a rocket every month,” said Clark.
At least Skyrora engineer has realistic expectations unlike RL and Astra's weekly launch predictions. RL is finally getting to monthly and maybe 2-3weeks next year.
Is SaxaVord well-positioned for medium launchers, though? It can basically only handle SSO. Which is OK for small satellites, which mostly want SSO, but I thought larger sats were more likely to want mid-inclination or even equatorial.Optimist article on UK small LV.I agree that article is way over optimistic on small LV's. SaxaVord and Sutherland spaceports will likely have to upgrade their facilities to accommodate at least MLV's in the future as LV companies upgrade to at least MLV or pack up.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/aug/27/well-launch-rockets-every-month-britain-finally-joins-the-space-race-skyrora-cumbernauld
“In a few years, we hope to launch a rocket every month,” said Clark.
At least Skyrora engineer has realistic expectations unlike RL and Astra's weekly launch predictions. RL is finally getting to monthly and maybe 2-3weeks next year.
Both these LVs are Electron class so smallsats only.Is SaxaVord well-positioned for medium launchers, though? It can basically only handle SSO. Which is OK for small satellites, which mostly want SSO, but I thought larger sats were more likely to want mid-inclination or even equatorial.Optimist article on UK small LV.I agree that article is way over optimistic on small LV's. SaxaVord and Sutherland spaceports will likely have to upgrade their facilities to accommodate at least MLV's in the future as LV companies upgrade to at least MLV or pack up.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/aug/27/well-launch-rockets-every-month-britain-finally-joins-the-space-race-skyrora-cumbernauld
“In a few years, we hope to launch a rocket every month,” said Clark.
At least Skyrora engineer has realistic expectations unlike RL and Astra's weekly launch predictions. RL is finally getting to monthly and maybe 2-3weeks next year.
Sure, I wasn't talking about the seven smallsat launchers which have made agreements to use SaxaVord (for those keeping score, that specifically includes RFA, ABL, Skyrora, HyImpulse, C6 Launch, Latitude, and Astra), I was specifically addressing DJPledger's suggestion that after all of those companies either go bankrupt or migrate to medium-lift vehicles, SaxaVord could survive by also migrating to medium-lift.Both these LVs are Electron class so smallsats only.Is SaxaVord well-positioned for medium launchers, though? It can basically only handle SSO. Which is OK for small satellites, which mostly want SSO, but I thought larger sats were more likely to want mid-inclination or even equatorial.Optimist article on UK small LV.I agree that article is way over optimistic on small LV's. SaxaVord and Sutherland spaceports will likely have to upgrade their facilities to accommodate at least MLV's in the future as LV companies upgrade to at least MLV or pack up.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/aug/27/well-launch-rockets-every-month-britain-finally-joins-the-space-race-skyrora-cumbernauld
“In a few years, we hope to launch a rocket every month,” said Clark.
At least Skyrora engineer has realistic expectations unlike RL and Astra's weekly launch predictions. RL is finally getting to monthly and maybe 2-3weeks next year.
Orbex is going to be reuseable. Given Electron booster can be recovered no reason theirs can't as its similar size. Will be interesting see their approach to problem.
Sunderland spaceport won't grow. Orbex was barely able to get permission to develop the launch site for their Prime rocket. That's simular in size to Rocketlab Electron. And they are only permitted to perform 12 launches annually.There is also issue of transporting larger LVs between factory and site. Not problem for 1.5mt class.
Saxavord Spaceport and Andoya Spaceport are only useful for launching into Polar/ SSO orbits or suborbital.
Both launch sited have filed for permits to accommodate launchers with payloads up to 1.5mT to SSO.
There is a significant difference in payload to different altitudes. But these specifications are for small launch vehicles.
I think they aimed to maximize at rockets with similar capability as Vega. So ~1.5mT to 700km polar/SSO.
The sites are not remote enough to permit larger launchers.
Most likely this means launchers with GLOW <150mT and <2MN thrust (SL) could be accommodated.
<snip>Eventually someone might launch something with a payload of 12+ tonnes from a floating platform staging from Europe. Don't really think anything other than SmallSat launchers can operated in Europe at a ground launch facility.
The sites are not remote enough to permit larger launchers.
