NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Commercial Space Flight General => Topic started by: savuporo on 10/06/2015 05:53 am

Title: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/06/2015 05:53 am
Orbital ATK sponsored a market study of emerging new smallsat launchers. There are threads for many around here, last up to date blogpost with a table here : http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/10/04/updated-list-smallsat-launch-vehicles/

I took and ordered this by estimated launch dates, soonest first. Empty columns for those where i couldnt find an easy third party cited reference or didn't bother. Also didnt bother with some that haven't show recent or near future promise of flying.

OrganizationVehicleCountryYear/QuarterMain propulsionPriceRefThread
Interorbital Systems (http://www.interorbital.com/)NEPTUNE N5USA2016 Q13-stage hno3/turpentine$0.25Mref (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)VLMBrazil/Ger2016 Q24-stage solidref (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/)SagitariusSpain2016 Q2airlaunch, solid ?$0.24Mref (http://orbiterchspacenews.blogspot.com/2015/07/celestia-aerospace-ready-to-design.html)
Rocket Lab (http://www.rocketlabusa.com/)ElectronNZ/USA2016 Q32-stage kerolox$4.9Mref (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/)LauncherOneUSA2016 Q4airlaunch, 2-stage kerolox<$10Mref (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 IIIUSA2017 Q1airlaunchref (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/)SOARSwitzerland2017 Q2airlaunch<$10Mref (http://spacenews.com/startup-spotlight-swiss-space-systems-s3/)
Firefly Space Systems (http://www.fireflyspace.com/)FireflyUSA2017 Q22-stage, methalox$8-9Mref (http://www.fireflyspace.com/vehicles/firefly-a)thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33757.0)
Horizon SAS (http://horizonsas.com/)Black Arrow 2UK2017 Q22-stage, methalox$7.5Mref (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/)CubeCabUSA2017 Q3airlaunch, no detail$0.25Mref (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/594302551350083584)
Generation Orbit (http://www.generationorbit.com/)GO Launcher 2USA2017 Q4airlaunch$2.5Mref (http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2015/06/05/generation-orbit-gains-golauncher2-commitments-plans-golauncher-3/)
zero2infinity (http://www.bloostar.com/)BloostarSpain2018 Q2Balloon  + CH4/lox$4.0Mref (https://twitter.com/mgschaffer/status/654633354705375232)
InterStellar Technologies (http://www.istellartech.com/)Pocky ? Japan3 stage LOX/ethanolref (https://twitter.com/MarcKBoucher/status/654641152839258112)
CONAE (http://www.conae.gov.ar/index.php/espanol/acceso-al-espacio/tronador-ii)Tronador IIArgentina2.5-stage kerolox/hypergol$6M
Lin Industrial (http://www.spacelin.ru/)TaimyrRussia2 stage peroxide/kero$0.18 Mref (http://www.spacelin.ru/#!taymyr/c1wuk)thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36301.0)
Tranquility Aerospace (http://www.tranquilityaerospace.com/)Devon TwoUK2 stage peroxide/keroref (http://www.tranquilityaerospace.com/TranqWeb/DevonTwo.html)
Garvey Spacecraft Corporation (http://www.garvspace.com/)NLVUSA2 stage keroloxref (http://www.garvspace.com/NLV.htm)
PLD Space (http://pldspace.com/)Arion-2Spain2 stage keroloxref (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-OVUSA2 stage hybrid LOX/HTPBref (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 StarNorway20203 stage perfoxide/rubber hybridref (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 1Canada2020ref (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-1UK3 stage peroxide/kero
Bagaveev Corporation (http://bagaveev.com/)USAref (https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/bagaveev.com/Aboutus.htm)
Scorpius Space Launch Company (http://smad.com/)Demi-SpriteUSA$3.6Mref (http://smad.com/launch/demi-sprite/)
ARCA Space Corp. (http://www.arcaspace.com/)Haas 2CRomania/USA2-stage keroloxref (http://www.arcaspace.com/en/haas2c.htm)
Lockheed MartinAthena IcUSAref (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2234/1)
--- unclear status ---
Ventions LLC (http://ventions.com/)SALVOUSAunclearairlaunch, 2-stage keroloxref (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 StrypiUSAunclear3-stage solid$12Mref (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)ALASAUSAcancelledairlaunch, 2-stage$1Mref (http://spacenews.com/darpa-airborne-launcher-effort-falters/)thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34350.0)

EDITs:
- VLM date, Cubecab dates, Tronador config

- Bunch of new references and main propulsion listings for second half of the list

- Nammo NorthStar added

- Bloostar details from IAC2015 announcement

- Strypi failed, future unclear, ALASA cancelled, RocketLab delayed

- Added Horizon / Black Arrow 2

edit/gongora: September 2016 updated list is here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg1579564#msg1579564)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/06/2015 09:06 am
Thanks very much savuporo. That is an excellent summary. You have CubeCab and VLM-1 not in correct date sequence. You might want to also include VLS-1, which has not yet successfully flown.

http://www.iae.cta.br/site/page/view/pt.vls1.html
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: baldusi on 10/06/2015 12:43 pm
Tronador II will be 2.5 stages. It has a kerolox first stage that drops two of its three engines mid-flight. And the upper stage will be hypergolic. Expected to do 500kg to 700km SSO Original target price was 6M USD. But this is a government project, so...
Then Tronador III will be available with increased performance (and probably number of engines on first stage) but same 2.5 stage design. Expected to do 1,000kg to 700kg SSO.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/06/2015 03:45 pm
Updated as per comments - thanks. Finding an actual planned date for VLM is harder than decoding Yutu downlinks !
I wouldnt track two vehicles per organization until one actually goes anywhere close to space.
Also found a single tweet about CubeCab launch date.

Any further recently discussed launch dates that are within next two years or so ? I have this in a Google Sheets doc with a small script that outputs forum formatting

I also omitted orbits and cost/kg estimates because i dont believe they are too significant. If any of these actually flies any hardware close to space, it'll be a big day.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: parabolicarc on 10/06/2015 05:39 pm

Here's an updated list using the Orbital ATK survey and other companies mentioned by my readers. The criteria on this list are a bit broader than the Orbital ATK survey. Includes smallsat launchers that are not on the commercial market:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/10/04/updated-list-smallsat-launch-vehicles/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/06/2015 06:40 pm
Here is PLD space website, the Spanish have 3 LVs in his list.

http://pldspace.com/project.html
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: bad_astra on 10/06/2015 08:02 pm
Feels like the 90's again.. Connestoga, Roton, Pioneer, Kelly..
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/06/2015 08:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/06/2015 09:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/07/2015 06:08 am
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.

They're trying to enter a market that has much more competitive pressure now than the space launch market of the 90s.  There's SpaceX, of course, but also Orbital ATK (Antares and also Minotaur and don't forget Pegasus, which could become more viable again if the small-satellite market these start-ups hope to tap becomes viable), and ULA and Ariane are also competing more fiercely on price thanks to SpaceX shaking up the market.

Both secondaries and dedicated rideshares on the larger launch vehicles are stiff competition for any of these new smallsat launchers.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/07/2015 06:30 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/07/2015 06:44 am
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?  My sense is that hardly any smallsats have that kind of money.  And if they're iterating, as you suggest, that's multiple tens of millions of dollars in launch costs.

Anyway, the dedicated launchers base their business model on the idea that demand for smallsat launches is going to grow rapidly from where it is today.  If it really does grow rapidly, then the frequency of rideshare launches will go up, and the time a payload needs to wait for a shared ride will come down.

So the dedicated smallsat launchers are caught depending on the market being large enough they can get lots of launches and cover their development and fixed costs but small enough that there aren't many rideshare launches on bigger vehicles.  It seems to me the space between too many smallsats and too few is very narrow -- quite probably zero.  Even if the space is non-zero, it's not a good bet that the market will hit that narrow zone, and it leaves no room for growth by the dedicated launchers.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/07/2015 06:53 am
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.
Company/org that can hit the magic combination of fixed costs, per-flight costs, payload size, turnaround times etc will obviously do better.

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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/07/2015 07:39 am
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.

Some of them have claimed to have customers, but without saying who, which is suspicious, given that it's standard practice to announce who the customer is when a customer signs up for a commercial launch.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/07/2015 07:45 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/07/2015 08:06 am
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.

Oh, I agree, it's possible they have customers.  It's just suspicious that there seem to be so many claims without any details being announced.  A lot of these could be things like MOUs indicating interest from some customer but without a firm commitment or deposit.

It's always in the interests of customers to sign an MOU like that, because customers want choices, so they want new launch service providers to get investors, because it increases competition, which is good for the customer.  And the companies trying to raise money obviously like it.  The losers are the investors and us, the general public, who are misled about the real state of the market.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/07/2015 08:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Prober on 10/07/2015 01:30 pm
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.

and one firm that does know its business is LM.  They invested in RocketLab 8)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 10/07/2015 04:50 pm
Feels like the 90's again.. Connestoga, Roton, Pioneer, Kelly..

The difference is that these are teeny tiny conventional rockets, compared with the larger, unconventional approaches of the 1990s systems.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/07/2015 06:53 pm
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.

1.) These Venture Capital companies tend to be filled with people with experience in Silicon Valley tech companies.  Space Launch is outside their area of expertise.  They don't necessarily know.  If they hear conflicting opinions from various people in the industry, they don't know which to believe.

2.) 90% of VC-funded companies do not succeed.  So VC funding is just a sign the VCs think there is a 10% chance of success.

3.) Venture capitalists are people too, and they can be swayed by their emotions.  A lot of people in technology love space and they can let their love get in the way of rational decision making.

4.) Previous failed space launch start-ups have managed to bring in lots of venture capital.  The original Kistler and Beal burned through a lot of VC money before failing.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/07/2015 07:05 pm
Uh, what VCs ( or seed funds, or angels ) want and expect from you depends very much on the stage you are in. Seed, series-A and series-B all have very different expectations. But this discussion is probably best held in a 'general section' somewhere.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: parabolicarc on 10/07/2015 09:52 pm
NASA is going to announce Venture Class Launch Services providers next Wednesday, Oct. 15:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/10/07/nasa-announce-venture-class-launch-service-winners/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 10/07/2015 09:56 pm
NASA is going to announce Venture Class Launch Services providers next Wednesday, Oct. 15:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/10/07/nasa-announce-venture-class-launch-service-winners/
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).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/07/2015 10:01 pm
Worth noting that previous NASA enthusiasm about new suborbital revolutionary launch services didn't amount to much of anything

https://flightopportunities.nasa.gov/platforms/         
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/07/2015 10:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/07/2015 10:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/08/2015 12:11 am
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?

Quote
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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: russianhalo117 on 10/09/2015 03:53 pm
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/09/2015 10:07 pm
Updated the list with available info and thread links on  : Mishaal , PLD space.  Bloostar/zero2infinity is promising to unveil a bunch of new info on http://www.bloostar.com/ in next 4 days.

#ISPCS had a bunch of mentions of ALASA and Darpa stuff but no real new info about dates or flights or ETAs
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/09/2015 10:50 pm

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?

Quote
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.

The QF-16 is not a solution. Think the ALASA does not have enough ground clearance underneath the F-16 airframe. Also the fuselage centerline bomb rack on the F-16 can not carried the ALASA.

Of course there are old F-15s available for conversion to QF-15 drones.  ;)

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/10/2015 01:51 am
http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2015/10/09/reusability-mass-production-top-the-list-for-smallsat-launch-priorities/
Quote
“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

FireFly shows 48 employees on LinkedIn at the moment. Pretty sizeable team at this stage
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/10/2015 05:54 am
One for the list: Nammo North Star Launch Vehicle (NSLV) from Norway using hybrid motors. First launch in 2020.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/10/2015 06:17 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/13/2015 06:27 pm

Peter B. de Selding (@pbdes) tweeted at 7:15 PM on Tue, Oct 13, 2015:
Arianespace CEO: We may need micro-launcher for growing 50-300kg smallsat market. No formal proposal yet, but need consider it.#IAC2015
(https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/653816304244293636)

There are a few European launchers in development Arianespace could use. Most of these companies could do with a cash and technology injection from Arianespace.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/13/2015 09:55 pm
Okey Arianespace wants a nano/ small launcher. funny.
DLR (Germany); CNES (France) and CDTI (Spain) studied nano launchers from 2008 to 2010. The Aldebaran project.
In 2010 the conclusion was that the market was to small for developing a dedicated launch vehicle. (Aldebaran would be a technology testbed for a nanolauncher). And now five years later Arianespace wants a nanolauncher.

Info about the Aldebaran project in these three papers: [1] (http://elib.dlr.de/58211/1/IAC2008_ALDEBARAN.pdf) [2] (http://elib.dlr.de/64520/1/Aldebaran-iac2009_v4%2Babstract.pdf) [3] (http://www.space-lt.eu/failai/Prezentacijos/Michel%20Pons_Existing%20Space%20Access%20for%20Small%20Satellites.pdf)
After 2010 CNES together with Onora continued with one concept Dedalus. Student are working on this with the Perseus project. Another derivative is the Swiss Space Systems (S3) SOAR, derived from the Telemaque concept / Dessault Vehra. I also think BlueOrigin New Sheapeard, and Orbspace Infinity have some commonality.

Currently there are at least eight companies developing vehicles. I'll ad a excel document later.

Nammo (Norway) has planed a suborbital (sounding rocket) launch of their North Star Rocket family during 2016.
Most likely PLDSpace (Spain) will also launch their Arion 1 sounding rocket during 2016 (from INTA’s El Arenosillo launch facility). 

Edit:
The document I made contains only european initiatives and concepts. The 'Smallsat launchers' document is beter, so I won't post mine. The additions I have are only additional references and concepts without backing. Maybe the concepts can be added to the document as concepts.   
 
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/13/2015 10:03 pm
Currently there are at least eight companies developing vehicles. I'll ad a excel document later.

One like this ? ;) I'm updating the first post in the thread here from this table
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/14/2015 03:25 pm
A helpful boost or "thumb on the scale"?
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.

October 14, 2015
RELEASE 15-209
NASA Awards Venture Class Launch Services Contracts for CubeSat Satellites

NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) has awarded multiple Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS) contracts to provide small satellites (SmallSats) -- also called CubeSats, microsats or nanosatellites -- access to low-Earth orbit.
The three companies selected to provide these new commercial launch capabilities, and the value of their firm fixed-price contracts, are:

•   Firefly Space Systems Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas, $5.5 million
•   Rocket Lab USA Inc. of Los Angeles, $6.9 million
•   Virgin Galactic LLC of Long Beach, California, $4.7 million

At present, launch opportunities for small satellites and science missions mostly are limited to rideshare-type arrangements, flying only when space is available on NASA and other launches. The services acquired through these new contract awards will constitute the smallest class of launch services used by NASA.

“LSP is attempting to foster commercial launch services dedicated to transporting smaller payloads into orbit as an alternative to the rideshare approach and to promote the continued development of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry,” said Jim Norman, director of Launch Services at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “VCLS is intended to help open the door for future dedicated opportunities to launch CubeSats and other small satellites and science missions.”

Small satellites, including CubeSats, are playing an increasingly larger role in exploration, technology demonstration, scientific research and educational investigations at NASA. These miniature satellites provide a low-cost platform for NASA missions, including planetary space exploration; Earth observations; fundamental Earth and space science; and developing precursor science instruments like cutting-edge laser communications, satellite-to-satellite communications and autonomous movement capabilities.

LSP supports the agency’s CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI) by providing launch opportunities for more than 50 CubeSats that are awaiting launch during the next three years. The VCLS contracts will demonstrate a dedicated launch capability for smaller payloads that NASA anticipates it will require on a recurring basis for future science SmallSat and CubeSat missions.

Small satellites already are used to provide imagery collection for monitoring, analysis and disaster response. In the future, CubeSat capabilities could include ship and aircraft tracking, improved weather prediction, and the provision of broader Internet coverage.

The Earth Science Division of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington has partnered with LSP to fund the VCLS contracts. These VCLS launches of small satellites are able to tolerate a higher level of risk than larger missions and will demonstrate, and help mitigate risks associated with, the use of small launch vehicles providing dedicated access to space for future small spacecraft and missions.

“Emerging small launch vehicles have great potential to expand the use of small satellites as integral components of NASA’s Earth science orbital portfolio,” said Michael Freilich, director of NASA’s Earth Science Division. “Today’s CubeSat technology fosters hands-on engineering and flight research training; with the addition of reliable, affordable, and dedicated access to space on small launchers, constellations of SmallSats and CubeSats could revolutionize our science-based spaceborne Earth-observing systems and capabilities. We’re eager to work with the VCLS providers as they develop new launch capabilities for the Earth science community.”

For more information about NASA's CubeSat Launch Initiative, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/home/CubeSats_initiative.html
For more information about NASA’s Launch Services Program, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/launchingrockets/index.html
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/14/2015 03:35 pm
A helpful boost or "thumb on the scale"?
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Scylla on 10/14/2015 04:09 pm
On NASA TV in less than an hour.

1 p.m., Wednesday, October 14 - Venture Class Launch Services Contract Award Announcement (all channels)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: catdlr on 10/14/2015 11:17 pm
New Vehicles for New Ventures

Published on Oct 14, 2015
NASA hosted a news conference at 1 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, Oct. 14, at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida to announce the outcome of the Venture Class Launch Service (VCLS) competition. The vehicles expected to meet the VCLS requirement represent an emerging class of commercial launch services for small satellites -- often called CubeSats or nanosatellites -- and science missions that are currently limited to ride-share arrangements, flying only when space is available on NASA and other launches.

https://youtu.be/i0NeYaRZwos
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/14/2015 11:36 pm
The Firefly presentation showed launch in March of 2017. 
That's one month later than on the list, although it could be argued that it doesn't change the order.

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 launch.  Just ask our friends at SpaceX.  Their July 2004 manifest had first launch less than six months out. it took them until March of 2006, twenty months later.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/15/2015 12:00 am
Rocketlabs was saying 'early next year' for first launch too, in the video. Still watching, and collecting references, i'll update the table later.

Quote
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 launch
Exactly, that's why i left it at year/quarter. To quote Akin's laws again

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/15/2015 06:50 am
A helpful boost or "thumb on the scale"?

That's a very good question.

Generally, if there is commercial demand, it's best to let the commercial market sort itself out without the government stepping in like this.  That optimizes the distribution of resources.

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.

It's not clear that any of these exceptions apply in this case.

Another good question is whether NASA is biasing their awards toward a particular way of serving the market -- dedicated small launches -- over another way of serving the market -- rideshare on the larger launch vehicles.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/15/2015 06:58 am
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.

It's not clear that any of these exceptions apply in this case.
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.
RocketLabs Peter Beck said directly that NASA is not even their first or earliest customer, their manifest is pretty well sold out with commercial customers through the year.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/15/2015 08:52 am
By NASA selecting these three companies they have given them their tick of approval. This will help attract customers and more finance if needed.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/15/2015 08:11 pm
Bloostar / zero2infinity put a new website up today. They think they'll have significant advantages over pencil shaped rockets. Presenting at IAC2015 too

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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/15/2015 08:58 pm
Bloostar / zero2infinity put a new website up today. They think they'll have significant advantages over pencil shaped rockets. Presenting at IAC2015 too

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
Helium balloons need very low wind speeds to launch, early morning normally best. This may limit there ability to hit launch windows.

Not sure how they plan to handle boiloff during the ascent time.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/16/2015 12:39 am
Edited Bloostar details into the table. 2018 launch date according to the referred tweets and $4M projected price.

IMHO anything air launched will have very low chance of success. Flying a jet to 20km altitude or flying huge balloons off oceangoing ships doesn't strike me as operationally cheap or easy for small teams. But i guess we'll see soon enough, plenty of well funded diverse teams with various technical solutions across the globe here.

Imagine, if the schedules would actually be real, there would be 8 new operational launchers worldwide by the end of next year, and another 5 added next year. I'd be happy if just one of these works out by that time.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: chipguy on 10/16/2015 04:23 pm
Bloostar / zero2infinity put a new website up today. They think they'll have significant advantages over pencil shaped rockets. Presenting at IAC2015 too

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
Helium balloons need very low wind speeds to launch, early morning normally best. This may limit there ability to hit launch windows.

Not sure how they plan to handle boiloff during the ascent time.

Not to mention mention toroidal propellant tanks may have some interesting low frequency oscillatory/slosh modes that could prove challenging as well as high residuals.

However, new ideas are always welcome. Good luck to them.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/22/2015 06:43 pm
I believe this should belong in the thread

http://www.marsblog.net/archives/000579.html
Quote
August 18, 2003

- 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
Took them 5 years after that to achieve orbit.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/22/2015 08:28 pm
Today I came across this site:  Leafspace Primo  (http://www.leafspace.eu/other-products/).
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

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/23/2015 08:42 am
Today I came across this site:  Leafspace Primo  (http://www.leafspace.eu/other-products/).
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.
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/  )
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/23/2015 09:25 am
Today I came across this site:  Leafspace Primo  (http://www.leafspace.eu/other-products/).
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.
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/  )

Nice to see they are planning for reusability long term. These first generation small LVs are all expendable but any company not planning a reusable booster for their 2nd generation LV, will not stay in business long.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/24/2015 04:14 pm
I found them while searching for info about the European Aerospace Student Meting (AESM) 2015. Leafspace gave a presentation there. I searched for leafspace primo today. I could find some pages in Italian  (I can't read that). I also found their facebook page fb leafspace  (https://facebook.com/pages/Leaf-Space/1472992286321268?fref=ts)
some more info about primo: trust at lift of 90kN (9000kg ~18000lbf) from 7 fuel grains. The upperstage looks like a same fuel grain with a nousle extension.
(That must be really long burning hybrid engines. From student rockets {dare: stratos II; HyEnD: Heros} and Nammo, hybrid engines usually run for about 25 seconds. The hybrid engines used on primo must run for minutes. I have my doubts about the feasibility of leafspace primo.)

edit: they call the conference european, but no student team other than italien have presented there.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/24/2015 05:14 pm
Today I came across this site:  Leafspace Primo  (http://www.leafspace.eu/other-products/).
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
A 5% mass fraction with hybrids fighting the inefficiencies of smaller scale?
Does that sound reasonable to anyone?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Senex on 10/24/2015 07:10 pm
The problem is in the "rough" conversion:

"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 . . .
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/24/2015 09:20 pm
The problem is in the "rough" conversion:

"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 . . .
Ah. Under 1% mass fraction. Much less crazy. Still not sure it's possible
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/24/2015 11:22 pm
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

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/24/2015 11:49 pm
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
Use "tonnes" for "metric tons" to help clarify.  Kilograms is usually even better.
http://www.metric-conversions.org/weight/short-tons-to-metric-tons.htm

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: MP99 on 10/25/2015 05:07 pm
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

NB 6.4 tonnes = 14,110 lb (approx 2.2:1 conversion of kg to lb).

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 11/30/2015 06:10 pm
Updated table with ALASA cancelled, RocketLabs delayed.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/09/2015 12:41 pm
One update and a new one from the European side of the pond.
First the update:
PLD Space updated their website and plan. The sounding rocket (Arion1) has become a single stage with a first planned launch in 2018. The orbital rocket has increased in size and capability, it's first launch in planned for 2021.

Than the new one: Horizon Space Technologies Ltd. (http://horizonsas.com/products/) with it's Black Arrow 2. A two stage LOxLCH4(methane) launch system capable of launching 500kg to 200km LEO; 200kg 600km SSO. The first stage will be powered by a 360kN; 81k.lbf gas-generator (turbopump) engine, the upper-stage will be powered by a 45kN;(10k.lbf) pressure fed engine. First launch is planned for around 2018.
Seradata (http://seradata.com/SSI/2015/10/horizon-space-technologies-announces-new-black-arrow-2-rocket-at-uk-space-propulsion-workshop/) also reported about Black Arrow 2

I also found a presentation about Nammo NorthStar, given by Kolbjorn Blix Dahle at 4S symposium 2014.
Form the presentation I figured they are about a year behind schedule, with the first Nucleus launch planned for 2016 instead of 2015. The 24th slide I found most interesting, they had a intermediate plan of launching a Aurora (4-core) or Nucleus with a Corona on top op a IAE S-50 VLM stage. This could be launched form ~2017, now more likely 2018. The Borealis Aurora Corona (1th,2th,3th) in Norway referred by Corona Aurora Borealis or NorthStar LV (NSLV) was planed to be launched form ~2020.
edit: the proceedings can be downloaded here (http://congrexprojects.com/2014-events/4S2014/proceedings). The presentation can be found in:
1.Programme_1.4S Symposium_Presentations_2.Tuesday_16_40 Dahle.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/09/2015 01:51 pm
Great post Rik.

First I've heard of Arrow 2, another LV to follow. Looks like it will be going head to head with Firefly on performance and price. Just like Firefly long term plan is reusability.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 12/09/2015 02:54 pm
Geat post indeed, first i heard about the Horizon SAS. It is not however, the first time i heard the name of Ross Tierney (https://www.enterpriseinspace.org/ross-tierney/), because DIRECT :)

 
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: kraisee on 12/09/2015 03:41 pm
And there's us, trying to stay under the radar until we announced the BLACK ARROW 2 project in the New Year! LOL :)

Ross.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 12/11/2015 07:35 am
 Another new private small launcher company (http://www.onespacechina.com/), this time in China.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: dror on 12/11/2015 07:08 pm
Congrats on Arrow 2 and good luck! Note this week Arrow 3 was launched:
https://youtu.be/K0A4FDDgFkM
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 12/11/2015 09:40 pm
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: rocx on 12/11/2015 10:25 pm
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...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 12/11/2015 10:43 pm
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

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 12/11/2015 11:05 pm
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...

If so they need to step up their game. Very few of these smallsat launchers actually succeed. :D
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/12/2015 01:23 pm
I looked at the first post ad noticed the iae/dlr VLM is discribed as the outdated version from befor 2012. The old version used the S43;S40; S44 and S33 solid rocket stages,  the first two have metal cases and the last two are (carbon?) composit casings. In 2012 a new version new was proposed, the VLM Nova. The VLM-Nova uses two carbon-composit S50 stages with 12mT of propallent, and the S44 as third stage. This third stage would later be replaced by a liquid upper-stage with 5kN trust. It would have the capability of launching 150kg to leo, the first payload will be the shefix III experiment from DLR (Germany).
DLR (MoRaBa) also has plans to use the S50 as sounding rocket (called VS-X also with optionally a S44 s upperstage). The mosed used sounding rocket in europe is currently the VSB-30 (S31+S30 metal solids), MaRaBa imports these stages from Brazil.
Next to the VLM, IAE (Brazil) has developed the VLS rocket. Unfortunately a VLS exploded during launch preparations, killing 21 engineers, back in ~2003. The rocket has not jet launched after this failure. Last november a VS-40 (S40+S44) sounding rocket should have launched the SARA reentry vehicle from brazil, but the S40 stage exploded just after ignition, luckily no body got injured. But another setback for the VLS.
The VLS is formed by four S43 boosters, a center S43, a S40 and a S44 stage, it is capable to launch 250kg to 700km leo. Two other versions have been proposed, the VLS Alpha where the S40 and S44 are replaced by a liquid stage with 75kN trust, capable to launch 500kg to leo. And the VLS Beta composed of a P50 solid stage (avio contributes to this stage) a Z23 (zefiro) or L300 (4x75kN) second stage and the L75 as third stage. The beta is capable of 800kg to 800km leo. Time will tell if any of these rockets will become oparational.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: kato on 12/12/2015 05:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 12/12/2015 05:10 pm
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=25591.60
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/12/2015 05:31 pm
As usual with these concepts it comes down to this.

It is thought smallsats would like a)An LV that launches on their schedule and to their orbit, rather than that of a primary customer and b) There is a big enough market to support both the development budget for the vehicle and it's mfg facilities and its range

Obviously the more of these that can be done by existing facilities the better

I'll note 2 things.

The last one of these that has had any sort of success was the Orbital Pegasus.

It was all solid and had DARPA as an anchor customer.

Time will tell which, if any of these launch.  :(

I wish them all luck but doubt many will get to first launch.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/15/2015 12:35 am
Aviation Week article on Small Launchers

http://aviationweek.com/space/will-new-small-launch-vehicles-expand-smallsat-market

Here are the launch years given for a variety of vehicles:

RocketLab Electron: 2016
Virgin Galactic LauncherOne: 2017
CubeCab Cab-3A: 2018
Generation Orbit GO-1 (suborbital): 2017
Generation Orbit GO-2 (orbital): ?
UP Aerospace Spyder: Mid 2018
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 12/15/2015 11:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 12/15/2015 07:29 pm
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 ;)

Thanks for the avweek article, will ad UP Aerospace. Pretty credible as they are flying sounding rockets all the time, but rail launched four stage solid doesnt sound too exciting.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/15/2015 08:51 pm
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.

Not to sure about their promo photos, a few electronic boards connected by bread board is not very inspiring.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: QuantumG on 12/15/2015 09:54 pm
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.


Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/15/2015 10:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 12/24/2015 03:18 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/04/2016 03:33 pm
I took the liberty to update the Smallsat Launchers list and put it in a Exel file.
I've updated some first launch dates: VLM; SOAR;CubeCab & Arion2.
added some systems: VLS; NorthStar Intrim, Spyder, Primo, OneSpace, Adeline, Dynetics SLV, Altair.
(Has Dynetics Small Launch Vehicle been posted here, strange if we all missed it.)

Maybe its a good idea to add more information about the systems inside the file. e.a. GLOW, payload to orbit, info about the different stages, other configurations/capabilities. Feel free to modify the document.
   
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 04/15/2016 06:24 pm
Fits here

http://spaceworksforecast.com/docs/SpaceWorks_Nano_Microsatellite_Market_Forecast_2016.pdf


Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/15/2016 09:15 pm
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. If I had venture capital money and wanted to invest in smallsat launch, I'd invest it in a company like Masten. They could do this much cheaper than RocketLab, and they'd be ready for the market to go exponential. It's also big enough to allow full reuse in the future or even carry people (at least /a/ person) to orbit.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 04/15/2016 09:52 pm
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.

Whats the headcount at Masten going to be by the time they fly to orbit 10 times in 10 days? Thats the key math.

For reference, SpaceX headcount was at 500 when F1 first reached orbit in 2008, and only about 160 in 2006 when they first tried.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/16/2016 02:45 am
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.

Remember, they already know how to launch rockets hundreds of times with a skeleton crew. For them, reuse and the idea of high launch rate is not hypothetical.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 04/16/2016 02:53 am
I've been launching hundreds of mostly reusable rockets a day with skeleton crew, some six year olds running recovery teams as well.

This is not a knock on Masten. But your operational complexity does actually go up when you fly much bigger and faster moving things. EDIT: remember when SpaceX bragged about housing their launch control for F1 in a truck trailer?

Time will tell which approaches work, but RocketLabs mass manufacturing plan is certainly plausible.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: QuantumG on 04/16/2016 03:42 am
XS-1 will have an expendable upper stage... and Rocket Lab is one of the contenders for it.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: jongoff on 04/16/2016 04:30 am
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.

My guess is that Masten will need to end up at a bit higher headcount than Rocketlabs to pull off XS-1, but they could probably keep it modest (in the 100-200 range) if they partner with someone like RL for the initial, smaller upper stage.

I think both approaches have merit, and RL's approach is far lower risk in the near-term. But if Masten gets the XS-1 Phase 2, and doesn't botch it, I think they're going to be in a pretty competitive position. Their first stage is really designed for large numbers of reuses and high flight rates, which means that all they need to do is get a fully reusable upper stage that can do one of our "direct rendezvous" maneuvers, and life becomes *really* interesting.

A fully reusable upper stage is several steps down the road. First the XS-1 stage and a temporary small expendable stage, then a bigger 3000lb payload capable higher performance upper stage, then way down the road a fully-reusable upper stage. Though Masten will probably be in a better position to pull that off than any of their competitors, especially if they do something that kind of looks like their current first stage concept.

Lots of counting of pre-hatched chickens here though. RL will likely be flying before Masten even knows if they have the Phase 2 award or not.

~Jon
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 05/13/2016 04:17 am
Super Strypi may rise again, apparently, because NASA STMD is mandated to compete with industry

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/senator-cuts-nasas-tech-budge/

Quote

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: WizZifnab on 05/31/2016 12:41 pm
Should this list be updated to include https://www.facebook.com/vectorlaunchinc/ (https://www.facebook.com/vectorlaunchinc/)?

Edit:Seems this maybe is new form of Garvey Spacecraft Corp? Found thread on Vector http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40158.msg1523979#msg1523979 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40158.msg1523979#msg1523979) that mentions that.  But both have exisiting websites it seems.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/09/2016 04:53 am
Article on Vector Space Systems.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/new-company-wants-to-change-the-way-we-think-about-spaceflight-2016-6?r=US&IR=T

"Several subscale prototypes of the vehicle have already been built and one will be flown this summer. Next year upwards of three near full-scale vehicles will be sent on suborbital flights. And by 2018, Vector hopes to launch its first full scale prototype vehicle, which is currently under construction, into orbital flight."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 06/10/2016 09:45 pm
While Vector is mentioned: here's their static fire of their second stage engine. https://vimeo.com/166736959/8e5cf47426
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 06/11/2016 01:21 am
Yeah my Vector posts got moved to dedicated thread.. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40158.5) i guess i'll update the table in a bit, too.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Archibald on 06/11/2016 07:51 am
This is a great thread, very useful. Thank you Savuporo (and others) !
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: vaporcobra on 06/11/2016 09:21 am
You should add Ripple Aerospace, they are a Norwegian company working to create a sea-launched and sea-recovered aerospike rocket called the Sea Serpent. I asked a few questions through FB comments and was told that a scaled down suborbital tech demonstration was to come "very soon". I've always thought that it was a shame how sea launched rockets were sort of passed over, was definitely happy to see that someone is still trying to pull it off!
http://www.ripple-aerospace.no/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Helge on 06/11/2016 01:07 pm
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Proponent on 06/11/2016 01:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/11/2016 06:03 pm
This LV is in XS1, VEGA payload range ie 2-3t LEO.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/26/2016 06:25 am
Two more for the list, this time from Australia.

Gilmour Space Technologies
https://www.facebook.com/gstpropulsion/?fref=nf

Hyperion Launch Vehicle
mt = 24,540 kg
mc = 350 kg
ho = 300 km
Inc = 45°

Stage 1 (4xCHPM)
mp = 16,400 kg
ms = 2,240 kg
Fs = 492.7 kN
Isp = 245 s (sea level)
T = 80 s

Stage 2 (1xCHPM)
mp = 4100 kg
ms = 573 kg
Fv = 163.7 kN
Isp 320 s (vacuum)
T = 80 s

Stage 3 (1xHUS)
mp = 620 kg
ms = 87 kg
Fv = 21.6 kN
Isp = 320 s
T = 90 s

Fairing
D = 1.6 m

All engines are hybrid with 90% H2O2 oxidiser and Polymer Wax fuel. CHPM is pump fed. HUS is pressure fed. First launch planned for 2018. Flew RASTA Mk.2 N2O/ABS sounding rocket on 22 July 2016.


Heliaq Advanced Engineering
http://heliaq.com/ (website is down at the moment, go to https://web.archive.org/web/20160422083512/http://www.heliaq.com/ )

ALV-2 (Austral Launch Vehicle)
mc = 30 kg
ho = 400 km
Inc = 98°

First Stage (2xFlyback boosters)

Second Stage

Third Stage

LOX/Methane propellant. 1/2 scale of full ALV-3 vehicle. First launch is planned for 2020. Flew ALV-0 model of first stage booster on 23 December 2015.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 07/27/2016 12:26 am
Two more for the list, this time from Australia.

Gilmour Space Technologies
https://www.facebook.com/gstpropulsion/?fref=nf

How come we haven't heard of these guys before?!?  Granted, it's small-scale at the moment - but they're actually building and launching stuff on Australian soil.  :o

Quote
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!

https://youtu.be/V5JjPvr5go0 (https://youtu.be/V5JjPvr5go0)

http://www.gspacetech.com/ (http://www.gspacetech.com/)

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 08/06/2016 09:02 pm
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.

Honestly that is just fantasy, I would be amazed if those guys did anything. It's this kind of thing that makes it hard for real businesses to gain any crediblity as they are all lumped into "crazy" = space.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: vaporcobra on 08/08/2016 07:28 am
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

Yes, they are extremely new, can't disagree there. Nevertheless, they have some truly exciting ideas and I wish them luck :)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Archibald on 08/08/2016 08:17 am
Wow, a Rasta rocket. Is Jamaica involved in any way ? how about weed as rocket propellant ?
(lame joke. runs for cover)

More seriously - glad to see a H2O2 rocket.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/09/2016 05:19 am
RASTA Mk.II (Recovery And Separation Systems Test Article) actually used NO2 and 3D printed ABS as propellant. The next rocket is called Koopman and I believe will be using 90% H2O2. Launch is scheduled for September with an aim of reaching 20 km altitude.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 08/10/2016 01:52 am
In parallel to this, Australian student-built Cubesats are in the news today.  Hopefully this will translate into something bigger on both fronts..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-09/australian-mini-satellites-to-study-the-thermosphere/7702748 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-09/australian-mini-satellites-to-study-the-thermosphere/7702748)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 09/07/2016 03:26 am
Some relevant old news
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/08/08/smallsat-2016-updates-launch-vehicle-development/
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3044/1

Not much movement in a way of actual launches, some updates to be queued

Bets on RocketLab will be the first to lift off in an actual launch attempt ?
Also, maybe we should find a page on wikipedia for this table, except that cant really link back to NSF threads from there :)



Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 09/07/2016 04:23 am
Meanwhile, a midterm evaluation

OrganizationVehicleCountryYear/QuarterMain propulsionPriceRefThread
Rocket Lab (http://www.rocketlabusa.com/)ElectronNZ/USA2016 Q32-stage kerolox$4.9Mref (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/)FireflyUSA2017 Q22-stage, methalox$8-9Mref (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/)LauncherOneUSA2017 Q3airlaunch, 2-stage kerolox<$10Mref (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 2UK2017 Q22-stage, methalox$7.5Mref (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/)CubeCabUSA2017 Q3airlaunch, no detail$0.25Mref (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/594302551350083584)
Generation Orbit (http://www.generationorbit.com/)GO Launcher 2USA2017 Q4airlaunch$2.5Mref (http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2015/06/05/generation-orbit-gains-golauncher2-commitments-plans-golauncher-3/)
zero2infinity (http://www.bloostar.com/)BloostarSpain2018 Q2Balloon  + CH4/lox$4.0Mref (https://twitter.com/mgschaffer/status/654633354705375232)
UP Aerospace (http://www.upaerospace.com/)SpyderUSA2018 Q24-stage solidref (http://aviationweek.com/space/will-new-small-launch-vehicles-expand-smallsat-market)
Rocket Crafters (http://rocketcrafters.space/)Intrepid-1USA2018 Q42-stage hybridref (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/08/08/smallsat-2016-updates-launch-vehicle-development/)
Vector Space Systems (http://vectorspacesystems.com/)WolverineUSA20182 stage keroloxref (http://spacenews.com/vector-space-systems-plans-2018-first-flight-of-small-launch-vehicle/)
InterStellar Technologies (http://www.istellartech.com/)Pocky ? Japan3 stage LOX/ethanolref (https://twitter.com/MarcKBoucher/status/654641152839258112)
CONAE (http://www.conae.gov.ar/index.php/espanol/acceso-al-espacio/tronador-ii)Tronador IIArgentina2.5-stage kerolox/hypergol$6M
Lin Industrial (http://www.spacelin.ru/)TaimyrRussia2 stage peroxide/kero$0.18 Mref (http://www.spacelin.ru/#!taymyr/c1wuk)thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36301.0)
Tranquility Aerospace (http://www.tranquilityaerospace.com/)Devon TwoUK2 stage peroxide/keroref (http://www.tranquilityaerospace.com/TranqWeb/DevonTwo.html)
PLD Space (http://pldspace.com/)Arion-2Spain2 stage keroloxref (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-OVUSA2 stage hybrid LOX/HTPBref (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 StarNorway20203 stage perfoxide/rubber hybridref (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 1Canada2020ref (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-1UK3 stage peroxide/kero
Bagaveev Corporation (http://bagaveev.com/)USAref (https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/bagaveev.com/Aboutus.htm)
Scorpius Space Launch Company (http://smad.com/)Demi-SpriteUSA$3.6Mref (http://smad.com/launch/demi-sprite/)
ARCA Space Corp. (http://www.arcaspace.com/)Haas 2CRomania/USA2-stage keroloxref (http://www.arcaspace.com/en/haas2c.htm)
Gilmour space technologies (http://www.gspacetech.com/)ErisAustralia/Singaporehybrid
Ripple Aerospace (http://www.ripple-aerospace.no/)Sea SerpentNorway2-stage .. LOX/LH aerospike ?
Heliaq (http://heliaq.com/)ALVAustraliaflyback+scramjet?ref (http://aviationweek.com/space/first-flight-australian-subscale-reusable-launch-demonstrator)
Lockheed MartinAthena IcUSAref (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2234/1)
--- unclear status ---
Swiss Space Systems (http://www.s-3.ch/)SOARSwitzerlandunclearairlaunch<$10Mref (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/06/swiss-space-systems-ceo-set-fire/)
XCOR Aerospace (http://www.xcor.com)Lynx Mark IIIUSAunclearairlaunchref (http://aerospace.xcor.com/reusable-launch-vehicles/lynx-spacecraft/)thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19033.0)
Ventions LLC (http://ventions.com/)SALVOUSAunclearairlaunch, 2-stage keroloxref (http://bit.ly/2cF6fcu)thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30240.0)
Sandia National Lab (http://www.rocket.com/leonidas)Super StrypiUSAunclear3-stage solid$12Mref (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 N5USAunclear3-stage hno3/turpentine$0.25Mref (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)VLMBrazil/Gerunclear4-stage solidref (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/)SagitariusSpainunclearairlaunch, solid ?$0.24Mref (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)ALASAUSAcancelledairlaunch, 2-stage$1Mref (http://spacenews.com/darpa-airborne-launcher-effort-falters/)thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34350.0)

EDIT: Changed Garvey->Vector
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 09/07/2016 10:31 am
Wait a sec, what does the Year/Quarter collumn stand for? First test mission, first commercial missions or previously declared start of commercial flight?

Rocket Lab said they 'are still on track' to begin testing this month (the last of Q3 ticking away) but would only do missions in 2017, but Firefly Space Systems has an article about them on their site, dated august 5, that says they'll begin testing in late fall 2016.

http://www.fireflyspace.com/news/inthenews/aviation-week-reports-firefly-targets-late-fall-for-alpha-aerospike-rocket-tests

And Virgin Galactic, well they've been doing test flights for years now, and have been postponing their first commercial flight deadline for even longer.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 09/07/2016 08:55 pm
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.
And i didn't do a full pass of updating all the references, timelines and mentions. I've tried to find links and references that are reported by someone else than the company, or at least announcements about flight dates made by company in public forums in front of an actual audience. 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 09/08/2016 01:32 pm
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.

It's a useful list actually, thanks for doing it.

I agree that of the 25+ candidates only a handful are really serious, probably only 3-4 on that list. This sector is full of websites that promise space tourism to the moons of Neptune by lunchtime. I actually think the ones who make fewer announcements are more serious.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/08/2016 04:43 pm
Garvey is now Vector and is in part being funded by NASA and DARPA awards. See recent Vector thread post.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 09/08/2016 05:35 pm
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


Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: josespeck on 09/11/2016 03:55 pm
Quote
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...