Most likely this means launchers with GLOW <150mT and <2MN thrust (SL) could be accommodated.
Orbex is notably not interested in launching from SaxaVord, as you'll note from the above list, because at this point they basically own Space Hub Sutherland: it's a dedicated site just for them
...(because no one else wanted to use it, everyone else picked SaxaVord instead).
Advantage for European customers would be not having to export their payloads.Elsewhere I've questioned the relative expense/difficulty of "export our payload" vs. "export our rocket," and I haven't really received a satisfying answer. Yes, the customer bears the expense of "export our payload" directly, while "export our rocket" is covered by the launch provider, but surely the launch provider is going to pass those expenses onto the customer anyway, right? Perhaps if the launch provider exports rockets frequently, they can create a division dedicated to sending rockets to foreign nations (which would help expedite and reduce the cost of the process), but couldn't they also create a division to help their customers with exporting payloads (gaining the same exact economies of scale)?
Advantage for European customers would be not having to export their payloads.Elsewhere I've questioned the relative expense/difficulty of "export our payload" vs. "export our rocket," and I haven't really received a satisfying answer. Yes, the customer bears the expense of "export our payload" directly, while "export our rocket" is covered by the launch provider, but surely the launch provider is going to pass those expenses onto the customer anyway, right? Perhaps if the launch provider exports rockets frequently, they can create a division dedicated to sending rockets to foreign nations (which would help expedite and reduce the cost of the process), but couldn't they also create a division to help their customers with exporting payloads (gaining the same exact economies of scale)?
I'm not sure I buy that a rocket (which necessarily includes multiple rocket engines) is less delicate than the payload it's meant to carry -- after all, said payload has to handle the loads of launch same as the rest of the rocket, so it can't exactly be a delicate flower itself. And while the rocket's shape and size is more standard, it's also much, much larger than the payload, and that alone would seem to make the payload easier to pack into places. For example, you could certainly fit the payload inside a dedicated 20-foot cargo container, and if that seems wasteful and inefficient (since you're shipping something much smaller than a full cargo container), that's an implicit acknowledgement that you think something smaller would be easier to ship (even if it's not as standard as the 20-foot cargo container).Advantage for European customers would be not having to export their payloads.Elsewhere I've questioned the relative expense/difficulty of "export our payload" vs. "export our rocket," and I haven't really received a satisfying answer. Yes, the customer bears the expense of "export our payload" directly, while "export our rocket" is covered by the launch provider, but surely the launch provider is going to pass those expenses onto the customer anyway, right? Perhaps if the launch provider exports rockets frequently, they can create a division dedicated to sending rockets to foreign nations (which would help expedite and reduce the cost of the process), but couldn't they also create a division to help their customers with exporting payloads (gaining the same exact economies of scale)?
A rocket is a standardized shape and size and probably contains far less super delicate stuff - so it does make sense to ship the rocket.
Isar is very far behind development schedule and most dishonest - the only European launcher company that still did not revise the nonsense launch date 2023. Maia is in the most early stage of all and at highest risk to come too late. And Orbex still did not show anything but mock-up hardware, recently firing their founder CEO.
Of all mentioned companies, ABL and RFA look most promising to me. Both SaxaVord customers. And doing only one launch from there would not make sense economically. More likely ABL / Lockheed are eyeing some market share in Europe. Advantage for European customers would be not having to export their payloads.
I'm not sure I buy that a rocket (which necessarily includes multiple rocket engines) is less delicate than the payload it's meant to carry -- after all, said payload has to handle the loads of launch same as the rest of the rocket, so it can't exactly be a delicate flower itself. And while the rocket's shape and size is more standard, it's also much, much larger than the payload, and that alone would seem to make the payload easier to pack into places. For example, you could certainly fit the payload inside a dedicated 20-foot cargo container, and if that seems wasteful and inefficient (since you're shipping something much smaller than a full cargo container), that's an implicit acknowledgement that you think something smaller would be easier to ship (even if it's not as standard as the 20-foot cargo container).Advantage for European customers would be not having to export their payloads.Elsewhere I've questioned the relative expense/difficulty of "export our payload" vs. "export our rocket," and I haven't really received a satisfying answer. Yes, the customer bears the expense of "export our payload" directly, while "export our rocket" is covered by the launch provider, but surely the launch provider is going to pass those expenses onto the customer anyway, right? Perhaps if the launch provider exports rockets frequently, they can create a division dedicated to sending rockets to foreign nations (which would help expedite and reduce the cost of the process), but couldn't they also create a division to help their customers with exporting payloads (gaining the same exact economies of scale)?