More information: http://www.sondasespaciales.com/portada/2016/08/pldspace2/ (http://www.sondasespaciales.com/portada/2016/08/pldspace2/)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/08/2016 01:44 am
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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/09/2016 09:54 am
I was just tinkering with classifying these efforts into distinct groups based on the "no bucks, no Buck Rogers concept":-

A. No money e.g. Ripple, Tranquility
B. Not nearly enough money e.g. Vector, Mishaal
C. A bunch of money but facing setbacks e.g. Super Strypi
D. Properly funded with a good chance to see it through e.g. Rocket Lab, Virgin Galactic
E. Burnt most the money they once had e.g. Firefly
F. Government money keeping engineers busy e.g. SMILE
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/09/2016 12:33 pm
I think you are going to find N-1 classifications for N groups in the list. Meaning, all have their own special circumstances. And again, more than money, number of people actively working on the thing is a better credibility indicator.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/09/2016 12:52 pm
There are / were 169 people at Firefly and that did not translate to results. Without money you can't get much done, esp. hiring professional people, as people can't live for free forever.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/09/2016 12:57 pm
I'm taking that for granted, so estimating number of people working is an indirect proxy for money being spent - and also money available. Very few people can afford to work for free or much under market value for substantial time spans required to develop an orbital launch vehicle.

Also externally guessing the number of people on a project vs estimating depth of undisclosed investors pockets is just somewhat easier and more direct measure of progress being made
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/09/2016 03:21 pm
Developing the LV is hard enough, but there is also launch pad, communications and production facilities. These may not be as difficult technically as LV but do require investors with deep pockets.

Rocket Labs launch facilities set them back a bit, original plan was to fly out of Canterbury south of Christchurch, I think Rocket lab underestimated the local paperwork mountain blocking access to site. Switching to Mahia cost them more time but at least local councils removed paperwork mountains to make things easy.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/10/2016 10:48 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/10/2016 06:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 10/10/2016 10:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/14/2016 07:15 pm
Relevant tweets from Brian Berger https://twitter.com/Berger_SN

Quote
"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

https://twitter.com/Berger_SN/status/786973513857003520
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/23/2016 07:45 am

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/23/2016 01:34 pm

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.
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.

Firefly is 2yrs behind with its future in doubt.

If RL can deliver reliable launches then they will have finances to develop a lower cost RLV 2nd generation vehicle. Raising benchmark for competition.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/30/2016 04:46 pm
Airplane deployed 500kg to SSO LV

Long term(2030)  plan is to use Sabre power plane to launch from.


http://www.orbital-access.com/phone/projects.html?utm_content=buffer64708&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: topsphere on 11/08/2016 01:16 pm
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/

With the paper attached.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 11/08/2016 09:46 pm
Nope, Vector is right there in the first table. There is even an acknowledgement at the end to you all.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 11/08/2016 09:56 pm
Nope, 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 11/08/2016 10:09 pm
Nope, 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.
And by 'acknowledgement to you all' i meant that NasaSpaceFlight.com forum member contributions are mentioned
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: dror on 12/01/2016 06:27 pm
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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 12/08/2016 05:03 pm
Time for an update on technologies that indicate that a project is not going anywhere:

Aerospike engine
Hydrogen Peroxide oxidizer
Slush Hydrogen fuel


Retired from the list:

NK-33

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kansan52 on 12/08/2016 05:45 pm
Why not H202?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/09/2016 06:23 am
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!
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 12/09/2016 06:57 am
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!
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)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 12/10/2016 05:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/10/2016 07:01 am
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).

All oxidisers are not fun to work with. Look how much trouble SpaceX has had with LOX. In comparison, H2O2 is much easier to work with since it is non cryogenic. You just need to maintain the same cleanliness as you do with LOX. I'm not sure why Blue Origin decided not to go with H2O2. Its a much better propellant than methalox or kerolox for a first stage due to its high impulse density. Keroxide (HTP/RP-1) has proven itself with the British Black Knight and Black Arrow vehicles. Being storable results in much greater reliability since you don't have cryogenic temperatures freezing everything.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 12/10/2016 02:15 pm
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.
 

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/10/2016 04:02 pm
@Donderman:
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.

And I beg to differ that BO has permanently shelved the BE-2 HTP engine technology.
But we shall see.

I want to added to Steven Pietrobon post:
HTP-RP-1 (EtOH or other non cryogenic hydrocarbon) and LOx-LNG/Methane have no temp. difference.
So no chance on a SpaceX static test scenario.

I think It's odd VLM-1 is classed as uncertain and excluded from the 2016 small launcher list.
While it is backed by two governments and chosen as basic launcher for a launch service that is included in the document.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 12/10/2016 04:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 12/10/2016 04:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 12/11/2016 04:45 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 12/11/2016 04:56 am
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.

Should the list include pressure fed or hybrid booster stage? Many instances, No orbital success.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: sdsds on 12/11/2016 04:57 am
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 12/11/2016 06:12 am
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?
This is in the scale of satellite RCS:
Pressure fed hypergolics / monoprellant
Ion / plasma
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/11/2016 06:25 am
But if a technology has a 0 percent success rate in commercial rocketry, then it stays on the list.

HTP was successfully used by Black Knight and Black Arrow. Thus it should not be on the list. Peroxide is also used on rocket packs, that are strapped right next to a human being. It was also used on the Mercury capsule and is used in the Soyuz capsule for attitude control. The Soyuz launch vehicle also uses HTP to power its turbopumps.

I'm not posting direct links to sources, but the European projects don't want to ship >85%H2O2.

But they're happy to ship toxic N2O2 and hydrazine? Their website is down at the moment, but Peroxide Propulsion happily ships HTP (85% and above) all over the world.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161119100406/http://www.peroxidepropulsion.com/

Quote
or other non cryogenic hydrocarbon) and LOx-LNG/Methane have no temp. difference.
So no chance on a SpaceX static test scenario.

LOX has an NBP of -182.9 C. Methane has an NBP of -161.5 C and freezes at -182.5 C. Thus, there is a minimum temperature difference of 0.4 K. Any subcooling of LOX and the temperature difference widens, provided you can keep methane just above its freezing temperature.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/11/2016 06:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: RanulfC on 12/12/2016 02:11 pm
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.

Cite: http://www.hydrogen-peroxide.us/history-US-General-Kinetics/AIAA-2005-4551_Long_Term_Storability_of_Hydrogen_Peroxide.pdf

Page 8, paragraph XI;
"In addition, a second set of drums containing 90% hydrogen peroxide have been in storage at 5 deg. Celsius for over 17 years and have been recently measured at 90.5%8. This demonstrates that at 5 deg. Celsius (41F) that essentially no decomposition occurred for 17 years."

@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.

That's a bulk shipping regulatory constraint. Smaller quantities such a Peroxide Propulsion and others can get higher percentages but considering billions of gallons are transported per year around the world "handling" issues are a bit over-blown.

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.

Then by your own criteria H2O2 should NOT be on the list as it has a long and successful history of use in early rocketry and satellites including commercial use. I realize the "list" is your opinion and therefore non-debatable but don't say you are 'just following history' when you're actually not and get called on it.

Randy
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 12/12/2016 08:13 pm
What commercial firms have launched successfully using H2O2 as an oxidizer?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 12/12/2016 08:19 pm
What commercial firms have launched successfully using H2O2 as an oxidizer?
Blue Origin, with Goddard and PM-2.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 12/13/2016 04:00 pm
What commercial firms have launched successfully using H2O2 as an oxidizer?
Blue Origin, with Goddard and PM-2.

A great example of a company looking at H2O2 and deciding not to go with it.

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.


Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: dror on 12/13/2016 05:49 pm
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.

If they start to offer launches commercially, for 10,000$/kg, I'd say it's commercial.
Anyway, i think the list can really benefit from $/kg price target column.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/14/2016 03:38 am
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.

Other people have been killed during engine tests, mostly because they were too close during the test. I suspect the same in this case. I tried to find confirmation of this event, but there is nothing on the Lin Industrial web site. https://en.spacelin.ru
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: sdsds on 12/14/2016 06:20 am
I hear the Wehrmacht used peroxide for quite a few small-payload sub-orbital launches. They had some trouble with the precision descent part of the flight profile, though.
;)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 01/12/2017 04:24 am
It seems that new contenders are popping up all over now. Perhaps it is time for a poll.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: dror on 01/16/2017 05:25 pm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english
http://spacenews.com/new-documents-reveal-state-of-spacexs-finances
Quote
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]
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/16/2017 11:09 pm
The Soyuz rocket uses peroxide today to drive turbopumps, and uses peroxide as a mono propellant on the capsule.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 01/16/2017 11:18 pm
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.

Seriously, at the end of the day what people will go with will depend upon (a) what they can get, (b) what kind of infrastructure they wish to invest in and (c) the amount of regulatory hurdles they are happy to jump.  The size of the rocket has very little to do with it... other than perhaps as an indicator of my point (b) above.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/16/2017 11:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 01/16/2017 11:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: QuantumG on 01/17/2017 12:09 am
Storing large qualities of peroxide is more costly than just getting LOX trucked in, if you have the option. 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2017 12:25 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 01/17/2017 01:20 am
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.
 
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/17/2017 01:35 am
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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/17/2017 01:41 am
The Soyuz rocket uses peroxide today to drive turbopumps, and uses peroxide as a mono propellant on the capsule.

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 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).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 01/17/2017 01:44 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/17/2017 02:08 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 01/17/2017 02:14 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2017 02:31 am
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 01/17/2017 03:35 am
Where did this idea come from that there can only be One True Way to do everything?

New Zealand.  ;D
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2017 03:50 am
"One propellant combination to rule them all..."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/17/2017 04:01 am
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.

It's interesting then that Rocketlab (for one) don't agree with you. :)

If you're using the same propellant for the first and second stage, then kerolox gives better performance as the large delta-v (about 9 km/s), the higher Isp makes up for the lower density compared to keroxide. My ideal rocket has keroxide on the first stage (with 7 engines to allow reuse) and hydrolox on the second stage (with 5 engines to also reuse).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/17/2017 09:16 am
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.
L-4S modified from sounding rocket succeed in the 1970s.

Most failed solid programs fail on GNC, while most failed liquid programs perish before full sized launch.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2017 03:08 pm
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.

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).
From the SLS thread, which was going off topic.

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).

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/17/2017 03:34 pm
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.

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).
From the SLS thread, which was going off topic.

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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: HMXHMX on 01/17/2017 03:58 pm
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.

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).
From the SLS thread, which was going off topic.

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?

OTRAG staged parallel mechanically, but ignited sequentially.  At least that's my memory from getting briefed by Kayser in 1978 in Munich.  ;)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2017 04:04 pm
Yeah, OTRAG is taking it to an extreme, and I don't think it's all groundlit.

R7 is a good compromise. Pumpfed, but not trying to do SSTO. Clustered, but only 5 elements (not dozens).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: QuantumG on 01/17/2017 09:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: HMXHMX on 01/17/2017 10:11 pm
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.


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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 01/17/2017 10:46 pm
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.

Heh. :)  Over here, we have Regulations and Standards and officials in fluoro-coloured vests all designed to stop people killing themselves (or someone else)..  but you guys? Not so much.
 
EDIT: ..and that's one reason we don't have an officially-sanctioned Space Program.. What's the word?  Oh, yes.  It's "dangerous".  ::)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: QuantumG on 01/17/2017 11:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/18/2017 03:06 am
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.

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).
From the SLS thread, which was going off topic.

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).
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).

Commercial rockets with R7 architecture are common.
Lin industry, Microcorsm, Constoga 1620 solid.
It is not necessarily better than the Falcon1 architecture with liquids.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/18/2017 03:48 am
Conestoga doesn't count, it was too cobbled together.

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).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/18/2017 04:51 am
Conestoga doesn't count, it was too cobbled together.

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).
Copying historical launcher is a good idea worthy of deep discussion. I would choose this route too.

R7 is rather large , for the need of nuclear warhead.  The US counterpart launchers at that time are Juno and Vanguard, with single V2 derived peroxide turbopump engine first stage, 20~30 ton GTOW.

Or build a scaled model of R7 with electric pump engines.

Turbopumps are easier to scale up, motors are easier to scale down.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/18/2017 04:54 am
Mates and I have bought tons of it without trouble. LOX is a game of 20 questions with "no" at the end.

That's the opposite experience of people I know. 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. A friend of mine had a visit from the police when he ordered some HTP. Just needed to make sure the HTP could not be got at by criminals.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: QuantumG on 01/18/2017 04:58 am
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.

Quote
Mark might be able to help you out.

Alas, I have reverted to less wholesome pursuits than rocketry. Fun to think about though.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/18/2017 05:03 am
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.

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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/18/2017 05:11 am
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.

Quote
Mark might be able to help you out.

Alas, I have reverted to less wholesome pursuits than rocketry. Fun to think about though.
Chemical regulation should not be major problem of small sat launcher companies. Except in house manufacture of APCP?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: QuantumG on 01/18/2017 05:12 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/18/2017 05:34 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: QuantumG on 01/18/2017 05:57 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/18/2017 05:58 am
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.

One possible fobidding problem of HTP: qualified human resources.

LOX is widely used in Aerospace and common industry, but HTP have very few uses. When the team size grow above 100, no more HTP qualified / experienced workers exist on job market, while training hundreds of new workers became unmanageable.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 01/18/2017 06:19 am
That was the Russian argument for switching to LNG: industrial experience and personnel footprint is so vast, that even though development may be harder, operations will be so much easier. Hope they convince themselves.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/18/2017 11:21 am
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/18/2017 12:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 01/18/2017 03:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/18/2017 06:37 pm
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.

Have you heard about OBV (GBI), also known as Taurus Lite. link 1)Spacerockets (http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/U.S._Intercept_Target_Missiles/Interceptor/Description/Frame.htm) 2)Gaunter Space Page (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/obv.htm)
This is a ground launches rocket that uses the same stages as Pegasus. it has a 400lb payload instead of 1000lb.
Pegasus doesn't always use the liquid upperstage. The default Pegasus is without HAPS.

Also you don't have to use three different stages. For example VLM-1 that is being developed by Brazil and Germany uses the same stage S50 (only the nozzles deviate) as first and second stage. With a solid S44 stage it can orbit about 150kg to 500km SSO. They estimate a launch will cost 10mln so it ain't cheap per launch.

The big disadvantage of high performance solids (Ammonium Perchlorate) is that highly toxic Hydrogen Chlorates get produced during the combustion proces. And they are classed as explosive devices. Both create legislative issues. LOx-RP-1; HTP-RP-1; LOx-LNG LOx-H2 only develop normal combustion products. The regulation on these liquid propellants is most likely much less restrictive.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 01/18/2017 10:01 pm
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.
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.

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.

A more practical way to go would be the way RocketLab did it.  Start with commercially-available LOX (install your own liquefaction plant if necessary) and some form of Kerosene (Household lamp oil if you need to; some folks I know have even trialled with diesel) and go from there.  You'd need a (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words).-load of spare $$$ and some appropriate friends in high places, but after a year or three of development and EIS's and Council Approvals you might actually get to fly something...

..or you could also save the $$$, join the military and fly taxpayer-funded rockets instead.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/18/2017 11:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2017 03:49 am
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.
And yet R7 continues to be operated and even recently expanded to use be the Europeans at their South American launch site.

Peroxide is not nearly as toxic as hydrazine. People literally gargle 3% hydrogen peroxide. A reputable company can buy it by the ton, and lower grade stuff isn't actually THAT hard to get nowadays.

Please, stop with the peroxide hyperbole. There ain't no such thing as a "nice" oxidizer, but peroxide is easily one of the nicest 3.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/19/2017 05:22 am
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.

Apart from isp and density, propellants have more  properties:

Mix ratio, boiling temperature/ vapor pressure, critical temperature and pressure, thermal stability (decomposition, polymerize, coke and corrosion), and so on. Those properties may affect cooling , pumping , pressurization, and ground equipment design.

Choose existing combinations allows scaling of historical engines , while new combinations need more time and cost to trial and error for unique pitfalls.

From the system design perspective, "don't reinvent the wheel", or "premature optimization is the root of all evil".
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2017 12:32 pm
Of course Isp and density aren't the only options. Kerosene has problems with coking, for instance. And it leaves a residue. And it can't autogenously pressurize, either.

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?

It's not actually THAT hard to use a new propellant combo. Garvey Space (now Vector) did even flight tests with propylene, and they had like no money. I actually think the "heritage" for using kerosene isn't actually very helpful unless you're using a heritage engine.

Using a new propellant combo makes more sense than doing something hokey like an aerospike, IMHO.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2017 12:56 pm
It's worth noting that XCOR has tested rocket engines with kerosene, methane, isopropyl alcohol, and hydrogen as fuels. Each has its advantage.

Alcohol is a really good choice for reusable suborbital stuff since thermally it allows you to keep the chamber so cool you can make the thing out of aluminum which is cheap, very lightweight, and easy to work with. The V2 used ethyl alcohol as fuel, as did the first Redstone rocket.

Might be good as a reusable first stage for a small sat launcher, too.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 01/19/2017 12:58 pm
Just for kicks, which New Space Launch companies are using hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizer, and which are using high performance solids?

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2017 01:01 pm
copenhagen Suborbital used peroxide for their gas generator on their turbopump.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2017 01:06 pm
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.

Lin Industrial
Tranquility Aerospace
Nammo
SpaceLS

...all plan peroxide.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2017 01:10 pm
By the way, the first post incorrectly states that Garvey (GSC, now Vector Space Systems) will use kerolox. They definitely are using Propylene/LOx. They've tested engines already and have flown a small rocket using propylene, too.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Gliderflyer on 01/19/2017 03:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2017 03:07 pm
Nice informative reply!

Hope you're still making progress on Lynx after your contractor screwed up. Very neat vehicle, and it'd be cool to see it used for nanosat launch (especially if you ever can fly Lynx uncrewed...).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: HMXHMX on 01/19/2017 03:33 pm
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.

Presumably you've been operating at the same o/f point we did at Rotary, about 2.7.  That dramatically lowered the coking problem.  But my biggest coking concern would be for gas generators which need to operate fuel-rich to lower gas outlet temperatures.  If there is a reuse issue, that's where it will appear.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2017 04:00 pm
...hmmm... So for a turbopump running on peroxide (like R7/Soyuz) or an electric turbopump like Rocketlabs, coming isn't much of a problem. (Though those two are no reusing their rockets).

(And I'm calling an electric turbopump an electric turbopump, because a pump can still be turbomachinery even if it doesn't extract energy with a turbine... And the Latin word turbo means vortex or whirlwind... I.e. Spinny fluid thing, so yeah, I say it's an electric turbopump).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/20/2017 05:34 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/20/2017 06:14 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/20/2017 06:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/20/2017 06:31 am
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".

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/20/2017 07:07 am
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".

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf
I was posing the question in reference to the HTP Hybrid you mentioned Gilmour are working on.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/20/2017 01:27 pm
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.
And the common incentive of failed exotic rockets before SpaceX ?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/20/2017 01:39 pm
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".

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf
I was posing the question in reference to the HTP Hybrid you mentioned Gilmour are working on.
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.
Compare it to the struggle of SpaceShip2.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/20/2017 02:21 pm
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.
And the common incentive of failed exotic rockets before SpaceX ?
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.

Their plan was just to try parachute recovery. Everything super basic. They didn't get the idea for VTVL reuse until 2010, after parachute recovery didn't work on F1 or F9. Basically, the first flight of Falcon 9.

Their plan worked because they were competing against stodgy domestic aerospace companies, and they were able to simply execute (speaking of development, not operations until v1.1 was flying). What this allowed them to do was to take the simplest approach to reuse that still actually worked in real life. By getting something that worked operational, they were then able to iterate and try things until their fancy tech, VTVL, worked. And it took like a dozen tries (if you include parachute attempts).

If you can get ANYTHING to orbit, you're already ahead of 90% of the field. But I suspect that will change this year and next.

RocketLab, Virgin, Vector, and possibly Masten all have a shot at orbit. Of the four, Masten has the biggest upshot if they're able to achieve orbit since they have the best reuse technology of anyone.

But maybe the moral of SpaceX's story is to achieve orbit with an operationally suboptimal design first and be rich enough that you maintain control of the company to try much better, ground-breaking ideas later.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: baldusi on 01/20/2017 04:00 pm
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/20/2017 04:01 pm
I call that "execution."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/20/2017 05:48 pm
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.
Online booking of payload slots for cubesats.

VG are using 3D printed engines, composite tanks and stages. Automated manufacturing of tanks? Air launched with all its advantages.

At this stage both companies are trying to get cost of expendable LV low as possible. Achieve that with regular high launch and they will be in position to look at reusability.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 01/22/2017 06:31 am

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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/22/2017 07:17 am

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 01/22/2017 03:00 pm

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.

They are.

Quote
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.”

https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/4-enterprises-not-spacex-using-3d-printing-reach-space-96578/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Jim on 01/25/2017 12:39 am

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.

Not true on either statement
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Toast on 01/27/2017 08:16 pm
Handeling 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).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2017 08:28 pm
Handeling 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 video is impressive: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_KuGizBjDXo

One of the largest non-nuclear explosions.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Archibald on 01/28/2017 08:45 am
Because of STS-51L PEPCON had SRB propellant stored all over the place in crappy containments. No surprise the plant erupted.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 02/09/2017 02:06 am
At a forum held last night by Engineers Australia in Melbourne, amongst many other things it was reported that:

1. Australia has turned down offers to partner with ESA (on a similar level to other member states like Canada) on at least three occasions... mainly out of ignorance.

2. The present Australian government is "receptive" to reviewing and (hopefully!) repealing the Space Act Agreement and there are discussions going on right now!

Maybe 2017 will be a good year after all. :)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Proponent on 02/09/2017 10:58 am
The present Australian government is "receptive" to reviewing and (hopefully!) repealing the Space Act Agreement....!

What is the Space Act Agreement?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 02/09/2017 11:33 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 02/10/2017 12:57 am
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

Yep, that's the one.  I was sitting at the back of the room and got the gist of what he was saying, but must have mis-heard the actual title.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 02/10/2017 04:15 am
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.

Should post another snapshot table, with no launches clocked, except for recent ss-520 that wasn't even posted here
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 02/28/2017 11:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/28/2017 11:46 pm
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). ;)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 02/28/2017 11:51 pm
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). ;)

Hall 1 Stand D11.  Good pickup!  Amongst all the other missiles scattered around the place it never occurred to me to look for them and I won't be back again either, so it's someone else's turn now. :)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 03/11/2017 05:30 pm
We are almost thru Q3 2017 and no launches.

Vector is promising a suborbital test launch of what appears to be re-done Garvey P19 https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/840427975585669120

RocketLabs was supposed to launch early January or Feb and has gone veeewy quiet. Millirons at Interorbital are always almost ready to launch next month.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 03/14/2017 04:47 am
And one of the companies in this list has actually pulled a tiny launch stunt (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35905.msg1653854#msg1653854)

Zero2Infinity, seems like ~toy-sized prototype, but hey it launched at 25km altitude, actual hardware even if subscale, and apparently validated a bunch of operational stuff.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: topsphere on 04/10/2017 12:14 pm
So I guess a round-up summary of small launcher developments in Q1 2017 is:


RocketLab have taken Electron vertical and are still promosing a launch in a few months.

Vector have created a test flight Vector-R which they intend to launch on a sub-orbital test flight soon.

Zero2infinity have ignited a [small] engine on their Bloostar vehicle.

Virgin Galactic have spunout LauncherOne development to Virgin Orbit.

Failure of SS-520-4.

Still just under 50 small launch vehicles in development, no signs of serious market consolidation yet (probably because there are also no signs of one company running away and leading the pack).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 05/04/2017 03:14 am
Now we can count Vector getting off the launch rail. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40158.msg1674227#msg1674227)

Rocketlab still only teasing (https://rocketlabusa.com/launch/launch-updates/viewing-a-launch/), but presumably they have a lot more total impulse to bring.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/15/2017 04:37 am
Here's a video from Gilmour Space Technologies. Their ERIS launch vehicle (previously called Hyperion) is scheduled for first flight in 2020. They are currently looking at several launch sites, including KSC! They are using a hybrid motor with HTP oxidiser, 3D printed ABS plastic fuel and ceramic catalyst.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmcoB8jkLHs

They've updated their website and are listing prices for cubesat launches. $900K for 100 kg suborbital to 150 km, and pricing from $25K to $38K per kg for small satellites.

http://www.gspacetech.com/satellite-launches
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/15/2017 12:33 pm
Planning ahead 20-25 years. If Gilmour Space Technologies can make a solid propellant out of an aluminium or magnesium mixture then it can be used to move around the Moon. Lunar regolith contains aluminium and magnesium but very little carbon.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 05/15/2017 04:23 pm
The slide title... "Why hybrid propulsion for cost reduction".   :o ;D That statement by itself is enough for me to discount them. But maybe they can prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 06/24/2017 07:52 pm
Table way overdue for an update

- Moonspike became Orbex http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/23/orbex-reveals-rocket-factory/
- Rocketlab actually launched

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: QuantumG on 06/25/2017 12:37 am
- Moonspike became Orbex http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/23/orbex-reveals-rocket-factory/

Hmmm... I wonder if they're still pursuing cheap turbopumps.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/25/2017 05:27 pm
- Moonspike became Orbex http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/23/orbex-reveals-rocket-factory/

Hmmm... I wonder if they're still pursuing cheap turbopumps.
Sounds like they are more than powerpoint rocket company.

“We’ve already built ignition systems, main engines, avionics and cryotanks at our existing factory and have recently completed a series of main engine hot fire tests at our own engine test site,”
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: old_sellsword on 06/26/2017 07:53 pm
PLD Space posted a new video yesterday showing a bunch of ignition tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY8GaVHU4Ws

Edit: The engine is called TEPREL, and it was the development version of their ARION 1 main engine. More info on their blog. (http://www.pldspace.com/blog/en/2017/07/10/2562/)

Quote
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.

They did successfully test TEPREL-A, I posted that video below.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 07/06/2017 02:41 pm
In other news, the Chinese are now looking to offer sea-launch capability for the Long March 11 (from a container ship!) for equatorial LEO satellites (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43297.0)......  :o
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 07/12/2017 09:53 pm
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/50-small-satellites-seeking-launch-year-will-not-find-ride-uks-catapult-says/

Quote
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 07/23/2017 09:58 pm
Cubecab doesn't have a dedicated thread here, and it appears for a good reason.

TRMO interview with Adrian Tymes, the CEO
https://youtu.be/ULBbpAYARI8?t=1678

I'm halfway through and absolutely nothing about this sounds even remotely credible
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: old_sellsword on 07/24/2017 06:33 pm
Another PLD Space video, this one showing a test fire of TEPREL-A, a regeneratively cooled kerolox engine that will power ARION 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRm4zaoZjCI

Also, they say they their ARION 1 test launch is scheduled for late 2018. This info comes from their blog. (http://www.pldspace.com/blog/en/2017/07/10/2562/)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: LooksFlyable on 07/24/2017 10:10 pm
That's awesome. So happy to see some of these small sat launchers progressing. I really think this is where cheap access to space is really going to be born out of. So many different approaches, much more exciting technology being developed and much smaller budgets to work with. They are having to dig deep for more innovative approaches as opposed to just billionaires or governments throwing money at it until it works. If even 20% of them survive, that's still a lot of new players in the game that could look into scaling up their operations.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 08/07/2017 02:55 am
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20170805_12/

Yet another one. And not like IHI doesn't have the chops.

Quote
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.

EDIT: Seems like this refers to the  previously announced partnership (https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Canon-joins-Japan-s-new-space-race) to advance  SS-520 to commercial service, maybe with new funding ?

EDIT2: more details on partnership
http://blog.livedoor.jp/sword_bridge/archives/51834037.html
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 08/09/2017 02:38 am
And thanks to this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43531.0) yet another one. Like mushrooms ..

http://spacenews.com/cloudix-joins-race-to-develop-small-rocket/
http://www.cloudix.space/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Archibald on 08/15/2017 11:21 am
that thread is amazing. Considering the last posts (like mushrooms...) does the list has been updated recently  ?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 08/15/2017 02:38 pm
Not up to date, been collecting updates slowly but haven't updated.

Meanwhile, here are probably the most recent views in table format

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/10/03/plethora-small-sat-launchers/

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2017_AST_Compendium.pdf
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/15/2017 07:39 pm
They vary in size from 4kg -300kg to SSO. There is market for few different sizes and why they may all compete for cubesat when it comes to smallsat some will have niche market.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/15/2017 09:24 pm
Cubecab doesn't have a dedicated thread here, and it appears for a good reason.

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

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

They also seem to be planning to use an F104 Starfighter for the first stage. I'm surprised any of them is still in flying order, although obviously if they can get to closer to M2 than M1 that would be a significant improvement on the size of the nozzle. Of course that's a pretty high lb/$ figure.  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Ictogan on 08/15/2017 09:55 pm
Cubecab doesn't have a dedicated thread here, and it appears for a good reason.

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

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

They also seem to be planning to use an F104 Starfighter for the first stage. I'm surprised any of them is still in flying order, although obviously if they can get to closer to M2 than M1 that would be a significant improvement on the size of the nozzle. Of course that's a pretty high lb/$ figure.  :(
Not an expert on this, but the 25 years at 400km vs ca. 100 years at 500km seems entirely believable to me. Keep in mind that orbital decay is basically an exponential thing - the lower your orbit is, the more atmosphere to slow you down and the more atmosphere there is, the faster you will be losing orbital altitude.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 08/15/2017 10:04 pm
Cubecab doesn't have a dedicated thread here, and it appears for a good reason.

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

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

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

AFAIK cubesats tossed out of the ISS have orbital lifetimes under one year.
Didn't NASA approve launch of microsats from Cygnus around 500 km which had to meet the <25 year time limit to decay?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: JH on 08/16/2017 02:39 am
Assuming mean solar activity, the atmosphere at 400 km has a mass density that is about 5x the value at 500 km. As drag varies linearly with the mass density of the fluid, this matches well with the stated orbital decay estimates.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Archibald on 08/16/2017 08:15 am
Quote
They also seem to be planning to use an F104 Starfighter for the first stage. I'm surprised any of them is still in flying order, although obviously if they can get to closer to M2 than M1 that would be a significant improvement on the size of the nozzle. Of course that's a pretty high lb/$ figure.  :(


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfighters_Inc
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 08/17/2017 01:10 am
At the tail end of this article on a new Japanese joint venture:

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

(https://asia.nikkei.com/var/site_cache/storage/images/node_43/node_51/2017/201708/20170810t/20170810_momo_rocket/7556084-1-eng-GB/20170810_MOMO_Rocket_article_main_image.jpg)

https://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tech/Joint-venture-launches-4-Japanese-companies-into-minirocket-market (https://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tech/Joint-venture-launches-4-Japanese-companies-into-minirocket-market)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/06/2017 06:09 am
Well, so I was at the Review of Australia's Space Industry Capability Adelaide Roundtable Meeting this morning and someone says they are from a company called Ripple Aerospace looking to launch satellites from South Australia. I was next to a guy from Southern Launch with the guy from Ripple next to him. I later went up to him to ask him a few questions about what they are doing. He's an Australian working for Ripple, which is based in Norway. They are looking to launch a sounding rocket called Agar 1 by the end of the year, with South Australia being considered as a possible launch site, as we have lots of empty ocean to the south. Their launch vehicle is called Sea Serpent, a LOX/LH2 two stage vehicle using aerospike engines. Payload is 2.6 t to LEO.

https://rippleaerospace.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uED70pPkqlA
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 09/06/2017 06:47 am
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Silmfeanor on 09/06/2017 07:59 am
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
I advise you to look into the Sea Dragon concept. While certainly unconventional, this approach has been suggested before. Purging and overcoming the water pressure is certainly within the capacities of orbit-capable rocketry engineers
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 09/06/2017 09:19 am
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
Bigger problem I see is the values listed for maxQ, might be just a typo, but there is no way that speed is right.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 09/06/2017 02:02 pm
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
Underwater ignition has been demonstrated plenty of times. See Seabee and Sea Horse.

I suspect the fuelling would be at sea, this was the plan for Sea Dragon. Like you say, towing it fuelled will lead to big time ice formation, unless the insulation is massive. Not that hydrolox fuelling at sea would be a walk in the park.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 09/06/2017 04:08 pm
Well, so I was at the Review of Australia's Space Industry Capability Adelaide Roundtable Meeting this morning and someone says they are from a company called Ripple Aerospace looking to launch satellites from South Australia. I was next to a guy from Southern Launch with the guy from Ripple next to him. I later went up to him to ask him a few questions about what they are doing. He's an Australian working for Ripple, which is based in Norway. They are looking to launch a sounding rocket called Agar 1 by the end of the year, with South Australia being considered as a possible launch site, as we have lots of empty ocean to the south. Their launch vehicle is called Sea Serpent, a LOX/LH2 two stage vehicle using aerospike engines. Payload is 2.6 t to LEO.

https://rippleaerospace.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uED70pPkqlA
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 09/06/2017 05:27 pm
Well, so I was at the Review of Australia's Space Industry Capability Adelaide Roundtable Meeting this morning and someone says they are from a company called Ripple Aerospace looking to launch satellites from South Australia. I was next to a guy from Southern Launch with the guy from Ripple next to him. I later went up to him to ask him a few questions about what they are doing. He's an Australian working for Ripple, which is based in Norway. They are looking to launch a sounding rocket called Agar 1 by the end of the year, with South Australia being considered as a possible launch site, as we have lots of empty ocean to the south. Their launch vehicle is called Sea Serpent, a LOX/LH2 two stage vehicle using aerospike engines. Payload is 2.6 t to LEO.

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

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

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

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

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

And before you can say "Yo, heave, ho" the Norsemen have arrived.  :)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: groundbound on 09/06/2017 06:11 pm
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
Bigger problem I see is the values listed for maxQ, might be just a typo, but there is no way that speed is right.

9.2 kps LEO speed also seems unusual.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/07/2017 04:23 am
Here's the website for Southern Launch. They are looking to develop a launch site somewhere along the southern coast of Australia.

https://www.southernlaunch.space/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 09/07/2017 08:53 am
9.2 kps LEO speed also seems unusual.
That's actually explainable. 9200 m/s is a rule of thumb orbital speed for LO2/LH2 rockets including all losses, which are usually expected to be a bit higher with LO2/LH2, in the same way old rocket engineering books list 30kfps (9144m/s) as the round number to achieve orbit.

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

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

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

Unlike seadragon and Loral aquarius they are looking at pump fed engines, for sea level (literally) launch,  probably a better idea.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 09/08/2017 12:50 am
9.2 kps LEO speed also seems unusual.
That's actually explainable. 9200 m/s is a rule of thumb orbital speed for LO2/LH2 rockets including all losses, which are usually expected to be a bit higher with LO2/LH2, in the same way old rocket engineering books list 30kfps (9144m/s) as the round number to achieve orbit.

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

If they are running with a mini Sea Dragon, then they would be epitomizing the Big Dumb Booster concept, which implies they may care less about the trajectory optimization if it makes manufacturing cheaper. Fuel is cheap, brute forcing it is in theory easier, much more so if you are doing a floating launch as there are almost no launchpad/TEL considerations.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 09/08/2017 10:55 am
Ripple:
Wait a second.
They are going to tow a rocket full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen through the water?
What could possibly go wrong?
Then the rocket, with the payload on the end, just tilts to vertical.
And the choices are ignite the engine inside the "ballast cap" or under water.
Really?
Underwater ignition has been demonstrated plenty of times. See Seabee and Sea Horse.

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

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

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

Generally, SLBM are neither cheaper nor easier than land based ICBM counterparts. Even silo based / TEL vehicle based ICBM tend to begin with launch pad during development.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 09/08/2017 11:32 am
9.2 kps LEO speed also seems unusual.
That's actually explainable. 9200 m/s is a rule of thumb orbital speed for LO2/LH2 rockets including all losses, which are usually expected to be a bit higher with LO2/LH2, in the same way old rocket engineering books list 30kfps (9144m/s) as the round number to achieve orbit.

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

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

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

No launchpad = worst launchpad.

Without launchpad, the vehicle have to integrate certain functions of launchpad inside, and assembling / tesing on launchpad becomes impossible.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 09/08/2017 03:05 pm
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.
Quote from: Katana
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.

Quote from: Katana
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.
Quote from: Katana
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.
Quote from: Katana
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 think you'll find not assembling on the launch pad is actually a design goal, as long as you can unload propellant if the launch is aborted you can safely tow it home for analysis.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 09/08/2017 03:32 pm
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.
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.

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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 09/09/2017 09:54 am
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'd guess so, Equatorial boost is anything up to about 450m/s from a standing start IIRC.

I've got doubts about the whole thing.  :( They've got the fairing staying attached till orbit, whereas SOP is to drop it after maximum dynamic pressure (which is mostly what it's there to protect the payload against to begin with), close to or shortly after first stage MECO. 

My instinct is that it was either
Done by someone with graphic skills who wasn't given a very detailed description (and it should have been very detailed if they are not familiar with the details) and used a lot of "creative license" to interpret their brief.
or
A very early iteration of the design.

In either case they should get it updated ASAP if they want to look credible and knowledgeable.  :(

This is amateur hour.  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 09/14/2017 06:12 pm
Wow, who would have thought ?

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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 09/16/2017 07:37 am
Looks like Black Arrow 2 is dead.

From what I can see on UK Companies House they have effectively closed down Horizon Space Technologies Limited as of a few days ago, Ross Tiernay and most of the directors have resigned it seems:-

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09331949/filing-history (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09331949/filing-history)

I am guessing that means they did not get any funding from the UK space launch initiative.

Which begs the question: who did?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/16/2017 10:02 am
Wow, who would have thought ?

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.
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.



Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 09/16/2017 10:50 am
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.
Option 1) Use 2t US to deliver 50kg smallsat to target orbit after main mission. Not very efficient use of expensive US.
In an ELV it will be expended anyway.
Quote from: TrevorMonty
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?
Quote from: TrevorMonty
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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty
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.

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: TrevorMonty
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 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 09/16/2017 05:14 pm
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.
Option 1) Use 2t US to deliver 50kg smallsat to target orbit after main mission. Not very efficient use of expensive US.
In an ELV it will be expended anyway.
Quote from: TrevorMonty
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?
Quote from: TrevorMonty
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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty
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.

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: TrevorMonty
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 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.
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.

I have heard rumors that F1 can't compete with low price of OSC Minotaur.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/18/2017 11:43 pm
Here's another space launch company from Australia. They are called Space Ops Australia. Rocket is called Rocky 1 and can launch 10 kg to 600 km orbital altitude. Vehicle is fully reusable two stage LOX/Kero. Both stages return to the launch site. Looking at suborbital flights in 2018 with orbital flights in 2019.

http://spaceops.com.au/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/19/2017 12:10 am
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/

http://government-contractors.insidegov.com/l/3770968/Equatorial-Launch-Australia-Pty-Ltd

https://www.facebook.com/equatoriallaunchaustralia/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 09/19/2017 02:01 am
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/

ISTM this plan has been around for a while now, and in each case the remoteness of the site has been an  unsurmountable hurdle.  Will it get off the ground this time?  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

https://www.facebook.com/equatoriallaunchaustralia/

..but that's just embarrassing.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 09/19/2017 04:17 am
Re: Space Ops Australia

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
The site provides a commercial advantage, given the proposed facilities would be 12 degrees from the equator.
The proximity to the equator lowers the launch costs by up to 50 per cent.
No it doesn't.
It reduces the required velocity by some fraction but increases the payload fraction more per the rocket equation.
However, it doesn't reduce the required number of engines, or computers, or tanks, RF links, control actuators, fuel lines, flame trenches, or hold down systems.
It does pretty much rule out polar orbits, which is a big part of any orbital launch market.
The only difference it make for suborbital is that it will be very inconvenient to get to and to support.

Quote
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.

Is it possible that these people are sincere in believing that they will be a successful and competitive launch provider?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 09/19/2017 04:44 am
Re: Space Ops Australia

I think you mean ELA - not SOA..  they're nearly 3000 miles apart.

....
It does pretty much rule out polar orbits, which is a big part of any orbital launch market.

Fair point.. and it's an interesting comparison against SouthernLaunch, South Australia (posted about upthread) who are targeting almost entirely polar orbits.

Is it possible that these people are sincere in believing that they will be a successful and competitive launch provider?

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? ???

http://www.iac2017.org/

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 09/19/2017 04:58 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 09/19/2017 05:00 am
You are correct.
So many of these popping up.  Steven has his work cut out just posting links to them all.

Very true!.. but he's doing a great job and I hope he can keep it up.  :)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 09/19/2017 05:54 am
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.”
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/19/2017 09:25 am
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?  ::)

I don't know exactly what the NASA money is for, but I do know that NASA has been looking at other southern hemisphere launch sites besides Woomera, which is being used for defence tests quite often now, making availability for civil launches hard to squeeze in. For example, the  Australian Space Research Institute no longer have permission to launch their rockets from Woomera.

Quote
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?

This has nothing to do with the Australian Federal government. They are brain dead on space, hence the lack of an Australian space agency. There's no doubt that the IAC is creating a huge interest in space in Australia and South Australia (SA) in particular. The SA government is providing a lot of support for space here via its DefenceSA organisation. They have even managed to attract Neumann Space here. There's also been a big push from the space industry here for a space agency, which the SA government strongly supports. The SA government has said that if the Federal government doesn't create one, they'll got it alone and create an agency here in SA. If they do, a cool name I think would be SpaceSA. :-)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/19/2017 06:56 pm
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.”
I can understand why they were dropped from Minotaur, no commercial payloads allowed.

In other cases the primary may see them as potential commercial rival even though they are not direct threat now.

Unfortunately for Spiral its take what you can get until likes of RL are operational.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/20/2017 07:37 am
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.”

Because smallsat launchers can't have failures or delays?  Paper rockets always look bad compared to launchers that actually exist and fly.

Anyway, the probems noted here are all issues with rideshare as secondary payloads on launches of large satellites.  Nobody is touting that as "solution to all smallsat launch needs".  What some of us are saying is that dedicated rides of large numbers of smallsats (no primary payload) together on large launch vehicles is compelling compared to smallsat launchers.  Such dedicated rideshare is only in its infancy right now, so of course it's not yet a compelling alternative, but the point is that if there is enough demand to support more than a small niche of dedicated smallsat launchers, dedicated rideshare on large launchers will grow and dominate that market.

Edited to fix a typo.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/20/2017 07:46 am
Wow, who would have thought ?

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.
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.

On the one hand, you're talking about the need for extra delta-v for rideshare, but on the other hand you're also mentioning the Spaceflight Services dedicated F9 launch.  Those things are contradictory.

What Bruno is talking about is dedicated launches of many small payloads on one larger launch vehicle, like the dedicated Spaceflight Services launch.  Those kinds of launches do directly where the payloads want to go, so no extra delta-v is required.

The delays of the Spaceflight Services launch have to do with Falcon 9 being way behind on its manifest.  That happened partly because SpaceX has still been working on ramping up and partly because they had a failure and they were down for a good long time because of it.  There is every indication that they are working through their backlog and delays will be reduced in the future, and no reason to believe that they will be more delayed or less reliable in the future than the paper rockets of the new small launch vehicles.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 09/20/2017 09:11 pm
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.”

It says there that there have been no rideshare launches ever from the USA, is that true? If so it is amazing.

"Outside of [International Space Station] resupply missions, there has never been a launch in the U.S. that accommodated commercial cubesats as rideshare,” Barna said. “ORS-5 would have been the first.”
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 09/20/2017 09:37 pm
SpaceX hasn't been carrying cubesats outside of CRS missions, and almost all other launches from the U.S. are government launches.  Those typically carry government sponsored secondary payloads.  The point they made about not being able to get to lower inclinations is going to be important for several of the smallsat constellations that want to deploy in the next few years.  There are other companies planning to deploy a bunch of sats into non-polar orbits and they'd really like RocketLab or Virgin or whoever available to carry their payloads.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 09/25/2017 12:42 am
In the news today (actually, all over the news today):

Australian space agency to employ thousands and tap $420b industry, Government says

Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Several decades late but better late than never, I suppose..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-25/government-to-establish-national-space-agency/8980268


(Not sure where else to put this.. if there's somewhere better, mods please move)
 
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 09/25/2017 02:39 am
Probably deserves it's own thread in General section.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 09/25/2017 03:22 am
Probably deserves it's own thread in General section.

Good point.  I'll do that..
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/01/2017 02:31 pm
I came across this Sunnyvale, USA company, Spinlaunch Inc.

They seem to have raised about $5M so far, but I don't find any information about technology:-

https://www.whoisraisingmoney.com/spinlaunch-inc

From the name I can only imagine they rotate something to high speed before releasing it.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 10/01/2017 03:29 pm
 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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/01/2017 04:07 pm
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/

Hmm. And yet they raised quite a decent amount of cash for a startup and kept it very quiet, including a recent raise. Intriguing.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rabidpanda on 10/05/2017 08:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/06/2017 10:00 am
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.

Jeez. I would not want to be a small launcher firm in the USA. What is that, the 20th?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/06/2017 03:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/06/2017 07:03 pm
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? What do we have in the USA - Spacex, ULA, both with smallsat offers; Spaceflight hoovering up the small payloads into dedicated Falcon 9 launches; Virgin Orbit, who have OneWeb sewn up; Rocket Lab, who are the closest of any of them to operations, locking up lots of the small piecemeal sats; then 3-4 more with some money but low credibility.

Almost every one of them relies on some big numbers or the big constellations flying (the loudmouthed but least credible one says they will pick up 35% of the global market), so somebody is going to be SOOL and several will be forced to fold. It will be a race to sell the shares before they go bust if you ask me.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/06/2017 07:11 pm
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.

Quote
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

All hypothetical. These dedicated F9 launches are becoming a bit of a joke by now.

We had NASA signing 'venture class contracts' about 2 years ago now with 3 companies. Not ONE has gotten their act together and one bit the dust. It's not about the technology working or not working either, there are a myriad of other reasons why most startups just don't work out

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/06/2017 07:15 pm
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)

For all their faults the loudest one (I won't say who as they have been issuing takedown notices recently to censor publically available information) will probably IPO and make a ton of money then leave it in the hands of the poor shareholders.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/07/2017 01:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/07/2017 04:00 pm
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2017 09:54 am
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.

The aerospace business seems to have a remarkably short  memory for failure.  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/08/2017 04:47 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/08/2017 05:11 pm
There are at least ten more incoming. XS-1 does not belong in this group, totally different economics/point.

All of them have "issues". Many of them have too much funding (yes, quite possible). Some are "going slow".

About half of them won't make it to any launch pad. Expect 3-4 to actually make it to orbit in 4 years.

Only 2-3 will actually have payloads that matter as an ongoing business. Those that survive will do so on the basis of lowest fixed costs, as the market segments addressed do not yet have a stable stream of payloads at acceptable price/cost.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/10/2017 04:04 pm
Meanwhile, a midterm evaluation

OrganizationVehicleCountryYear/QuarterMain propulsionPriceRefThread
Rocket Lab (http://www.rocketlabusa.com/)ElectronNZ/USA2016 Q32-stage kerolox$4.9Mref (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/)FireflyUSA2017 Q22-stage, methalox$8-9Mref (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/)LauncherOneUSA2017 Q3airlaunch, 2-stage kerolox<$10Mref (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 2UK2017 Q22-stage, methalox$7.5Mref (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/)CubeCabUSA2017 Q3airlaunch, no detail$0.25Mref (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/594302551350083584)
Generation Orbit (http://www.generationorbit.com/)GO Launcher 2USA2017 Q4airlaunch$2.5Mref (http://www.satellitetoday.com/launch/2015/06/05/generation-orbit-gains-golauncher2-commitments-plans-golauncher-3/)
(snip)

Has this table been updated since this post over a year ago?
Since then, RocketLab has launched once, and is well positioned for a second launch this month which only needs to get a bit farther than the first to be successful.
The rest of those above are now behind the posted dates. 
Has any outfit displayed an orbital flight attempt vehicle?
Some not included above have folded, others should be added. 
Perhaps the "year/quarter" for the last few should be "unstated".  Almost every one of these is "unclear", regardless of when they say they will launch.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: savuporo on 10/10/2017 04:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Salo on 10/15/2017 10:09 am
http://rocketcrafters.space/products-services/intrepid-launcher-family/
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: WizZifnab on 10/20/2017 05:22 pm
I would love to see this list updated.  Along with a note on most recent demonstrated development for each.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Dao Angkan on 10/20/2017 10:20 pm
I would love to see this list updated.  Along with a note on most recent demonstrated development for each.

That would be a lot of work! (I'd like to see that too).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Zond on 10/27/2017 06:22 pm
These guys have a linkedin page but no public name:
Stealth Space Company (https://us.linkedin.com/company/stealth-space-company)

Quote
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.

Based on the location of their headquarters and the description, maybe a spinoff/evolution of Ventions (http://ventions.com/)?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/28/2017 10:30 am
These guys have a linkedin page but no public name:
Stealth Space Company (https://us.linkedin.com/company/stealth-space-company)

Quote
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.

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.

"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. Are you an engineer, hacker, maker, or physicist who has always dreamed of building rockets? Come help us build the hardware and launch the services that will open the frontier of space to the next generation of entrepreneurs."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: topsphere on 11/16/2017 09:37 am
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 11/16/2017 07:10 pm
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/16/2017 07:34 pm
You forgot Vector, long shot?.

Firefly better than long shot if they have solid financial backing.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 11/16/2017 08:10 pm
You forgot Vector, long shot?.

You mean Vacuous Space Systems? I put them as very long shot because they haven't done anything that looks like an orbital quality vehicle to date, and I am not convinced by the Vacuous business model.

Quote
Firefly better than long shot if they have solid financial backing.

Firefly's issues are the time (and money) it will take to reboot and build against a much larger 1000kg payload requirement on a heavily revised plan - and honestly the fact that Tom Markusic is still running it is a bad sign for me. 1000kgs is almost the same size as Vega.... That is not trivial, and by the time they get there, several others will be in operation for at least 2-3 years and mopping up market share.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: jongoff on 11/17/2017 05:59 am
These guys have a linkedin page but no public name:
Stealth Space Company (https://us.linkedin.com/company/stealth-space-company)

Quote
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.

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.

Yeah, whoever they are, they're definitely not Ventions--none of the people I know currently work at Ventions are on that list (there are a lot of ex-Masten/ex-Altius employees at Ventions).

~Jon
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: jongoff on 11/17/2017 06:02 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 11/17/2017 12:48 pm
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

I forgot Masten, and Stealth. But they would both be in VLS or LS for sure. I think those 2 categories are open to opinion week by week, but basically if you have a shit ton of cash I believe you can do it, hence why Firefly is in the higher possibility, and that plus the CIA rumors are the only reason I think Stratolauncher is up there. Vacuous would be in there if they had credible tech as well as that recent VC money, but I don't believe anything they say on tech, their PR is polluting their brand, and the VC money might dry up if they keep reaching for the clouds.

Broadly that is WAY too many hopeful suppliers chasing a mostly locked up market. 90% of those guys will fail or become zombie companies living from grant to grant.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 11/17/2017 02:25 pm
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

At its core these small launch companies all rely on launching a lot of rockets a year. Getting a functional orbital rocket is only a piece of solving the puzzle and honestly I’m not even sure it’s the hardest piece. Figuring out to build and launch that many rockets is far from trivial. Even if most of these companies get a design to close and launch they are years and huge investment away from building a factory and becoming a viable business. At this point the only companies I’ve seen show actual manufacturing facilities and have a solution to launch cadence bottlenecks are Rocket Lab and Virgin.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 11/17/2017 03:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 11/17/2017 04:11 pm
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.

I had thought that Generation Orbit was intending on buying engines from Ursa Major Technologies for their vehicle. Are they focusing on suborbital now?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 11/17/2017 05:04 pm
Quote
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.

They got some government money for hypersonic research (which could still be on the road to commercial launch.)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: topsphere on 11/22/2017 08:29 pm
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

Interesting... And if we open this to include all global small launchers? How would this change your list?

I would personally add PLD to Long Shot, and InterStellar Technologies, zero2infinity, Orbex and maybe Gilmour to Very Long Shot.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 11/26/2017 01:31 pm
Wow!  :o Those companies are growing like mushrooms in autumn after a rainy summer.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/26/2017 08:28 pm
Wow!  :o Those companies are growing like mushrooms in autumn after a rainy summer.
And most will fade away just as quickly.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 11/27/2017 06:59 am
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. :)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 12/05/2017 10:14 pm
[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/)
Quote
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.

Anyone know what's up with this company?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/05/2017 11:10 pm
[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/)
Quote
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.

Anyone know what's up with this company?
The engine is RP1/LOX.

A 15,500-pound mount will brace engines during testing. Liquid oxygen and jet fuel will be stored in stainless steel tanks shielded by walls. 
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 12/05/2017 11:49 pm
 That location is pretty close to the Blue HQ in Kent.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/06/2017 06:39 pm
RelativitySpace to 3D print complete LV.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/28/2017 03:00 pm
Indian are looking at developing 500kg launcher.

newsclick.in/isro-develop-smaller-rockets-carry-satellites-weighing-500-kg
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/28/2017 10:31 pm
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.  :(

Obviously not all of them are going to make it, although of course if you knew exactly which ones would get to at least a first launch and which won't you'd probably be able to make quite a lot of money.

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.

So scale down the payload on your VTO ELV and you scale down the startup costs, because that's the lowest risk plan.

Because no one has ever thought of this plan before, right?  :(

Meanwhile, since most of the staff of most of the companies will have zero actual experience in rocket design and build they will be needing to make exactly the same class of mistakes that SX (and Masten and Armadillo, although XCOR did theirs at Rotary Rocket) had to make as they went up the learning curve.

So what's the win in this? Best case is they make an ELV that's as good as the Pegasus XL? The most expensive ELV (in terms of $/lb to orbit) on the planet?

Or maybe slightly better?

What I'm waiting to see is a startup that worked the problem backward from the cost of a launch and said "OK we want to get to this level where people are going to be queuing up to launch with us. What does that mean for our whole development budget and plan? How many flights a year do we have to hit?"

I'm not seeing that so far.

AFAIK all of these mfg will also operate the whole LV, so they will carry the whole development budget on every launch, with more or less numbers of payloads needing to be launched before they break even. If they break even.

The paradox of all VTO ELV businesses stems from the technologies historical basis in  ICBM work which begins "First, get someone else to fund the development project as a cost plus project, effectively writing off the development cost."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/28/2017 10:48 pm
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.

Both LauncherOne and Vector are investing heavily in their production facilities, launch facilities are different again for these two companies, plane and mobile launcher.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/29/2017 06:28 am
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.

Both LauncherOne and Vector are investing heavily in their production facilities, launch facilities are different again for these two companies, plane and mobile launcher.
Indeed.

To really cut development costs you have to find a way to launch from an unmodified model, so you don't have to buy (and support and maintain) your own plane.

The best options for this seem to be planes that can either carry one of their own engines on a wing pylon, or that can open a cargo door in flight.

The key benefits are the flexibility in launch site (in principle right down to the Equator) and the lack of range costs, which (7 decades on from Sputnik) still don't seem to scale with the size of the vehicle and which disproportionately hit small sat launchers, unless  you build your own range as well. 
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/30/2017 09:12 am
RelativitySpace to 3D print complete LV.

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.
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.

The only case where this did not apply (Sea Launch and Arianespace Soyuz) provide mixed evidence of cost spreading for various reasons, starting with how much the version supplied by Sea Launch and Arianspace diverged from the "stock" version launched normally.

People say launch costs are high because it's like buying a jumbo jet and using it once (so does that mean SX is like getting the wings and engines back?) but actually it's worse than that.

Imagine if different aircraft types needed separate airports  as well from which to operate from, with their own runways, taxiways, fuel handling etc.  Yet with the exception of the EELV designs (AFAIK Atlas V and Delta IV can use the same pads now) all infrastructure is also dedicated to specific LV's, just as the purchase costs for the recovery ships have to be carried by SX launches.


And then of course there is the process of building up a track record of successful launches.

I'm simply not hearing anything radical enough to change the market, when you factor in the development costs of your new hardware :(

If you've built an ELV that can launch someone else's 1U cubesat for $100k. That's about $75K/Kg.  Whoopee. :(

A secondary payload on an Ariane 5 could get you about 100Kg of payload for the same money. Other launch providers can supply similar deals and NASA built a whole Moon probe out of (basically) stringing the secondary payloads together.

On a personal level the ability to design, develop, test and deploy a new ELV and its engines even once is an enormous achievement and teams (and make no mistake team management is just as important a skill here as being able to run a lathe or program a flight computer in this) who does so can take considerable pride in having done so.

But from a business perspective....

Can you launch within 1 week of my supplying you with my payload?
How many coupled loads analysis (and associated redesigns) will I have to do before your LV does not shake my payload to bits?
Is your LV characterized well enough that you can answer that question?
As maiden launch customer can you offer me odds of better than 50/50 it won't blow up?
What's your orbital range in altitude and inclination? DoD EELV reference range (9 of them) or "Anything as long as it's the launch site inclination and about 200Km"?
Can you put your LV on a "something" (from a 40 foot shipping container to a C17) that allows you to launch my payload from the Equator,or someplace else that's at a different inclination (possibly not the US)?
Can you recover any part of your LV?
If you can will it lower your prices?
Do you know how many launches you will have to make to cover your development costs?
Do you know what portion of your market that is?
Do you what your marginal costs will be then and hence your gross profit margin?

I don't expect the answer will be "yes" to all of those questions but AFAIK the answer will be yes to hardly  any of them. :(

Let me suggest a few things for anyone else who wants to play the LV game in 2018.
1) Don't try to reduce a cost, try to eliminate it. OTRAG realized that a "tank" is basically a pipe with 2 end caps 4 decades ago. Despite this it seems everyone still wants to build their own "tanks"  :(.
2) Partial recovery and reuse is a fact, not a theory anymore, and it does deliver benefits. What's your excuse for not doing so?
3) Solids are for weapons systems unless you plan to be a solids mfg. Do you plan to be an SRB mfg?
4) The SRB/RP1/LOX/LH2/LOX Atlas has theoretically excellent performance, but 3 propellant systems is a massive PITA (whose costs for ULA are already sunk already). Pick a common propellant set for your stages.
5) Unless you're using solids or hypergols propellant (especially LO2) is cheap. Get the one that gives you best (affordable) Isp.
6) LN2 is even cheaper than LO2. Sub cooling anything (provided it's target temperature is at least 2-3K higher than the NBP of LN2) is fairly easy, and worthwhile if planned in from the start (or the engines can be upgraded to use the additional propellant mass). It means you don't have to build as much to carry the same propellant. It's not the propellant, it's the tankage you didn't build.
7) Up to the limit of your (or your sub contractors) mfg machinery LV production costs scale sub linearly.
That's why there is no "Falcon 5" or "Falcon 7." Small is good for development. Big is good for cost effectiveness.
8 ) 2 level mixture ratio change on the 2nd and 3rd stages of Saturn V increased payload to Lunar orbit 2.5% (would have been more if the 1st stage had supported it). The paper by Longsdon & Africano is essential reading for this and other tricks to use before you start cutting metal.
9) An "austere" launch pad is literally a flat pad of concrete.  The V2 and the Apollo 1 managed with a metal plate with 4 concave curved sides as a flame deflector, the former launched 9 rockets in 1 week while under Allied air attack with no warning. 
10) It is very much easier to precisely calculate the liftoff point than the landing point, making the landing for any reusable stage much bigger than the takeoff area, unless the takeoff area is a runway.
11) Recovered stages are 1/10 or less the T/O mass, so the recovery area concrete can be much thinner.
12)Clustering is a really good idea.
13) Transport and logistics costs rise a lot once you can't be carried by a regular truck. Anything up to what fits in a 40 foot shipping container is good. Anything below the point where the load is "wide" or "long" (or both) is still OK.
14) The studies by Whitehead more than 2 decades ago showed reciprocating pumps were simpler and much cheaper and just as efficient below about 5000lbs of thrust. Most of the patents have run out.
15) The expander or dual expander cycle is attractive because it a)Allows  you to use a clean, pure drive gas rather than the complex mixture of part burned hydrocarbons from a GG cycle and b) operates at a much lower temperature, allowing the use of much lower temperature (and possibly lighter) materials, like Aluminum. However it retains the potential issue of hot Hydrogen getting through seals to the LO2 flow.
16) Keep the expendable parts as simple and cheap as possible.
A modern cell phone (even a "dumb" one) has a processor, clock, camera, USB interface, RF interface, GPS (not LV grade of course) and an SDK to access them. Cell phone batteries have enough life to fly a mission. So do star or (even Earth limb or Sun) tracking on the camera and drive the rest of the system through the USB? How complex is the attitude control? How about a set of Sodastream cartridges and some vac formed nozzles, rather than the cast body, with spun metal nozzles thruster set designed to use MMH? 
17) Design the support, don't support the design IOW make sure you've got all the unique bits of the system inside the system boundary. That includes the launch pad, any special GSE etc.
18) vibration isolation systems (dampers) have been available for decades, but no one seems to use them. They'd rather hard bolt their payloads and have them be shaken to bits (or trigger resonance in the LV and have it shake itself to bits) than risk the payload hitting the fairing, despite CLA's sinking a lot of time and cash.
19) People use what they know but an electronic answer may not be the best option. Resonance ignition does not need a spark plug, just a cryogenic propellant with a tank pressure of about 2 bar gauge.  "Pressure ladder" systems controlled GG cycle engines without a computer for a decade. Modern CNC can deliver very high precision mechanical parts much faster (and cheaper) than historical manual machining once set up, with much tighter production tolerances. 
20) The annual NASA "Space Mechanisms" conference proceedings is a massive back catalog of ways to do tricky tasks for LV's and payloads, such as deploying the Trident missiles drag reducing "Aerodisk" without a computer signal or electrical power.  It's also full of the problems such development programmes have and the ways they can bite you when you "fail to plan."  :(

Just a few points to consider.

What I haven't heard anyone is looking at.

1) Airbreathing launch vehicle (no I don't mean a carrier plane).
2) Selling the whole package. The customer does their own launches, but that's probably because
3) No one seems to be talking about reuse (except in the sense of "Big specially built plane") all of them are expendable.
4) Hybrids with the same Isp as solids. Still have the same stacking issues IE Need a really big crane, but much safer to move and mfg. 
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 12/30/2017 12:43 pm
Airbreathing sucks.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 12/30/2017 06:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/30/2017 11:25 pm
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.
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.

It was once F9 started launching successfully they started getting substantial revenue, but to that point most of the cash was from the "Bank of Elon."

That's based on NASA having a deep look at SX's spending.  Using standard Aerospace industry cost models they expected F9 would have cost about $2Bn, IE 10x higher as a standard govt project.  The numbers stuck in my head because the difference was so damm big.

IIRC Rand Simberg and Jon Goff commented on the massive discrepancy at the time.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/31/2017 07:39 am
Not another SpaceX please, we have enough of them. Small LV only, F1 is no more so SpaceX is totally off topic.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/31/2017 10:10 am
Airbreathing sucks.
My turbopump project turns out to be ironically easier than my duct fan / ramjet projet up to now.
Not really a big surprise to anyone who knows anything about ramjets or pump design.
Quote from: Katana
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 12/31/2017 11:03 am
Airbreathing sucks.
My turbopump project turns out to be ironically easier than my duct fan / ramjet projet up to now.
Not really a big surprise to anyone who knows anything about ramjets or pump design.
Quote from: Katana
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.

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.

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.

https://web.stanford.edu/~cantwell/Recent_publications/Cantwell_IJEMCP_9_(4)_305-326_2010.pdf
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Humuku on 12/31/2017 11:13 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/31/2017 06:26 pm
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.
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.  :(

Getting a LV through design to first launch to orbit is a very serious challenge and anyone who does so should be proud of the effort but it has changed.
In 1940 this was SF. By 1950 (in the US) it was (sort of) on the radar. By 1960 (IE post Sputnik) there were multiple programmes and it was known to be possible. By 1970 building a rocket to put people on the Moon was a solved problem, albeit at very great expense.

So building a rocket is no longer a blind jump into the unknown where most of your peers will scoff at the absurdity of the notion to begin with.

But that very "normalization" of the process means that it no longer "adds value" in the same way.  The first overnight courier service had  the market to itself. Today....

So anyone looking to get into this needs to ask themselves (apart from the sense of satisfaction) "What does my system deliver that any other can't?" My instinct is this is not  just a technology issue, but a process and mfg issue. Unfortunately the quality of those (both yours and your competitors) is quite difficult to judge inside a startup.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/31/2017 07:46 pm
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: Katana
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.

https://web.stanford.edu/~cantwell/Recent_publications/Cantwell_IJEMCP_9_(4)_305-326_2010.pdf
Interesting report. The contractor on SS2 inherited their tech from Amroc, using HPTB and multiple ports.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/01/2018 05:24 am
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: Katana
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.

https://web.stanford.edu/~cantwell/Recent_publications/Cantwell_IJEMCP_9_(4)_305-326_2010.pdf
Interesting report. The contractor on SS2 inherited their tech from Amroc, using HPTB and multiple ports.
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.

For low mach operation,  RBCC/TBCC/skylon are much more complex than either ramjets or pure rockets.

If ramjets can't compete on R&D COST v.s. pure rockets (F9R style vtvl), nothing else can.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/01/2018 06:49 am
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.
SABRE In airbreathing mode is limited to M5,after which it closes the airflow path entirely and switches to full rocket mode.

An idea that some people also seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding.

Quote from: Katana
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).
Quote from: Katana
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.

Are you also confusing ramjets with SCramjets? Ramjets have been deployed in multiple operational systems since the mid 1950's. No SCramjet has (despite Northward of $4Bn in current year $) ever been fielded.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 01/01/2018 06:58 am
Even ramjets of 1950s (Talos, Bomarc, Navaho) have much worse Thrust / R&D cost ratio compared to rockets of 1950s, either engine or vehicle.

No other airbreathers could be cheaper.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/01/2018 08:04 am
Even ramjets of 1950s (Talos, Bomarc, Navaho) have much worse Thrust / R&D cost ratio compared to rockets of 1950s, either engine or vehicle.

No other airbreathers could be cheaper.
I see, you equate the engine with the vehicle.

That's a bad habit to have, given the engine builders were normally different companies. In fact I think most of them came from the Marquadt company.

Did you not know that air breathers have much worse T/W ratios than rockets but much better Isp's? The J58 used in the SR71 had a thrust to weight of about 5.5:1. The nacelle roughly doubled the weight. However wings and good aerodynamics meant despite that it could still cruise at M3+.

You also seem to ignore the fact that while some of them were vertically launched they spent most of the mission in horizontal flight, where thrust does not need to be > GTOW.

Is there some specific point you're trying to make? Perhaps you should make it more clearly.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/01/2018 09:57 am
I reckon anyone who wants to get into the LV business should read this.

It's Georg Koopman's presentation about the AMROC rocket and how the company did business and designed it. I've often wondered if Elon Musk ever read it. I suspect not.

What's quite astonishing is that despite it being over 30 years old the numbers are still surprisingly current.

Amroc started before a major financial crash and nearly died, as did SpaceX.

What actually killed the company was Koopman's car driving off the road and hitting an obstacle a few months prior to their biggest engine test (250 000 lb). It failed due to LOX leakage freezing water vapor out of the air into some of the controls. Just like several other launch failures. His leadership and technical skills were the driving force. Without him it failed.

You have to wonder what would happen to SX if anything happened to Musk.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/07/2018 06:33 am
Quote
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

https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/949850176650346496 (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/949850176650346496)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 01/08/2018 09:05 am
Quote
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

https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/949850176650346496 (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/949850176650346496)

The "defunct" bar grows faster than the "operational" one.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Svetoslav on 01/08/2018 09:27 am

The "defunct" bar grows faster than the "operational" one.

Yah, I also noticed that.

I personally don't expect the situation to be different than the Suborbital Tourism hype 15-20 years ago. Only one company flew a spacecraft, most of them went bankrupt or eventually adopted other goals.

Right now the hype is about smallsats, but can we expect there will be more than several successful companies?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 01/08/2018 11:07 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 01/09/2018 02:42 pm
Spanish PLD Space say they have a "big announcement coming tomorrow, the first of 2 big announcements in January":-

https://twitter.com/PLD_Space/status/949276449550295040
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 01/09/2018 03:26 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/21/2018 02:04 pm
With Electron succesful launch, smallsat LVs are finally here. By end of 2018 Vector and Virgin should be operational.

Its now upto smallsat companies to support them and prove there is business case for these small LVs.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 01/21/2018 09:56 pm
In the news today:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/new-zealand-successfully-launches-first-rocket-into-space/9347886

Quote
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.

Frankly, I didn't know it was a race, given that the Kiwis started long before us.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lar on 01/21/2018 10:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/22/2018 05:14 am
In the news today:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/new-zealand-successfully-launches-first-rocket-into-space/9347886

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/22/2018 06:13 am

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.
Indeed.

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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/22/2018 07:01 am

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.
Indeed.

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?
Electric pumps with jettison of used batteries, carbon fibre fuel tanks, 3D printed engines and private launch site.

None current flying LVs have any of these. Merlin may use 3D parts but not majority of engine.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 01/22/2018 08:52 pm
In the news today:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/new-zealand-successfully-launches-first-rocket-into-space/9347886

Quote
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.

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.

Fair point.. Must brush up on my ancient military history.

Personally, I'm backing things happening in your own state that (cross fingers) if happen as planned are far more serious commercially than Gilmour.  It's the Aussie Space Race! :)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 01/23/2018 06:03 am
I am quoting Chasm from another thread because he wrote down a very interesting information that belongs better here:

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)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: catdlr on 01/23/2018 09:28 pm
Rocket Lab launch is vote of confidence in small-rocket startups

LA Times Article in the Business Section:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rocket-lab-launch-20180122-story.html
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/22/2018 08:08 pm
Quote
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.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/spinlaunch/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 02/22/2018 08:47 pm
That's going to put some .... interesting ... demands on payload structure along multiple axes.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: vaporcobra on 02/22/2018 09:04 pm
Quote
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.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/spinlaunch/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I truly cannot fathom how this has raised $10m... unless I wildly misunderstand basic physics, this company would have to be miles beyond the cutting edge of materials science to be even close to making this work. Even, say, if they somehow convinced Hawaii to let them set up on top of Mt. Kilauea.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: groundbound on 02/22/2018 09:35 pm
That seems to share some attributes with a miniature launch loop. I suspect it also shares some of the problems inherent in launch loops.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: vaporcobra on 02/22/2018 11:07 pm
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: jongoff on 02/23/2018 06:17 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 02/23/2018 06:45 am
Quote
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.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/spinlaunch/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
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.

But

Centripetal acceleration forces are still massive.

To give the equivalent of the F9 stage separation velocity (about M6, not even 1/2 orbital velocity) you're going M6 at ground level, and as Jon Goff noted it's like hitting a brick wall. We know something about this due to discussions about the acceleration profiles of someone sky diving from orbit

Then of course there is the engineering of an air lock that can pass an object moving at M6+ (because pumping down a really big vacuum chamber is quite slow).  I'm thinking a falling metal foil roll with electromagnets pulling it down, with a solid (slower moving) backup cover.

Naturally the heating will be severe. We are above the Sprint ABM here (that broke M1 30m after launch).

And of course there is the control system that stops it plowing into the side of the airlock as it transitions from vacuum to sea level (or near sea level pressure) air.

The CFD will be quite interesting. That transition sounds turbulent. Supposedly modelling turbulence has gotten a lot better.  I think some scale models may still be needed.

Then the engine(s). Liquid slosh is likely to be a problem (the US Army has done work looking at spinning tanks of fluid) but you'll want the higher Isp. The Germans engineered a liquid ramjet assisted artillery shell with a 350Km range in WWII, so not impossible.

A big issue is how much extra effort do payloads have to make to cope with this environment. Engineering the LV is your problem, but if building payloads for these launch conditions is a black art they may struggle to find customers.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: vaporcobra on 02/23/2018 09:44 pm
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

Thanks for your insight, Jon - if you think it's not necessarily insane, I'll take your word for it! In that case, I look forward to seeing /hearing about their progress :) Still skeptical about the basic physical feasibility of moving from vacuum to atmosphere (even if graduated) at hypersonic speeds, but I'll wait and see before dismissing them outright.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 02/23/2018 09:53 pm
Going through the atmosphere at 9 km/s ain't like dusting crops, boy!  8)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Dao Angkan on 02/23/2018 10:48 pm
I guess that you'd want to test this out at as high an altitude as possible. La Rinconada, Peru (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rinconada,_Peru) has an altitude of 5,100m, with an air pressure of about half of sea level. I'd see how plausible it was there first.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 02/24/2018 02:00 pm
Here is the Hawaii legislature bill to give them $25M:-

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2703_.HTM

Astonishing.

Here is some of the evidence in the recent hearing:-

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2018/Testimony/SB2703_TESTIMONY_WAM_02-23-18_LATE.PDF
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: as58 on 02/24/2018 02:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: groundbound on 02/24/2018 07:02 pm
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/24/2018 09:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 02/25/2018 05:53 am
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)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 02/25/2018 11:30 am
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.
I think you'll find most expendable rockets  split the Mach range roughly in half and the first stage shuts down around M10.
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars
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.
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars
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
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars
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.
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars
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.

As always with these ideas the question is "Can your plan eliminate the development of a complete stage?"
If it can't then you're still developing a two stage (or more) to orbit vehicle in addition to this launch assist device. Somewhere between 20 and 40 ELV's have now been developed, so it's not like it's never been done before and the strategies to lower development cost are quite well known.

I will note that at launch the rocket is at its heaviest and burns the most amount of propellant to give the least amount of delta V. The question then becomes "What is the simplest, cheapest way to improve this, other than simply building a bigger rocket?"

Developing a launch assist technology so good it can eliminate a whole stage (or is so cheap to develop it does not add a whole stage development budget to the project) is pretty tough.

I have yet to see a smallsat LV company that started with "OK what's the most common size smallsat customers want, what orbits do they want and on average how much are they willing to pay and how many of them are there?" Then work the development plan (including the test firings) so they come out with an income above operating and development costs at the end. IE a profit.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 02/25/2018 03:13 pm
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.
Those are 2 stage rockets without boosters.

Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars
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

Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars
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.

I guess i have to reword my thoughts, because i think you misunderstood me.
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).

Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars
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 did a quick calculation, a centrifugal launcher that supplies 2000m/s and has a 20m radius would mean about 20.000g...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/25/2018 04:19 pm
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)


To my knowledge they have nothing to do with Slingatron-type predecessors.  You should think about their mechanical launcher as the equivalent of air-launching, nothing more.

I know the details, and even though haven't signed an NDA I want to respect their confidences.  I got a pretty good brief, along with many others, at their December holiday party. 
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 02/25/2018 05:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/25/2018 06:05 pm
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 would say they are as serious as any of the other one or two dozen small launch vehicle start-ups that have raised >$5m seed funding.  I've not spent any time analyzing their approach, so I can't speak to plausibility.  Seriousness alone is no measure of likelihood of success, of course, either technically or in the marketplace.  I know that from personal experience.  ;)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 02/25/2018 10:04 pm
I was comparing with Falcon 9 , Electron seems to stage at a similar speed.
Those are 2 stage rockets without boosters.
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.
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars
I guess i have to reword my thoughts, because i think you misunderstood me.
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).
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).

You're right you can do tricks to lower pressure through diffusers (often using high pressure steam, or a jet engine exhaust) but that's sort of delaying the problem. What you probably want is more like a gradual shifting, from near vacuum till full SL free flight air pressure.

IIRC Sandia did a test on a wheeled (or skid equipped) test sled that reached M8, by driving through a plastic tunnel loaded with Helium at Sea Level. Of course this is real one-shot testing, that's very difficult to repeat.
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: c4fusion on 02/26/2018 05:22 am
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars
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.

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...

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 02/26/2018 05:47 am
Sorry, german here, it's Twenty thousand g, we use a point for separating thousands, and a comma for decimal point.

Didn't think about the audience here.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 02/26/2018 02:30 pm
Sorry, german here, it's Twenty thousand g, we use a point for separating thousands, and a comma for decimal point.

Didn't think about the audience here.
That explains it.  It's tricky keeping track of all the cultural variances when numbers are concerned.

People have odd ideas about the g loads payloads experience. The Shuttle was designed to keep them below 3g, partly because it was expected to carry "Payload Specialists" who might have failed the full astronaut selection process.  That was more the exception than the rule. Most ELV's are designed to operated up to 5 or even 8gs towards the end of flight, when near empty. 

So 20g would be a more heavily built payload than satellite builders are used to, but not excessively so. 20 000g  is much more specialized. It's true objects like laptops dropping from knee height to a hard floor can sustain a 1000g deceleration and still work it's not sustained acceleration, over a period of minutes.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 02/26/2018 02:41 pm
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."

It also depends if the concept has any features that can offset the high g issues? For example, could it do multiple launches in a single day?
Quote from: c4fusion
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.
That said I get the impression that the difficulty of vacuum pumping rises exponentially with pressure dropped. 1Pa is  1/100 000 of Sea Level pressure but by UHV standards is still "high pressure."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 02/26/2018 03:16 pm
Did some other calculations.
If you limit acceleration to 10 g, you will need 1000m of a straight rail for a sled or similar to reach 2000m/s.

What if they're just using a spinning wheel that can accumulate rotational impuls over longer time, and when it's spinning fast enough they couple it to a winch to accelerate some sled?

No vacuum necessary for something like that...

Just some random thoughts to make sense of the little information we've got...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: HMXHMX on 02/26/2018 03:49 pm
People – the name is SPIN-launch.  Think it through.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 02/28/2018 01:28 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 02/28/2018 07:08 am
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! :D
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/28/2018 11:32 am
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.
Who said the spinning would be done in atmosphere? It’s definitely not a gun, BTW.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/28/2018 11:32 am
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! :D
Of course, but it’d be super cool to watch, so shush, you! 😂
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 03/05/2018 04:33 pm
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.

A little bit different approach, but pretty appealing IMO.

Their Twitter Account (https://twitter.com/launcherspace)


and a bare homepage (https://launcherspace.com)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Markstark on 03/05/2018 04:54 pm
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.

A little bit different approach, but pretty appealing IMO.

Their Twitter Account (https://twitter.com/launcherspace)
and a bare homepage (https://launcherspace.com)
Wow. 9 years to orbit. I appreciate the realism in their timeline. I hope the team is making income from other jobs.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 03/05/2018 05:01 pm
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 $...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Markstark on 03/05/2018 05:08 pm
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/15/2018 09:09 pm
Quote
New Engine-1 🔥 from today - 6 second run followed by a 15 second run. Next week - 30+ goal.

https://twitter.com/launcherspace/status/974405234293465089
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/20/2018 06:15 am
Quote
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.

http://spacenews.com/smallsat-launch-providers-face-pricing-pressure-from-chinese-vehicles/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 03/30/2018 12:49 pm
https://twitter.com/launcherspace/status/979691344393367552?s=19

500 lbf pressure-fed RP-1/LOX engine.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 04/02/2018 05:53 pm
And another short video from the "Launcher" control room (https://twitter.com/launcherspace/status/980830441920905216?s=19) for their test stand.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 04/06/2018 04:04 pm
Quote
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.

http://spacenews.com/smallsat-launch-providers-face-pricing-pressure-from-chinese-vehicles/
No ITAR?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/07/2018 06:23 am
No ITAR?

ITAR is a US regulation.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: vaporcobra on 04/07/2018 06:45 am
No ITAR?

ITAR is a US regulation.

ITAR is explicitly designed to prevent unsanctioned knowledge transfer. This includes preventing US companies from integrating their technologies (or payloads) with companies or governments outside the US. It's very much a one-way street unless you have huge amounts of time, money, and patience to deal with it officially, which effectively pushes out small startups. It's a fair bit easier for non-US countries to legally get their payloads launched by US companies.

In that sense, there is barely any legitimate competition between Chinese and US smallsat launchers - I really still fail to understand where these companies get these ideas that Chinese rockets will in any way impact US prices. Any pricing pressures in this case are basically an economic placebo (not really a bad thing if it results in lower launch costs, but still extremely artificial). Chinese rockets simply are not stealing payloads from US launchers.

ILS and ISRO are a totally different story, but they're not mentioned here. It really is just a bunch of baseless "boo00O00OO CHINA!!!!" bandwagoning when you get down to brass tacks. There's no real argument or empirical evidence provided, just your run-of-the-mill self-contradiction, nationalism, and jingoism.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: deruch on 04/07/2018 07:54 am
The issue is that in the small sat payload class for these launchers, the customers are both much more international and more able to build their payloads without any ITAR or EAR controlled technology from the US which means that they can then launch on Chinese launchers.  The competition won't be for US payloads but international ones.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: vaporcobra on 04/08/2018 03:13 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 04/08/2018 03:21 pm
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

We already had a thread for Astra, that got turned into a launch thread even though it was the only thread.  At some point I'll either split up that thread into a launch thread and a general discussion thread, or after the first test launch I'll just remove the launch details from the thread title and it can go back to being a general thread (I really don't think we need a separate launch thread for this first suborbital test).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: rory on 05/09/2018 09:15 pm
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/live

Quote
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.

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.

EDIT (5:43 EDT): Max chamber pressure 281 psi. Max thrust 1775N. This view of their command and data reporting software is crazy cool!

Goal is a pump-fed, 22,000 pound thrust engine in the next three years.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: vaporcobra on 05/09/2018 09:40 pm
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/live

Quote
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.

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.

I just came across the archived stream and I am in love. It's absolutely flawless rocket porn, basically an uncut and uncensored tutorial for hot-fire testing a fairly large 3D-printed rocket engine. The team cohesion is also fascinating and deeply satisfying.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: rory on 05/09/2018 10:00 pm
The team cohesion is also fascinating and deeply satisfying.

Can't beat that countdown poll. "Louis?" "Go." "Max?" "Go."

Incredibly impressive work for a 3-man team. The whole thing was gorgeous.

Here's the archive link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGPKf4iTALg
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: theinternetftw on 05/10/2018 04:21 am
Here's the archive link:

That link is now down, replaced by this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA8oBmMjVZc
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 06/13/2018 10:12 am
And yet another launcher company to add in the list: Pangea Aerospace (https://www.pangeaaerospace.com). Recently created, in 2018.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 06/23/2018 01:02 am
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.

Article in Space.com (https://www.space.com/40918-air-launched-rocket-ravn-aevum.html)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 07/18/2018 04:52 pm
Tweet from Jeff Foust: (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1019532594420035586)
Quote
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Dao Angkan on 07/18/2018 08:11 pm
https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/southwest/satellite-launch-firm-to-test-in-cornwall

Quote
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."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 08/09/2018 02:06 am
Tweet from C. G. Niederstrasser: (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/1027283557327294464)
Quote
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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/12/2018 10:02 am
Tweet from C. G. Niederstrasser: (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/1027283557327294464)
Quote
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/
A very interesting read, although I wish people would learn that spell check <> proof reading (or even getting Windows to read it aloud).  :(

Clearly many people think they have found a way to build a better mouse trap.  :)
Note the staggering price per Kg and consider that (IIRC) a secondary on a large ELV will run about $200k.
How many of these will be (essentially) "Re-inventing the wheel" ?

Once again I'm guessing no one sat down and said "We can sell X launches a year at $Y. How can we build an LV that can pay the crew salaries, recoup the DDT&E costs and make a profit for our investors?"

Because that's super damm tough.  :(

I'd love to see a retrospective on this data, with "Survivors" (more than 1 year), "New bornes" and "Infant mortality" (didn't make a year), and which countries which have higher numbers of new bornes and wheather  that have higher numbers of survivors, or if that's some other country.

Obvious questions any wannabe designers should be considering are
1) Launch assist sounds like a good idea. Can you eliminate a stage? If not how big a payload increase can it give you instead? How much more complexity does it add to your R&D process?
2) Range costs don't scale with vehicle size, hence the number of air, sea and balloon launch concepts.
3) The simplest way to increase Isp is to switch fuels or oxidizers
4) Or does room temperature handling (IE HTP/Kero) benefits outweigh the performance hit?
5) Historically Isp has gone Liquids > hybrids > solids (although some hybrid fuels have hit liquid prop Isp levels). AFAIK if you're don't have close links to a government solids are very poor choice in terms of performance and side costs (they are explosives). 
6) The results of SX strongly suggest that stage commonality in structure, props and engines are a key enabler of low costs.
7) Tighter control of launch angle, thrust level and stage cut off time narrows dispersion and puts your payload into a better defined 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.


IMHO RTP storable propellants are attractive for reusable stages as there's no risk of the propellants vaporizing and bursting the tanks, so you can go easier on the TPS. Irrelevant if you're going for an ELV (and TBH SX have shown the issues with LOX tanks absorbing too much heat are not that great).

Let's see how many run the maze and survive till next year.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 08/13/2018 01:59 pm
Let's see how many run the maze and survive till next year.

Some have already gone defunct, and have not yet come out with the news. They may be "active" on paper, but have effectively made no progress in the last several years.

I was surprised to see a certain individual appear on a panel at a conference for small sats a few months ago because the company has effectively been dissolved.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Markstark on 08/13/2018 03:29 pm
Tweet from C. G. Niederstrasser: (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/1027283557327294464)
Quote
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/

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 08/16/2018 08:40 am
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".
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 08/17/2018 06:45 am
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".

Same could be said for an SSO depot for small launchers to target for parts/propellant delivery where a sat can be "built" from delivered components and checked out before release into SSO positions by said SEP tug (said depot could also function as a the space coral platform equivalent of the A-train earth sensing fleet).  With the cubesat U standard, plus the emerging Launch-U spec for smallsats, things are getting interesting at the small end of the spectrum. With a TUI spiderfab bot and plug-and-play interfaces like the one by Altius, one could have a very interesting situation. When dealing with the low end of the price spectrum, buyers may be more willing to buy into such a vision, provided related things like small visiting vehicle berth spec and similar emerges in the market.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/18/2018 08:51 am
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 be
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?



Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 08/18/2018 02:40 pm
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 be
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?





CubeSats often fly in the 6U configuration, I believe Millennium Space Systems had/have a bus for a 12U and 27U "CubeSats". I remember various venders offering 12U and 27U dispensers and payload busses, but a single one has yet to fly. (ISIS and NanoRacks has quad pack dispensers that flew, but have been intended for 4 "3U" payloads, not a 3x4 (12U) payload)



But 6Us are pretty common (See https://www.planetaryresources.com/missions/arkyd-6/)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 08/18/2018 04:29 pm
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 be
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 08/18/2018 05:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/18/2018 06:11 pm
Moon Express MX1, minus landing HW would be capable 3rd stage for small LV.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Eric Hedman on 08/18/2018 11:22 pm
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."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/19/2018 05:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 08/19/2018 05:55 am
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.
Tugs are very useful, but recent chemical propulsion tugs are too big and dangerous to be accepted as Cubesat class rideshare payload.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Eric Hedman on 08/19/2018 06:19 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 08/19/2018 11:42 am
If the tug itself is a Cubesat, it could go as a secondary and be disposable.
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.
My instinct is the market isn't there (yet) for a cubesat tug as a primary, so probably a secondary.

At this scale I think only some kind of SEP can be pack enough fuel to deliver enough delta v to be flexibly useful for different orbits, and still come back.

Beyond that I don't know the SEP types well enough to choose a type. There is also the issue that a big cubesat tub (IE 3-6U) would be mostly pushing it's own mass, rather than that of a small (1U) cubesat to its target orbit (or escape).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/19/2018 02:16 pm
NASA has sponsored a couple of SEP thrusters for cubesats.