A rocket is a standardized shape and size and probably contains far less super delicate stuff - so it does make sense to ship the rocket.
Isar is very far behind development schedule and most dishonest - the only European launcher company that still did not revise the nonsense launch date 2023. Maia is in the most early stage of all and at highest risk to come too late. And Orbex still did not show anything but mock-up hardware, recently firing their founder CEO.
Isar Aerospace has raised several hundreds of millions, more than all the other Europeans combined. Being years late is standard operating procedure in this domain, it's almost not worth tracking the dates...
Maiaspace is building on Themis, and while young as an independent company, it is basically a 100% owned ArianeGroup company building on the money that went into Themis already under Arianeworks.QuoteOf all mentioned companies, ABL and RFA look most promising to me. Both SaxaVord customers. And doing only one launch from there would not make sense economically. More likely ABL / Lockheed are eyeing some market share in Europe. Advantage for European customers would be not having to export their payloads.
ABL's major contracts are with the DoD /USAF and Lockheed Martin, all of which are for US launches - 58 of them for LM.
European customers will still need lots of US paperwork to launch on imported launch vehicles. They will need an FAA payload review to launch on a US-owned vehicle, at minimum. For the launcher firms it's twice the paperwork: Virgin Orbit needed both FAA and CAA licences for the Cornwall launch (public record, look at the FAA launch licensing website). It will certainly be the same for ABL. So the paperwork is possibly more complex than a "local" launch. Mahia, by the way, is actually US territory, like a US embassy in New Zealand - look it up, it's a special US-NZ treaty.
RFA are still years away. They have not raised enough money to launch anything capable of delivering circa 1 ton of payload to orbit anytime soon. Just look at the amounts spent for similar vehicles by Firefly, ABL, Isar, Relativity - hundreds of millions - if not billions - each. RFA have barely raised $70m, and around $30m of that is from the very, very recent - and still not definitive, by the way - KKR deal for OHB, so it has not yet been deployed.
Mahia, by the way, is actually US territory, like a US embassy in New Zealand - look it up, it's a special US-NZ treaty.Interesting fact, never realised that.
Incorrect. The small LV market has almost completely collapsed. There was a brief tick up with small sat experiments and demos, but those quickly moved over to heavy launch vehicles as ride-shares at lower cost. There will be room for 1 or 2 micro launchers, but no more.
Looks like more nails into the small sat launcher dream, this time from Tory Burno:Good luck getting to space on a ULA LV. Hope satellite operator survives from lack of revenue caused by satellite sitting on ground waiting for ride.
https://www.twitter.com/torybruno/status/1698121784003015116QuoteIncorrect. The small LV market has almost completely collapsed. There was a brief tick up with small sat experiments and demos, but those quickly moved over to heavy launch vehicles as ride-shares at lower cost. There will be room for 1 or 2 micro launchers, but no more.
Good luck getting to space on a ULA LV. Hope satellite operator survives from lack of revenue caused by satellite sitting on ground waiting for ride.
Good luck getting to space on a ULA LV. Hope satellite operator survives from lack of revenue caused by satellite sitting on ground waiting for ride.
There are no satellites sitting on the ground waiting for a ride from ULA. Just the opposite. There are a lot of ULA rockets sitting on the ground waiting for their payloads.
Good luck getting to space on a ULA LV. Hope satellite operator survives from lack of revenue caused by satellite sitting on ground waiting for ride.
There are no satellites sitting on the ground waiting for a ride from ULA. Just the opposite. There are a lot of ULA rockets sitting on the ground waiting for their payloads.
Good luck getting to space on a ULA LV. Hope satellite operator survives from lack of revenue caused by satellite sitting on ground waiting for ride.
There are no satellites sitting on the ground waiting for a ride from ULA. Just the opposite. There are a lot of ULA rockets sitting on the ground waiting for their payloads.
See Tory's tweets.Good luck getting to space on a ULA LV. Hope satellite operator survives from lack of revenue caused by satellite sitting on ground waiting for ride.