There is the RF Thruster made by Phase Four (based on the University of Michigan's CubeSat Ambipolar Thruster (CAT)).
Ref: http://www.phasefour.io (http://www.phasefour.io)

Busek Co. Inc. makes small Hall Effect thrusters suitable for cubesats and small probes.
Ref: http://www.busek.com (http://www.busek.com)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: jongoff on 08/20/2018 11:53 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/20/2018 12:34 pm
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

Good ideal.

Limit to the idea. A refuelled upper stage can move a large satellite but would be over-kill for a cubesat particularly if there are 5 or 6 cubesats wanting different orbits.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 08/24/2018 09:33 pm
Tweet from C. G. Niederstrasser: (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/1027283557327294464)
Quote
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/

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Markstark on 08/24/2018 09:53 pm
Tweet from C. G. Niederstrasser: (https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/1027283557327294464)
Quote
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/

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.
Good point! Reading is fundamental. My bad.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 10/23/2018 10:43 am
From: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46624.0 add a new one: https://equatorialspace.com/

Soon we'll have more launchers than satellites.  ;D

Btw, why don't they type a space between the value and the unit? (https://i.imgur.com/xAlZCTY.png?1)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 11/03/2018 01:45 am
This article is a good roundup of the Chinese launchers under development:
https://gbtimes.com/one-of-the-chinese-launch-startups-you-havent-heard-of-just-tested-a-rocket-engine
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 11/16/2018 03:29 pm
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Microlaunchers_new_ways_to_access_space

Some info on the current European small launchers under development
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/16/2018 05:21 pm
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Microlaunchers_new_ways_to_access_space

Some info on the current European small launchers under development
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Mardlamock on 11/16/2018 05:56 pm
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/Microlaunchers_new_ways_to_access_space

Some info on the current European small launchers under development
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.

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.

None of those even have a semblance of hitting the right metrics and value for the commercial sector. It's like they are 8 years behind the states at this point. Has Europe always been this tame?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 11/18/2018 06:51 am
While europe is studying small LVs, the competition is building and launching them.

I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

I just downloaded those slides and  PLD Space is showing quite serious test facilities (compare the PLD test site to Vector's and Rocket Lab's setup, that is quite a big investment), a big pile of employees and plans a suborbital launch next year.

Another, Orbex Psace, is showing large factories, engines, tanks, electronics, GNC, launch sites and - apparently - customer contracts.

That goes quite some way beyond "studying". You could make the case PLD is at a slightly advanced level to Vector to be honest. Orbex Space I am not so sure about; they tend to be quite secretive, in fact this is the first slide deck I saw from them so far, so it is hard to judge. But they show a lot of hardware and facilities for a company "studying" the market.

Quote
By end of 2019 Vector, RL and  Virgin will be launching regularly covering 60-500kg market.

RL: yes I agree, for smaller payload market.
 
Virgin: Maybe, still some things to prove but overall good progress. Grudging respect for Virgin.

Vector: not a chance in hell they are launching regularly to orbit next year. If they get above the Karmann line suborbital they will announce it like it is the first man on the moon.

Quote
Firefly and Relativity should become operational by 2021 with 1000-1250 class launchers.

Firefly: Maybe.

Relativity: Not a chance.

And you forgot SpinLaunch who will make everybody obsolete, right?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/18/2018 09:09 am
I hope Spinlaunch are succesful but have my doubts it will work for earth to leo launches . As mass launcher for moon I think it has great potential. 0-1.8kms in vacuum is lot easier than 0-9.8 in atmosphere.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 12/04/2018 08:06 pm
Launcher has hired a chief designer, and he seems to be a rocket-engineering heavyweight:

Announcing Launcher Chief Designer Igor Nikishchenko (https://medium.com/@launcherspace/announcing-launcher-chief-designer-igor-nikishchenko-657a9ee0ec88)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 12/18/2018 04:55 pm
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: brussell on 12/18/2018 06:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 12/18/2018 06:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/18/2018 06:59 pm
Firefly has experienced leadership and seems to have financial backing.

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.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 12/18/2018 07:35 pm
Firefly has experienced leadership and seems to have financial backing.

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.
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.

Their recent hires should bring the necessary experience (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/an-early-spacex-employee-will-now-help-relativity-reach-the-launch-pad/)

My feeling is that they will go the "fully automated" route for launch operations, plus a "clean pad" approach, because it also suits their ambitions to launch from Mars. And you don't have to select your launch site that early in your development.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 12/18/2018 08:31 pm
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

Personally I would demote Stratolauncher into the long shots category - or even lower. They have money, yes, but money doesn't buy you smarts. They have squandered so much going in weird directions. Yes, they seem to have made some propulsion progress for their "in-house" launch vehicle, but I don't rate their prospects that highly. (At least based on what is publicly known)  :)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/19/2018 02:26 am
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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 12/19/2018 04:11 am
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/

IMO the appropriate reaction to ARCA is to believe it when you see it. They have been producing low to medium fidelity mock-ups for years. Real rocket hardware? Not much. I would love to see them actually do something, and fire one of these bigger engines for once, but I have severe doubts.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 12/19/2018 04:40 am
GO Launcher builds on work they will do for X60-A, so maybe pushing into long shot territory?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: brussell on 12/19/2018 07:42 pm
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.

And what about Exos? No money, no Carmack, and still reusing the same rockets that were developed back when they had both.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 12/19/2018 08:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kansan52 on 12/19/2018 09:00 pm
From the outside, Exos doesn't need more talent. They are familiar with their already developed tech. They are on track to win a share of the market.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/19/2018 09:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: RDMM2081 on 12/19/2018 09:44 pm
RE: Vector, ARCA, Firefly:

Engines are great, but I think one of the biggest lessons I personally learned by watching the very first Rocketlab launch is that the hard part happens once you get way off the ground.  Comms, second stages, telemetry, RCS, orbital insertion, etc.

I'm not saying propulsion is "solved" by any means, or that you can get off the ground without it, but in terms of this day and age, getting "off the ground" isn't as much of an accomplishment as it used to be.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 12/19/2018 11:36 pm
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: RDMM2081 on 12/19/2018 11:52 pm
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?

No, sorry that wasn't clear.  But closer to their product to sell was what I intended to say.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: darkenfast on 12/20/2018 04:55 am
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.

Yes, we've seen the test-fires, but the launches thus far have been rather misleading stunts: no guidance, small tanks inside a fuselage with fins, only show the lift-off because that's all there was and so on.  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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: QuantumG on 12/20/2018 05:44 am
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?

You mean the inner workings of the company? Yeah, we're all missing that. So what? That's par- for the course. I think some of you might have been around when John Carmack was telling us everything they were doing at Armadillo Aerospace, along with their whole thought process and all the things they'd considered before settling on the current project, etc. They told us everything that went wrong, what they were going to have to do about that to stay on track to achieving the project's goal, etc, etc. It was a great experience - kinda like you were working there. We've never seen anything like it - except maybe Copenhagen Suborbitals, if you read all their Danish posts and follow all the politics, urgh.  So what the hell is happening inside Firefly, or Vector, or any of these other companies? We don't know, and you're definitely not going to get that information from reading their Twitter feed.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/20/2018 05:57 am
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/
That looks like a linear aerospike at the back end of solid stage. Is that right?

Which seems an exceedingly difficult  with little benefits.

More the sort of project you'd be funded by someone else to do rather than something a startup would think is a sensible use of (limited) resources.
[EDIT So the linear aerospike is a pressure fed HTP thruster, rather than a biprop?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/20/2018 08:18 am
[EDIT So the linear aerospike is a pressure fed HTP thruster, rather than a biprop?

ARCA says they can't get HTP in Roumania any longer, so are using some other propellant, but haven't said what that is. They say they can get HTP from Germany (if I remember right), but are not doing that now due to the long time it takes to get qualified by the new supplier. All this is not a great confidence builder, plus its now 20 December with no updates on their Facebook page.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/20/2018 04:03 pm
spacenews.com/new-contracts-demonstrate-continued-strong-demand-for-smallsat-rideshare-launch-services/

The two dedicated rideshare missions in this article are using PSLV (1,750kg to SSO). No mention of another F9 launch but thats not to say Spaceflight wouldn't do another. They did say logistics of organising so many payloads for last F9 SSO mission wasn't easy.

Rideshare isn't just limited to bigger LVs, Electron does do rideshare, just on smaller scale. The last flight was a rideshare, just one NASA organised and paid for.

Edit. Just found this article.

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/firefly-aerospace-enters-launch-brokerage-agreement-with-spaceflight-300767505.html

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 12/20/2018 04:05 pm
Keep in mind hot fire doesn't necessarily mean success either; we don't know what performance they were getting, if they were getting any instabilities, if they have a reproducible/manufacturable design, what the lead times to make said engines, ect. If it took them one year to make that one engine, it doesn't really tell you much about their ability to compete with a launch cadence. Also a 20 second fire isn't gonna tell you if the engine will kill itself 30 seconds in unless the engine is already qualified to the full mission duration.

Also you know that generally if they don't advertise the burn time, it means they haven't met the duration required for an actual flight.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/20/2018 05:28 pm
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/
That looks like a linear aerospike at the back end of solid stage. Is that right?
*snip*

That's not a solid stage, it's a fuel tank.

https://twitter.com/arcaspace/status/1036873191417896961
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 12/20/2018 05:56 pm
It's also just a prop.  :)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: GWH on 12/22/2018 12:40 am
Space Horizon of Canada annouced their 1200 kg to LEO rocket. Aiming for 2024 launch, but info is sparse and it looks like a part time effort. I would be excited to see a domestic launch vehicle here but they don't seem to be serious contenders yet...
 
I would speculate they would try to use Ukrainian engines based off one of their personnel.
 https://www.spacehorizon.ca/lv1.php
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/22/2018 02:07 am
Heavy snow has delayed ARCA's engine test, which should now be in early January.

youtube.com/watch?v=xw2wVMQxhXQ
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: catdlr on 12/22/2018 09:45 am
FCC fines Swarm $900,000 for unauthorized smallsat launch

SpaceNews article: Swarm Technologies will pay $900,000 (https://spacenews.com/fcc-fines-swarm-900000-for-unauthorized-smallsat-launch/)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/01/2019 04:09 am
ARCA have done a fit test of their LAS 25D engine. I think they need a bigger flame bucket.

https://www.facebook.com/arcaspace/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 01/01/2019 04:43 am
Not only that - They need to disassemble the thrust chamber before you can remove it from the "test stand".  ::) Yeah. Look closer and you see what I mean. (and see the FB images)

If they are going to pass this off as real they should put more effort into it.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/12/2019 04:28 am
Latest ARCA video. Their new engine features an interface with four ball valves connected to a single volume propellant tank. Over 35 MW of electrical power seem to feed into what look like heater elements at the bottom of the tank. More details to be released in a future white paper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxqiyQiJavs
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: launchwatcher on 01/12/2019 05:36 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 01/12/2019 06:12 am
Over 35 MW of electrical power

35MW of power? 45MW of power can power an entire city of 80,000 people.... At that level they are claiming to almost literally be using the entire capacity of one of Bucharest's 6 power generation stations, through what looks like the heating elements of some tea kettles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucharest_South_Power_Station
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 01/13/2019 01:37 am
I'll be honest, I look forward to Arca's videos every time. I find them quite entertaining and I do look forward to what they pull out next time.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/13/2019 02:16 am
I'm as confused by the "at least 35 MW" as the rest of you. ARCA may be referring to rocket engine power, but that is about 0.5*(F/v)*v*v = 0.5*F*v = 0.5*25000*9.8*300*9.8 = 360 MW. Maybe it is peak power. Pulses of 35 MW every second for 1 ms would have an average power of 35 kW.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: RonM on 01/13/2019 03:35 am
Looks to me like they have made a very large electric water heater.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/14/2019 06:50 pm
dawnaerospace.com/news/

This is a Netherlands based company with a New Zealand operations.
They are working on unmanned rocket powered planes for suborbital flight and eventual orbital with 2nd stage.

The NZ operations is due to less restricted airspace and easy access to space. I suspect they are benefitting from regulatory framework put in place by Rocket labs.





Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edzieba on 01/15/2019 01:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 01/15/2019 03:49 pm
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.

They seem to be heating up hydrogen peroxide with an additive mixed in (because they are touting they are using a "new propellant") and decomposing the peroxide. It's a monopropellant system; it's all they have done in the past.

They have no pumps. What you see are 4 ball valves.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/18/2019 07:01 pm
https://twitter.com/rocketstarspace/status/1086311380767162369

Quote
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/19/2019 03:08 pm
This article provides some info on UK companies Orbital Access, Obex and Skyrora.

eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/01/british-rocketeers-in-the-new-space-age/#.XEHYBipH4dQ.twitter

Orbital Access are developing reuseable 1st stage Skyplane (23mx12m) that will be launched by carrier plane. Will land at airport after deploying 2nd stage at Mach9. Plan to use a current Russian engine. Long term plan is redesign it for Reaction Sabre engine. Been working with BAE and Reaction on design.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: brussell on 01/22/2019 10:16 pm
Cream:
...
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)

What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-program/

... ayep
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/22/2019 10:36 pm
Cream:
...
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)

What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-program/

... ayep
PGA engine programme to continue for now.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 01/22/2019 11:38 pm
Cream:
...
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)

What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-program/

... ayep
PGA engine programme to continue for now.

Source? Also why have an engine without a vehicle?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/23/2019 12:00 am
Cream:
...
Stratolauncher (because Paul Allen's dollars)

What has changed? Who is going down in flames, who has risen like a pheonix?
https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-program/

... ayep
PGA engine programme to continue for now.

Source? Also why have an engine without a vehicle?
Wrong thread for this discussion, reply on Stratolaunch one.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/24/2019 08:51 pm
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.



Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/25/2019 03:39 pm
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 02/25/2019 03:46 pm
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


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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/25/2019 03:51 pm
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?

They had some trouble with their equipment to get the tank in place. The rectangular truss to the sides and above is a lifting rig that they used to manually hoist the tank into position.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Tywin on 02/25/2019 04:05 pm
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.

Well in Canada look like they want follow that way too:

https://www.spaceq.ca/dnd-project-grey-jay-will-use-the-sfl-defiant-platform-and-other-new-details/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 02/25/2019 05:15 pm
First orbital flights of new smallsat launchers

Launched:

May 2017 - Electron  (NZ)  -  failure
Jan 2018 - Electron - success
Oct 2018 - Zhuque-1  (China)  -  failure
Mar 2019 - OS-M (China) - failure

Planned for 2019:

May 2019 - LauncherOne  (USA)
Q2 2019 - Jielong-1 (https://spacenews.com/chinese-state-owned-firms-preparing-to-launch-new-commercial-rockets/)  (China)
Jul 2019 - SSLV (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/on-its-maiden-flight-indias-sslv-will-carry-two-defence-satellites/articleshow/68078222.cms)  (India)
Q3 2019 - Hyperbola-1 (http://www.spaceflightfans.cn/event/kz-1a-rocket-launch-satellite?instance_id=2356)  / SQX-1  (China)
Late 2019 - Vector-R (https://spacenews.com/small-launch-vehicle-companies-see-rideshare-as-an-opportunity-and-a-threat/)  (USA)
Dec 2019 - Firefly Alpha (https://fireflyspace.com/launch-alpha/)  (USA)

For the upcoming years, after reviewing ~50 smallsat startups, here a selection of those rockets which IMHO have some chance to make it into orbit within 3-4 years. All with high probability to slip into a later year than announced.

No date announced:
- Astra  (USA)

Planned for 2020:
- NewLine-1 (http://www.spacetechasia.com/chinese-company-linkspace-to-develop-reusable-orbital-rocket/)  (China)
- Eris-100 (https://spacenews.com/australian-startup-raises-14-million-for-smallsat-launchers/)  (Australia)
Dec 2020 Terran 1 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/relativity-space-reveals-its-ambitions-with-big-nasa-deal/)  (USA)

Planned for 2021:
- Prime (https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/02/rocket-making-start-up-orbex-unveils-3d-printed-engine-at-its-new-scottish-facility/)  (UK)
- Eris-400 (https://spacenews.com/australian-startup-raises-14-million-for-smallsaat-launchers/)  (Australia)
- Miura 5 (https://spacenews.com/pld-space-after-esa-input-doubles-lift-capacity-of-smallsat-launcher/)  (Spain)


Advertised max. payload to 500 km SSO

26 kg - Vector-R
112 kg - OS-M
150 kg - Electron
150 kg - Prime
165 kg - Hyperbola-1 (estimated from 150 kg to 700 km)
165 kg - Jielong-1 (estimated from 150 kg to 700 km)
200 kg - NewLine-1
200 kg - Zhuque 1
300 kg - LauncherOne
300 kg - Miura 5
300 kg - SSLV
630 kg - Firefly Alpha
900 kg - Terran 1

__
2019-02-26 added Jielong-1
2019-02-27 added Hyperbola-1
2019-03-06 Hyperbola-1 slips from June to Q3
2019-03-08 added Astra, Vector-H, Eris-100, Eris-400, Newline-1, Terran 1, Miura 5, Prime
2019-03-10 update LauncherOne
2019-03-27 update OS-M
2019-04-04 update LauncherOne and Vector-R, removed Vector-H
2019-04-05 update Terran 1
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: LouScheffer on 02/28/2019 02:06 pm
Av Week has an article  Little Launchers Lining Up (https://aviationweek.com/commercializing-space/survey-finds-40-little-launchers-development) (paywall).  Some highlights are:
Quote
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.

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.".

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 02/28/2019 02:39 pm
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 irony of the same guy who ran his first company into numerous lawsuits, then the ground, before being rescued by a Ukrainian "entrepreneur" teaching the likes of Rocket Lab... He is mighty opinionated for a guy who has flown less hardware than Vector...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/28/2019 05:46 pm
Podecast from Interplanetary with Orbex CEO. Episode 120.

https://www.interplanetary.org.uk/episodes

He say there is lot support for their LV in europe, enough to make it viable. Has more realistic launch rate of 10 -12 a year. They do have deal with Clyde aerospace who make lot smallsats.

Expected launch 2021.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/09/2019 08:47 pm
Ben Brockert (@wikkit) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Sun, Mar 10, 2019:
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.




Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/16/2019 11:07 am
Av Week has an article  Little Launchers Lining Up (https://aviationweek.com/commercializing-space/survey-finds-40-little-launchers-development) (paywall).  Some highlights are:

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.".
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.

Let's keep in mind SX had payloads for several of its F1 launches and only the last two achieved orbit before they retired it entirely.

No ELV is going to lower $/Kg to orbit by any substantial amount. You're just launching a smaller mass to begin with.

NG's Pegasus has been around since the early 90's and has bags of track record and has the highest $/Kg cost of any launcher.
Can new ones do better? Almost certainly.
How much better? Who knows.

I will definitely say that anyone who builds their LV design around a 3rd party engine which is a sole source component and they cannot replace with a competitor system should know their supplier has them by the groin. Their prices will rise by the price that supplier charges them.

BTW the obvious advantage the small sat LV mfg have is (in principle) agility. They should be able to accommodate relatively fast changes in manifest and launch needs in a way that ride shares cannot. IOW their edge is better customer service. Treating small sat operators like primes (which given the size of the vehicle, they are).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/17/2019 06:49 am
Ben Brockert (@wikkit) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Sun, Mar 10, 2019:
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.
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).

It's interesting but it seems the little things are  what annoyed him most. Co-ordinating cubesat ejection  to minimize potential collisions. Finding out if there's a preferred best time of day or orbit that most payloads would like to launch (can't guarantee you'd get it on a rideshare, but if you were the sole payload?)

Basic, obvious human stuff, when you think about it. 

I think one thing small sat LV's should do better is regular, consistent launch schedules. 
Get preferences, then set No Earlier Than and Not After dates.  On any given launch date something will launch, either one that's been on the books for years, or a standby payload that accepts minimal special handling.
Maybe it's the first test of a cubesat to Mars, maybe it's someone's ashes.
Regardless, something is going up.

I agree a restartable US is useful. Given Ariane 5 really needed dual launch to be cost effective I was very surprised to find their standard US did only one burn. Being able to drop off comm sats at substantially different parts of GEO sounded a pretty good idea, along with the general increase in flexibility for space probes to other planets.

An LV that cannot set a regular launch schedule is not a service, it's still in development.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: heiterefahne on 03/17/2019 08:50 am
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.

Where is PLD Space on that list?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/17/2019 04:51 pm


Ben Brockert (@wikkit) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Sun, Mar 10, 2019:
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.
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).


An LV that cannot set a regular launch schedule is not a service, it's still in development.

Scheduling will get better but there is always something that will screw it up. The latest Electron DARPA launch has been delayed by what seems to be issues with payload.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 03/17/2019 06:40 pm
Av Week has an article  Little Launchers Lining Up (https://aviationweek.com/commercializing-space/survey-finds-40-little-launchers-development) (paywall).  Some highlights are:
Quote
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.

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 
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Notaris on 03/25/2019 07:59 am
Has anyone heard about Zenovision (http://zenovision.com/) of Long Beach, California? I just stumbled over their web page.

Next to suborbital plans, they also have orbital launchers (http://zenovision.com/?page_id=601) announced, though no technical details provided besides targeted payload mass to unspecified orbit.

(http://zenovision.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/LauncherSpecs-raw-1.jpg)
Source: http://zenovision.com/?page_id=601 (http://zenovision.com/?page_id=601)

Partners (http://zenovision.com/?page_id=98) bring in their expertise in underwear, art and eyewear (next to lens maker Tamron)!

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 03/25/2019 09:53 am
Their listed corporate address in long beach is a 'virtual office' space. I've also been unable to find a company of the name 'Zenovision' registered in the US, the state of California, or in Germany. There's a 'Zeno Vision' in the UK but that's an unrelated software company.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 03/25/2019 10:39 am
At least that "black engine" technology they are refering to is real.

CFC ceramic engine chambers developed by German Aerospace Center and the University of Stuttgart:

https://event.dlr.de/en/jec2019/black-engine/

"Transpiration Cooled Ceramic High Performance Rocket Engines"

-  Improvement of high performance rocket engines
-  Use of high temperature resistant and porous Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMC)
-  High operation efficiency combined with transpiration cooling
-  High operational reliability and damage tolerance
-  Adaptation potential focussing several propulsion system cycles
-  Light weight at high strength combined with CFRP housing
-  Low fatigue caused by low thermal expansion structures
-  Innovation potential for porous injection
-  Optimization of the supersonic nozzle interface
-  CMC/CFRP subsonic combustion chamber
-  CMC injector: new design technology
-  CMC supersonic nozzle extension.

A paper on the basics, published for the 65th International Atronautical Congress 2014:

Status and Future Perspectives of the CMC Rocket Thrust Chamber Development at DLR (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/31014644.pdf)

Quote
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. ...

Black Engine Aerospace UG, Heilbronn
company registerd in March 2018
https://www.bea-space.com/

Quote
A New Space company
Innovative Launcher technologies
Partners: IAF, ESA, Zenovision, OHB, DLR, University of Stuttgart, University of Kaiserslautern, University of Heilbronn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI_hAvYAcWE
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/01/2019 07:26 am
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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Notaris on 04/01/2019 08:00 am
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/

There is a scientific paper of (a previous version (? -in the paper there is a single rocket based first stage instead of the dual body configuration of the webpage) of) the concept published in the Journal of Spacecraft and Rocket: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A33610 (https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A33610)

For Spartan:
150 kg to SSO in a 3-stage configuration (with the 3rd stage being "big" compared to the small kick stage of electron) with two reusable stages with different technologies each (rocket based and scramjet based): definitely a challenge!
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: niwax on 04/12/2019 09:11 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: novak on 04/12/2019 04:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 04/12/2019 07:54 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 04/12/2019 08:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/12/2019 11:05 pm
Its taken RL two years from first launch till reaching commercial operation where they can launch monthly. While they didn't have LV failure as such, still had technical problems that set them back ie engine controller issues.

I expect their competitors to still take at least a year to get up to speed assuming trouble free test launches.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: HMXHMX on 04/13/2019 03:53 am
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.

I used to say "If the 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..."

Edit: spelling
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: novak on 04/13/2019 04:48 am

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..."

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.

Rockets are impressive, and more than one company has turned them into a show for VC dollars.  But the race is longer and harder than any of them tells the VCs.

The companies that are in real danger of "the great consolidation" are the ones with a high burn rate that need to raise more money.  There's kind of a point where it's hard to return from, where you commit to a market that may or may not ever exist, with a vehicle that may or may not ever work.  At that point, you have a very limited time to make it work in not just a technical sense but an economic one.

The poorer companies with a lower burn rate can look for a different angle, maybe try to sell only a piece of a launch vehicle (engines are in- but someone could make actual money off avionics). The actually successful ones can rely on actual cash flow to attempt a pivot.  Godspeed to all the companies that find themselves in the middle.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/13/2019 07:03 am
Previous video on ARCA constructing their test stand, propellant tank and engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpJsAF0eHZg
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/13/2019 07:05 am
Latest ARCA video showing integration of the engine test avionics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyxEWRMEec
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/13/2019 10:36 am
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.  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 04/13/2019 02:07 pm
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.  :(
What other interpretation is there except the American one? We write the rules, we get to interpret them (for the greater good,  obviously).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 04/13/2019 09:01 pm
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".

Also no liquid rocket company stays between 100km Karman line and orbit (Armadillo achieved 82km before quitting).  Some solids exist in this range.  Up aerospace lived as a sounding rocket company for 12 years and launched 12 customer flights up to now.

Maybe it's impossible to reach orbit without being prepared as a launch provider, technically, financially, and in terms of team and management.

From 1950s to 1970s, many national programs seek to "reach orbit" as the only goal, e.g. Vanguard. They are also large and expensive programs.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: novak on 04/15/2019 05:57 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Katana on 04/16/2019 06:35 pm
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.

If your rocket is designed to be a product, following the standard rules of aerospace program, e.g. TRL, then the reliability risk after reaching orbit is minimal, only 1 or 2 final levels of TRL. VC could  cover this risk up to now (before really harsh market competition comes).

If you skip the rules and race to orbit with something not so professional, you get trapped halfway in endless failure modes. The best maybe something similar to Japanese L-4S or French Diamant: cheap per launch, too coarse to be a product, discarded after reach orbit, but LOTS of failures and expensive total cost.

Being pro is cheaper than being amateur to reach orbit.

Moreover, VC would select pro companies designed for product, instead of amateurs racing for orbit. If you tend to fly and go home, no chance. VC could even invest for team instead for things.

VC selection is especially true in China which have a brutal competition culture: >3 powerful companies with sub billion investment and ex pro teams headhunted from national system (headhunting caused national media conflict). Only 1 amateur company alive up to now: Linkspace (the first one, Armadillo analog, nicknamed as cheats).

In rest of the world,  the number of amateur companies (e.g. Garvey / Vector) is larger than the number of financially powerful companies with ex pro teams.

Questions: When and how did Rocketlab team shifted from amateur to pro?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 04/18/2019 02:31 pm
An ISRO spinoff is working on a new smallsat launcher.

Quote
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.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/with-a-simpler-rocket-skyroot-is-eyeing-the-space/articleshow/68915442.cms
(Nice picture the Economic Times inserted there ...)

Quote
Skyroot Aerospace Private Limited incorporated with MCA on 12 June 2018.

https://www.quickcompany.in/company/skyroot-aerospace-private-limited

Quote
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.   

https://skyroot.in/launch-vehicle/

Vikram I: 200 kg to 500km SSPO, 3-stage solid
Vikram II: 410 kg to 500km SSPO, 2 x solid + 1 x cryogenic Methalox
Vikram III: 580 kg to 500km SSPO = Vikram II + strap-on boosters

Very early stage, four employees and six advisors. Founding capital was provided by owners of an an Indian fitness-and-healthy-food company.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Tywin on 05/02/2019 05:49 pm
The Ukraine/UK company is preparing for new tests...of her suborbital launcher...


https://www.skyrora.com/

Quote
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.

https://spacewatch.global/2019/05/uks-skyrora-in-hunt-for-british-launch-sites-for-upcoming-rocket-tests/

Will see...




Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/03/2019 08:35 am
Will this be the first HTP/Kero rocket since Black Arrow?

1. Runs on Hydrogen Peroxide and Kerosene
2. Thrust at sea level: 30kN (3 tons)
3. Exhaust Velocity: 2,226 m/s (sea level), 2,662 m/s (in vacuum)
4. Max Payload − 90kg
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/03/2019 09:05 am
Skyrora XL specifications. Engine configuration is similar to Electron, but can deliver twice the payload at 320 kg.

FIRST STAGE Characteristics:
Propellant components: Hydrogen Peroxide and Kerosene
Thrust per engine: 70 kN (7 tons) (at sea level), 79.7 kN (8 tons) (in vacuum)
Exhaust Velocity: 2,454 m/s (at sea level), 2,794 m/s (in vacuum)
Specific impulse: 250.24 s (at sea level), 284.91 s (in vacuum)
Gross mass at launch: 44,611 kg
Dry mass of the stage: 2,600 kg
Total propellant mass: 32,065 kg
Engine type: 9 x liquid propellant rocket engines

SECOND STAGE Characteristics:
Propellant components: Hydrogen Peroxide and Kerosene
Thrust (in vacuum): 85.5 kN (8.1 tons)
Exhaust velocity (in vacuum): 3,001 m/s
Specific impulse (in vacuum): 306.02 s
Gross mass: 9,921 kg
Dry mass of the stage: 1,070 kg
Payload fairing mass: 145 kg
Total propellant mass: 7,664 kg
Engine type: 1 х liquid propellant rocket engine with uncooled nozzle

THIRD STAGE Characteristics:
Propellant components: Hydrogen Peroxide and Kerosene
Thrust (in vacuum): 3,500 N
Exhaust velocity (in vacuum): 3,004 m/s
Gross mass: 1,067 kg
Dry mass of the stage: 220 kg
Total propellant mass: 527 kg
Payload mass: 320 kg (to Polar Orbit of 600 km altitude)
Engine type: 2 x liquid propellant rocket engines with uncooled nozzle
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Tywin on 06/18/2019 03:40 pm
Good news, for all this new small launchers companies...

Quote
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.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nsr-report-smallsat-dedicated-launch-150348404.html
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: playadelmars on 06/19/2019 02:42 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 06/19/2019 07:05 am
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.

The commercial launch market as a whole is only 6.2 billion... That's after it rose spectacularly last year. The year before, it dropped significantly, and will drop even more spectacularly this year if launches continue as they did in the first six months of the year. With development windows being as they are, if a 2 billion market in ten years for a more affordable (per launch) vehicle is not enough for investors, the people investing in RocketLab and the dozens of other smallsat launchers under development must be out of their minds indeed.

Of course, most of those will likely fail as the major players increasingly dominate the market for their segment, leaving only goverment funded oldspace companies to limp from occasional launch to occasional launch, but that is quite normal for venture backed startups.

edit: the article does indeed predict a wave of mergers and acquisitions in the early 2020's. That's how it works with market disrupting technology. The same thing is bound to happen with the new megaconstellations (mentioned in the article as an important customer for smallsat launchers, so on topic).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 07/10/2019 06:28 am
Av Week has an article  Little Launchers Lining Up (https://aviationweek.com/commercializing-space/survey-finds-40-little-launchers-development) (paywall).  Some highlights are:
Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 07/10/2019 01:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 07/10/2019 01:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 07/10/2019 02:39 pm
I think in general the Chinese launch startups (there are a bunch of them) haven't been covered as heavily as those in some other parts of the world.

https://twitter.com/AJ_FI/status/1148186919953752064

https://twitter.com/AJ_FI/status/1148186923292385282

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: LouScheffer on 07/10/2019 11:31 pm
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 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.
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.

The other one mentioned, Jielong-1 (Smart Dragon-1), does not appear to be mentioned in either article.  This is likely because it's a project of a subsidiary of a state contractor, and hence does not need publicity to drum up investment.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 07/11/2019 01:03 am
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.

Well as someone who follows those things, the Chinese market is a complete mess and news before launch are very scarce - much worse than similar start-ups in the West - and I'm not surprised that they aren't listed here.

I think the Chinese small rockets market operates in a much different (and even more untried) model than the US one anyway...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 07/13/2019 01:55 am
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.

What is really happening is that a lot of proposed satellites are illusory, as are the launchers proposed to meet that illusory demand.

We went through this in the late 1990s, with huge projected demand for launches, and a large number of new proposed launchers. When the stock market tumbled in 2000, everything disappeared.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 07/13/2019 02:35 am
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.

A lot of companies don't want to launch from ISS once they're past the initial development stage on their satellites.  It's a low altitude and not the greatest inclination for many uses.  Having Cygnus do deployments after leaving ISS helps with the altitude issue, but the number of slots on the commercial crew vehicles is limited.  Hundreds of small sats have launched on PSLV and Soyuz.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 07/26/2019 01:50 pm
Av Week has an article  Little Launchers Lining Up (https://aviationweek.com/commercializing-space/survey-finds-40-little-launchers-development) (paywall).  Some highlights are:
Quote
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.

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 

We can add Hyperbola 1 to the list of active as a small sat launchers. 'Active' is relative: still under 1 launch per year per launcher on average this year. Although that rate is likely to hit 1 next month, 4 months earlier than last year. Let's hope there's a trend there.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: playadelmars on 07/26/2019 04:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 07/26/2019 09:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 07/31/2019 04:29 pm
[Reuters] After historic rocket launch, Chinese startup to ramp up missions (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-china-ispace/after-historic-rocket-launch-chinese-startup-to-ramp-up-missions-idUSKCN1UQ0I9)
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/12/2019 07:25 am
ARCA tested their LAS 25D motor on 21 April 2019. Basically its a water bottle rocket, but with slightly better Isp since they are using heater elements inside the tank to heat the water!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGh-57QIw5A
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/12/2019 07:31 am
Their plans for the future. The single stage HAAS 2CA is replaced with a two stage vehicle with LAS 50 first stage. Their HAAS heavy vehicle with 60 t to LEO has 69 MN of thrust!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV8j08mCBEs
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 08/12/2019 07:44 am

That video is quite disingenious  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/12/2019 07:45 am
I'm sure many on here remember ARCA's long history of promising radical launch solutions that never came anywhere close to reality.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/12/2019 08:19 am
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˛.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: envy887 on 08/12/2019 12:57 pm
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/12/2019 05:16 pm
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's upper stage is fantasy.  It's exactly the same vehicle that they've been claiming for years is going to be a single-stage to orbit small launch vehicle, without a shred of evidence.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 08/12/2019 11:06 pm
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˛.

Hang on a sec.. never mind their testing, their images show they're still planning to use aerospike nozzles.  Do the calculations even stack up using superheated steam?!?

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 08/13/2019 05:26 am
Why is *anyone* taking these guys seriously?

After delaying and delaying their latest engine test, they finally revealed it as a  ... tada ... water rocket. And now they are off trying to distract their followers with yet another new concept. (which will inevitably be delayed, to be replaced by a new concept) So predictable.

There are few repeat scam artists in rocketry... but these guys come awfully close to fitting that bill.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/13/2019 07:30 am
From page 15:

"Let’s consider LAS 50R. Adding an extra energy of 42MW/s, from 5A, 90C LiPo batteries (1680MW total
available), it will increase the vehicle’s weight with 1,940kg."

The MW/s unit is nonsensical. A watt is energy (joules) per second. So a W/s is joules per second per second! Anyway, I think what the authors are trying to describe are 90C 5Ah batteries. For example

https://www.amazon.com.au/Turnigy-Graphene-5000mAh-Hardcase-Approved/dp/B01HEMFQG4

These batteries have a discharge current of 5*90 = 450 A and a discharge time of 3600/90 = 40 seconds. Note that the flight time of the LAS 50R is 23 seconds, which means that only 58% of the energy in the battery can be used.  For a mass of 0.599 kg, this gives 1940/0.599 = 3239 batteries.

Each battery provides 450*14.8 = 6660 W, for a total power of 21.6 MW. Total battery energy is 21.6*40 = 863 MJ. Of that energy, only 863*23/40 = 496 MJ can be used. Lets assume the 42MW/s and 1680MW values are actually 42 MW and 1680 MJ. This my values are 49% less power and 70% less energy.

The authors do note that

"The batteries will not deplete completely during the vehicle’s 20s ascent, but only half of their total capacity."

The remainder of the energy in the batteries will be used for landing.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/13/2019 07:46 am
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?

They are claiming only 3 km altitude, but a speed of Mach 1.2 for the expendable LAS and Mach 1.5 for the reusable LAS. See page 16 of the white paper. The upper stage is based on their LOX/HTP single stage to orbit vehicle, the Haas 2CA, It will need to complete the remaining delta-V to LEO after boost by the LAS first stage.

ARCA is planning to launch LAS 50R in Autumn 2019 with the LAS 50R/Haas 2CA Mini orbital vehicle in 2020. Launch cost is $1M for 200 kg ($5000/kg!).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/13/2019 08:15 am
ARCA will be testing their LAS 25D engine with a stainless steel propellant tank this month.

https://www.facebook.com/arcaspace/photos/a.10153942638068332/10158633946998332/?type=3&theater
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 08/13/2019 12:31 pm
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) flight:

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)

2019-09 (https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=230288)  Astra         US      Astra
2019-09 (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_chr/lau2019.htm)  Simorgh       Iran    (state-owned)
2019-11 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40634.msg1991386#msg1991386)  LauncherOne   US      Virgin
2019-12 (https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/chandrayaan-2-to-reach-moon-s-orbit-on-august-20-isro-119081200612_1.html)  SSLV          India   ISRO (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 (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/06/firefly-prepares-maiden-flight-critical-testing/)     Firefly α     US/Ukr  Firefly
2020-Q3 (https://www.ablspacesystems.com/)  RS1           US      ABL
2020-12 (https://spacenews.com/spaceflight-signs-contract-with-relativity-for-launches/)  Terran 1      US      Relativity

All the rest 2021+.

Failed: Vector

[2019-08-13: added Simorgh]
[2019-08-15: changed SSLV from September to December]
[2019-08-17: successful launch of Jielong-1]
[2019-08-21: added sources and adjusted RS1 and Terran 1 schedule]
[2019-09-04: update Simorgh; removed Zhuque-1, see  report (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3787/1)]
[2019-09-12: changed LauncherOne from October to November]
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 08/13/2019 10:24 pm
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 08/13/2019 11:09 pm
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

... and why leave out Safir and Falcon 1 and Pegasus and all older smallsat launchers? Because this thread was opened in October 2015 and is about launchers that were in development at that time and did not fly yet. That's the starting point here, and that excludes LM11 which already was in service.

But! I forgot Simorgh, which had no successful orbital flight yet. Will add that.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Solarsail on 08/20/2019 04:32 pm
I'm not sure this is interesting at all, but here's one more light launcher described on paper by a small company.  Don't know of any indications of work on the project in recent years, but this company's worked on various concepts for solid rocket motors, and described a small launcher using them: http://wickmanspacecraft.com/slv.html (http://wickmanspacecraft.com/slv.html)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 08/28/2019 02:12 pm
OHB joins the "first launch in two years" club, does not tell any specs.

Quote
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.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-27/german-space-firm-enters-rocket-business-shaken-up-by-elon-musk
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/11/2019 09:26 am
Latest update. They had a problem in the April test of the LAS-25D, which was at 10% thrust. They forgot to allow the tank to vent air into the tank as the steam in the tank cooled down. This caused outside pressure to implode the tank walls, causing damage that could not be repaired. They have now replaced the damaged tank with a temporary steel tank, which will be replaced with a new composite tank when it is ready. The next step is to start building the LAS-25R, which is the first stage of their launch vehicle. Below is a screen capture of all their old hardware in the Air Force museum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ4akrXzzvA
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: abaddon on 09/12/2019 05:14 pm
Companies that provide both dedicated and rideshare launch services for small satellites say that price remains a major factor for their customers, with pressure from growing competition to lower them: https://spacenews.com/smallsat-launch-services-feel-pricing-pressure/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: WIgorN on 09/16/2019 04:53 pm
IMHO:
The optimal Cubsat's LVis rethought, on a new round of technologies - the Black Arrow, based on DC-XA and Cosmos-2 / which 11K63
ONLY 2 stages!
Reusability according to the scheme Vertical Takeoff Horizontal Landing. Using the aerodynamic quality  stages.
In small carriers do not have the fuel to return, landing burn!
Expendable rockets on semi-cryogenic components will never be available!

Where is all this ???
All plagiarize the ideas of Ilon Mask and the large expansible missiles...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 09/18/2019 06:58 am

Where is all this ???
All plagiarize the ideas of Ilon Mask and the large expansible missiles...
That's "Elon Musk" and you asked why has this not happened

Simple.

It is known VTO (or air launched 3 stage solids in the case of Pegasus) expendable n-stage LV's work

Once you get outside of these paradigms you are committing to a) Increased risk that your idea will meet an obstacle that is impossible to solve with the resources you have available (or in the worst case that is impossible to solve without a change in the laws of physics) which leads to b) Increased expense over what implementing a new competitor.

So unless you are wealthy enough to say "I'm going to do this my way and I'll work out how to make it pay later" you have to convince investors it will deliver at least what existing ELV's (or semi ELV's) can supply today. But since they are footing the development bill as well you have to develop it quite cheaply.

What Musk showed is that if you are not on a government funded, cost plus programme and use best commercial practice you can do you development work on a fairly small vehicle (F1) and deliver F9 for a total cost (up to 1st F9 launch) of about $300m.  This had long been suspected in the new space community but he demonstrated it was possible. 

The standard cost model (used by NASA and the DoD to work out how much a project of a certain size and capability should cost) put the budget at $2Bn, about 6.6x bigger.

Think of this as "cost model inflation"  :(

So to raise funds you need to
a) Deliver more than the same sized TSTO ELV
b) Do it at the same budget as a TSTO ELV

An impossible gating problem unless your architecture adds substantial other benefits  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 09/23/2019 09:21 pm
This thread is approaching 4 years running
The OP has launches projected for the very next calendar quarter: Q1 2016.
Only one of them has achieved orbit, Rocketlab
It was several years beyond the projected date, which had already been pushed out, and the cost is half again what was projected, but they are a success. 
There are probably twice as many programs that could be or could have been added to the list, particularly if one includes Chinese "start-ups" that sell hardware from the military production lines.
Does anyone have a current list?
It could include a status column for adding "Defunct" to so many programs.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/01/2019 03:10 pm
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
2019-12 (https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/chandrayaan-2-to-reach-moon-s-orbit-on-august-20-isro-119081200612_1.html)  SSLV          India   ISRO (state-owned)
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

2020-03 (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

[2019-10-11: added Super Strypi]
[2019-10-21: added Jielong-2]
[2019-10-23: updated Firefly schedule, added Blue Whale 1]
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Tywin on 10/01/2019 03:16 pm
Interesting report about the present and future spaceports, for the launchers companies...

https://twitter.com/BryceSpaceTech/status/1179032724570591237
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/11/2019 06:05 pm
Article in Space News: (https://spacenews.com/air-force-selects-eight-launch-providers-to-compete-for-986-million-worth-of-orders/)  Air Force taps services of 8 launch providers
Quote
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

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. 

Someone says Vox Space is the vehicle for Virgin Orbit to sell to the government.

Aevum (https://www.aevumspace.com/)?  Another Huntsville company
Quote
Aevum, Inc. provides comprehensive space logistics service to enable commercial and Government customers to deploy small payloads in low Earth orbit (LEO).

They have a $4.9 M contract from the SMSC (https://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1955385/space-and-missile-systems-center-awards-49-million-small-rocket-program-orbital/) 
Quote
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.

Edit:  Neither Aveum or Xbow is on PM3's list.
However, the article linked above says Aveum is the successor to Vector, which PM3 listed as failed, and was under contract to SMSC within two weeks of Vector's withdrawal. Whether there is any technical connection is not discussed.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 10/11/2019 06:55 pm
No technical connection. Aevum made their first presentation last year. They were planning to start to do test launches this year  ::)

Very high vaporware vibe. How they qualified for the defence contract is beyond me. There's a link to the presentation in the Vector thread. I'd add it myself but that takes some doing on my phone.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/11/2019 07:18 pm
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. 

Als already pointed out here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48828.msg2003749#msg2003749) by su27k, the image on the X-Bow website shows the Hawaiian Super Strypi / Spark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_(rocket)) launcher. Also, X-Bow has been advocating for a launch site in Hawaii and is planning two satellite launches, the first one from Kauai (here (https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/testimony/SB1247_TESTIMONY_HRE-PSM_02-14-17.pdf) on page 8 ). These launches were planned for 2018 and 2019, but obviously did slip.

So Super Strypi seems to be alive.

Aevum so far is not in the launch schedule above because of the strong vaporware smell. But I will add Super Strypi.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: youngmacdonald on 10/17/2019 05:17 am
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?



Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 10/17/2019 01:42 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 10/17/2019 03:13 pm
To add to that: rocket lab is offering a lot of support for their customers. An integrated service that SpaceX just can't compete in because they would launch a much larger number of smallsats each time.

However, they are very likely to compete on price for several of the individual services RocketLab provides. These can be derivatives of Starlink components, so the volumes will allow lower costs.

I already said last year that the ones not making it to orbit this year would never become successful at all, and that's still my considered opinion. Too little, too late. Whatever niches big launchers leave open, RocketLab and the Chinese companies will fill up. Even VO might be too late.

RocketLab has shown it can launch quickly, yet continues to launch at half their production speed for now. I wonder how that will evolve next year.

Edit: Forgot about SSLV. They'll be able to get at least some customers, even in a worst case scenario.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/18/2019 06:27 am
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.

That figure is ridiculously inflated, because forums like his one treat literally anybody who even mentions they want to build some kind of launcher as tech porn, and adds them to the list, with the same weighing as companies with hundreds of millions of dollars like Vrgin Orbit.

At least 90% of that 140 number have no chance of getting beyond the paper/dream stages. Many of them are already nothing more than a memory, but still get quoted in the press as real contenders.

Another 5% might have got to some hardware, but then ran out ability to build a company.

What really matters is who has money, who has experience, who is making real progress on the tech and commercial side, who started early enough to be a player. And that is a very short list, maybe 8 companies globally.

Quote
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.

Rocket Lab is obviously the cream of the crop and the model pupil.

Virgin Orbit is nearly there but has a massively expensive air launched model that is only used by one other launch system ever. As the law suit with OneWeb showed, they probably only got this far because of that insane anchor contract.

The next batch of 2-3 of those are relatively early stage, with very unproven tech, and some don't yet have customers. I expect maybe one of that second tier group to survive long term.

Firefly has made good progress both technically and commercailly, but is still probably a year or more from launching anything, even with the porn money behind it. Relativity has a long way to go, with radical, unproven tech - they are good at PR but so was Vector. ABL has even further to go. Astra has blown up some suborbital stuff. Vector is defunct. Spinlaunch is by most accounts physically impossible. Numerous others are nothing more than webpages.

You also miss the international players in China and Europe.

China has maybe 2 decent players, who are state backed, but they are restricted to some degree in what they can do internationally e.g. no US payloads can fly on Chinese launchers. iSpace has made orbit, although it didn't make many headlines. OneSpace is not far away. Linkspace is still trying to make a suborbital rocket work.

In Europe you have probably 2 companies, only one of which started early enough to be competitive in my opinion, and is the clear (regional) leader right now, even though still early stage: Orbex in Scotland, which is signing up customers like SSTL. The other who might well get there based on the backing of OHB, but probably quite late, is Rocket Factory Augsburg in Germany. PLD Space (Spain) and Skyrora (Ukraine) are respectively too inexperienced and way too late. Isar Aerospace (Germany) is even more late and even worse is hoping to build an enormous rocket. Zero2Infinity is basically dead.

Then there is the new ISRO SSLV launcher in India. That is serious and will happen.

Quote
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?

Forget the stealth ones, they have missed the moment.

I expect ~2 companies to survive in each major geographic region. There is room for regional players in this sector. Many of those mentioned on forums like this never got much beyond the PR stages e.g. Zero2Infinity, CubeCab, Orbital Access, Vector, Linn, ARCA, Horizon, Rocketstar, Aphelion, Swiss Space Systems, Xcor, MISHAAL, Space LS, Horizon, dozens of others.

You have to separate the wheat from the chaff by going beyond the fact that a name is on a list. It's easy to put out a press release and some fancy renderings, but have they:

- proper manufacturing / testing facilities
- senior people with serious experience
- a decent chunk of money
- started working on it approx. 4-5 years ago
- real customer contracts - not LOIs, those are utterly worthless
- real technology, like GNC sensor packs, all the avionics, reliable engines, turbopumps
- a local regime that can offer launch licences
- results from testing engines for 2-3 years already
- access to a real launch site
- a non-teenage approach to doing business
- maybe some kind of geographic or technology advantage

Tick all of those boxes today and there is a good chance they will succeed. But if they miss on any of those major items now, I would say they are a long shot.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/18/2019 07:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/19/2019 06:14 am
ARCA did their second test of their hot water bottle rocket on 13 October!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ulU7y_RWGs
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/19/2019 06:18 am
ARCA's next test article is the LAS 25RD, using a larger tank. Enhanced photo attached.

https://www.facebook.com/arcaspace/photos/a.10153942638068332/10158862447038332/?type=3&theater

"LAS 25RD, a big aerospike VTOL rocket under construction at ARCA"
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edzieba on 10/21/2019 02:25 pm
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.

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.
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.
::EDIT:: Of course, if a dedicated reusable 'bigsat' launcher carrying just your smallsat ends up being cheaper than a dedicated smallsat launch anyway...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 10/21/2019 03:06 pm
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.

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.
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.
::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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/21/2019 06:40 pm
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.

Then &lt;a href="https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48741.msg1985695#msg1985695"&gt;this happened&lt;/a&gt; shortly after &lt;a href="https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48741.msg1982739#msg1982739"&gt;this happened&lt;/a&gt;.  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 &lt;a href="https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47848.msg1933576#msg1933576"&gt;helping companies develop payloads&lt;/a&gt;
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.
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.
::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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 10/22/2019 12:07 am
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.

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.
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.
::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.

These two replies are why I combined the mention of SpaceX with the mention of Momentous in my original post.  I see the combination of the two, which together are still cheaper than the known regular pricing of the smallsat launcher competition, as being the significant point.  Either alone, or if the combination would not be cheaper, would have not had the signficance.

Also, you don't need a kick stage for 'every one of those smallsats', you just need them for whichever payloads need an orbit they cannot get to from on their own from the main launcher.   

To the point about dedicated launches being able to compete based on being able to launch 'at a time of your choice', SpaceX seems to be trying to test how much the market cares about that or if they just need to be able to launch on a short time horizon and be able to trust that they will launch as scheduled. (https://spacenews.com/spacex-says-rideshare-missions-will-launch-on-time-even-if-partly-empty/).  The way rideshares have typically worked in the past may have just been a little too uncertain for the market and giving them more predictability may be all that is needed to capture a lot of what would have historically resorted to a dedicated launch.  We'll see.

SpaceX doesn't need to capture 100% of the launches (and I don't think they will even come close) to disrupt the small launcher industry, they just need to capture a lot of it and make everyone else have to compete strongly on pricing.  If they do that it'll kill off young cash starved companies due to lack of critical mass.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: harrystranger on 10/23/2019 11:11 am
Some good info on smallsat launchers such as Rocketlab, Firefly, Virgin Orbit etc  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlbZTyBuFlQ&t=979s
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 10/26/2019 06:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/27/2019 07:26 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 10/28/2019 02:29 am
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.

Space One was technically directly under Canon Electronics before becoming a subsidiary, so they've been running longer than a year. But, they're bottlenecked by pad construction and other issues, so it's a wash whether to count them as contenders in the 2021 timeframe.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 10/28/2019 12:18 pm
(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.

OK forum, so what is the canonical list of small (commercial, not government sponsored) launchers who have a plausible chance of launching within a couple years, say by the end of 2021?

I found a couple of websites:

https://spacefund.com/launch-database/
https://www.newspace.im/launchers

...which gave a useful starting point for research and came up with this list:

Rocket Lab: now
Firefly: 2020
ABL: 2020
Virgin Orbit: 2020
Relativity: 2021
Orbex: 2021

Did I miss any small launchers that are likely to be competitive on the open market?

I left off the chinese launchers because I am uncertain of their ability to compete for a lot of the commercial market, if anyone has clarity on that feel free to chime in.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 10/28/2019 12:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/28/2019 01:15 pm
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]
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 10/28/2019 01:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/28/2019 10:32 pm
Listen to podcast on Black Arrow. They plan to sealaunch from ship, due to limited launch site oprions in UK.

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.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/29/2019 03:26 am
I saw this over on the SSLV thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44287.msg1860820#msg1860820)

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"?

That appears to be from March of 2018, a year and a half ago.
#1 on the list is Rocketlab.  They are obviously the leader with many launches.  Has anyone else done more than one?
#2 is "Kuaizhou 1A.  The list says "successful launch and satellite deployment".   Did this become Hyperbola-1 or Jielong-1?
Launcher 1 and SSLV are #3 and #4 and it really is coming down to the wire, with both saying launch will occur within the next two months.  They could make the conclusion of the slide correct, with 5 successful efforts by 2020.
Then the list has Vector with a silly date of 2018.  It is listed as "Failed" above.
Last is PLDSpace with Arion-2.  It's not even on the list above.

Fun
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/29/2019 04:13 am
#2 is "Kuaizhou 1A.  The list says "successful launch and satellite deployment".   Did this become Hyperbola-1 or Jielong-1?

Neither. Kuaizhou 1A is an improved version of Kuaizhou 1, which did its first orbital launch in 2013. Five successful launches so far, and another eight planned for the upcoming weeks. The first of those eight (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49269.0) was scrubbed just a few hours ago. (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/kuaizhou-1.htm)

Arion-2 has been renamed to Miura 5. This is a Spanish rocket with reusable first stage, which is scheduled for first launch in 2021 but likely will slip to a later year.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/29/2019 06:05 am
Listen to podcast on Black Arrow. They plan to sealaunch from ship, due to limited launch site oprions in UK.

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.
<rolls eyes>

When do we start including the crayon drawings of rockets done by 5 year old schoolchildren?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/29/2019 12:52 pm
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.

We know lots about both of those firms.

Astra has had 2 failed sub-orbital launches from Alaska. It is well documented on this forum, and I won't repeat that information: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44689.120

X-bow was founded by Maureen Gannon (ex-Firefly and Virgin) and Mark Kaufmann (ex-Aerojet Rocketdyne) in August 2016. They have raised approx $3.2m from DARPA/SBIR funding, plus whatever private money they have which seems to be small:-

https://govtribe.com/vendors/x-bow-launch-systems-inc-dot-7puy4

https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/definitive-contract-w911nf19c0046 ($2.9m awarded Jul 2019)

They are building a AM-solid propellant vehicle based on LEONIDAS aka SPARK and they support a new range in Hawaii probably due to the background of LEONIDAS at Hawaii University, but they are at very low TRL today i.e, <TRL4:

"X-Bow Launch Systems and its partners have developed a feasible concept to additively manufacture solid propellant. This additive manufacturing method, adapted from existing scaleable processes, will reduce the lifecycle cost and improve the overall responsiveness of the X-Bow Launch Systems vehicle. The innovation is to adapt breakthrough manufacturing processes developed for the Li-Ion battery industry. A variation of high speed electro-spin and electro-spray will be adapted, simulated and tested to ensure they are optimized for the constituent, fuel, binders and oxidizers required for solid propellant. Markets and applications have been identified as part of the technology development, including both sub scale and full scale. This technology will move to TRL 4 level during the Phase I effort; a rapid Phase II plan to move the Technology to the TRL 6/7 range has been identified. Current estimates show a significant cost savings of ~$5M in the total flyaway cost of a small launch vehicle. Additionally, by incorporating this technology, the potential improvement to the performance of the X-Bow launch vehicle is ~30%."

https://www.ussbir.io/sbirsearch/detail/1589323 ($146k awarded July 2018)

"A Hawai‘i launch facility would be an ideal home base of operations for the X-Bow commercial launch vehicle, a rocket technology based on the LEONIDAS program conceived and managed by the Hawai‘i Space Flight Laboratory at the University of Hawai‘i.

A commercial launch complex on the eastern shore of the Island of Hawai‘i would combine with the existing launch capability on Kaua‘i to support all envisioned X-Bow launches from the state of Hawai‘i. X-Bow Launch Systems is currently working towards a small satellite launch from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kaua‘i in 2018, followed by a low-inclination second launch in 2019, ideally from Hawai‘i.

Passage of SB1247 would be a meaningful step towards establishing a launch facility on the Island of Hawai‘i capable of supporting space exploration and development with commercial launches in 2019. We are eager to collaborate with the people and state of Hawai‘i to achieve this goal."

(https://i.imgur.com/8wcByP0.png)

https://www.hsfl.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/HawaiiSpaceFlightLabOverview-March2019.pdf
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/testimony/SB1247_TESTIMONY_HRE-PSM_02-14-17.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_(rocket)

That 2019 launch target didn't happen, as far as I can tell.

They have 4 employees in LinkedIn:

Maureen Gannon
Founder, President, VP Business Development

Max Vozoff
Chief Technology Officer at X-Bow Launch Systems Inc.

Mark Kaufman
Co-Founder, Senior Vice President

Samuel McCraw
Program Director at X-BOW Launch System

They are spread out across Scramento, San Francisco and Denver, but have a registered address in a shared building in Huntsville, AL - 1300 Meridian St:-

https://opengovus.com/sam-entity?q=1300+meridian+st

Again, I ask - can this company get to orbit by 2021/22 form his starting point today? Not a hope.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/29/2019 02:12 pm
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.

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.

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.

Just saying you want to build a launcher, with no money, no experience, no resources etc. and opening a social media account  saying you now run Deep Space Launcher Inc. (one of the selection criteria for Neiderstrasser's list) is in the same league, if not worse.

Quote
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.

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?

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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 10/29/2019 02:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Tywin on 10/29/2019 05:05 pm
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Tywin on 10/29/2019 05:09 pm
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...?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/29/2019 05:51 pm


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

Launcher Space are targetting 2025.
Any late comers to this market will be competiting against mature LVs with proven flight histories, some of which will be RLVs.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 10/29/2019 06:43 pm
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.

You may care about absolutely nothing other than "which launch vehicles have a good chance of being active within 3 years" But there are many reasons that others can care about the overall numbers, even including how many groups of friends think they can build a small orbital rocket in their garage.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/29/2019 07:53 pm
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:-

"A Hawai‘i launch facility would be an ideal home base of operations for the X-Bow commercial launch vehicle, a rocket technology based on the LEONIDAS program conceived and managed by the Hawai‘i Space Flight Laboratory at the University of Hawai‘i."

Which is that same solid-fueled rocket that failed four years ago that I linked....
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/29/2019 08:10 pm
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.

Oh you mean like the scientists who published a bunch of totally bogus papers to expose the scandal of academic publishing?

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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 10/29/2019 11:05 pm
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:-
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.

Oh you mean like the scientists who published a bunch of totally bogus papers to expose the scandal of academic publishing?

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?
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/29/2019 11:54 pm
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:-

"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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/30/2019 12:17 am
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: novak on 10/30/2019 02:33 am
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).

Yes, and of those the (US) smallsat launchers, it's pretty much Rocket Labs (flying) and Astra (trying to fly).  You could also count virgin orbit if you want, though they sit in an awkward spot between the two groups, hoping that their responsive launch gets them the best of both worlds.

Everyone else credible is going 1000kg or bigger.  I think both Firefly and Relativity have talked about going up from that size- not sure about ABL, who have been pretty quiet for a company claiming a launch next year.  It's possible that these slightly larger small launchers are just a better field for a new company to compete, since no one is flying there yet, but I think it's also that launch tends to be a race to the bottom, making it very tempting to make your vehicle just slightly larger (and thus cheaper per kg) than your competitors- until you get too close to the "roof," of current/future F9 prices to justify the cost per kg.  It looked to me like the old triple core firefly beta fell into this class where it was just too pricey for the payload it offered, hence the move from ELV to RLV.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 10/30/2019 03:44 am
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:-
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.

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.
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.

Quote
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.
Sure there are. The fact that you don't know how doesn't mean it can't be done.
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.)

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.

Quote
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.
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.
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.

Anyway, you spent more of this post attacking me than addressing any of the points I made.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/30/2019 03:48 am
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).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/30/2019 05:31 am
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.

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).

Logistics are always hardest the first time you do something.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/30/2019 05:35 am
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.

All of that can be done on rideshare launches, either by the companies providing the launch or by third parties.  Either way, the dedicated smallsat launchers have no advantage because of this, and the rideshare solution is much cheaper.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 10/30/2019 09:22 am
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...?

Where did you find this graph? And when was it last updated? Seems like 2019 is a bad year even for cubesats.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Oumuamua on 10/30/2019 12:11 pm
While we are on the topic of ridesharing, I think the following article is very interesting:

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.
 
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: racerx on 10/30/2019 12:25 pm
No, Carlos Niederstrasser's numbers are not highly misleading.  He has always been very clear on what his criteria is for being included on the list.  From his last publicly available paper, presented at the 2018 Smallsat Conference (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2018/all2018/306/):

"To be included in this list a launch vehicle under development must meet the following requirements:

-  Have a maximum capability to LEO of 1000 kg (definition of LEO left to the LV provider).
-  The effort must be for the development of an entire space launch vehicle system (with the exception of carrier aircraft for air launched vehicles).
-  Some indication through a web site, social media, traditional media, conference paper, press release, etc. that the effort has been active in the past two years.
-  No specific indication that the effort has been cancelled, closed, or otherwise disbanded.
-  Have a stated goal of completing a fully operational space launch (orbital) vehicle. Funded concept or feasibility studies by government agencies, patents for new launch methods, etc., do not qualify, but have been included in the “Other Potential Players” section.
-  The launch vehicle must be available on the open, commercial market. (With the understanding that some countries are restricted with regards to what vehicles their space systems can launch on)

The philosophy behind the guidelines to be considered “active” is based on the fact many of these efforts require some amount of confidentiality and secretiveness or may go dormant as a result of funding gaps. Therefore we do not consider the absence of new information (in the last two years) to be indicative of the project standing down.

Beyond these criteria the authors have not attempted to validate the technology, business plan, feasibility, or realism of the systems documented herein. We do not make any value judgements on technical or financial credibility or viability."

Additionally, from his abstract at this year's IAC (https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/52324/abstract-pdf/IAC-19,B4,5,1,x52324.brief.pdf?2019-04-05.15:28:21):

"In order to present the most unbiased, and neutral data to the audience, we purposely avoid making any judgements on vehicle maturity or business case realism."


So in other words, he's intentionally bending over backwards to ensure that all companies are included on the list.  Just because you don't agree with his criteria doesn't make his criteria wrong.  But the good thing is he's open to improvements: "Corrections, additions, and comments are welcomed and encouraged!"  So feel free to contact him and propose alternate criteria for future updates.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 10/30/2019 01:59 pm
The BIG question, is after reach 800 cubesats launch, per year, the trend will continue growth, or will stop...?

(http://spaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Infographic_revised.jpg)

According to the infographic I attached (sourced here: https://spaceflight.com/sso-a/ ) we were seeing a fair number of payloads that were 'university spacecraft', 'art exhibits', and 'high school spacecraft' in addition to the usual suspects.  This was before SpaceX put downward pressure on the pricing in the market with their rideshare program.  What seems like the new pricepoint for launching cubesat class payloads gets solidly into the realm of what can be achieved via high school fundraisers and crowd funding.  Combine this with more COTS hardware being available and more turnkey services being available to handle aspects of the mission that would otherwise make them more difficult and risky, and it seems like the skids are greased to bring a lot of new demand into the market that would not have flown a mission in the past.

Then there are the 'tech demonstrators'.  Presumably at least some of them will result in a followon business which will need still more launches in order to go into operations.

I guess the real question is, why wouldn't the trend continue?  The only thing I can think of might be that many of these could be subsized by government or other programs which might stop funding them.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/30/2019 02:48 pm
While we are on the topic of ridesharing, I think the following article is very interesting:

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.
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.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/30/2019 03:15 pm
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.

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.

That's not the worst case.  The worst case is that there aren't enough niches where dedicated smallsat launchers can survive.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 10/30/2019 03:24 pm
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 was noticing the groupings I mentioned from the list of companies that were plausibly expected to be flying a commercially competitive vehicle in the 2020-2021 timeframe.  I was thinking of this specifically to help frame the actual competitive landscape in the near term, not as a more theoretical exercise.  I didn't really focus on 2022 and beyond because frankly I think we are headed into a launch industry singularity  around that time as a result of all the new launchers coming online between now and then.

I looked into the new companies you added to the list and here are my (admittedly uneducated) impressions.

Astra Astra: Discussed recently upthread.  Seems like a toss up, you could argue this one either way. 

Interstellar Zero: They don't seem to talk much about working on this vehicle or show real signs of progress I could find.

Gilmour Eris-S: They are stating 2021 as their best case scenario, given some of the struggles they seem to be having and the historical norm for slippage in the industry, 2022 seems significantly more probable

X-Bow Super Stripy: Covered recently upthread, does not seem to have the staff to field or operate a commercial orbital vehicle in this timeframe

NGIS Pegasus & Minotaur: My understanding is that these haven't been commercially competitive due to very high prices

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

PLD Space Miura 5:  They are estimating a late 2022 launch and I'd make the same observation about timeline slippage in this industry as I did for Gilmour so they are more likely to fly in 2023 or beyond.

Isar Aerospace Spectrum: I couldn't find much detail on them, but they do seem funded and serious.  Without any info on their progress it is tough to say if they could hit a 2021 timeframe.  If anyone knows anything, post to their thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47876.0).       
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/30/2019 05:21 pm

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.
I think laziness is a bit harsh.

He could just have a short attention span.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/30/2019 09:52 pm
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.

Epsilon is the opposite, I included it only for reference.

My second favorite is ABL with RS1, which is also optimized for low cost and high responsiveness.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 10/30/2019 11:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 10/30/2019 11:45 pm
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.

Do you have an authoritative source for the $3.5M?  I'm am seeing estimates all over the map, everything from a price of $2.11M to a manufacturing cost on wikipedia of $4.3M
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 10/31/2019 12:02 am
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/)?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: novak on 10/31/2019 02:07 am
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'll bite.  This is a little bit my opinion, subject to interpretation, so don't read too much into it, and feel free to dispute if you think you have a point.  Of course it's something of a continuum, but if you look at cost competitive (something that's even close- eg ditch the NGIS $30M+ options) US small launchers that should be flying in the reasonably near term before most of the investment goes (NET date 2021, realistic date 2022), it splits much harder.  Especially with Firefly claiming a block 2 upgrade for alpha puts it at 800 kg to SSO.

Source: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/10/18/1932085/0/en/Aerojet-Rocketdyne-and-Firefly-Aerospace-to-Provide-Flexible-Access-to-Space.html (https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/10/18/1932085/0/en/Aerojet-Rocketdyne-and-Firefly-Aerospace-to-Provide-Flexible-Access-to-Space.html)

Left in the quote about virgin not being very cost competitive, because I think it hits the nail on the head- small vehicles that are considered more credible are often advertised for a higher price- kind of a red flag for the whole "opening space to everyone" thing.

Don't totally disagree about SSLV.  Everyone claims to be saving the future of smallsats, but we all know that if cost didn't matter they'd buy their own F9.  To me, the part that really makes a difference is the promise of launch, which lets the satellites- often much better funded- get more investment because they can promise to be operational by a given date.   

I suspect rough days ahead for the really small launchers, if the larger ones make orbit.  I'd suspect that rocket labs does too, going RLV.  It's a tactic to try to lower the price, and gives them a real edge on price.

Your table, modified for only US launchers expected to fly by 2021:

 ~65  Astra          Astra
 150  Electron       Rocket Lab
 300  LauncherOne    Virgin
 800  Alpha Block 2  Firefly
 875  RS1            ABL
 900  Terran 1       Relativity
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 10/31/2019 04:13 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 10/31/2019 07:04 am
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.

We agree on this point.

Quote
, 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.

That's what I'm saying. Spare capacity on Starlink missions is quite likely cheaper than the same payload mass on a dedicated (non-Starlink) smallsat launch. Spare capacity on Starlink could basically be sold somewhere above the cost of the extra fuel, and still make Starlink launches less expensive to SpaceX. Whereas payload mass on a dedicated mission would likely be sold at a price point that factors in the whole launch cost, where the total payload mass of all the smallsats on board is estimated beforehand.

While dedicated launches can indeed push the smallsat launchers out of business if they fly regularly, there is a limited set of Starlink missions. Plenty in the coming years, once they get around to launching regularly. But once the main constellation is up, the number of launches will be reduced. If smallsat companies only had the number of payloads in mind that can be launched on spare Starlink missions, they wouldn't even be viable without SpaceX competition.

Quote
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]

Far too early to call that. It could go either way.

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.

Oh, quite right. At some point, smallsat launchers could just become a billboard for companies that design, launch and operate satellites, with their specific launcher only as an option rather than the default launcher. Considering this market segment is focused towards people who don't know their way around the existing smallsat businesses, or have much knowledge about designing or operating a satellite, such an eye catching billboard would be quite valuable. And the extra cost of using said launcher could be insignificant in comparison to the cost of designing and operating the satellite in the first place.

As more and more economic activities in space become viable, existing companies can branch out far more easily than new companies can become operational. And as existing markets, like smallsats, mature, companies catered to them might benefit more easily than other companies (or new ones) can shift their activities accordingly. This means companies are unlikely to stay firmly within the economic activity that they started out with. So eventually, this highly entertaining discussion is going to be moot indeed, as the industry will quite likely become entirely unlike what we expect today.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/31/2019 07:59 am
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.
[/quote]

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 10/31/2019 09:13 am
So far, RocketLab's launches aren't enough to justify the investment made to develop Electron.

We agree on this point.

Well, almost. At five launches this year, that puts them ahead of ULA (4), ISRO (4) and right behind ArianeSpace (6). That's half of the number of SpaceX launches (10) so far. (CASC is at 17 and Russian rockets are launched by more organisations than I was aware of).

Seems like a healthy niche this year. IMO, par for the course of ROI. No guarantee of long term success, but if these oldspace companies can scrape by on a handful of launches and government support, newspace companies can likely scrape by on a handful of launches and no government support.

Edit: fixed quote
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 10/31/2019 12:52 pm
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.


This is why the revised SpaceX rideshare program was so significant, it opened up a large enough price difference between themselves and the rest of the pack (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46763.msg2009565#msg2009565) that there seems to be plenty of room for the rideshare on a rideshare model and brings them payloads that might not otherwise have flown on them because they wanted orbit customization that the vanilla rideshare would not otherwise provide (while denying those payloads to compettors).

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 10/31/2019 11:15 pm
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.

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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/01/2019 02:53 am


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.

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.
[/quote]

The smallsats still need to get to their destination orbit. They have 2 choices add extra DV to satellite or use OTV if using rideshare. The 2nd gives them option of smallsat launcher as well.

If doing large constellations then building extra DV into satellite makes sense as they can use low cost rideshare and make their own way to destination orbit. Typically extra DV will come in form of SEP so better all round for mission. This is market PhaseFour is targetting with Maxwell thruster.

For low volume satellites its lower risk, easier and probably cheaper to offload extra DV needed to flight proven OTV or smallsat LV, than build extra DV into satellite for one time only use. This is market RL is targetting with Electron+Photon combination.


Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 11/01/2019 09:03 am

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/

The Condosat concept is similar to the aggregate coral concept in essence, but the limiter with condosats is while there may be a standard payload interface socket for hosted payloads, you are still functionally limited by a fixed hosting bus that is a one shot deal. An Archinaut/SpiderFab enabled host bus means you can host payloads that would otherwise interfere with neighbor payloads despite the shared interfaces (size/clearance) due to the deployed truss the builder makes, and certain types of repairs are feasible (smacking a stuck telescope, swapping a FRU component delivered later, etc).

The easy example is deployable antennas/optics, which rather than using a launch rated deployment mechanism, are flat packed for launch and deployed/built on top of the sensor payload in orbit. The sensor payload still uses the same common interface for connecting to power/comms (and maybe limited temperature control services?). If I can just send up a payload with a roll of thin film lens/mirror or a roll of mesh or a rolled reflectoarray, and contract to use some builder extruded truss to build the optics/antenna, that's a net win on multiple levels.

The killer feature in my eyes is being able to build/test a payload on the condosat/coral before attaching to a tested freeflyer bus using the same interfaces as a payload that wasn't going to leave and stay attached. The freeflyer may be a mostly passive pointing bus, or could be a full fledged OTV like a Vigoride. Think of a short term contracted mission, and when the contract is over, the freeflyer returns to a coral sat, where a tanker (or a full on propellant depot) is attached and waiting to refuel the freeflyer for another ondemand customer specific short term mission.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Tywin on 11/02/2019 06:52 pm


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...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/02/2019 08:22 pm
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.

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.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 11/04/2019 08:30 am


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...

Looks like they updated their stats since you posted it. Seems less dramatic now. And if the flurry of launches planned for the end of the year comes to fruition, 2019 can still continue the gradual increase of launches that have been the trend for more than a decade now. 2018 was just an exceptional year.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/06/2019 05:46 am
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.

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.
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.


OTOH comms is going to be much harder. Roughly speaking range is about 1000x greater, whereas comms to mars is about 500x bigger than that still.  :(

You can send it, but how will it report back (let alone control it)?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/18/2019 01:19 am
A groundbreaking ceremony has been held for what will be Japan's first ever rocket launch site to be operated by a private sector company.
Space One is building the launch site in Kushimoto town, Wakayama Prefecture.


https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20191116_19/amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

This site should have similar range of orbits as RL Mahia site. The airtraffic is going be lot higher especially if heading northeast.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/18/2019 06:01 am
Screen grabs from above.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: xyv on 11/20/2019 04:25 am
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..
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/20/2019 05:29 am
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!
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/20/2019 05:58 am
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!
Indeed.

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.  :(

In country like Japan even the start of a commercial, for profit launch site not being built for the government is little short of revolutionary.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/20/2019 06:03 am
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."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 11/20/2019 11:46 am
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."

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.

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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/20/2019 05:35 pm
<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?

The Pegasus price itself out of the market along with an inadequate IMLEO. According to a 2018 GAO report the Pegasus is the most expensive launcher at $88,889 per kilogram for a maximum payload of 400 kg to LEO. The launch cost starts from $40M. So hardly anyone launching a smallsat or a cubesat will select the Pegasus when cheaper rideshare alternatives are available.

It is cheaper to book a flight proven Falcon 9 instead of the Pegasus to all orbital destination (e.g. the NASA IXPE mission).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 11/20/2019 06:06 pm
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 was long before Falcon 9 started launching in 2010. After that, and now with RocketLab, Kuaizhou and Long March 11, it's normal that they don't get many launch orders any more.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Tywin on 11/20/2019 08:43 pm
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."

What about the Conestoga I?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conestoga_(rocket)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Tywin on 11/20/2019 09:00 pm
Interesting, how many small space tugs with SEP, are being development in the moment...and all are very happy with the rideshare of Spacex...


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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/20/2019 10:31 pm
Interesting, how many small space tugs with SEP, are being development in the moment...and all are very happy with the rideshare of Spacex...


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/
Some interesting trades for smallsat companies.
1) Add extra DV and use lowcost rideshare.
2) Only provide enough DV for station keeping and use spacetugs with rideshare or small LV which will deliver smallsat to target orbit.

With ridehare need to add extra cost of more DV or spacetug.

Smallsat propulsion companies are hoping smallsat builders add extra DV.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/21/2019 03:46 am
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWDJBkf_P3Y
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 11/21/2019 11:46 am
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.

Ah yes, that seems obvious now. Thanks.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bean Kenobi on 11/21/2019 11:53 am

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.


I think you're not right Steven : Tywin speaks about Conestoga I which flew in 1982, not Conestoga 1620 (1995) you showed ;)

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/conestoga-1.htm
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gmbnz on 11/22/2019 02:58 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/22/2019 05:15 am
Conestoga 1 flew right under my radar! I was in my first year of university and my access to current space events was limited to what the local newspaper published. But I did have books like "Space Exploration" which had a couple of paragraphs on OTRAG. They tried to develop a modular launch vehicle (similar to InterOrbital Systems Neptune vehicle), with quite a few test flights in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Their first flight was on 18 May 1977.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/otrag.htm
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/22/2019 05:32 am

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 pursue) cheaper on demand access to space.

But it was the first one with even close to private funding that made orbit.

Everything else before that failed to do so.  And until F1 everything else continued to do so.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Skyrocket on 11/22/2019 07:12 am
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

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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gmbnz on 11/22/2019 08:37 pm
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.

Yes, that's true, and even the F1 had a lot of help in developing the Merlin from the Fastrac.


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

I'd never come across that one before, thanks!

Also a bit off topic (please excuse the newbie question): how do I 'like' someones post?


Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bean Kenobi on 11/22/2019 08:50 pm
Also a bit off topic (please excuse the newbie question): how do I 'like' someones post?

Top right of each post ;)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Arb on 11/23/2019 10:51 pm
Also a bit off topic (please excuse the newbie question): how do I 'like' someones post?

Top right of each post ;)

And if it's not there, turn your add blocker off...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/07/2019 03:43 pm
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: jstrotha0975 on 12/07/2019 08:39 pm
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)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/09/2019 05:26 pm
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". 

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 

* Six Pershing II missiles were launched in one day (within a three-hour span, actually) from Cape Canaveral LC 16 on February 15, 1988.  Additional six-launch efforts were performed prior to this test.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 12/09/2019 05:40 pm
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". 

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/09/2019 05:50 pm
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?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/09/2019 07:06 pm
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?

 - Ed Kyle
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).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 12/09/2019 11:12 pm
It's not completely obvious, but I believe the KZ-1A launches did not share TEL's? Which at that point means about all the launch campaign shared was mission control/telemetry, and maybe a paved parking lot? Many modern large scale road mobile TEL's aren't designed for rapid reuse due to their missile encapsulation and flame bucket, but the KZ-1A is more old style with the exposed body (but enclosed payload container, ostensibly for payload umbilicals).


One has to look at the requirements (and the underlying assumptions) behind responsive launch.

Fast launch of a spysat (or minor spysat constellation) presupposes a pressing need to watch a particular patch of earth at high resolution in a timely manner, which presupposes that existing surveillance assets are either too thinly spread out (not enough sats for global realtime coverage and/or can't be tasked), or trying to avoid the problem of people hiding things when known satellites are overhead. But with a new healthy launch industry, the barriers to building a full realtime observation constellation have been substantially reduced.

Fast replacement, presupposes that fast launch assets are appropriate gapfillers for satellites lost at their reduced size, and a sufficient quantity have been premanufactured and waiting in storage. There is a problem with this line of thought though, because a constellation of gapfiller sats themselves, with on-orbit spares, would likely be a better use of funds. Fast replacement of a full constellation (or fast minimal replacement), presupposes catastrophic loss of a constellation though, and you have to wonder how bad a situation that would be that isn't a full-on war.

Then there's fast initial constellation surge, but the usual customer for that is a FOBS system deployment, which is really rattling the war sabers there. There was enough animosity over the potential for SDI to use a DC-Y like vehicle to fast surge a Brilliant Pebbles system. DC-X derivative vehicles have always been the posterchild of responsive launch, civil or otherwise.

Which leaves us with the interesting "emergency" category. What constitutes an emergency that requires responsive launch, and not a war scenario? An argument could be made that responsive launch overlaps with distributed launch. Which implies a highly divisible payload. One scenario I can imagine is some sort of rescue OTV that can attach to containerized propellant loads. But how often do you really need a rescue OTV to justify the development and standby status? (One could argue this might actually be a function/responsibility of a Space Guard, much in the vein as rescue lifeboats staged at lighthouses). In such a rescue situation, a launch azimuth agnostic system like Launcher One is handy, to be able to send followup propellant loads to a lofted OTV via orbit matching at launch through launch point shifting. But again, a rescue scenario is somewhat suspect. What are rescuing, and why bother (if you can expect an insurance payout)?

In the age of commercial manned launch, a botched abort-to-orbit that has concerns about capsule integrity is another rescue scenario, though the scenario itself is suspect.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/10/2019 06:03 am
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.

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?
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.

These are supplied by another company that is also (or was) a partial owner of orbital. That's a cost Orbital have no control over (and does not count as part of the profit that they could charge on a cost plus government launch).  AFAIK those costs have gradually crept up while the falling launch rate has meant effectively you're having to pay at least part of the cost for keeping the whole staff involved working for the company in the intervening years.

The design also uses military grade tech like thermal batteries for on board power.  Their prices have probably gone up as well at rates well above general inflation (I'm not sure if the original application they were developed for is still in service. If not that's another obsolete piece of tech the programme is supporting).

Pegasus has been admired by small LV mfgs for it's ability to charge through-the-nose prices and still get customers, but that's obviously changing when SX can undercut them with a pre flown F9. A vehicle whose LEO payload is roughly  50x bigger.
 
My problem with the small LV market is at the end of the design process what have you got? Yet another liquid fueled TSTO with a 50/50 chance of failure on first launch and if it succeeds its failure rate is very unlikely to be better than 1 in 50.  Smarter players will push for booster reuse but RL is already going there and that gives them first mover advantage. RL's use of CFRP for a LOX tank and electric pump drive is the most innovative features in small LV design in decades

Which really doesn't say much for the pace of development in this sector.  :(

Now show me an engine with a T/W of a 1000:1, or an Isp of 2000secs plus that someone has actually built and I will be rather more impressed.

 
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/10/2019 02:20 pm
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?

 - Ed Kyle
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).
Responsive launch implies national emergency.  Cost is not, should not be, the primary issue there.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 12/13/2019 08:47 pm
Looks like we have the first pricing I've seen about the Isar Spectrum and a reaffirmation that they are still targeting late 2021:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47876.msg2025111#msg2025111
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Blackjax on 12/24/2019 10:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/25/2019 03:10 am
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.

The "demo flight" that is sitting on the pad awaiting launch is not an orbital-class launch vehicle.  It's a sub-orbital vehicle.

This company claims a lot, but hasn't proven much yet.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/25/2019 05:53 pm
A successful launch doesn't mean they will be commercially active in near term. Need to have production facilities to build few LVs a year also suitable SSO launch site.

 Their launch site is in southern Taitung County, on the southeast coast, but you can't actually get to SSO from Taiwan because of overflight issues, so they are looking for a second launch site in Scandinavia or Australia.

I hope demo launch is a success.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 12/25/2019 08:13 pm
In the dedicated TiSpace thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49583.msg2029790#msg2029790) it has been said that they don’t have a launch pad for orbital attempts. That post says TiSpace is in trouble for even proposing launching from the site on their web page.

They seem to be well financed by their extensive test equipment, and they have some functioning hybrid rocket engines/motors, but they have made many curious design choices and seem a long way from launching anything. I would put them in the middle tier among the 150 or so small launcher programs, just above the defunct ones and the ones with nothing but PowerPoints.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 01/27/2020 09:36 am
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)

Planned or expected (NET)

2020-02 (https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-astra-rocket/)  Rocket        US      Astra
2020-03 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45925.msg2042426#msg2042426)  LauncherOne   US      Virgin
2020-03 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-industry-faces-impacts-of-coronavirus-outbreak/)  Kuaizhou-11   China   ExPace (state-owned)

2020-Q2 (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/industrialised-pslv-by-2022/article30647297.ece)  SSLV          India   ISRO (state-owned)
2020-Q2 (https://spacenews.com/chinese-launch-firm-galactic-energy-raises-21-5-million/)  Ceres-1       China   Galactic Energy
2020-06 (https://en.irna.ir/news/83668309/Iran-ready-to-launch-next-satellite)  Simorgh       Iran    (state-owned)
2020-Q3 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43326.msg2042425#msg2042425)  Firefly α     US/Ukr  Firefly

2020 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-contractor-plans-more-than-40-launches-in-2020/)     OS-M1         China   OneSpace
2020 (https://spacenews.com/backed-by-samsung-south-korean-startup-perigee-aims-for-2020-maiden-launch/)     Blue Whale 1  Korea   Perigee
2020 (https://www.ablspacesystems.com/)     RS1           US      ABL
2020 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-contractor-plans-more-than-40-launches-in-2020/)     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 -- reusable booster ♲
2021? (https://spacewatch.global/2019/12/taiwans-tispace-enters-crowded-small-satellite-launch-market-with-large-ambitions/)    Hapith V      Taiwan  TiSpace


All the rest (realistically) 2022+.

No additions, but lots of delays since previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2009169#msg2009169) three months ago.

Failed: Vector, Boeing XS-1

Updates
[2020-02-03: Astra Q1 => 02, LauncherOne Q1 => 03]
[2020-02-05: Firefly α Q2 => Q3]
[2020-02-06: Kuaizhou-11 slips from February due to Corona virus]
[2020-02-10: Simorgh 02 => 06 after failed launch; added Hapith V; marked reusability]
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/03/2020 03:10 pm

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'.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: fhgfhhffjgdhjgcb on 02/06/2020 07:01 am
mission statement: respect the rocket equation
launch Services: only to low earth orbit
market: launch Nanosatellite and  Microsatellite and small satellite.
conclusion 

 we are going to use off the shelf rocket engines for  Nanosatellite launch vehicle that will be called David one will be Air lunch.  from a civilian jet launch from the state of South Carolina.





yes I know this is very rough I just bought to post it for the heck of it hope you guys get a good laugh out of it
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/19/2020 04:30 pm

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 02/19/2020 04:50 pm

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.

That payload statistic is definitely for SSO because they can’t actually launch to LEO from their planned launch site in Scotland.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ZChris13 on 02/25/2020 07:44 pm
snip
That payload statistic is definitely for SSO because they can’t actually launch to LEO from their planned launch site in Scotland.
Most such SSO are a type of LEO.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 02/25/2020 09:41 pm
snip
That payload statistic is definitely for SSO because they can’t actually launch to LEO from their planned launch site in Scotland.
Most such SSO are a type of LEO.
Of course
All “Sun synchronous orbits“ are ”low Earth orbits” because above 1000 km the torque is too low and the required inclination for SSO goes through retrograde to non-existent.
But you know the distinction Trevor Monty was trying to make: SSO@ inc=93-97 deg vs LEO @ 0-~50 deg.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Ben on 02/26/2020 12:27 pm
Robert X. Cringely claimed he was going to win the GLXP and turned out to be nothing but talk. He's now in the same place with smallsat launching:

https://www.cringely.com/2020/01/23/not-dead-yet-what-bob-cringely-has-been-up-to/

Quote
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.

Entertainingly he's shown to be full of it in the comments: https://www.cringely.com/2020/01/23/not-dead-yet-what-bob-cringely-has-been-up-to/#comment-706363

Quote
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.

It is enough to get him on Carlos's list, but like almost every entry on the list doesn't mean he'll get anywhere near orbit. Up thread I read some criticism of Carlos's list; I think it's important to remember that it's just a hobby project. There is value of tracking over time with a consistent criteria; all parties understand that it's a wide net and most of the things on the list will come to nothing. It would be much more useful to criticize the organizations that keep similar lists but add BS rankings and claim that they are useful for investors to subscribe to for $$$.

Attaching the photoshopped header image just because I find it hilarious. I used to work next to the Starfighters hangar, was always interesting to see them take off and fly around. Quite a smoky exhaust.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 02/26/2020 01:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 02/26/2020 05:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 02/26/2020 07:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 02/26/2020 08:12 pm
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.