There are no satellites sitting on the ground waiting for a ride from ULA. Just the opposite. There are a lot of ULA rockets sitting on the ground waiting for their payloads.
Astrobotic and Amazon would disagree with your statement.
See Tory's tweets.Good luck getting to space on a ULA LV. Hope satellite operator survives from lack of revenue caused by satellite sitting on ground waiting for ride.
There are no satellites sitting on the ground waiting for a ride from ULA. Just the opposite. There are a lot of ULA rockets sitting on the ground waiting for their payloads.
Astrobotic and Amazon would disagree with your statement.
This debate is about smallsat rideshare killing small LV industry. Not about primary payloads. ULA hasn't delivered rideshare to orbit in over a year. Electron and its competitors has nothing to fear from ULA any time soon.
SpaceX on the other hand is flying a lot of rideshare payloads that could've flown on small LV.
See Tory's tweets.Good luck getting to space on a ULA LV. Hope satellite operator survives from lack of revenue caused by satellite sitting on ground waiting for ride.
There are no satellites sitting on the ground waiting for a ride from ULA. Just the opposite. There are a lot of ULA rockets sitting on the ground waiting for their payloads.
Astrobotic and Amazon would disagree with your statement.
This debate is about smallsat rideshare killing small LV industry. Not about primary payloads. ULA hasn't delivered rideshare to orbit in over a year. Electron and its competitors has nothing to fear from ULA any time soon.
SpaceX on the other hand is flying a lot of rideshare payloads that could've flown on small LV.
They are only a primary because they are stuck on the ground otherwise.Which does rather highlight one of the reasons dedicated small launch has continued to stick around despite several years of SpaceX rideshares being available. Even the 'cost' of burning an entire Atlas V (far more than a dedicated small launcher) was less than the cost of not launching in a timely manner.
This particular example is not a difference between small launcher and rideshare. It's a difference between reliable launch and unreliable launch. Kuiper test was initially to be on ABL, and when that slipped they shifted to Vulcan, and when that slipped they finally switched to Atlas V.They are only a primary because they are stuck on the ground otherwise.Which does rather highlight one of the reasons dedicated small launch has continued to stick around despite several years of SpaceX rideshares being available. Even the 'cost' of burning an entire Atlas V (far more than a dedicated small launcher) was less than the cost of not launching in a timely manner.
Looks like more nails into the small sat launcher dream, this time from Tory Burno:
https://www.twitter.com/torybruno/status/1698121784003015116QuoteIncorrect. The small LV market has almost completely collapsed. There was a brief tick up with small sat experiments and demos, but those quickly moved over to heavy launch vehicles as ride-shares at lower cost. There will be room for 1 or 2 micro launchers, but no more.
Looks like more nails into the small sat launcher dream, this time from Tory Burno:
https://www.twitter.com/torybruno/status/1698121784003015116QuoteIncorrect. The small LV market has almost completely collapsed. There was a brief tick up with small sat experiments and demos, but those quickly moved over to heavy launch vehicles as ride-shares at lower cost. There will be room for 1 or 2 micro launchers, but no more.
See Tory's tweets.Good luck getting to space on a ULA LV. Hope satellite operator survives from lack of revenue caused by satellite sitting on ground waiting for ride.
There are no satellites sitting on the ground waiting for a ride from ULA. Just the opposite. There are a lot of ULA rockets sitting on the ground waiting for their payloads.
Astrobotic and Amazon would disagree with your statement.
This debate is about smallsat rideshare killing small LV industry. Not about primary payloads. ULA hasn't delivered rideshare to orbit in over a year. Electron and its competitors has nothing to fear from ULA any time soon.
SpaceX on the other hand is flying a lot of rideshare payloads that could've flown on small LV.
How about the following?
Jielong-3, 2.5 t SSO, 2022-
SSLV , 0.5 t LEO, 2022-
Lijian-1, 2.0 t SSO, 2022-
Qaem-100, 2022-
Terran-1, 1.48 t LEO, 2023-2023,
SFSLV, 2023-
- Ed Kyle
SFSLV, 2023-
SFSLV, 2023-
What is SFSLV?
The South Korean military developed small launch vehicle that flew last December.