Are Minotaur I, Kuaizhou 1A and Long March 11 not included in your post because they're not private? Or is there another reason? The latter two launched a respectable number of times in 2019. Long March 11 and Minotaur 1 aren't on the list of this thread because they already launched before this thread started, but so did Pegasus. And Minotaur 1, unlike Pegasus, has another launch planned apparently.

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.

Most of the companies on the list have no known hardware. They can fizzle on for years as an empty box without officially going out of business. The companies that launch regularly are either Chinese or have not yet demonstrated that their launch rate is limited by demand rather than vehicle production etc. The success of these companies will attract more money for a while longer. The only two companies with hardware that have visibly failed are Vector and Stratolaunch. One failure was blamed on an eccentric CEO and the other on the children of the founder not believing in their father's dream... Lots more spin left to get funding from more gullible investors. Especially for companies that haven't got any hardware yet.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 02/27/2020 04:16 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 02/27/2020 04:21 pm
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.

https://www.newspace.im/launchers Seems to have a list of companies.

http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_3/

A smaller list, but this one only seems to have the more credible/better funded programs on the list.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 02/29/2020 07:52 pm
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)

Planned or expected (NET)

2020-03 (https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-astra-rocket/)  Rocket        US      Astra

2020-Q2 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-industry-faces-impacts-of-coronavirus-outbreak/)  Kuaizhou-11   China   ExPace (state-owned)
2020-Q2 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45925.msg2054044#msg2054044)  LauncherOne   US      Virgin
2020-Q2 (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/industrialised-pslv-by-2022/article30647297.ece)  SSLV          India   ISRO (state-owned)
2020-06 (https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/galactic-energy-prepares-ceres1-rocket-first-launch)  Ceres-1       China   Galactic Energy

2020-Q3 (https://en.irna.ir/news/83668309/Iran-ready-to-launch-next-satellite)  Simorgh       Iran    (state-owned)
2020-Q3 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43326.msg2042425#msg2042425)  Firefly α     US/Ukr  Firefly

2020 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-contractor-plans-more-than-40-launches-in-2020/)     OS-M1         China   OneSpace
2020 (https://spacenews.com/backed-by-samsung-south-korean-startup-perigee-aims-for-2020-maiden-launch/)     Blue Whale 1  Korea   Perigee
2020 (https://www.ablspacesystems.com/)     RS1           US      ABL
2020 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-contractor-plans-more-than-40-launches-in-2020/)     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://spacenews.com/landspace-ispace-and-linkspace-of-china-claim-progress-on-new-launchers/)     Newline-1     China   LinkSpace -- reusable booster ♲
2021 (http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903270048.html)     (unnamed)     Japan   Space One
2021? (https://spacewatch.global/2019/12/taiwans-tispace-enters-crowded-small-satellite-launch-market-with-large-ambitions/)    Hapith V      Taiwan  TiSpace


All the rest (realistically) 2022+, including Relativity/Terran 1.

Failed: Vector, Boeing XS-1

Updates
[2020-02-29: Astra slips from February to March]
[2020-03-04: LauncherOne => Q2; Terran 1 => 2022; added Space One]
[2020-03-13: Kuaizhou-11 (made in Wuhan) slips to Q2 after viral break]
[2020-03-13: Simorgh likely slips to Q3 for the same reason]
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 03/02/2020 09:04 pm
I see Kuaizhou 1A is missing. Do you count it as an evolution of Kuaizhou 1 which launched before the opening of this thread?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 03/02/2020 10:15 pm
Space One is still penciled in for 2021H2 shortly after their launchpad construction is completed...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 03/03/2020 11:44 am
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

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 03/03/2020 10:46 pm

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 03/04/2020 12:34 pm
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.

Okay, Space One has replaced Relativity in the list. All those dates are debatable; as long as they don't say "late 2021" and there is no obvious indication of delay, it fits to the other 2021 entries.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/16/2020 09:02 pm
Quote
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.

https://spacenews.com/small-launch-startup-leo-aerospace-suspends-operations/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 03/24/2020 06:30 am
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)

Planned or expected (NET)

2020-Q2 (https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/05/04/virgin-orbits-first-launch-could-happen-later-this-month/)  LauncherOne   US      Virgin
2020-06 (http://www.spaceflightfans.cn/event/kz-11-rocket-first-launch)  Kuaizhou-11   China   ExPace (state-owned)
2020-06 (https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/galactic-energy-prepares-ceres1-rocket-first-launch)  Ceres-1       China   Galactic Energy
2020-06 (https://en.irna.ir/news/83668309/Iran-ready-to-launch-next-satellite)  Simorgh       Iran    (state-owned)

2020-Q3 (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/05/rocket-startup-astra-trims-staff-to-survive-pandemic-until-next-year.html)  Rocket        US      Astra
2020-Q3 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43326.msg2042425#msg2042425)  Firefly α     US/Ukr  Firefly

2020 (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/industrialised-pslv-by-2022/article30647297.ece)     SSLV          India   ISRO (state-owned)
2020 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-contractor-plans-more-than-40-launches-in-2020/)     OS-M1         China   OneSpace
2020 (https://spacenews.com/backed-by-samsung-south-korean-startup-perigee-aims-for-2020-maiden-launch/)     Blue Whale 1  Korea   Perigee
2020 (https://www.ablspacesystems.com/)     RS1           US      ABL
2020 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-contractor-plans-more-than-40-launches-in-2020/)     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://spacenews.com/landspace-ispace-and-linkspace-of-china-claim-progress-on-new-launchers/)     Newline-1     China   LinkSpace -- reusable booster ♲
2021 (http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903270048.html)     (unnamed)     Japan   Space One
2021? (https://spacewatch.global/2019/12/taiwans-tispace-enters-crowded-small-satellite-launch-market-with-large-ambitions/)    Hapith V      Taiwan  TiSpace


All the rest (realistically) 2022+, including Relativity/Terran 1.

Failed: Vector, Boeing XS-1

Updates
[2020-04-05: Astra Q2 => Q3, SSLV Q2 => ?]
[2020-04-22: added Qased]
[2020-05-19: Kuaizhou-11 Q2 => 06]
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 03/31/2020 08:26 pm
From SpaceNews corona virus page (https://spacenews.com/coronavirus-space-impacts/) dated yesterday (30-March):

Quote
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.

In this case, I wonder what "spinoff" means in this case.
Launching from Jiuquan should give them the same risk of dropping a booster on someone or something valuable, so they appear to have some governmental coverage, however "indemnification" works in China. ???

So Kuaizhou does seem to deserve to be at the top of the list, but SpaceNews calls it Kuaizhou-1A, not -11.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 03/31/2020 09:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 03/31/2020 11:16 pm
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.

I forgot about that “opening of this list” cutoff.
Kuaizhou-1A first flew in January of 2017 according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuaizhou?wprov=sfti1)
I guess -1A is too early for the list and -11 is too late, if not too big.
This thread started in 2015, so is -1A excluded because it’s derived from Kuaizhou-1 which flew in 2013?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/01/2020 01:13 am
Add Japan IST's new Zero launcher.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 04/04/2020 04:03 pm
Shopper buys $6M rocket in China (https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-52135544)

Without attempting to translate any of the Chinese, it looks like a Kuaizhou
Can anyone verify and say if it’s a -1A or a -11?
Is $6M much of a bargain for a Kuaizhou-1A?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/05/2020 12:22 am
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"
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/05/2020 05:08 am
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"

According to what I have seen in Chinese forums this is indeed a KZ-1A contract, however that online auction part is just a promotional event - a formal launch contract was signed some time earlier.  ;)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 04/05/2020 06:30 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/09/2020 08:01 am
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.
Machine learning. It's brilliant.

Not by this example it isn't.  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 04/22/2020 03:55 pm
And the first successfull smallsat maiden launcher of this decade is ... Qased of Iran, operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50687.msg2071630#msg2071630
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 05/02/2020 07:12 am
And the first successfull smallsat maiden launcher of this decade is ... Qased of Iran, operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50687.msg2071630#msg2071630
Hmm.

I'd love to watch someone license this for commercial use.  :(

Explaining to the State Dept "Yes I understand there are ITAR issues around technology transfer to Iran but we're buying  it from then, not the other way round" promises months of innocent entertainment.

Joking aside that is more than a number of LV startups have achieved, despite having burned through a fair bit of their backers capital.

The vision of one of their boosters being recovered by a crew on an inflatable also gives me a few quiet chuckles.  :) . Launchers designed with a fanatical attention to detail.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/02/2020 09:23 pm
twitter.com/spacenews_inc/status/1256682381861359619

Quote
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

https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1256694797571506176

Quote
This assumption is probably also true for Small launch.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/18/2020 11:16 pm
Quote
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.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-rideshare-program-putting-downward-pressure-on-prices/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/19/2020 12:19 am
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Mardlamock on 05/19/2020 01:47 am
Quote
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.

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.

D-Orbit, Epic, and some few others are also building tugs.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 05/25/2020 08:05 pm
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)

Planned or expected (NET)

2020-06 (http://www.spaceflightfans.cn/event/kz-11-rocket-first-launch)  Kuaizhou-11   China   ExPace (state-owned)
2020-06 (https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/galactic-energy-prepares-ceres1-rocket-first-launch)  Ceres-1       China   Galactic Energy
2020-06 (https://en.irna.ir/news/83668309/Iran-ready-to-launch-next-satellite)  Simorgh       Iran    (state-owned)

2020-Q3 (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/05/rocket-startup-astra-trims-staff-to-survive-pandemic-until-next-year.html)  Rocket        US      Astra
2020-Q3 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43326.msg2042425#msg2042425)  Firefly α     US/Ukr  Firefly

2020 (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/industrialised-pslv-by-2022/article30647297.ece)     SSLV          India   ISRO (state-owned)
2020 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-contractor-plans-more-than-40-launches-in-2020/)     OS-M1         China   OneSpace
2020 (https://www.nasa.gov/content/upcoming-elana-cubesat-launches/)     LauncherOne   US      Virgin
2020 (https://spacenews.com/backed-by-samsung-south-korean-startup-perigee-aims-for-2020-maiden-launch/)     Blue Whale 1  Korea   Perigee
2020 (https://www.ablspacesystems.com/)     RS1           US      ABL
2020 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-contractor-plans-more-than-40-launches-in-2020/)     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://spacenews.com/landspace-ispace-and-linkspace-of-china-claim-progress-on-new-launchers/)     Newline-1     China   LinkSpace -- reusable booster ♲
2021 (http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903270048.html)     (unnamed)     Japan   Space One
2021? (https://spacewatch.global/2019/12/taiwans-tispace-enters-crowded-small-satellite-launch-market-with-large-ambitions/)    Hapith V      Taiwan  TiSpace


All the rest (realistically) 2022+, including Relativity/Terran 1.

Failed: Vector, Boeing XS-1
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/25/2020 08:46 pm
Firefly should have first attempt this year. Virgin hopefully No2 in few months after working through todays failure.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: russianhalo117 on 06/29/2020 05:38 pm
Cross Post:
Updated: First launcher in the RFA family designated RFA-1:


Quote
RFA-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

First launch targeted for 2021.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/18/2020 10:54 pm
Easy come easy go.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/07/rocket-report-another-chinese-launch-failure-minotaur-iv-soars/

Small-launch contracts diverted to small-business loans. The $116 million that the US Department of Defense set aside for small-launch contracts under the Defense Production Act have been redirected to other priorities, SpaceNews reports. The Pentagon had approved funding the small-launch contracts but, at the last minute, decided to shift the money to small-business loan programs that were considered a more urgent priority. It is unlikely that those contracts will be awarded any time soon, the US Air Force's top procurement official Will Roper said.

DoD says of the funds: You can't aevum ... About a month ago, the military announced it intended to award contracts to six small-launch providers financially impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. On July 1 DoD withdrew the contracts that would have been awarded to Aevum, Astra, X-Bow, Rocket Lab, Space Vector, and VOX Space to launch two rideshare missions over the next 24 months. Awarding the launch contracts now will require additional funding from Congress. (submitted by Ken the Bin)

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/28/2020 03:39 am
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

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 07/28/2020 07:17 am
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
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?

[EDIT and it's an HTP/Kero design as well.

Interesting how much funding they were able to attract.  Looks like that launch-on-demand concept might have some traction ]
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/28/2020 10:34 am
Dawn also have 0.5N thruster they are selling for cubesats, another potential revenue stream while they develop MK 11 Aurora. Aurora will start test flights this year with couple jet engines as rocket engine is still being developed. Fuel is H2O2 and kerosene, good reliable fuel combination for small engines.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/29/2020 07:30 pm
https://twitter.com/spacenews_inc/status/1288482166062682113

Quote
.@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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 07/30/2020 03:35 am
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)

Talk about subscale!
The payload is described as “3U” but isn’t the 3U standard 10x10x36 cm, not 30 cm?
That’s the rule we used when planning our 3U (& 6U & 12U) spacecraft proposals and what’s available from suppliers. 
This is more like 2.5U
That’s a strange choice and departure from what’s common these days.
Surely it’s not an oversight.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/30/2020 06:34 am
3U cubesat specification is 10x10x34.05 cm.

https://www.cubesat.org/s/cds_rev13_final2.pdf
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/30/2020 10:44 am
Given its suborbital payload not cubesat that will be deployed into orbit sizing isn't that important.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 07/31/2020 06:11 pm
Given its suborbital payload not cubesat that will be deployed into orbit sizing isn't that important.

That’s highly likely but THEY are the ones describing the payload capacity as “3U” despite not actually following the cubesat standard. They could have said “3L” or “3000 cm^3” rather than “3U”.
To me this indicates a lack of comprehensive planning.
It always amazes me what can garner $95M in funding. There has to be so much we have not seen here.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/03/2020 08:59 pm
https://twitter.com/spacenews_inc/status/1288482166062682113

Quote
.@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/

Here’s the roundtable

https://youtu.be/Jj9svpcr6Fw
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: abaddon on 08/14/2020 04:44 pm
From latest Planet announcement:

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/)
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 08/14/2020 06:17 pm
Another data point that Starlink's many launch opportunities are a bigger threat to dedicated smallsat launchers than F9 launches dedicated to smallsats. Which was pretty much acknowledged by Peter Beck's statements that the ability to launch quickly is more important for many customers than the price tag.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: su27k on 08/15/2020 03:30 am
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/)

Quote
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?”
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 08/15/2020 08:36 am
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/)

Quote
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?”

Honestly it's hard to read these so-called analysts. Still they are parroting the "more than 100 small launchers" nonsense. Most of those lists are badly out of date anyway, even if it was true: they still contain long dead efforts like Vector, Mishaal, Bagaveev, CubeCab, Orbital Access, S3, Ripple, etc. etc.

There was something posted on the ABL forum the other day, from one of their new VC investors, that is much more insightful and accurate:-

https://medium.com/@ethanjb/bu...nt-into-abl-space-a8fe11ed6d4d

The simple fact is, as this forum proves in spades, that it's really easy to talk big about making a small launcher, and quite easy to take small steps like Arca building weird Arduino-controlled experiments, Launcher with their engines, and Skyrora making a lot of noise about launching their little rockets. These guys are like tourists in Las Vegas playing the $5-$10 blackjack tables.

But to step up to an orbital launcher needs a large amount of dollars, and there are only a few players sitting at the high stakes $50,000 table.

Rocket Lab is already there. Relativity is cash rich but is perhaps building on the sand of a weird technical choice. Firefly has a tame Ukrainian dating baron bankrolling the CEO. ABL has about $90m from various sources, but is late to the game. Virgin Orbit is fairly secure even if the main Virgin group has issues. Astra is on the ragged edge of the group, and has some critical moments ahead to stay at the table.

Even at this level, with large financial resources, some of these will fail. Some have made bad bets, some are running low on chips, some have used up all their luck.

But let say some survive. How do those guys compete against this supposed killer 2 week schedule from SpaceX being vaunted by the silly analyst at Bryce? And why is SpaceX even interested in that market?

Answer 1: Easy. Look at SpaceX's schedule and notice the orbital destination.

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.

And anyway, this analysis is very US-centric. There are valid reasons why China or Europe wants a small launcher, and they would not be too worried about competition from SpaceX. Those players, like OneSpace, Linkspace and ExSpace, and PLD, Isar Aerospace and OrbEx are offering something different: another space launch option that is not controlled by the USA. And some of them seem to have very modest business plans, or support from the deep pockets of state backers, which means they don't require hundreds of launches and market domination to be successful.

Really it is sad how awful this analysis is, and people pay for it. You literally get better understanding reading the posts here on NSF.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/15/2020 03:35 pm
 ??? finally Dawn Aerospace has been discovered here. It's a spinoff from the TU Delft/DARE Stratos II(+) project. And they have worked for a Dutch micro/cubesat component company. They offer N2O-Propene; 0,5N cubesat propulsion systems and 20N micro satellite thrusters. Besides they are developing their reusable suborbital MkII-Aurora rocket (with a 3U payload). [A 3U satellite has a >0.5U bus, so payload can be <2.5U long).]
I found it odd they use H2O2-RP1 for their (sub)orbital rocket engine. I get the simplicity of a H2O2 cathalist GG turbopump, but I expected the continuation of using propene. (Also read here a critic to HyImpulse)

Another interesting point is that several European launcher startups start with suborbital/sounding rockets.
I think a reason for this, is that the supply of surplus solid motors isn't large in Europe. Besides they import most motors (S30/S31 and BlackBrand). There is a decent demand for suborbital launch, it's much less hard and can be used to prove technologies and generate revenue for the orbital rocket.
Let's list several:
Dawn Aerospace (NZ/NL) with MkII-Aurora 3U suborbital and later MkIII-? 2 stage orbital.
HyImpulse (Germany) with their pressure feed SR75 suborbital rocket, before their turbopump feed 3stage orbital rocket.
PLDspace (Spain) with suborbital Miura 1 to get to Orbital Miura 5 (?? with different engines)
Nammo (Norway) with NucleusNEO sounding rocket as product before the orbital NorthStar launcher.
[Government CTA/DLR (Brazil/Germany) with the VS-50 and VLM1 suborbital and orbital solid rockets.]
And I forgot Skyrora with suborbital Skylark L and orbital Skylark L.

I find it actually odd many companies take the direct approach.
But the situation in the US is different, NASA has acces to many surplus rocket motors, buys Oriole and imports BlackBrand motors. This leaves hardly any demand for startups. 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.

I wonder how others view this. (as off topic apparently  :(  :-X)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/16/2020 01:49 am
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.

UP Aerospace has launched just 3 times in the last 4 years, all for NASA.  That's not much of a niche.

New Shepard has only flown test flights, not any flights for customers at all.  That's not really finding a niche.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: meberbs on 08/16/2020 07:21 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/16/2020 07:45 am
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.

OK, I didn't know that.  But are they real payloads that are paying the costs of those New Shepard flights?  Or are they just payloads that were added to test flights because you might as well defray the cost of your test flights by getting some revenue out of them?  If they're not really paying the costs of the flight, the case that they represent a found niche is weak.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/16/2020 08:48 am
NS isn't smallsat launcher so isn't applicable to this thread.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 08/16/2020 10:52 am
Same for the other suborbital stuff in the last page or two, IMO. That's a different category.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 08/17/2020 07:56 am
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.

I don't think this is likely. SpaceX is betting the farm on Starlink at a rate of 8 of their launches this year being for Starlink, 3 for NASA, including the IFA, and a total of two commercial launches. SpaceX needs every launch contract they can get, now. Companies launching itty bitty rockets to save up for eventually getting to a bigger rocket is far less of a problem than the companies with big budgets already working on and competing for bigger launch contracts.

So it's all answer one IMO: every million they can get by putting other payloads on Starlink launches, helps them reduce the massive initial deployment cost.

As I love falsifiable claims, a clear sign that SpaceX would be actively trying to put smallsat companies out of existence in a preemptive strike would be far more dedicated smallsat launches, as in not Starlink launches. The ones currently listed are not likely to push anyone out of business, and appear more like tentatively feeling whether SpaceX can offer this option profitably.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: bobthemonkey on 09/12/2020 09:35 pm
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.


Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 09/12/2020 10:15 pm
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.

Ummm, their home page says they're working on plasma drives, levitation, anti-gravity...  I don't think we really need to worry about this company actually producing a launch vehicle.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/13/2020 12:17 am
Its hard enough getting into space for new launch company using conventional RP1 LOX engines let alone unproven propulsion technologies.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 09/24/2020 11:42 pm
Cross-posting from https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46926.80 for those that missed it:

From Southern Launch:
Quote
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.

TWO commercial launches within an hour of each other is pretty impressive!
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/19/2020 06:41 am
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.

https://www.jarmynenteprisespace.com.au/hawk-jnr
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/19/2020 09:58 am
Cross-posting from https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46926.80 for those that missed it:

From Southern Launch:
Quote
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.

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.

https://www.jarmynenteprisespace.com.au/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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/19/2020 10:15 am
Yes, I think if they get past GO, they'll at least be adding a kick stage, like what Electron did.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: JEF_300 on 10/19/2020 07:12 pm
I think the idea of a smallsat SSTO is worth investigating, so I will be keeping an eye of this project.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/20/2020 05:14 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/20/2020 05:33 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/20/2020 05:42 am
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.

This gives all the issues of larger launchers without so much volume to pack the solution inside.   :(

It looks like  they were batting ideas along the lines of "How can we make our (yet another) TSTO stand out from the crowd"?

SSTO has lots of implications and starting with "It'll just be like a regular TSTO, but shorter" is pretty much a guaranteed route to failure.   :(

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.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: JEF_300 on 10/20/2020 06:03 am
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.

I thought Elon and Peter Beck had worked had worked this kind of thinking out of us. For years, people said that recovering first stages was impractical because of the recovery mass. Well Elon proved it was perfectly practical, though it did require, and I'll phrase this roughly the way Peter Beck did, 'turning a small rocket into a big rocket'. A smallsat SSTOs is perfectly possible, it just won't be small.

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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 10/20/2020 06:52 am
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.

Well, it does seem Jarmyn will be in direct competition with Perigee (who IIRC plan to also set up in Adelaide under the name 'Apogee'.. kinda clever play on words, I thought) but Perigee are a long ways further down the track than they are, having built a vehicle, tested hardware and negotiated a launch spot at Whalers Way already.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/20/2020 09:59 am
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.
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.

HTOL means additional lifting surfaces which is more dry mass, SSTO worst enemy.  Can do airlaunch but if Virgin is anything to go by its not cheap option.

I won't be surprised when they decide to switch to TSTO LV.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edzieba on 10/20/2020 11:33 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/20/2020 01:17 pm
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?

That has historically been the real killer of VTO SSTO concepts.  :(

For the same money (the theory goes) you can get 2-3 the payload mass to orbit.

The inverse argument is the driving idea behind pure Bi/Triemese concepts. Building a multi-stage vehicle with a single-stage budget.
[EDIT it is also something better than a rocket engine is needed to HTO to allow you to afford the mass of wings and landing gear while matching the payload fraction of a VTO TSTO ]
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 10/20/2020 02:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 10/20/2020 03:06 pm
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.

In my experience, the Cube Sat standards are more of a guideline than a spec. I've seen payloads well above the 5 kg limit for 3Us.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 10/20/2020 11:30 pm
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? 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: niwax on 10/20/2020 11:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/21/2020 05:55 am
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.
It's why John Whiteheads team at Sandia developed reciprocating positive displacement pumps at small scale.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/21/2020 06:08 am

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.
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)
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/21/2020 06:16 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/22/2020 06:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/22/2020 09:53 am
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 --&gt; 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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edzieba on 10/22/2020 09:57 am
On the other hand, most of the cost in a launch startup is R&D, not manufacture. Almost every one I can think of has failed before reaching orbit, not after.
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.

Or in terms of cubesats: say you want an investment of $Xm to develop an SSTO stage that launches a single 3U cubesat, or $2Xm to develop two stages that can launch 3x 3U cubesats. But is there a market for 3x co-located cubesats that will pay 2x the price per launch to justify your 2x investment? In the face of "it's cheaper, but you have to share" SpaceX rideshares, Rocketlab continue to win dedicated launches after all.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/22/2020 01:33 pm
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  :(
Of course with million row spreadsheets tracking all mass properties of every single major part of a new design (and how they affect the overall GTOM, MoT, CoG etc) should be fairly easy
[EDIT
Key players in this area are the Society of Allied Weight Engineers (https://www.sawe.org/papers)
]
With the design uncertainties of a new vehicle almost no one has felt confident enough of their margins to believe they can get away with a SSTO.  They need the comfort of the possibility of absorbing any booster weight growth in a performance increase in the US (or vice versa).

Overcoming decades of the fear of delivering a stage that can't reach orbit is a very difficult thing to overcome.  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/22/2020 09:04 pm
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.

Historically that was weeks of work. Today OTS software can handle that if you're a specialist and a spreadsheet model can give a crude understanding of what's going on in an afternoon, as long as you remember when to use the resolved components of a force and when to use the force along the axis of the vehicle.

But the folklore from the 40's,50's and 60's dies hard.   :(

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).

But by starting to go horizontal (even if it's just a fraction of a degree per second of flight) you extend your time in the atmospheres.  Oh noes.  :o  Drag losses increase.

For best overall performance (IE lowest total loss number) you have to consider all three, but remember gravity losses are always 10x of times bigger than the others.

If you thinking "Who cares?" consider the difference between a high loss LV (Saturn V) and a low one (Delta 7934 7925) is about 1 Mach number. Last time I ran an SSTO calculation that's a difference of about 7 seconds of Isp needed to get SSTO performance.

And this can all be done before a  single piece of hardware gets ordered.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 10/22/2020 09:21 pm
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).

This is so wrong, I don't even know where to start. High steering losses? LOL. A properly designed trajectory has almost none of that.

Google "Gravity turn": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_turn

All a rocket needs to do is a slight initial pitch maneuver after lift-off - gravity does the rest.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 10/22/2020 10:59 pm

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.
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)
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.

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.

Well, there is the rather specific tungsten payload of flechettes, known as "Rods from God", but that isn't very civil...

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.

There's also the ugly structural issue that sending up a high cross-sectional area onion shaped SSTO means your Max Q dynamic pressures will affect the structural design, and thus weight, of your vehicle. The gravity losses may stand alone, but aero drag losses don't stand alone.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: niwax on 10/23/2020 12:21 am
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.
It's why John Whiteheads team at Sandia developed reciprocating positive displacement pumps at small scale.

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.

I don't necessarily agree that there has been no serious attempt, it's more like there has been no serious demand. A large number of first stages could have been readily incorporated into an SSTO had someone asked for it. Ever since the original Atlas you could have bolted a cubesat to an existing rocket to make . A Falcon 1C has 8900m/s in the first stage and engine and avionics commonality with all other SpaceX rockets at the time. No one asked to put the fairing straight on it and keep flying when Kestrel was retired. An Electron could just about get a cubesat or two to orbit if they put on the battery jettison from the second stage. Instead they're adding a third stage on most missions.

If an idea gets less interest the closer it is the being real, that's not a great look. Yes, you could say that VTO SSTO is pretty radical because people only look at HTO. But you could also say that people only looked at SSTO when it became a necessity because they wanted to do any sort of HTO vehicle it's the simplest way to get a viable product out if they to SSTO first, while everyone who can afford to do stages does so immediately.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/23/2020 06:39 am
This is so wrong, I don't even know where to start.
Then perhaps you shouldn't?  :(

Engineering is done with numbers, not opinions. So here are some actual numbers.

According to the wiki article both Shuttle and Saturn V used the gravity turn maneuver. Saturn has the highest gravity loss (and the highest total loss) of any of the systems listed, but also the lowest drag loss. Bravo!

OTOH its steering losses are the 2nd worst of the list. Shuttle did worse on steering and drag losses but did much better on gravity losses, which are much bigger to begin with.

Keep in mind that both were hydrolox systems with the highest Isp fuels available in the second stage (and with shuttle in the first as well).

Now look at that Delta 7925 (7000 series, 9 solids, 2=hypergolic 2nd stage, 5m fairing). It has nearly the worst drag (despite its much narrower dia than the Saturn V) 3.5x higher. Oh noooes.  :)
OTOH its steering losses are less than 1/7 that of Saturn V and its gravity losses less than 3/4. Note Delta is a kerolox 1st stage, hypergolic second stage, with 6 solids firing at launch and 3 (vacuum optimized nozzles) firing late in first stage just prior to 2nd stage separation.

And note the absolute  values of those losses and the Delta orbital velocity the rocket has to reach is higher than either Shuttle or Saturn V.

The total delta V needed by the Saturn V is 453m/s higher than the Delta 7925, despite getting more assist from the earths rotation and having the lowest drag losses of any vehicle and the highest performance fuels to use.

TBF when Saturn was designed trajectory simulation was a sloooow task. So folklore and rules-of-thumb saved time, which was very important.  Today if you're running a for-profit rocket mfg company there is no excuse not to do these simulations.

IMHO what these results show is a) Gravity losses are always the biggest part of the loss budget. b) Steering and drag losses need to be considered together c) The goal is to minimize the total losses. Delta sacrifices 96m/s of drag to gain 210 m/s in steering loss improvement compared to Saturn.

I don't know if the 7925 uses a gravity turn or not. But gravity turns don't seem to have helped either Saturn or Shuttle with their losses much.  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/23/2020 09:08 am
All a rocket needs to do is a slight initial pitch maneuver after lift-off - gravity does the rest.

As I discovered when I tried to simulate the Saturn V, that only works for the first stage. You need to do a controlled pitch up after that in order to get into your desired orbit. Otherwise, you end up in the drink or into a highly elliptical orbit. I believe this is the main contribution of steering losses, which can be reduced by using a higher thrust second stage.

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.

The way I think a vehicle should be designed is around the initial acceleration. If you have a certain thrust available is it better to carry less propellant for a lower gravity losses (but less payload without any losses) or do you try to maximise the amount of propellant? My inclination is to carry as much propellant as possible for the thrust available. This effectively equates to what is the best initial acceleration, which is a value which can be easily optimised in your design. I always tend to go to 1.2g as being close to "optimum".

The argument of "Let's increase thrust to decrease gravity losses" in my mind goes to "Let's also increase propellant mass to get the maximum performance." My argument goes as follows. If I start at say 1.5g I will be able to put a payload of a certain mass into say a 200 km circular orbit. Now lets load up with more propellant and start off at 1.2g. During the time from 1.2g to 1.5g, I will have gained a certain ideal speed (about ve*ln(1.5/1.2) ~= 670 m/s ideal for an exhaust speed of ve = 3 km/s). This ideal increase in delta-V will be reduced due to gravity losses and a higher first stage dry mass, but its still an increase which effectively allows for an increase in payload mass.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/23/2020 09:43 am
That Titanic effect helps bigger LVs on way up but is no use to lighter small LV which have higher drag losses. On plus side it allows them to do non propulsive reentry in case of Electron. Some of larger  1000-1500kg small LVs may still need reentry burn but I'm guessing lot less than likes F9.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/23/2020 04:37 pm

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.
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)
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.
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.  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/23/2020 04:47 pm
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. 

Once you realize it's not about thrust, it's about the vertical component of thrust you know the further away from the vertical, and the sooner you start to move toward the horizontal, the better.

Just as running the engine in the O:F range that puts the most of the heaviest part in the atmosphere the earliest (usually LOX) also improves acceleration. Ideally with a proportional valve gradually varying the MR during ascent.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/25/2020 08:38 pm
Can we put "Physics of small launch vehicles" into its own thread and get back on topic to "New Smallsat Launchers"?
Here's a link to the most recent version of the Original Post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2086603#msg2086603)  edit: found it!
Would anyone care to make a current version?

edit:  It would be great if the OP contained a link to whichever post had that most recent version.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/31/2020 05:43 pm
Jim Cantrell is back in small LV business with new company called Phantom. Must of found a Billionaire backer that wants to become Millionaire.

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/1322399546350002177?s=09
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: jstrotha0975 on 10/31/2020 08:02 pm
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Gliderflyer on 10/31/2020 08:23 pm
Here is the website, not a lot of detail yet.

https://www.phantomspace.com/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: niwax on 10/31/2020 08:36 pm
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And here I thought my prediction of Vector coming back from the dead was the long shot of the list.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Lars-J on 11/01/2020 04:43 am
Jim Cantrell is back in small LV business with new company called Phantom. Must of found a Billionaire backer that wants to become Millionaire.

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/1322399546350002177?s=09
Yikes. Any business venture with Cantrell seems ... very risky.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/01/2020 05:37 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/01/2020 03:00 pm
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.

I think the quote was that Elon yelled at him one too many times.

Quote
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 11/01/2020 07:13 pm
Quote
(SpaceX did not return requests for comment on Cantrell's accounts of the company's early days.)

That, right there, says everything you need to know.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/01/2020 08:36 pm
I think the quote was that Elon yelled at him one too many times.

Quote
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
Note that pronoun.
Quote
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.

Hopefully he is a bit more motivated with his 3rd attempt at a rocket launch company.

As for being able to talk for half an hour non stop my first though is "Yes, but does he say anything of importance during that half hour monologue ?"

And I've looked through the patent.  Oh $deity.  :( So unlike other engines it uses additive manufacturing in aluminum to avoid foreign object damage and minimize the number of seals.  I can barely grasp the level of innovation. Mind. Blown away.

Possibly the most innovative element of the design are bleed valves upstream of the main propellant valves which allow trapped propellants that have boiled due to heat leakage to be removed prior to ignition, easing the startup transients. Especially important if it's a pressure fed, which this seems to be. So the not-so-big dumb booster V2.0 then.  :(

Fueling a rocket with sand would also be novel (with OF3 as the oxidizer it will burn, as will asbestos  :o )

Wheather it's actually any better is a different question.  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 11/03/2020 12:48 pm
ESA has signed contracts to support 3 german smallsat launchers HyImpulse, Isar Aerospace and Rocketfactory Augsburg to help them with their respective first launch vehicle.

https://twitter.com/esa_sts/status/1323567472541388801?s=21

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/ESA_signs_first_Boost!_commercial_space_transportation_contracts
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 11/07/2020 06:49 am
The Chinese is now 2-1 to everyone else in this world for small satellite start-up LSPs reaching orbit since the 2010s IIRC....  ::)

https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1324981493807026176
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/07/2020 07:57 am
The Chinese is now 2-1 to everyone else in this world for small satellite start-up LSPs reaching orbit since the 2010s IIRC....  ::)

https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1324981493807026176
And both are solid fueled as well.

The question is of course wheather the internal Chinese market is big enough to sustain one or both of them.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: su27k on 11/07/2020 03:23 pm
Well about that...

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1324999774068760577

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1325104799159881729

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/08/2020 02:03 am
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.

The situation might be different if the US were allowed to sell its surplus military rockets to commercial companies.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/08/2020 05:37 am
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?

Changing the payload fitting from reentry vehicles to satellites? Altering some parameters in the flight computer memory so it doesn't drop on New Delhi?

I've never understood why a civilian LV provider would ever go with a solid design unless they had links into weapon systems suppliers (or in this case operators).

The supposed benefits only really benefit people who need stuff to sit around in storage for years (decades?) and be ready for nearly instant launch, which is about as far from a commercial environment as you can possibly get.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edzieba on 11/09/2020 11:09 am
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 stages
- Integrating stages into a rocket
- Developing the liquid upper stage (unless China has decided that selling ICMB busses on the open market is a good idea)
- Developing GN&C for the rocket
- launch operations

Barring Falcon 9, all current US launcher use engines or motors purchased from a supplier rather than developed and built in house. Even if you decide ULA doesn't count because their build their own tanks, that still eliminates Antares, Minotaur and Pegasus.

As for 'why solids'?
- Cheap availability. They've got motors, they've built launchers with them, and they've launched them. That puts them ahead of everyone other than Rocketlab in terms of actually getting to orbit.
- No inherent cost disadvantage. Current solids are expensive, because current solids are designed for high-reliability long-duration-storage applications (i.e. military use). 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/09/2020 01:09 pm
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/09/2020 05:09 pm
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.

 - Ed Kyle
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/10/2020 05:47 am
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.

What you have a hollow tube packed with high explosive. Rather like a giant fragmentation grenade.

Under the wrong conditions that (relatively) well behaved burn rate transitions into a detonation with the power of a small nuclear warhead. Mfg can be done by a small team (the fuel segments of the Ariane 5 boosters are done by a team of about 70 in Guiana) but the process is non trivial. Fine powders are capable of dust explosions on their own, so mixing and casting is tricky.
If you can buy it from someone who's done most of the work for you at a reasonable price then yes they are a cheap and fast way to orbit. As Orbital found in the early 90's with Pegasus.

You are also totally reliant on they supplier of those stages for your vehicle who dictate your core costs, as Orbital also found.  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/10/2020 06:45 pm
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.
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: su27k on 11/11/2020 04:37 am
Because solid is a dead end, pretty much every Chinese commercial launch company is pivoting towards (reusable) liquid boosters, their solid LV is just for fund raising and may be some (limited) experience.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: russianhalo117 on 11/11/2020 04:59 am
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.
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?
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.
Congressional and executive oversight and decisions are the major players in the delay at the starting gun.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 11/11/2020 05:01 am
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.(?)
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, even neglecting their own Starlink launches.
CRS with the Falcon 9 and Dragon provided a capability for NASA that they could not afford to develop with their standard contracting or workforce. 
(Please don't say what could have been.  It didn't happen.)
The Air / Space Force has also found the capability very attractive and competitive. 
Europe and Russia are trying to catch up.
ULA says they are trying to catch up.  (Vulcan, still in development, will employ "smart reuse" someday, they say.)
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.


If the Chinese military wants someone to spread the cost of their solid rocket factories, or they want to subsidize the capture of market share like they have done with so many industries, they can support "startups" building rockets out of missiles or missile parts.
(What does "startup" tied to the military production chain mean in China? It's not just venture capital.)
But it won't fundamentally reduce the cost of access to space.

My opinion is that they are distinct from the commercial small satellite launchers.


PS  Were my edits to your post what you intended?  It was somewhat confusing.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/11/2020 05:25 pm
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/12/2020 02:35 am
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.(?)
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 11/12/2020 03:04 am
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.

Actually, as Southern Launch recently demonstrated, that isn't true at all.  All a solid-fuelled stage needs is (a) a safe place to  store the motor(s) and (b) a cheap flat concrete pad to launch from; whereas a liquid-fuelled stage needs a bunch of propellant storage tanks, pipes and valves, plus a properly designed pad for spill containment.

One major downside with solids though that may or may not have been mentioned.. they have a limited shelf-life. That's a key reason old solid-fuelled missiles make cheap launchers - it's better to fire 'em off to some useful purpose than have them go bang in storage.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/13/2020 06:13 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/13/2020 10:35 am
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.

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.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/13/2020 07:52 pm
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.
Quote from: Zed_Noir
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.

Outside consumer hardware there is a lot of industrial equipment that looks huge (by consumer standards)  but for which there is sufficient demand not just to make it but to make it for inventory, so it is available OTS. Up to a quite large size cryogenic pumps and tanks would be on that list. IIRC the LOX plant SX bought to load Falcon 1 was not made to order, they just bought it, either 2nd or 3rd hand.

For the actual LV  Pegasus pioneered the use of the PC104 form factor industrial PC as a GNC computer. These are about 4" square but have a stacking connector (no separate mother board to plug into) and can be assembled (with standard spacers and through bolts) to make a very rigid, vibration resistant, stack.

The tough parts are the engines, and actuators. Pegasus uses electric TVC driven by thermal batteries. These are (AFAIK) only  used by the military for single use weapon systems. A generation later RL have pioneered high power Li Ion batteries for TVC and pump drive.

There are still interesting design and mfg choices that have never been fully explored for various reasons. Sadly most of the small LV's just seem hell bent on producing yet another kerolox TSTO ELV.

And most of those will fail.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/19/2020 10:30 pm
Astra and Firefly are schedule to launch in Dec, I think Virgin are also targetting Dec launch. There is potential for 3 new smal LVs to reach orbit this year.

Virgin and Astra have had their failures which should increase their probability of reaching orbit. History doesn't favour Firefly making orbit on first attempt, but here is hoping.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: GWH on 11/20/2020 02:54 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/23/2020 06:39 am
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.

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.
Good question.

When only SX had done it all the smallsat LV mfg could say "We don't need to think about this. It can't be done at our scale."  RL amongst them.

That has now changed. Some will say that only RL can do this because of their unique electric pump cycle engines. So still no reason to consider this.  I don't believe that's true. The stage makes no post separation Electron burns. A stage with different engines could also not make an engine burn in the same way.  :)
At a minimum I think designers should be considering material choices (magnesium alloys react badly to seawater) and ease of replacement. The more advanced ones will be doing that and extending their booster CFD models after separation and at least starting to look at where it ends up pointing and what they can do about it. The pack leaders (if they exist?) are already pricing ships and helicopters.  :)

A good question would be how does RL's staging conditions for altitude and speed compare to the F9, and how do other competitors of its size compare?  I got the impression its pretty standard, 50% of orbital, rather than the 25% of the F9 booster. So if they can make it work most others should be able to as well.

This is of course only half the problem. Refurb processes then need to be worked out. Again it might be that some mfg have made design choices that cannot be refurbed economically (and ultimately economics is the only reason to do R&R).  :(

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).

Of course it's possible that recovery is too unreliable and the needed refurbishment is too extensive to be worthwhile. Relying on RL failing sounds like a very bad plan to me. I suspect RL have done a lot of work behind the scenes to have a good idea of what sort of damage to expect.  :(
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/23/2020 05:32 pm
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.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 11/23/2020 08:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/23/2020 09:50 pm
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.  :)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/23/2020 11:27 pm
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.
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)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/24/2020 08:23 pm
Don't forget OHB daughter company RFA (https://www.rfa.space/), with their RFA one Launcher. And the most interesting ones are more secretive.
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)
Perhaps the time has come for some of the players to consider partnering up? Different partners contributing different strengths.

As for Orbex and Brexit. Are you sure this is EU funding? If it's ESA then the fact that Canada is a member should remind you that being even on the same continent is not a prerequisite  of ESA membership.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/25/2020 05:14 am
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. 
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/25/2020 06:39 am
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. 
I'd guess they'd add reentry control thrusters and start collecting reentry data after first few flights.
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".
Quote from: TrevorMonty
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.

We'll see how many of them make it through this "filter."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 11/25/2020 12:58 pm
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.

Is the upgrade to an inconel engine bell a low risk upgrade for all of them? If they have a different material, they probably don't survive reentry the way electron does.

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).

I thnk they were blindsided by how difficult it is to get to orbit. Even without reuse, RL is years ahead of the others. Even if they reach orbit this year, they need to start producing rockets in somewhat larger numbers, which is quite a different thing from getting one to fly. I don't think their investors will appreciate them developing reusability first before launching payloads, as they are already years behind.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: GWH on 11/25/2020 01:59 pm
I think investors will play a factor in how quickly we see RL's competition push towards reuse.

Now that its been demonstrated as possible at the small launcher scale the perceived risk of investment in the tech will be reduced - while the risk of a lack of investment has increased.

Both private and public investors might not only ask "why aren't you guys trying this?" but go as far as to demand it - or flock to those who are going to.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 11/25/2020 03:11 pm
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

Announced or expected (NET)

2020-12 (https://spacenews.com/astra-to-make-second-orbital-launch-attempt/)  Rocket        US        Astra
2020-12 (https://virginorbit.com/the-latest/announcing-the-window-for-launch-demo-2/)  LauncherOne   US        Virgin
2020+ (https://en.irna.ir/news/83668309/Iran-ready-to-launch-next-satellite)    Simorgh       Iran      (state-owned)
2020+ (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-contractor-plans-more-than-40-launches-in-2020/)    Jielong-2     China     Chinarocket (state-owned)

2021-01 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43326.msg2156707#msg2156707)  Firefly α     US/Ukr    Firefly
2021-Q1 (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/cyclones-can-stall-last-sat-launch-of-this-year-chandrayaan-3-cams-will-provide-live-feed-during-final-descent-isro-chief/articleshow/79556264.cms)  SSLV          India     ISRO (state-owned)
2021-Q1 (https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-tests-launch-vehicle-stage/)  RS1           US        ABL
2021-Q4 (https://spacenews.com/chinese-space-launch-firm-ispace-raises-173-million-in-series-b-funding/)  Newline-1     China     LinkSpace -- reusable booster ♲
2021-Q4 (https://spacenews.com/relativity-space-raises-500-million/)  Terran 1      US        Relativity
2021     Kuaizhou-11   China     ExPace (state-owned)
2021 (https://thealphacentauri.net/61775-kitayskie-chastnye-kompanii/)     Nebula-1      China     Deep Blue

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.butenunbinnen.de/nachrichten/wissen/geschichte-ohb-bremen-100.html)     RFA One       Germany   OHB
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.gspacetech.com/launch)     Eris          Australia Gilmour

2023+ not listed, as launch dates so far in the future are extremely 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
- OS-M1 (OneSpace/China), second attempt announced for 2020
- Vikram (Skyroot/India), announced for 2021 in early 2019

Failed: Vector, Boeing XS-1

[Update 2020-11-26: moved Spectrum to 2022; added Eris, RFA One and Prime]
[Update 2020-12-09: SSLV and Nebula-1 slip to 2021, Canon launcher to 2022]
[Update 2020-12-09: added "Unclear" section; moved OS-M1 and BlueWhale there]
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 11/25/2020 09:02 pm
2021 (https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Isar_Aerospace_prepares_the_launch_of_its_rockets_from_space_centre_CSG_999.html)     Spectrum      Germany  ISAR Aerospace


ISAR Aerospace is now saying 2022, and you would expect them to be late on that given they have not even shown an engine running as yet and have only raised $15m or so:

In addition to ongoing fundraising efforts, Isar plans to complete a fully integrated engine test in mid-2021, and it will work toward qualifying the engine for flight by the end of 2021, Metzler said. The company is targeting 2022 for its first launch.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/09/a-german-rocket-startup-seeks-to-disrupt-the-european-launch-industry/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/26/2020 07:15 am
Failed: Vector, Boeing XS-1

Vector has been brought back from the dead!

https://www.vector-launch.com/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 12/18/2020 12:40 pm
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

Announced or expected (NET)

2020+ (https://en.irna.ir/news/83668309/Iran-ready-to-launch-next-satellite)    Simorgh       Iran      (state-owned)
2020+ (https://spacenews.com/chinas-space-contractor-plans-more-than-40-launches-in-2020/)    Jielong-2     China     Chinarocket (state-owned)

2021-01 (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/)  LauncherOne   US        Virgin Orbit
2021-01 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43326.msg2156707#msg2156707)  Firefly α     US/Ukr    Firefly
2021-Q1 (http://[https://astra.com/blog/space/)  Rocket        US        Astra
2021-Q1 (https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-tests-launch-vehicle-stage/)  RS1           US        ABL
2021-Q2  SSLV          India     ISRO (state-owned)
2021-Q4 (https://spacenews.com/chinese-space-launch-firm-ispace-raises-173-million-in-series-b-funding/)  Newline-1     China     LinkSpace -- reusable booster ♲
2021-Q4 (https://spacenews.com/relativity-space-raises-500-million/)  Terran 1      US        Relativity
2021     Kuaizhou-11   China     ExPace (state-owned)
2021 (https://thealphacentauri.net/61775-kitayskie-chastnye-kompanii/)     Nebula-1      China     Deep Blue

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.butenunbinnen.de/nachrichten/wissen/geschichte-ohb-bremen-100.html)     RFA One       Germany   OHB
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.gspacetech.com/launch)     Eris          Australia Gilmour

2023+ not listed, as launch dates so far in the future are extremely 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
- OS-M1 (OneSpace/China), second attempt announced for 2020
- Vikram (Skyroot/India), announced for 2021 in early 2019

Failed: Boeing XS-1, Zhuque-1 (Landspace/China)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Solarsail on 12/18/2020 04:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 12/20/2020 01:10 am
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 skimmed their website when I noticed their inclusion on Erik Kulu's NewSpace Index (https://www.newspace.im/launchers) (it's a nice collection of the pertinent competitors, even if the timelines and ordering seems based more on which companies are willing to claim earlier dates than when companies are actually likely to launch). They talk about using "smart software algorithms" to "iterate fast" and "be light," but they want to use "commercially available hardware" instead of being a "rocket factory." So where are they going to get rocket components which are completely standardized but can be easily tweaked in software? The whole "use software to iterate fast" approach makes sense for someone like Relativity Space, where their hardware is all defined in software, but if you're getting hardware from third parties, how do you change it with software?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/20/2020 05:34 am
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.
Does this make the rocket single stage? If it doesn't then you have yet another TSTO ELV and a balloon.

The challenge with the "Rockoon" approach (it's actually been done a few time but I can't recall if they were orbital or sub orbital) is the rocket is like the ballast on a bathysphere. Once it's dropped the vehicle shoots to the surface, in this the top of the atmosphere, and usually bursts.

So you either need to make very cheap balloons or find some way to arrest that rise and vent a lot of the gas quickly.

My personal favorite idea is to fill it with a helium/hydrogen mix then pull out the hydrogen using a vortex tube separator and burn it off.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edzieba on 12/21/2020 10:25 am
So you either need to make very cheap balloons
Every 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/21/2020 04:00 pm
So you either need to make very cheap balloons
Every 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.

This gives you altitude rather than velocity assist, so  you can hang a much bigger nozzle on the back end. For further novelty value make it more like a Pegasus, with a wing.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: yg1968 on 01/04/2021 05:04 am
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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 01/04/2021 11:39 am
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/

Some new names here:

- Gloyer-Taylor Laboratories (https://www.gtlcompany.com/)
- Phantom Space Corporation (https://www.phantomspace.com/about)
- Phoenix Launch Systems (http://www.phoenixlaunchsystems.com/)

From the company websites:

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 01/04/2021 11:44 am
 Pheonix appears to be something of a revival of the defunct Aphelion Orbitals, the CEO is the Aphelion COO/Co-Founder.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/04/2021 01:05 pm
From article.

"Phantom, a startup led by former Vector chief executive Jim Cantrell, suffered three significant weaknesses regarding payload accommodations and environment as well as concerns the company would not be able to raise the funding needed to develop its vehicle. "

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 01/09/2021 03:36 pm
Update 01-09: Simorgh and Jielong-2 slip from 2020, Firefly α from 2021-01, RS1 from 2021-Q1, Terran 1 and Newline-1 from 2021
Update 01-18: LauncherOne made it; added SS-520


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-Q1 (https://spacenews.com/three-companies-win-nasa-small-launch-contracts/)  Firefly α     US/Ukr    Firefly
2021-Q1 (http://[https://astra.com/blog/space/)  Rocket        US        Astra
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-Q2  SSLV          India     ISRO (state-owned)
2021 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32345.msg2174745#msg2174745)     Simorgh       Iran      (state-owned)
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://arstechnica.com/science/2020/09/a-german-rocket-startup-seeks-to-disrupt-the-european-launch-industry/)     Spectrum      Germany   ISAR Aerospace
2022 (https://www.butenunbinnen.de/nachrichten/wissen/geschichte-ohb-bremen-100.html)     RFA One       Germany   OHB
2022 (https://www.gspacetech.com/launch)     Eris          Australia Gilmour

2023+ not listed, as launch dates so far in the future are extremely 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
- OS-M1 (OneSpace/China), second attempt announced for 2020
- Newline-1 (Linkspace/China), announced for 2021 in early 2019
- Vikram (Skyroot/India), announced for 2021 in early 2019

Failed: Boeing XS-1, Zhuque-1 (Landspace/China)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 01/10/2021 03:08 pm
So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.

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!
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/10/2021 10:19 pm
So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.

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!
Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
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!

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 01/10/2021 10:54 pm
So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.

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!
Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
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.)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/11/2021 04:17 am
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."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/11/2021 07:41 am
.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/11/2021 01:37 pm
So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.

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!
Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
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.)
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. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 01/11/2021 02:26 pm
Agree that Pegasus was a new thing and the first step into a new era of private spaceflight. If it is counted as "new space" is a matter of definition.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/11/2021 03:46 pm
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."
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.

I agree with you the tech was developed with government help, but that's true of liquid rocket engines in general. By that argument, you can't make a rocket engine today without it having had government tech development.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 01/14/2021 03:06 pm
Another European entry, ENVOL.  Hybrid propulsion microlauncher NET 2024
https://envol-h2020.eu/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 01/14/2021 03:18 pm
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:

Quote
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 01/14/2021 03:38 pm
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:

Quote
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

That begs a question, will a consortium of companies be able to compete pricewise with low cost launch vehicles from smaller companies that already have made significant progress?

edit: Or does it sound like they are just name dropping their vendors to bolster their stance and image? In that it's not really a consortium, but the one company goes to different vendors for different services (GKN sounds like they can be the additive manufacturing vendor for them, ISIS the satellite dispenser/deployers, ect)? Like companies would often put ANSYS and Solidworks as "partners", while they are only using their products.

Can I put Saint Gobain, DuPont, and Parker as partners when I am using their seals and materials in my product?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 01/14/2021 03:48 pm
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:

Quote
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

Nammo's involvement in this makes me wonder about Nammo's other project: the North Star Launch Vehicle (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37656.0). That was to be "suborbital sounding rocket to extremely small orbital rocket (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38583.0;attach=1072837)" plan, but I haven't seen much about it lately. The most recent article on their website is a press release about Nucleus (one of the sounding rockets on the way to North Star) (https://www.nammo.com/story/a-very-different-way-to-launch-into-space/) from 2018, and they seem to have entirely removed the section discussing hybrid motors. Maybe from this we should interpret that North Star is no more, and instead they'll be using that technology towards the Envol rocket?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/14/2021 07:19 pm
Another European entry, ENVOL. Hybrid propulsion microlauncher NET 2024
https://envol-h2020.eu/
I found ENVOL (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/870385) at least half a year ago. This is the continuation of the SMILE project.
 
NAMMO hasn't abandoned their hybrid technology. The Nucleus sounding rocket is improved into a Nucleus NEO.
The orbital launcher was planned to launch a much larger engine than the Nucleus, UM2 vs UM1.
The UM2 (initially only the turbopump and catalyst pack) was/is also planned to be used on the Bloodhound LSR.

Sorry, but I think the Nammo hybrid UM2 (HTP-HTPB) is better / more affordable than the HyImpulse THyPOLX. Also when used in a spin stabilized sounding rocket (UM1 vs HyPLOX75). 

But ISAR Aerospace Spectrum and RFA One are most likely superior to both. There isn't a relation between ENVOL and BOOST!.
Now I challenge you to find what program ENVOL is trying to win for their maiden launch.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 01/15/2021 12:43 am
So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.

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!
Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
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.)
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. 

 - Ed Kyle

Although NASA was required to take commercial satellites off STS, NASA was still launching commercial sats on traditional launch vehicles. It wasn’t until 1990 and the passage of the Launch Services Purchase Act that NASA was required to procure launch services commercially.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 01/17/2021 08:41 pm
https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889 (https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889)
Quote
According 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...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 01/17/2021 10:18 pm
https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889 (https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889)
Quote
According 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...
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).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Jon Salat on 01/17/2021 10:21 pm
https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889 (https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889)
Quote
According 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...

There was also Japan's SS-520-5 in February 2018.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 01/18/2021 02:59 am
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.)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 01/18/2021 06:30 am
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.

https://twitter.com/PhantomSpaceInc/status/1351004034602315776
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/18/2021 07:46 am
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.

https://twitter.com/PhantomSpaceInc/status/1351004034602315776
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.


The Phantom Daytona is a two-stage pump-fed launcher capable of placing 450 kg into a low inclination orbit and 370 kg into a polar orbit.  The oxidizer-rich stage combustion LOX/RP engines have completed flight qualification, are ready for integration and include a full complement of thrust vector control and engine controllers for each engine. These 5,000 lbf engines are 3D printed for low cost production.  The Phantom Daytona launch vehicle (LV) uses seven qualified 5,000 lbf engines on the first stage, a single 5,000 lbf engine on the second stage as common vendor/lowest cost approach.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: GWH on 01/18/2021 02:45 pm
The image and tweet was deleted by Phantom works after folks called them out for posting a render like its work completed:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1351179763361198087

Oh Jim....

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/1351185305974530052



EDIT: and it gets even better
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1351203481076555781
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/18/2021 03:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: niwax on 01/18/2021 04:25 pm
Wow, when I predicted Vector would be back with something just as sketchy, I didn't think it could get this bad. At least they had plywood models last time.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 01/18/2021 05:51 pm
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.

Well, Kuaizhou 1A and Long March 11 had most of their launches since this thread was started, yet are not on the list because they had launched before already. Although IMO that makes them two (out of four preexisting rockets with a considerable number of launches) rockets to beat to consider this new smallsat launcher revolution a success.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/21/2021 02:55 am
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
----------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/21/2021 03:05 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/21/2021 03:08 am
Yeah, my respect for those electropump engines keeps increasing. I think the chamber pressure on Rutherford is probably comparable to Merlin 1D of around 10MPa, while I suspect NewtonThree is probably more like the 6-7MPa Merlin 1C.

Plus, Electron is carbon fiber, doesn't have stresses from airlaunch, and has a kickstage which acts as a third stage.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/21/2021 03:12 am
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.

You mixed up the light blue line (low inc site: 12 deg) at 500 kg with the dark blue line (high inc site: SSO) at 300 kg, which is the orbit that Ed is comparing at. It doesn't help that the key doesn't follow the same order as the curves, so it is an easy mistake to make.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 01/21/2021 03:52 am
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/21/2021 04:02 am
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?
Ah, good catch! Thank you!

Interesting how all carbon fiber went from crazy idea to now just boring operational usage.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 01/21/2021 06:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/21/2021 09:59 am
LauncherOne needs insulation to stop boiloff during plane flight. Airlaunch results in heavy LV because of this.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: heiterefahne on 01/21/2021 10:07 pm
Aren't most launch vehicles also just painted white using electrostatic paint? I never understood how RocketLab got away without using any paint.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 01/21/2021 10:19 pm
Aren't most launch vehicles also just painted white using electrostatic paint? I never understood how RocketLab got away without using any paint.

According to Tory Bruno, neither the Atlas V nor Delta IV Heavy have paint covering their main bodies. Atlas V is copper-colored due to anodization, while Delta IV Heavy is orange due to SOFI insulation.

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1350095821329608707
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: heiterefahne on 01/29/2021 01:18 pm
RFA (Rocketfactory Augsburg) released their Payload User's Manual today. Anyone have it?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 02/01/2021 11:51 am
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=19
Quote

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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/01/2021 12:13 pm
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=19
Quote

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?

Agreed, even if one really considers these as investment stepping stones towards liquid fueled rockets (Landspace, iSpace and Galactic Energy all following this trend; the only relatively leading corporation that went straight towards liquid fuel is Deep Blue Aerospace (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52869.0)).

Also it’s clear that the Chinese “private” LSPs work in a market/ecological cycle that is very different from anywhere else in the world.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 02/26/2021 12:00 pm
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
Update 03-21: SSLV slips from April


Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) orbital flight since thread opening:

2018-01  Electron      US/NZ     Rocket Lab
2018-03  SS-520        Japan     Nissan/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-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://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49715.msg2208403#msg2208403)     SSLV          India     ISRO (state-owned)
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)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 03/04/2021 05:44 am
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)

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/04/2021 09:01 pm
<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.

But they did. At least the former Aerospace and Defense Divisions of Nissan Motors that were acquired by IHI Corporation (formerly known as Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.) in 2007.  ;)

@PM3 should change the manufacturer of the SS-520 launcher from Nissan to IHI Corp.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 03/31/2021 03:24 pm
Rocket Crafters, a small-launch company building a vehicle around their "Star-3D" hybrid rocket motors, has rebranded themselves as Vaya Space (https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2021/03/31/Rocket-Crafters-rebrands-Vaya-Space-Sid-Gutierrez/5591617132237/), and shifted focus from their Intrepid-1 (which I believe promised around 300 kg to 500 km SSO) to their newly-announced Dauntless (with a payload capacity of 610 kg to 500 km SSO).

Also, following a failed test-firing of the Star-3D in May of last year, they apparently are switching the oxidizer from liquid nitrous oxide to liquid oxygen. Between that and their graphics showing Dauntless with just four Star-3Ds on the first stage (as well as talk elsewhere about Star-3D being a "scalable rocket engine platform"), I can't help but wonder if they've changed the motors' thrust as well, to account for the uprating of the vehicle.

The company raised $7 million in a recent private offering, and says it's taken in around $10 million total in the past year. They currently have around 26 employees and plan to hire "a few more people" in the coming months.

A small suborbital test (from the sounds of it, basically just for motor and avionics shakedown) is planned for "mid-2021."
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 03/31/2021 06:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 03/31/2021 07:36 pm
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.

Well, Rocket Factory Augsburg is working with Yuzhmash (https://www.golem.de/news/deutsche-raumfahrt-triebwerkstechnik-der-rocketfactory-kommt-aus-der-ukraine-2103-154753.html) on developing the engines for their micro launch vehicle, although the information there suggests they're deriving an engine from the RD-8 series, not the RD-120. Although come to think of it, the RD-870 isn't actually in the RD-8 series, but rather is a RD-120 variant. So maybe they are doing exactly what you suggested.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/01/2021 06:13 am
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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 04/01/2021 01:53 pm
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/

Do we know if the plan is for the nozzle extension to drop into place while the engine is running, or if they're going to shut it down, deploy the nozzle extension, and relight?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 04/07/2021 08:38 pm
Update 04-07: Firefly slips to NET May, RS1 to Q3, SSLV to NET December; added Zoljanah
Update 05-04: Firefly slips to NET June


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)

2021-06 (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/04/firefly-aerospace-raises-175-million-to-become-a-space-unicorn.html)  Firefly α     US/Ukr    Firefly
2021-Q3 (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/05/lockheed-martin-buys-up-to-58-launches-from-rocket-builder-abl-space.html)  RS1           US        ABL
2021-Q3 (https://spacenews.com/astras-100-year-plan-qa-with-ceo-chris-kemp/)  Rocket        US        Astra
2021-12 (https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/gaganyaan-india-s-human-space-mission-will-use-green-propulsion-isro-101616776504769.html)  SSLV          India     ISRO (state-owned)
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-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)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 04/07/2021 09:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 04/07/2021 10:31 pm
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...)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 04/23/2021 04:23 pm
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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/23/2021 05:51 pm
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

The profitable companies, its business as usual just need  to shelf some of their expansion programs. Eg RL, Blacksky, Redwire.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/03/2021 10:37 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 05/03/2021 02:58 pm
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...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Fmedici on 05/03/2021 09:56 pm
There's also ArcaSpace's EcoRocket, with its maiden flight still scheduled for June 2021. I didn't see it mentioned in this thread
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 05/03/2021 10:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Fmedici on 05/03/2021 10:14 pm
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.

Yeah my bad, I was referring to its absence in the schedule. Anyway, I'm skeptical too about what they'll accomplish but the official date is still that one.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 05/04/2021 08:56 am
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.

True, I don't consider this as a serious orbital launch attempt. Rather some "long shot".
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: JacobTheInvestigator on 05/12/2021 09:53 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Almoturg on 05/12/2021 09:58 am
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.

There's a thread about them here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50300.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50300.0)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 05/12/2021 04:20 pm
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.

"end of 2022 or early 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)"

Translated from launcher-startup to real time, this means NET late 2023.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 05/21/2021 10:33 pm
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...)

Of course
Perhaps I should have been more explicit in asking for RE-flights.
Thanks for pointing out that Hyperbola-1 attempted one.  That failed, did it not?
So no entity other than Rocketlabs has repeated a successful flight of a (new) smallsat launcher?

PS: 2 entries "above the line" for 2018, 2 for 2019, 2 for 2020, and 1 in 2021 as we approach mid year.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/27/2021 08:19 pm
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

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 05/27/2021 08:25 pm
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

I wonder if he was including Vega as a "smallsat launch vehicle"...that would add a couple more launch vehicle-related failures. Actually, given the time horizon (since 2000), the Falcon 1 is probably included too.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 06/18/2021 04:15 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: russianhalo117 on 06/18/2021 05:24 pm
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.

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.
They had some R&D awards. No evidence of ever planning to fly anything at this time.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 06/22/2021 08:48 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 06/22/2021 03:03 pm
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.

So much for my hope that they were working on building out a website that actually said anything...now it's back to how it was previously.

(Obviously they could still be building out a real website and just flip a switch to start using it when ready, but a visible Under Construction page gave me some hope they may actually have been doing this.)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 06/30/2021 10:08 am
Update 06-30: Firefly slips to Q3; ABL RS1 launch date is unclear; Prime, Eris and Spectrum likely slip to 2023; Space One (Canon) rocket is named "Kairos (https://www.space-one.co.jp/doc/pressrelease210618.pdf)"; added Rocket 4, Skyrora and RFA One
Update 07-02: added Zero to "intentionally not listed"


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-Q3 (https://spacenews.com/astras-100-year-plan-qa-with-ceo-chris-kemp/)  Rocket 3      US        Astra
2021-Q3  Firefly α     US/Ukr    Firefly
2021-Q4 (https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/gaganyaan-india-s-human-space-mission-will-use-green-propulsion-isro-101616776504769.html)  SSLV          India     ISRO (state-owned)
2021     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 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-ispace-suffers-failure-with-second-orbital-launch-attempt/)     Nebula-1      China     Deep Blue

2022     Terran 1      US        Relativity
2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43529.msg2124941#msg2124941)     Kairos        Japan     Space One / Canon
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://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     Eris          Australia Gilmour
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-Q3), too dubious
- Aevum Ravn (2021), too dubious
- HyImpulse SL1 (2023) => NET 2024 with usual delays
- Interstellar Zero (2023) => NET 2024 with usual delays

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)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Fmedici on 06/30/2021 12:20 pm
Interstellar Technologies plans to have the maiden launch of their orbital rocket Zero in 2023 (they talk about that here (http://www.istellartech.com/archives/3585).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 07/31/2021 05:55 am
Back in the 1990s, I had a website devoted to NewSpace companies, mostly startup launch firms. There were lots, it would be interesting to find that old site.

If you had told me that none of the companies would even attempt an orbital launch, I would have been shocked. Obviously, with some companies this time around already having launched, we are far ahead of the last generation. But, the large number of companies compared to launches is reminiscent to some degree.

When AMROC attempted a launch in 1989(?), I thought that there would be many further commercial NewSpace launches in the near term. I had no idea that would be it until SpaceX and the XPrize. Yeah, I know that the Roton ATV flew around a bit, but that doesn’t count.

About 1995, I went to an exhibition of small launchers in LA. There were many exhibitors, and in those days, it was common to propose an Atlas vernier engine for a launcher, since there was a junkyard that sold them. But, almost no rockets from that exhibition actually flew. Space is hard.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 07/31/2021 07:49 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/31/2021 08:32 am

Also important: so far there are no clear commercially successful small launchers since the opening of this thread.

Important point.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 08/01/2021 11:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/02/2021 01:02 am
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.
Anybody investing in new LV needs to plan for 1-2 failures in first few flights.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 08/02/2021 01:29 am
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.

Of course.. but that doesn't mean we should expect to know about them.

I see three different approaches to smallsat launch:
1. High Ground:  Advertise, advertise, with flashy websites and years-out wild predictions they know (or should be expected to know) they'll never achieve - unless they invent new physics or win the lottery.  (The Flash-In-The-Pan type)
2. Middle Ground: Let everyone ride along with both the success and the failures. (The hobbyist-gone-serious type)
3. Low Ground: Quietly test, fund, test, promising little but achieving much but only broadcasting their successes to the world whilst, if at all possible, hiding the failures under the nearest rock.  (The Dark Horse)

I'm sure each have their own reasons for choosing the approach they do, but unfortunately only the High and Middle types will make it onto the Update List before they launch - meaning there may be others out there who might just surprise you.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 08/02/2021 08:47 am
 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 08/03/2021 02:37 am
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.

Like I said, these companies are all too publicity-averse to tell anyone what they're up to in this space until they actually get something off of the launch pad (or, like Astra, they fail trying).  Sure, they need to tell SOMEONE beforehand, but they don't necessarily need to tell the world.  If they did, there'd be no need for this forum. ..and now, back to the sleuthing. ;D
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: high road on 08/03/2021 06:44 pm
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.

On the other hand, 80% of the orbital launches so far this year have been on Long March, Falcon 9 and Soyuz. Over a third of the remainder were emerging smallsat launchers. Combined with the 2 older smallsat launchers, that's half of the remainder.

All of the other big launchers combined makes up the other 7 launches, 10% of the total, down from fluctuating between 40 and 50% in the past. So it just seems everyone but the first three is getting pounded, and smallsat launchers less so than the others (but they don't have the deep pockets of the more established companies).

(situation on the first of august)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/17/2021 06:10 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: libra on 08/17/2021 06:40 am
The aircraft vaguely looks like an Il-76 - a rather ubiquitous and relatively cheap / plentiful military cargo. But what has happened to the cockpit ? do they intend to fly a drone Il-76 ?  :o :o :o
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 08/23/2021 03:36 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 08/23/2021 06:15 am
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).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 08/23/2021 07:21 am
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).

Yes, Hapith I is suborbital.. sorry, I hadn't realised the list was orbital only.  With no announcement on Hapith V I guess we'll have to wait and see, but at least it's promising to know tiSpace aren't in the "hopeful" category, like many others on the list (ARCA, Gilmour, etc.)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/30/2021 05:01 am
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...
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.

See link on youtube for Space.com article.
Mk3 is designed for 250kg to LEO.

https://youtu.be/nwT-d2uaXNg

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 08/31/2021 04:24 pm
If you don't mind me asking, PM3, why is Isar after Orbex? As recently as May of this year, Isar was claiming "mid 2022" for first launch (https://spacenews.com/isar-aerospace-beat-out-competitors-to-win-dlr-microlauncher-competition/). Are you broadly thinking that the caveat about launch site readiness at Andřya will be the real bottleneck, even moreso than Sutherland in the case of Orbex?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 09/03/2021 02:12 am
Darn
Still no change to the list this week.
Firefly follows Astra with a good but insufficient attempt.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 09/03/2021 08:47 am
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)

Quoting the dates the launcher firms give is fine but perhaps we can do better by measuring them against a common yardstick.

There are several now who have formed, developed and got to first launch. It should be possible to benchmark claims like those of Isar, who were saying end of 2021 just 8 months ago (!) by comparing to the time it has taken Firefly, Virgin Orbit, Rocket Lab, Astra etc to get to 1st (serious) orbital launch attempt after being founded.

You would have to suspect the average time is about 6-8 years, not 2-4.

Rocket Lab for example can be measured from the time they pivoted to orbital, when Mark Rocket left in early 2011. They had first flight in May 2017, so circa 6-7 years for a small 150kg vehicle incl. Stage 1.

Firefly can be measured from the founding date in Jan 2014 until almost end of 2021, so circa 8 years for a 1 ton launcher. You could say 7 years if you are generous about the restructuring year in 2016-17. Also included the Stage 1 development.

Virgin Orbit was spun out of Galactic in March 2017, but there was a lot of work going on prior to that date. I can find references to the initial LauncherOne program from 2015 for example. They got to first launch in May 2020. So 5 years but they substituted a 747 for a large, new first stage component.

Astra was founded in Oct 2016 and if we ignore the suborbital attempts the first launch was either Sep or Dec 2020 depending on what you count, for a very small 50kg launcher. So around 4 years, incl. Stage 1, but the scale there might make that a bit on the small side for direct comparison.

What's coming?

Relativity was formally founded in Jan 2016. They are developing a 1250kg launcher incl. Stage 1.

ABL was founded in Aug 2017. They will develop a 1350kg launcher incl. Stage 1.

Isar Aerospace was founded in mid-2018. They are developing a 1200kg launcher, incl. Stage 1.

Rocket Factory Augsburg was founded in mid-2018. They are building a 1200kg launcher incl. Stage 1.

Orbex was founded in 2016. They are developing a 150kg launcher incl. Stage 1.

Just looking at that history and starting points would tend to suggest those who started in 2017-2018 building 1-ton-plus launchers are being somewhat optimistic quoting orbital launches after just 4-5 years. Those who started 1-2 years earlier, esp. those with smaller vehicles, might well be launching in the next 12-18 months.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 09/03/2021 12:02 pm
Quote from: PM3
The dates in the list are not direct quotes. I evaluate all available information and adjust implausible dates by +1 year.

My point is that you can compare to direct results now and benchmark those estimates against what actually happened in similar situations and thus adjust more accurately.

The late starting 1,000kg+ launchers are the obvious example. If they started mid-2018, launching 2022 or even 2023 looks aggressively optimistic - about 2-3 years optimistic for similar vehicles from others, incl. SpaceX, Relativity and Firefly.

Unless you think that some of the new  players are 2-3x better at building rockets than those guys it's hard to see how they achieve even your estimated timelines, and not by a few months but by literally years.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 09/03/2021 01:53 pm
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. :)

But you are producing a list that states first launch dates, apparently dates you don't believe in, and that you think are unrealistic. Why not just benchmark claims against historical fact instead of posting what you yourself consider to be outright disinformation?

All I am suggesting is that you have factual data from several of these startups now that gives a baseline for measuring estimates more accurately than PR and guesswork.

I've produced subjective lists - on this thread - in the past, long before you joined the forum. No offense intended, I just think we are in a different time now, and can make better estimates of reality based on elapsed time from starting work for similar projects. They all have to do fundamentally the same job to get to launch so it's not a stretch to use existing facts as a benchmark.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 09/03/2021 03:32 pm
I have deleted the "disinformation" and quit maintaining the schedule. Good luck to ringsider in doing better.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: bolun on 09/15/2021 09:21 am
And yet another launcher company to add in the list: Pangea Aerospace (https://www.pangeaaerospace.com). Recently created, in 2018.

They have reached an agreement with DLR to test an engine

DLR agrees co­op­er­a­tion with Span­ish start-up Pangea Aerospace (https://www.dlr.de/content/en/articles/news/2021/03/20210910_start-up-engine-design-pangea.html)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 09/29/2021 03:43 pm
That is probably Launcher thread but I can't find it.

FYI: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47486.0
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/29/2021 06:07 pm
That is probably Launcher thread but I can't find it.

FYI: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47486.0
Thanks

Moved my post.

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: su27k on 10/01/2021 06:57 am
https://twitter.com/MeaganMCrawford/status/1443550248434028545

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/02/2021 02:56 pm
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, but I really like PM3’s.
But “getting ridiculous”?
It’s been absurd for years and it just keeps going.


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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: thrwnt on 10/02/2021 04:45 pm
I’d like to see that list of 165

It's up on SpaceFund's website:

https://spacefund.com/launch-database/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/03/2021 06:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Fmedici on 10/03/2021 08:15 pm
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)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 10/03/2021 08:48 pm
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)

Conversely, I think basing things on official dates gives a huge advantage to wildly optimistic companies compared to realistic ones, when it comes to comparing progress levels. Consider the NewSpace Index of small satellite launchers (https://www.newspace.im/launchers), specifically the ones allegedly going to launch in 2021. In addition to the companies and organizations which will probably launch in 2021 or 2022, you have a few which frankly may never launch. Some degree of editorial judgement is probably necessary.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 10/03/2021 09:53 pm
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 ;)

Is Nammo even still working on an orbital version of their vehicle? There were rumors of a "North Star" orbital system discussed in their forum thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37656.40), but with the various changes to their website I was unclear if that was still under development...or even consideration.

Edit: Huh, that page on Nucleus does mention orbital aspirations and even NorthStar...probably should have read it before commenting. Still, I'd rate this alongside Honda's recent aspirations to build a small-lift launcher: by the time they're anywhere close to complete, will the market justify it? And since it's part of a larger company, that also makes it easier to cancel this project and reassign people somewhere else.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: JEF_300 on 10/03/2021 10:00 pm
I think it would be best to just include more information in the list.

So list them with their officially claimed launch date, but then along with that have a column with some sort of feasibility rating (perhaps the SpaceFund Reality rating that was linked to upthread?), and then another column which list their stage of progress on a spectrum from PowerPoint to Operational (I'm thinking PowerPoint, Mock-Up, Test Hardware, Flight Hardware, Flight Stages Assembled, Test Flights, Operational).

That way only existing, objective data is being presented by the list, but it also includes information that may temper a company's optimistic launch dates. Personally, I would probably sort them by stage of progress first, and then by claimed launch date, to further that point.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 10/03/2021 10:10 pm
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??
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: JEF_300 on 10/03/2021 10:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 10/03/2021 10:41 pm
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.

I've got a Google Sheet covering launch companies which I maintain for my own personal interest, but it has a great deal of the editorializing that we're trying to avoid here (which is largely why I haven't shared it publicly anywhere). I'd be happy to submit content to a communal sheet, however.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Yiosie on 10/03/2021 11:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/04/2021 11:00 am
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.

The list could be maintained in the first post of a dedicated thread, and explanations of all the dates in the second post. Rest of the thread for update logs, Q & A.

However, I don't want to go into opinion discussions with fans and haters of certain launcher companies. Would ignore that.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Comga on 10/05/2021 12:36 am
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 am sorry to hear that
It was WAY better than nothing, pretty good IMO.
 
My dear uncle used to say, in pseudo Latin
“Illigitimus non-carborundum”
(not to cast aspersions)

If someone doesnt like your methods, they are free to start their own thread.
Then we would “vote” with our replies as to which one was more to our individual liking.
I liked yours.
Thank you
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/05/2021 01:53 pm
So what does this tell us?

Nothing about most of the real small launcher market (excluding powerpoint projects), which is non-US.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/05/2021 01:54 pm
This is a proposal for a more transparent list. It distinguishes between announced dates (which are often unrealistic) and expected NET dates. The latter are my own estimates, based on evaluating all available information. Also added the + sign to indicate estimates that are somewhat unclear or very NET.

Other changes since previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2258125#msg2258125): News-updated Rocket 3, Firefly α, Eris and EcoRocket; shifted estimates for Nebula-1, SSLV, Kairos and Rocket 4 by +1 year; reviewed newspace.im/launchers (https://www.newspace.im/launchers) and added Darwin-1, mentioned Red Dwarf, Volans, Xingtu-1 and SpinLaunch; reviewed Niederstrasser paper (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5036&context=smallsat) and added VLM-1, mentioned Daytona.

Update 2021-10-07: Hapith V now announced for Q3/2022
Update 2021-10-11: added announced date (Dec.) 2021+ for Firefly
Update 2021-10-12: Vikram 2022+ [2021] => 2024 [2022], Spectrum 2023 => 2023+
Update 2021-10-12: Astra 2021+ => 2021 [2021]
Update 2021-10-20: Nebula-1 2022 => 2023 [2021]
Update 2021-10-21: added Agnibaan
Update 2021-10-24: Kuaizhou-11 2021 => 2022 due to Covid19 lockdown (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3152976/china-space-programme-hit-coronavirus-outbreak-rocket-work-stops)
Update 2021-11-06: added/updated some [2021] links
Update 2021-11-07: EcoRocket [2021] => (Jan.) [2022]
Update 2021-11-09: SpinLaunch  [2021+] => [2022+]



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

Launch expected [announced] NET:     (+ = very ambitious schedule or unclear date)

2021  [2021 (https://astra.com/news/lv0007-launch-window/)]  Rocket 3     US        Astra
2021 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45148.msg2296056#msg2296056)  [2021 (https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-to-launch-nasa-technology-demonstration-mission/)]  RS1          US        ABL
2021+ [2021 (https://www.getrevue.co/profile/aj_fi/issues/china-space-news-update-issue-1-325949)]  OS-M         China     OneSpace
2021+ [2021 (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/06/22/politics/iran-failed-satellite-launch/index.html)]  Simorgh      Iran      ISA (state-owned)
2021+ [2020 (http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Zoljanah/Description/Frame.htm)]  Zoljanah     Iran      (military?)
2021+ [2021 (https://spacenews.com/chinas-ispace-suffers-failure-with-second-orbital-launch-attempt/)]  Jielong-2    China     Chinarocket (state-owned)

2022  [2021 (https://m.timesofindia.com/city/mumbai/mumbai-reusable-rockets-among-isros-top-missions-in-2022/amp_articleshow/86924303.cms)]  SSLV         India     ISRO (state-owned)
2022 (https://spacenews.com/mystery-surrounds-chinese-private-rocket-launch-attempt/)          Kuaizhou-11  China     ExPace (state-owned)
2022  [2021+ (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43326.msg2299138#msg2299138)] Firefly α    US/Ukr    Firefly
2022  [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+ [2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43040.msg2284403#msg2284403)]  Eris         Australia Gilmour

2023 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43529.msg2257542#msg2257542)          Kairos       Japan     Space One / Canon
2023  [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  [2022+ (https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/14/orbex_interview/)] Prime        UK        Orbex
2023 (https://spacenews.com/chinese-space-firm-launches-and-lands-small-test-rocket/)  [2021 (https://thealphacentauri.net/61775-kitayskie-chastnye-kompanii/)]  Nebula-1     China     Deep Blue
2023+ [2022 (https://spacenews.com/isar-aerospace-to-launch-ororatech-wildfire-monitoring-cubesat-constellation/)]  Spectrum     Germany   ISAR Aerospace
2023+ [2022+ (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+ [2022 (https://spacenews.com/taiwans-tispace-to-try-again-after-launch-attempt-ends-in-flames/)]  Hapith V     Taiwan    tiSpace
2023+ [2022 (https://interestingengineering.com/german-company-deliberately-blew-up-its-own-rocket)]  RFA One      Germany   RFA / OHB

2024  [2022 (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/skyroot-aerospace-completes-series-a-funding-to-become-the-most-affordable-on-demand-ride-to-space-on-the-planet-301325874.html)]  Vikram       India     Skyroot
2024  [2022 (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/09/17/agnikul-cosmos-signs-mou-to-use-isro-facilities-to-develop-launch-vehicle/)]  Agnibaan     India     Agnikul
2024  [2022 (https://www.iae.cta.br/index.php/slideshow/676-iae-conclui-com-sucesso-a-operacao-santa-maria-1-2021-no-cla)]  VLM-1        Brazil    DCTA (state-owned)
2024  [2022 (https://www.sohu.com/a/455516359_100016644)]  Darwin-1     China     Rocket Group
2024+ [2023 (https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/raumfahrt-microlauncher-kleinraketen-spacex-hyimpulse-1.5193633)]  SL1          Germany   HyImpulse
2024+ [2023 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42521.msg2246379#msg2246379)]  Zero         Japan     Interstellar

Intentionally not listed:

- ARCA EcoRocket [2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50041.msg2307383#msg2307383)], too dubious
- Aevum Ravn [2021 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/12/meet-ravn-x-a-fully-autonomous-air-launched-rocket-for-small-satellites/)], too dubious
- SpinLaunch [2022+ (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/spinlaunch-completes-first-test-flight-of-alternative-rocket.html)], too dubious
- Phantom Daytona [2023 (https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/phantom-space-john-deere-ingenu-72-satellite-constellation)], too dubious
- bluShift Red Dwarf [2023 (https://www.universetoday.com/149917/blushift-aerospace-launches-stardust-1-0-rocket/)], too unclear if and when this will launch
- Equatorial Volans [2023 (https://spacewatch.global/2021/09/equatorial-space-and-innova-space-join-forces/)], too unclear if and when this will launch
- everything announced for ≥ 2024, those dates are too unreliable
- projects without notable media coverage

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 2019
- Xingtu-1 (Spacetrek/China), announced for 2021 in 2019

Canceled:

- Boeing XS-1
- Zhuque-1 (Landspace/China)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 10/07/2021 12:28 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 10/07/2021 12:37 am
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: CameronD on 10/07/2021 01:57 am
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: su27k on 10/07/2021 12:37 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1445894826910642178

Quote
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 10/07/2021 01:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Yiosie on 10/07/2021 08:43 pm
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

Hapith V now scheduled for a Q3 2022 maiden flight:

https://spacenews.com/taiwans-tispace-to-try-again-after-launch-attempt-ends-in-flames/

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 10/08/2021 11:40 am
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

They initiated a partnership with Italspazio.

Orbit Boy and Italspazio will develop space launch capabilities in Italy (https://orbitboy.rocks/tpost/k134y86v81-orbit-boy-and-italspazio-will-develop-sp)

They want to launch from Italy, apparently:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Helge on 10/08/2021 12:25 pm
The Norwegian government has today approved 365,6 million NOK (around 40 million USD) in funding to Andřya Space for establishing a base for launching smallsats at Andřya in northern Norway. it is expected that this will result in 150 new jobs.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Fmedici on 10/12/2021 08:34 am
Cross-post:

Skyrora-XL to be launched in 2022 from Shetlands:

https://twitter.com/Skyrora_Ltd/status/1447835867364663299
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/12/2021 01:32 pm
Lots of small launcher news since yesterday. The schedule  in post #946 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2297105#msg2297105) has been updated:

- added announced date (Dec.) 2021+ for Firefly
- Vikram announced date slips from late 2021 to 2022; shifted expectation from 2022+ to 2024
- first rocket in production (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47876.msg2297123#msg2297123) at ISAR Aerospace seems to be a mockup (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php? topic=47876.msg2299255#msg2299255); shifted expectation from 2023 to 2023+
- next Astra launch announced for October-November 2021
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 10/14/2021 01:14 pm
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?

No, you didn't miss any magic.

You know what is interesting? Plot a timeline from founding of a company, or pivot towards small launchers, and see how long it takes to first orbital launch:-

Rocket Lab                       7-8 years to orbit from exit of Mark Rocket and pivot, 2011-2018
Virgin Orbit                      8-9 years to orbit incl. time under Virgin Galactic (Launcher One mentioned as far back as 2013)
Spacex                            7 years to orbit Falcon 1 2002-2008.

Two who are closing in:

Firefly                              Founded 2014 took 8 years to first launch, incl. one year for re-organization.
Astra Space*                    Founded 10/2016 acquired Ventions LLC. Launched a small rocket but still no orbit.

*Astra is a red herring versus others because the payload mass is very small.

Just look at the history and it becomes obvious that at least 5 years are needed to launch even a small rocket like Astra with any kind of reliability, and more likely 7-8 years for anything carrying 150kg+.

Now look at the up-and-comers:-

Rocket Factory Augsburg   Founded 7/2018
Isar Aerospace                 Founded 3/2018
ABL                                 Founded 8/2017
Skyrora                            Founded 6/2017
Launcher Space                Founded 3/2017
OrbEx                              Founded 5/2016
Relativity                          Founded 10/2015
Gilmour                            Founded 7/2012
PLD Space                        Founded 9/2011

So with that history in mind you can approximate years when these new guys might get there. There is a cohort of those founded in 2014/15/16 coming to maturity, but anything from 2017 saying they will launch to orbit soon is probably highly optimistic. Some are taking so long to build even sub-orbital vehicles it is doubtful they will ever get there.

Any company founded in 2018 saying they will be orbital by 2021 or 2022 is not to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/14/2021 02:08 pm
Any company founded in 2018 saying they will be orbital by 2021 or 2022 is not to be taken seriously.

iSpace was founded in 2016 and reached orbit in 2019. Galactic Energy was founded in 2018 and made it to orbit in 2020. Because they used legacy engine technology.

Orbex was founded in 2016, but the CTO is co-founder of Copenhagen Suborbitals, which has been developing engines and rockets since 2008.

ISAR Aerospace was founded in 2018, but as spinoff of WARR, which has been developing engines and rockets since 1966.

RFA was founded in 2018, but builds on proven Ukrainian engine technology (since 2020).

Rocket Lab and Firefly have done much innovation, developed engines and CFK structures from scratch, which took time to mature. ABL deliberately does not innovate, to be as fast and cheap as possible.

Companies have different starting points, different technological aspirations, differently talented management, vastly different funding. Comparing them just by their founding dates misses all that; it won't yield useful forecasts.

(Mod, please move this and the previous post to somewhere else, it is offtopic in the Relativity Thread.)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: gongora on 10/14/2021 02:37 pm
Isn't Firefly also using Ukrainian engine tech now?

One thing I'm wondering about with Relativity is how much testing they've done on the autogenous pressurization systems and how smoothly that will go when they start testing it on the full vehicle.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/14/2021 04:21 pm
Isn't Firefly also using Ukrainian engine tech now?

Since 2018, yes. Which enabled a first launch attempt in 2021.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 10/15/2021 08:42 am
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).

A good joint venture between the east (turbopump) and the west (chamber, nozzle, etc...), he somehow put it that way.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Fmedici on 10/19/2021 09:20 am
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]

Quote
Agnikul 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/21/2021 08:55 pm
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]

Quote
Agnikul 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.

This is old news from 2020:

https://www.republicworld.com/amp/technology-news/science/indias-agnikul-cosmos-signs-deal-with-alaska-aerospace-for-test-launc.html

And the launch was announced for 'by the end of 2022" (source (https://www.republicworld.com/amp/technology-news/science/indias-agnikul-cosmos-signs-deal-with-alaska-aerospace-for-test-launc.html)).

Connected to Airbus, PSCA and ISRO, and testing engines for a while, this looks like a serious rocket project. But Indian launch schedules have been most unreliable of all space-faring nations. Added to the list (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2297105#msg2297105) with NET 2024 estimate.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Davidthefat on 11/16/2021 07:26 am
X-Bow seems to have updated their website with real information:

https://www.xbowsystems.com/

Seems to have "orbital" in their "We Fly" page, but only seems to show solid propellant motors which looks to be sub M class motors which very much is only for suborbital flight.

Interesting thing is their additively manufactured solid propellant motors, something that New Mexico Tech has been developing: https://www.nmt.edu/news/2019/materials-3D-rocket-motors.php

Well, others have pursued additively manufacturing solid propellant grains, but NMT's name is right on the motor on their website. I wonder what X-Bow's long term plan is.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 11/18/2021 05:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/18/2021 08:26 am
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.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/19/2021 08:44 pm
[...]
Intentionally not listed:
[...]
- SpinLaunch [2022+ (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/spinlaunch-completes-first-test-flight-of-alternative-rocket.html)], too dubious
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: SciNews on 11/20/2021 04:07 am
DLR - Aerospike engine from Pangea Aerospace trialled on DLR test stand
https://www.dlr.de/content/en/articles/news/2021/04/20211119_pangea-trialled-on-dlr-test-stand-lampoldshausen.html
Quote
DLR has tested a MethaLox aerospike engine for the first time, on behalf of the start-up Pangea Aerospace.
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.
Pangea Aerospace aerospike engine hot run
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CombVB48ziY
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 11/20/2021 04:48 am
[...]
Intentionally not listed:
[...]
- SpinLaunch [2022+ (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/spinlaunch-completes-first-test-flight-of-alternative-rocket.html)], too dubious
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.

Agree that expectations have changed since that subsonic demonstration shot was disclosed. Scott Manley also upgraded his stance on SpinLaunch.

Orbital launch was targeted for late 2022, which is totally unrealistic. Tons of problems still need to be solved. They now just say they will do suborbital tests till ~ mid 2022. Expect that those tests will run into 2023, and an orbital launcher will not be ready before late 2024.

(The list needs some more updates; just waiting for Astra.)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 11/20/2021 05:30 am
Changes since previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2297105#msg2297105):

- Astra is in orbit!
- next Firefly launch announced for early 2022
- Nebula-1 and Darwin-1 now announced for 2023 (was 2021 / 2022)
- shifted expectation for Zoljanah, Eris and Nebula-1 by +1 year
- Skyrora 2023+ [2022+] => 2023 [2022]
- moved Jielong-2 to the "unclear" section due to news blackout
- moved Zero to "intentionally not listed" due to lack of funding
- moved SpinLaunch from "intentionally not listed" to scheduled list
- added Hyperbola-2

More updates:

- 2021-11-23: removed Jielong-2 because this may not be a new launcher (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2312662#msg2312662)
- 2021-11-23: Volans development lacks funding (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46624.msg2313215#msg2313215) to reach orbit
- 2021-11-27: SSLV now announced  for Q1 2022 (was 2021), expected NET Q2



New smallsat launchers - 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
2021-11  ...  Rocket 3     US        Astra

Launch expected [announced] NET:     (+ = very ambitious schedule or unclear date)

2021  [2021 (https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-to-launch-project-kuipers-first-satellites-in-2022/)]  RS1          US        ABL
2021+ [2021 (https://www.getrevue.co/profile/aj_fi/issues/china-space-news-update-issue-1-325949)]  OS-M         China     OneSpace
2021+ [2021 (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/06/22/politics/iran-failed-satellite-launch/index.html)]  Simorgh      Iran      ISA (state-owned)

2022 (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3152976/china-space-programme-hit-coronavirus-outbreak-rocket-work-stops)          Kuaizhou-11  China     ExPace (state-owned)
2022  [2022 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/firefly-completes-design-of-moon-mission-aiming-for-2023-launch/)]  Firefly α    US/Ukr    Firefly
2022  [2022 (https://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/october_-_2021_-_monthly_summary.pdf)]  SSLV         India     ISRO (state-owned)
2022  [2021+ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/2/1/iran-completes-satellite-launch-test-with-new-rocket)] Zoljanah     Iran      (military?)
2022  [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

2023 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43529.msg2257542#msg2257542)          Kairos       Japan     Space One / Canon
2023  [2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43040.msg2284403#msg2284403)]  Eris         Australia Gilmour
2023  [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  [2022+ (https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/14/orbex_interview/)] Prime        UK        Orbex
2023  [2022 (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/10/50th-anniversary-black-arrow/)]  Skyrora XL   UK/Ukr    Skyrora
2023  [2021+ (https://spacenews.com/falling-foam-insulation-caused-chinese-commercial-rocket-failure/)] Hyperbola-2  China     iSpace
2023+ [2022 (https://spacenews.com/isar-aerospace-to-launch-ororatech-wildfire-monitoring-cubesat-constellation/)]  Spectrum     Germany   ISAR Aerospace
2023+ [2022 (https://spacenews.com/taiwans-tispace-to-try-again-after-launch-attempt-ends-in-flames/)]  Hapith V     Taiwan    tiSpace
2023+ [2022 (https://interestingengineering.com/german-company-deliberately-blew-up-its-own-rocket)]  RFA One      Germany   RFA / OHB

2024  [2022 (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/skyroot-aerospace-completes-series-a-funding-to-become-the-most-affordable-on-demand-ride-to-space-on-the-planet-301325874.html)]  Vikram       India     Skyroot
2024  [2022 (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/09/17/agnikul-cosmos-signs-mou-to-use-isro-facilities-to-develop-launch-vehicle/)]  Agnibaan     India     Agnikul
2024  [2022 (https://www.iae.cta.br/index.php/slideshow/676-iae-conclui-com-sucesso-a-operacao-santa-maria-1-2021-no-cla)]  VLM-1        Brazil    DCTA (state-owned)
2024  [2023 (https://spacenews.com/deep-blue-aerospace-conducts-100-meter-vtvl-rocket-test/)]  Nebula-1     China     Deep Blue
2024  [2023 (https://spacenews.com/new-chinese-launch-firm-signs-deal-for-reusable-rocket-engines/)]  Darwin-1     China     Rocket Group
2024+ [2023 (https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/raumfahrt-microlauncher-kleinraketen-spacex-hyimpulse-1.5193633)]  SL1          Germany   HyImpulse
2024+ [2022+ (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/spinlaunch-completes-first-test-flight-of-alternative-rocket.html)] SpinLaunch   US        SpinLaunch

Intentionally not listed:

- Aevum Ravn [2021 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/12/meet-ravn-x-a-fully-autonomous-air-launched-rocket-for-small-satellites/)], too dubious
- ARCA EcoRocket [2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50041.msg2307383#msg2307383)], too dubious
- Phantom Daytona [2023 (https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/phantom-space-john-deere-ingenu-72-satellite-constellation)], too dubious
- bluShift Red Dwarf [2023 (https://www.universetoday.com/149917/blushift-aerospace-launches-stardust-1-0-rocket/)], too unclear if and when this will launch
- Equatorial Volans [2023 (https://spacewatch.global/2021/09/equatorial-space-and-innova-space-join-forces/)], not funded
- Interstellar Zero [2023 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42521.msg2246379#msg2246379)], not funded
- everything announced for ≥ 2024, those dates are too unreliable
- projects without notable media coverage

Unclear - no update on launch date:

- Super Stripy derivate (X-Bow/US), announced for 2019
- Blue Whale 1 (Perigee/Korea), announced for 2020
- Newline-1 (Linkspace/China), announced for 2021 in 2019
- Xingtu-1 (Spacetrek/China), announced for 2021 in 2019

Canceled:

- Boeing XS-1
- Zhuque-1 (Landspace/China)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 11/20/2021 06:07 am
Depending on the definition of borderline cases, I guess this is a good overview of the current situation:

https://twitter.com/cosmic_penguin/status/1461951137213403141?s=21
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: SciNews on 11/20/2021 08:34 am
- moved Jielong-2 to the "unclear" section due to news blackout
Jielong-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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 11/20/2021 08:48 am
- moved Jielong-2 to the "unclear" section due to news blackout
Jielong-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

Andrew Jones wrote in August that Jielong-2 has not been abandoned, but may have been postponed. Jielong-3 is 1.5 t to 500 km SSO which translates to ~ 2 t to 200 km LEO. I would not consider that as a small launcher, but set the limit at ~ 1.5 t to LEO (= Kuaizhou-11, the biggest rocket in the list).

Edit:
The most common definition of "small launcher" seems to be "up to 2 metric tons to 200 km LEO". But Jielong-3 probably is a bit above that limit, so rather a medium launcher. However Hyperbola-2 qualifies with 1.9 t to LEO ("> 1.1 t" to 500 km SSO).

Another Edit:
CASC in August 2021 gave an update on Jielong-3 development and wrote that there are three Jielong rockets: -1, -2 and -3 (source (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/LsTp6xuBj6581AKlrd0mSA)).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 11/20/2021 09:17 am
Given the relationship between CALT and the operators of the Jielong/Smart Dragon series, as well as the similarities of their models, I have always assumed Jielong-2 is merely a re-branded Long March 11 (maybe with some payload adaptor modifications), and Jielong-3 = Long March 11A, which has long been planned as a much evolved version of the LM-11.

I have little confidence in me being right though, the relationship between CASC and their China Rocket subsidiary has always been strange to me.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: SciNews on 11/20/2021 10:59 am
Only SD-1 (Jielong-1) and SD-3 (Jielong-3) were present at the Zhuhai Airshow in September 2021
There were four in the Jielong series announced in 2019, including a suborbital one.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Fmedici on 12/04/2021 04:57 pm
Cross-post:
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 12/07/2021 02:29 pm
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.  :)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 12/08/2021 11:46 am
Some smallsat launcher news:

- An FCC license application for RS1 launch was rejected, and ABL has filed a new application for January 31 to July 31, 2022 (see ABL thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45148.160)). This indicates that the first RS1 launch (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55274.0) slips to 2022.

- NSF recently reported (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/11/kuaizhou-1a-launches-shiyan-11-technology-development-satellite/) that the second Kuaizhou-11 launch attempt is still planned for 2021. ExPace operations already have resumed after a brief Covid-19 lockdown, so we might see a launch before year's end.

- As posted here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55333.msg2317453#msg2317453) by Skyrocket, the Argentinian company Tlon Space is preparing a first orbital launch of their tiny Aventura I rocket. Payload license application indicates a planned launch in December 2021; commercial service was announced to begin in 2022.

- Innospace from Taiwan plans to launch their Hanbit nano rocket from Alcantara in second half of 2022. See Innospace thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55144.0) for more information.

- There have been some news about development of the Canadian C6 Launch rocket. A test stand has been set up at Spaceport America, and they obtained a license for launching from Alcantara in Brazil. First launch attempt has been announced for mid 2022 (http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=55703) or early 2022 (https://www.c6launch.ca/about-us/), but they are still in early stage of development. Hard to tell if and when this will actually launch.

- Space Engineering Systems from Canada made headlines (https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/small-manitoba-airport-could-play-role-in-testing-hypersonic-aircraft-for-space-1.5658895) with a hypersonic concept plane called "Sexbomb". This is to be followed by the suborbital & LEO spaceplane Hello-1, first launch in 2023, and the crewed "Hello-2" in 2025. Too hilarious to be real.

- iRocket - based in New York - announced (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/11/08/irocket-and-turion-space-ink-agreement-for-10-launches-to-low-earth-orbit/#more-82029) a 10-launches-contract for their Shockwave launcher. They are counting down (http://irocketusa.com/) to a first launch in mid 2023, which looks highly unrealistic for a reusable launcher that started development in 2018. A launch contract between two startups that need investor money ... I won't take that too serious.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 12/08/2021 12:20 pm
Changes since previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2312621#msg2312621), as reported (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2318827#msg2318827):

- Kuaizhou-11 might still launch in 2021
- RS1 slips to 2022
- shifted expectation for OS-M from 2021+ to 2022
- added Aventura I, announced for December 2021
- added Hanbit, announced for NET mid 2022
- mentioned C6 Launch, Chetak, Hello-1 and Shockwave

More updates:

-12-14: Aventura I slips to NET 2022
-12-14: Kairos now announced for end of 2022, Red Dwarf for 2024-2025
-12-14: added Vector-R to the "unclear" section
-12-14: mentioned Dauntless, Launcher Light, Miura 5, Zephyr and Honda rocket
-12-17: delisted Darwin-1, the first flight announced for 2023 may just be a hop
-12-17: mentioned MUFS
-12-29: added Gravity-1 - not a small launcher
-12-30: recycled Simorgh to 2022 after it missed (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/12/iran-simorgh-three-payloads/) orbital velocity today
-12-31: Kuaizhou-11 slips to 2022
-01-20: moved OS-M back to the "unclear" section due to news blackout
-01-20: RS1 slips to later 2022 after second stage test RUD (https://spacenews.com/abl-space-systems-rocket-stage-destroyed-in-test-accident/)
-01-27: shifted expectation for RFA One by +1 year
-01-27: SpinLaunch now reported (https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/spin-me-up-scotty-up-into-orbit-2656442408) to launch "around 2025"
-02-16: moved Ravn from "intentionally not listed" to the "unclear" section
-03-01: added Qaem
-03-08: added + indicator for Terran 1
-03-27: moved Vector to "canceled", assuming it is finally dead
-05-02: delisted Nebula-1, which is now announced for 2024
-05-02: Eris 2023 [2022] => 2024+ [2023], first launch will be suborbital
-05-03: shifted expectation for Hyperbola-2 by +1 year
-05-03: removed delisted Hanbit-Nano due to lack of orbital launch date
-05-03: Skyrora XL now announced for early 2023
-05-07: mentioned Reaction Dynamics launcher
-05-19: moved Vikram up from 2024 to 2023+
-06-01: moved Simorgh to the "unclear" section
-06-23: shifted expectation for Hapith V, Spectrum, SL1 and Eris by +1 year
-06-24: delisted VLM-1, which is now announced for 2025
-06-25: TiSpace Hapith V => ATSpace Kestrel (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46926.msg2379991#msg2379991)
-07-11: OS-M has been canceled / replaced by OS-L (http://www.onespacechina.com/productDetailL)



New smallsat launchers - 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
2021-11  ...  Rocket 3     US        Astra

Launch expected [announced] NET:     (+ = very ambitious schedule or unclear date)

2022  [2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49715.msg2343629#msg2343629)]  SSLV         India     ISRO (state-owned) - launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49715.0)
2022  [2022 (https://www.rosario3.com/tecnologia/Tlon-la-innovadora-empresa-argentina-a-la-vanguardia-de-la-industria-aeroespacial-20220225-0044.html)]  Aventura I   Argentina Tlon
2022  [2022 (http://t.m.china.org.cn/convert/c_mmIjTgkc.html)]  Kuaizhou-11  China     ExPace (public/private)
2022  [2022 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/firefly-completes-design-of-moon-mission-aiming-for-2023-launch/)]  Firefly α    US        Firefly            - launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56403.0)
2022  [2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=111984)]  RS1          US        ABL                - launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55274.0)
2022+ [2022+ (https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/iran-unveils-its-first-satellite-designed-by-private-sector-2022-2-4-46/)] Zoljanah     Iran      (military)
2022+ [2022 (https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2022/04/07/at-cape-canaveral-relativity-space-is-still-targeting-this-year-for-first-launch/6797864001/)]  Terran 1     US        Relativity         - launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56487.0)

2023  [2022 (https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/13/astras-playing-the-long-game/)]  Rocket 4     US        Astra
2023  [2022+ (https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/iran-unveils-its-first-satellite-designed-by-private-sector-2022-2-4-46/)] Qaem         Iran      (military?)
2023  [2022+ (https://www.space.com/orbex-prime-first-europe-microlauncher-unveiled)] Prime        UK/Den    Orbex
2023+ [2023 (https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/space/skyrora-calls-on-icelandic-government-to-allow-test-launch.html)]  Skyrora XL   UK/Ukr    Skyrora
2023+ [2022 (https://nordot.app/842319140730454016)]  Kairos       Japan     Space One / Canon
2023+ [2022 (https://theprint.in/ani-press-releases/navars-edutech-to-launch-100-satellite-constellations-in-the-next-5-years-in-collaboration-with-skyroot-aerospace/832450/)]  Vikram       India     Skyroot

2024  [2022 (https://spacenews.com/isar-aerospace-to-launch-ororatech-wildfire-monitoring-cubesat-constellation/)]  Spectrum     Germany   ISAR Aerospace
2024  [2022 (https://interestingengineering.com/german-company-deliberately-blew-up-its-own-rocket)]  RFA One      Germany   RFA / OHB
2024  [2022 (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/09/17/agnikul-cosmos-signs-mou-to-use-isro-facilities-to-develop-launch-vehicle/)]  Agnibaan     India     Agnikul
2024+ [2022 (https://spacenews.com/taiwans-tispace-to-try-again-after-launch-attempt-ends-in-flames/)]  Kestrel      Aus/Twn   ATSpace / TiSpace
2024+ [2023 (https://spacenews.com/new-launch-vehicles-set-for-test-flights-from-chinas-jiuquan-spaceport/)]  Hyperbola-2  China     iSpace

2025  [2023 (https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/raumfahrt-microlauncher-kleinraketen-spacex-hyimpulse-1.5193633)]  SL1          Germany   HyImpulse
2025  [2023 (https://www.spaceconnectonline.com.au/satellites/5421-gilmour-hands-high-school-students-chance-to-build-cubesat)]  Eris         Australia Gilmour

Intentionally not listed:

- ARCA EcoRocket [2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50041.msg2388991#msg2388991)], too dubious
- C6 Launch [2022 (https://www.c6launch.ca/about-us/)], too dubious
- Innospace Hanbit-Nano [2022 (https://payloadspace.com/innospace-will-conduct-suborbital-launch-from-brazils-alcantara-spaceport/)], just a suborbital stage test
- Bellatrix Chetak [2023 (https://www.northeasttoday.in/2021/09/16/isro-chairman-inaugurates-research-lab-at-space-startup-bellatrix-aerospace/)], too unclear if this will ever launch
- Phantom Daytona [2023 (https://payloadspace.com/phantom-sees-no-blockage-reaching-orbit-in-2023/)], too dubious
- SES Hello-1 [2023 (https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/small-manitoba-airport-could-play-role-in-testing-hypersonic-aircraft-for-space-1.5658895)], too dubious
- Vaya Dauntless [2023 (https://www.vayaspace.com/dauntless)], too dubious
- iRocket Shockwave [2023 (http://irocketusa.com/)], too dubious
- Equatorial Volans [2023 (https://spacewatch.global/2021/09/equatorial-space-and-innova-space-join-forces/)], not funded
- Interstellar Zero [2023 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42521.msg2246379#msg2246379)], not funded
- Rocket Pi Darwin-1 [2023 (https://spacenews.com/new-chinese-launch-firm-signs-deal-for-reusable-rocket-engines)], probably just a hop or suborbital test
- launches announced for ≥ 2024, too far away to evaluate:
  - Deep Blue Nebula-1 [2024 (https://spacenews.com/chinese-reusable-rocket-startup-secures-new-funding-round/)]
  - Launcher Light [2024 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/launcher-raises-11-million-ramps-up-hiring-for-2024-flight/)]
  - PLD Miura 5 [2024 (https://www.rtve.es/play/audios/fallo-de-sistema/485-miura-1-cohete-espanol-27-11-21/6228959/)]
  - Reaction Dynamics launcher [2024 (https://www.reactiondynamics.space/tech)]
  - Venture Orbital Zephyr [2024 (https://www.cieletespace.fr/actualites/la-start-up-francaise-venture-orbital-systems-compte-lancer-ses-propres-fusees-des-2024)]
  - bluShift Red Dwarf [2024+ (https://www.mainebiz.biz/article/next-sascha-deri-rocket-scientist-aiming-high-really-high)]
  - IAE/DLR VLM-1 [2025 (https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/lancamento-ainda-distante/)]
  - SpinLaunch [2025 (https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/spin-me-up-scotty-up-into-orbit-2656442408)]
  - Roketsan MUFS [2026 (https://www.defenceturk.net/roketsan-2026da-mufs-ile-yorungeye-mikro-uydu-gonderecek)]
  - Honda rocket [2030 (https://spacenews.com/japanese-carmaker-honda-developing-reusable-rocket-for-leo-satellites/)]
- rockets without an announced launch date
- projects without notable media coverage

Unclear - no update on launch date:

- Super Stripy derivate (X-Bow/US), announced for 2019
- Blue Whale 1 (Perigee/Korea), announced for 2020
- Newline-1 (Linkspace/China), announced for 2021 in 2019
- Ravn X (Aevum/US), announced for 2021 in 2019
- Xingtu-1 (Spacetrek/China), announced for 2021 in 2019
- Simorgh (Iran), no news since failure in Dec. 2021

Canceled:

- Boeing XS-1 (US) - not launched
- Zhuque-1 (Landspace/China) - one failed orbital launch attempt
- Vector-R and -H (US) - no orbital launch attempts
- OS-M (OneSpace/China) - one failed orbital launch attempt
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/15/2021 05:55 pm
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.

https://www.geekwire.com/2021/breakthrough-energy-ventures-leads-65m-funding-round-for-stoke-spaces-reusable-rocket-stages/

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Eerie on 12/15/2021 08:13 pm
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.

Maybe they want to pair with someone else's reusable first stage.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 12/31/2021 09:59 am
Some small launcher news; the list in post #980 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2318848#msg2318848) has been updated.

Private space:

- Firefly operations at Vandenberg have been halted (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43326.msg2326101#msg2326101) for political reasons. The second Alpha launch attempt from VSFB was announced for early 2022, but that was extremely ambitious, would have been an unprecedented pace. So they now have a excuse why the launch will slip anyway. And even more urgency to find investors - Firefly may not be fully financed throughout 2022, and someone must buy Polyakhovs share to lift the Ukraine ban.

- Chinese newcomer Orienspace ("Ospace", "Dongfang Space") starts building their first Gravity-1 (Yilin-1, YL-1) rocket, aiming for a launch in 2023. An ambitious goal, just three years after founding the company. Though there have been Chinese startups that succeeded in launching a solid rocket to orbit that fast. And Orienspace is well funded. YL-1 looks unusual (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/qeqOi2s_psAQRO1185gUEA), a stubby small launcher with four strap-on boosters. [Edit on Februrary 4: This is not a small launcher, 6.5 t LEO payload.]

- Another fast-moving Chinese space company, Rocket Pi, announced (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/j9z-N9hnmM6Jg0A47kE0HA) some qualification of the methalox engines for their Darwin-1 launcher. Rocket Pi is not developing own engines but buys (https://spacenews.com/new-chinese-launch-firm-signs-deal-for-reusable-rocket-engines/) them from Jiuzhou Yunjian. First test flights of the rocket are envisioned for 2023, which remembers of the first Nebula-1 tests announced for 2021: Actually just a hop happend, and orbital launch then was announced for two years later. Both are reusable launchers.

- Rocket Factory Augsburg hired (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48925.msg2325128#msg2325128) a former Google sales manager als CEO. His statements indicate that the tech guys at RFA did not sufficiently focus on developing their RFA One launcher. This continues the series of indications that RFA One is far behind schedule.

- There have been no news at all on OneSpace's OS-M since early 2021. They emerged from bankruptcy, did a suborbital flight and announced the second orbital attempt with OS-M for 2021. Will drop back to the "unclear" list section if the news blackout continues.

State-financed projects:

- Expace still struggles with reliability - another Kuaizhou-1A launch failed (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/12/kuaizhou-1a-second-failure/). The reason is unknown, and so it stays unclear if this also affects the second orbital attempt with their Kuaizhou-11 rocket. Launch preparations have been ongoing for some months, with a brief Covid-19 break.

- Yesterday, another Simorgh launch (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55499.0) did not reach orbit. Some politician now says "we will have an operational launch soon", but such statements have been worthless in the past. If the launch pattern of the past years continues, the next Simorgh attempt will happen NET late 2022.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/05/2022 03:47 am
So Firefly in an apparent death spiral. Astra’s prospects looking beyond bleak - according to the (quite sensible) short sellers.

Really just Rocketlab and Relativity left now. But the year is still young.

Oh and Virgin Orbit, I guess, but they don’t seem to be shooting the lights out in terms of launch cadence now are they… 👀.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 01/05/2022 04:01 am
I think ABL is still lurking in the shadows.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/05/2022 10:06 am
I think ABL is still lurking in the shadows.
Must have something go for them to have LM as investor and customer.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 02/10/2022 11:08 pm
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')

There also seems to be an episode with the president and VP of C6 Launch Systems, a company so under-the-radar they don't even have a dedicated thread in this forum. (Vaya's dedicated thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30097.0) hasn't been renamed to reflect their name change, but at least it exists.)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: su27k on 02/22/2022 11:14 am
Smallsat launch and the real world (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4334/1)

Quote from: thespacereview.com
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 02/22/2022 05:38 pm
Smallsat launch and the real world (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4334/1)

Quote from: thespacereview.com
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.

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.)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 02/23/2022 12:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: DanClemmensen on 02/23/2022 01:50 pm
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 big question will be mission price of Starship and possibly other fully-reusable launch systems. These are yet to be proven, but so are many of the small launchers. If the mission price of a huge launcher is lower than the mission price of a small launcher, then the small launcher has no market here. It does not matter that the huge launcher is "wasting" a lot of payload capacity if the price charged to the customer is lower.  Also, for constellations that use in-orbit spares, They would not in general launch just one satellite on a replacement mission. They would wait until all but one spare was in use and then replenish the plane's inventory of spares in a single launch.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: JEF_300 on 02/23/2022 10:56 pm
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/15/2022 04:40 pm
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.  :)

Update to this list following Astra's 2nd time reaching orbit:

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 (China) (December 7, 2021 - Ceres-1)
6. Astra (March 15, 2022 - Rocket 3.3)

1 other have reached orbit once so far, with 2 failures since then:

a. iSpace (July 25, 2019 - Hyperbola-1)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edzieba on 03/16/2022 11:13 am
Smallsat launch and the real world (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4334/1)

Quote from: thespacereview.com
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.

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.)
Launch costs vs time costs.
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 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.
Notably, both Astra and Rocketlab are either investing in or actively building their own satellite hardware themselves.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 03/16/2022 02:19 pm
Smallsat launch and the real world (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4334/1)

Quote from: thespacereview.com
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.

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.)
Launch costs vs time costs.
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.

Sure, I suppose I just find it hard to believe that Astra's launch costs will be low enough (although still higher than bulk launch) that the cost for launching the satellites individually is made up for by the ability to have each satellite placed correctly right away, rather than waiting two months. Although your comment about fewer satellites per plane does point to a market opportunity for medium-lift launch that can do plane-at-a-time for smaller planes and still max out the capacity of the launcher (and cost less per-launch than heavy lift).

It seems to me that Astra would need for the market to want at least 365 satellites launched per year (since they need a daily launch cadence to maintain lower launch costs), but also those satellites aren't going to larger planes where the time costs of phasing are (relatively) mitigated. So not one or two large constellations (with large planes and lots of them, such that full deployment will take years anyway and being two months faster isn't worth it except maybe for the very last series of satellites), but many smaller constellations. I don't know if the market is actually headed that way; hosted payloads as part of larger constellations seems more likely to me.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 05/07/2022 11:12 pm
Reminder: The schedule in post #980 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2318848#msg2318848) is being maintained and updated. I will try to repeat it every 20 posts, so that the current schedule always resides at the top of the current thread page.

Recently, the inaugural launches of Australian Eris and Korean Hanbit rocket - both announced for 2022 - turned out to be suborbital demonstrator flights. So it will probably take some more years until one of those reaches orbit.

Next concretely announced launch is SSLV for June, but ISRO schedule is notoriously overoptimistic. Some of the other rockets to fly in 2022 could still get ahead of SSLV.


Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rondaz on 06/17/2022 01:24 am
GALACTIC ENERGY recently completed another hot fire test of CERES-1's upper stage, the EDGE attitude and orbital control system.

3rd launch of CERES-1, mission "White is the New Black" is happening soon

https://twitter.com/CNSpaceflight/status/1537599046830804992
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Fmedici on 07/29/2022 03:02 pm
I guess it's time to update the list with ZK-1A
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 07/29/2022 04:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 07/29/2022 04:13 pm
Copy from previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2318848#msg2318848), last updated on July 11, to keep the list at the top of the current thread page.

More updates:

-07-30: added ZK-1A, which made it to orbit on July 27
-07-30: removed Volans, because there is no more launch date (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46624.msg2391390#msg2391390)
-07-31: added Jielong-3
-08-05: Rocket 4 slips by +1 year
-08-07: recycled SSLV to 2023 after failed orbital insertion (https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/08/07/indias-new-small-satellite-launcher-fails-to-put-satellites-into-correct-orbit/)
-08-31: reviewed Niederstrasser update (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2399930#msg2399930) but found no relevant new rocket



New smallsat launchers - 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
2021-11  ...  Rocket 3     US        Astra
2022-07  ...  ZK-1A        China     CAS Space (state-owned)

Launch expected [announced] NET:     (+ = very ambitious schedule or unclear date)

2022  [2022 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/firefly-completes-design-of-moon-mission-aiming-for-2023-launch/)]  Alpha        US        Firefly            - launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56403.0)
2022  [2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=111984)]  RS1          US        ABL                - launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55274.0)
2022  [2022 (http://t.m.china.org.cn/convert/c_mmIjTgkc.html)]  Kuaizhou-11  China     ExPace (public/private)
2022  [2022 (https://www.rosario3.com/tecnologia/Tlon-la-innovadora-empresa-argentina-a-la-vanguardia-de-la-industria-aeroespacial-20220225-0044.html)]  Aventura I   Argentina Tlon
2022  [2022 (https://spacenews.com/china-is-developing-new-solid-rockets-to-boost-overall-space-capabilities/)]  Jielong-3    China     Chinarocket (state-owned)
2022+ [2022+ (https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/iran-unveils-its-first-satellite-designed-by-private-sector-2022-2-4-46/)] Zoljanah     Iran      (military)
2022+ [2022 (https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2022/04/07/at-cape-canaveral-relativity-space-is-still-targeting-this-year-for-first-launch/6797864001/)]  Terran 1     US        Relativity         - launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56487.0)

2023  [soon (https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/another-sslv-flight-soon-space-commission-member-new-delhi-8080241/lite/)]  SSLV         India     ISRO (state-owned)
2023  [2022+ (https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/iran-unveils-its-first-satellite-designed-by-private-sector-2022-2-4-46/)] Qaem         Iran      (military?)
2023  [2022+ (https://www.space.com/orbex-prime-first-europe-microlauncher-unveiled)] Prime        UK/Den    Orbex
2023+ [2023 (https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/space/skyrora-calls-on-icelandic-government-to-allow-test-launch.html)]  Skyrora XL   UK/Ukr    Skyrora
2023+ [2022 (https://nordot.app/842319140730454016)]  Kairos       Japan     Space One / Canon
2023+ [2022 (https://theprint.in/ani-press-releases/navars-edutech-to-launch-100-satellite-constellations-in-the-next-5-years-in-collaboration-with-skyroot-aerospace/832450/)]  Vikram I     India     Skyroot

2024  [2023 (https://spacenews.com/astra-cancels-rocket-3-to-focus-on-larger-vehicle/)]  Rocket 4     US        Astra
2024  [2022 (https://spacenews.com/isar-aerospace-to-launch-ororatech-wildfire-monitoring-cubesat-constellation/)]  Spectrum     Germany   ISAR Aerospace
2024  [2022 (https://interestingengineering.com/german-company-deliberately-blew-up-its-own-rocket)]  RFA One      Germany   RFA / OHB
2024  [2022 (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/09/17/agnikul-cosmos-signs-mou-to-use-isro-facilities-to-develop-launch-vehicle/)]  Agnibaan     India     Agnikul
2024+ [2022 (https://spacenews.com/taiwans-tispace-to-try-again-after-launch-attempt-ends-in-flames/)]  Kestrel      Aus/Twn   ATSpace / TiSpace
2024+ [2023 (https://spacenews.com/new-launch-vehicles-set-for-test-flights-from-chinas-jiuquan-spaceport/)]  Hyperbola-2  China     iSpace

2025  [2023 (https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/raumfahrt-microlauncher-kleinraketen-spacex-hyimpulse-1.5193633)]  SL1          Germany   HyImpulse
2025  [2023 (https://www.spaceconnectonline.com.au/satellites/5421-gilmour-hands-high-school-students-chance-to-build-cubesat)]  Eris         Australia Gilmour

Intentionally not listed:

- ARCA EcoRocket [2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50041.msg2388991#msg2388991)], too dubious
- C6 Launch [2022 (https://www.c6launch.ca/about-us/)], too dubious
- Innospace Hanbit-Nano [2022 (https://payloadspace.com/innospace-will-conduct-suborbital-launch-from-brazils-alcantara-spaceport/)], just a suborbital stage test
- Bellatrix Chetak [2023 (https://www.northeasttoday.in/2021/09/16/isro-chairman-inaugurates-research-lab-at-space-startup-bellatrix-aerospace/)], too unclear if this will ever launch
- Phantom Daytona [2023 (https://payloadspace.com/phantom-sees-no-blockage-reaching-orbit-in-2023/)], too dubious
- SES Hello-1 [2023 (https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/small-manitoba-airport-could-play-role-in-testing-hypersonic-aircraft-for-space-1.5658895)], too dubious
- Vaya Dauntless [2023 (https://www.vayaspace.com/dauntless)], too dubious
- iRocket Shockwave [2023 (http://irocketusa.com/)], too dubious
- Interstellar Zero [2023 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42521.msg2246379#msg2246379)], not funded
- Rocket Pi Darwin-1 [2023 (https://spacenews.com/new-chinese-launch-firm-signs-deal-for-reusable-rocket-engines)], probably just a hop or suborbital test
- launches announced for ≥ 2024, too far away to evaluate:
  - Deep Blue Nebula-1 [2024 (https://spacenews.com/chinese-reusable-rocket-startup-secures-new-funding-round/)]
  - Launcher Light [2024 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/launcher-raises-11-million-ramps-up-hiring-for-2024-flight/)]
  - PLD Miura 5 [2024 (https://www.rtve.es/play/audios/fallo-de-sistema/485-miura-1-cohete-espanol-27-11-21/6228959/)]
  - Reaction Dynamics launcher [2024 (https://www.reactiondynamics.space/tech)]
  - Venture Orbital Zephyr [2024 (https://www.cieletespace.fr/actualites/la-start-up-francaise-venture-orbital-systems-compte-lancer-ses-propres-fusees-des-2024)]
  - bluShift Red Dwarf [2024+ (https://www.mainebiz.biz/article/next-sascha-deri-rocket-scientist-aiming-high-really-high)]
  - IAE/DLR VLM-1 [2025 (https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/lancamento-ainda-distante/)]
  - SpinLaunch [2025 (https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/spin-me-up-scotty-up-into-orbit-2656442408)]
  - Roketsan MUFS [2026 (https://www.defenceturk.net/roketsan-2026da-mufs-ile-yorungeye-mikro-uydu-gonderecek)]
  - Honda rocket [2030 (https://spacenews.com/japanese-carmaker-honda-developing-reusable-rocket-for-leo-satellites/)]
- rockets without an announced launch date
- projects without notable media coverage

Unclear - no update on launch date:

- Super Stripy derivate (X-Bow/US), announced for 2019
- Blue Whale 1 (Perigee/Korea), announced for 2020
- Newline-1 (Linkspace/China), announced for 2021 in 2019
- Ravn X (Aevum/US), announced for 2021 in 2019
- Xingtu-1 (Spacetrek/China), announced for 2021 in 2019
- Simorgh (Iran), no news since failure in Dec. 2021

Canceled:

- Boeing XS-1 (US) - not launched
- Zhuque-1 (Landspace/China) - one failed orbital launch attempt
- Vector-R and -H (US) - no orbital launch attempts
- OS-M (OneSpace/China) - one failed orbital launch attempt
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: playadelmars on 07/29/2022 06:15 pm
Terran R? 2025?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 07/29/2022 09:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/29/2022 09:53 pm
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.
You forgot Ariane 6.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 07/30/2022 05:56 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 07/30/2022 08:09 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 07/30/2022 09:25 am
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.

Oops, I missed "commercial".

AFAIK Gravity-1, Pallas-1, Tianlong-2 and Zhuque 2 are privately funded, though they may be subsidized by technology transfer from state companies. These are all medium launchers.

H3 would also go into the Ariane 6 & Vulcan category.

As you point out, there are different ways to define "commercial" and "private". E. g. the development of Chinese Kuaizhou and Jielong launchers has been mostly state-funded, but they are often called "commercial" because they are intended to be commercially profitable or even be privatized. (Like the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport is called "commercial" though it is operated by the states Virginia and Maryland).

Bottom line, these distinctions are so difficult that a list of commercial or private launchers might not work.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/30/2022 01:48 pm
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.

Yes.  2 tonnes to 200 km x 40 deg.   1.5 tonnes to 500 km x 98 deg.  It is largely an original Vega analog, though with a solid fourth stage (augmented by liquid vernier thrusters).

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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 07/30/2022 01:55 pm
Ok, with max. 2 t to 200 km LEO it qualifies as a small launcher. So ZK-1A is indeed the first new small launcher to reach orbit in 2022.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/31/2022 05:49 am
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.

DF-31 is reported to be 2.25 m in diameter, but the fairing diameter is given as 2.65 m.

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/df_31ag.htm
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202207/1271519.shtml

This image of the CAS Space rocket family gives the same diameter of 2.65 m for the fairing and core. Photos of the first launch match this configuration, but with earlier drawings showing the core being smaller than the fairing. If we believe that DF-31 is 2.25 m diameter and ZK-1A is 2.65 m in diameter, this can only mean that ZK-1A is using a newly developed solid stage.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/04/2022 10:07 pm
Following the news from Astra today that they are abandoning their series 3 rockets:

twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1555312797084291072

Quote
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.

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1555313166581567489

Quote
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!

I wonder how much it’s due to it being difficult to get funding for a larger launcher without a proven track record? So build a smaller launcher and, if successful, hope to get funding to build a more economically viable launcher?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 08/25/2022 07:30 pm
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.

Mr Niederstrasser has updated his report about smallsat launchers.

A Small Launch Per Month? - 2022 Edition of the Annual Industry Survey  (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5281&context=smallsat)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/25/2022 07:44 pm
Good update on Phantom Aerospace.

http://parabolicarc.com/2022/08/25/having-it-all-come-together-but-not-in-house-phantom-spaces-approach-to-launch/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 09/08/2022 03:06 am
What’s the smallest commercial LV that will launch in the next year or so?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 09/08/2022 10:38 am
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/
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/08/2022 07:55 pm
Three launches next week.
Firefly on 11th. I give them better than even chance of success given its 2nd attempt.
ABL on 12th. Maiden launch, history isn't on their side so 30%. Still hope they make it.
Electron 14th. 95% chance.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Danderman on 09/09/2022 03:37 am
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/


Yep. They are small.

I didn’t see an indication that they will launch any time soon.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 09/09/2022 05:44 am
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).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: c4fusion on 09/09/2022 11:57 pm
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).
That would be Electron  ;)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 09/10/2022 05:09 am
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  ;)

This thread is about new smallsat launchers. Electron is not new.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 09/10/2022 05:11 am
Copy from previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2391095#msg2391095), last updated on August 31, to keep the list at the top of the current thread page.

More updates:

-09-24: shifted expectation for Terran 1 from 2022+ to 2023 because of engine issues (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56487.msg2411824#msg2411824)
-09-24: mentioned Eris 2
-10-01: Firefly Alpha is in orbit
-10-01: Prime, Spectrum, RFA One and Vikram I are now announced for 2023
-10-01: moved Agnibaan up from 2024 to 2023
-10-02: mentioned MaiaSpace Mini and Astraius
-10-03: delisted SL1, which is now announced for 2024
-10-03: Venture Orbital has been renamed to "Latitude"
-10-13: delisted Aventura I due to serious doubt of orbital capability and funding
-10-13: C6 launch is now announced for 2024 (was 2022)



New smallsat launchers - first successful orbital flight since thread opening:

2018-01  ...  Electron     US/NZ     Rocket Lab
2018-03  ...  SS-520       Japan     JAXA/IHI (public/private)
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
2021-11  ...  Rocket 3     US        Astra
2022-07  ...  ZK-1A        China     CAS Space (state-owned)
2022-10  ...  Alpha        US        Firefly

Launch expected [announced] NET:     (+ = very ambitious schedule or unclear date)

2022  [2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=111984)]  RS1          US        ABL                - launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55274.0)
2022  [2022 (http://t.m.china.org.cn/convert/c_mmIjTgkc.html)]  Kuaizhou-11  China     ExPace (public/private)
2022+ [2022 (https://spacenews.com/china-is-developing-new-solid-rockets-to-boost-overall-space-capabilities/)]  Jielong-3    China     Chinarocket (state-owned)
2022+ [2022+ (https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/iran-unveils-its-first-satellite-designed-by-private-sector-2022-2-4-46/)] Zoljanah     Iran      (military)

2023  [soon (https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/another-sslv-flight-soon-space-commission-member-new-delhi-8080241/lite/)]  SSLV         India     ISRO (state-owned)
2023  [2022 (https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2022/04/07/at-cape-canaveral-relativity-space-is-still-targeting-this-year-for-first-launch/6797864001/)]  Terran 1     US        Relativity         - launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56487.0)
2023  [2022 (https://economictimes.com/tech/startups/agnikul-to-launch-agnibaan-rocket-before-2022/amp_articleshow/94417175.cms)]  Agnibaan     India     Agnikul
2023  [2023 (https://3dprint.com/294389/indias-skyroot-to-ramp-up-initial-rocket-launches-following-51m-investment/amp/)]  Vikram I     India     Skyroot
2023  [2023 (https://www.space.com/european-rocket-launch-companies-targeting-2023)]  Prime        UK/Den    Orbex
2023+ [2022+ (https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/iran-unveils-its-first-satellite-designed-by-private-sector-2022-2-4-46/)] Qaem         Iran      (military?)
2023+ [2022 (https://nordot.app/842319140730454016)]  Kairos       Japan     Space One / Canon

2024  [2023 (https://spacenews.com/astra-cancels-rocket-3-to-focus-on-larger-vehicle/)]  Rocket 4     US        Astra
2024  [2023 (https://www.space.com/european-rocket-launch-companies-targeting-2023)]  Skyrora XL   UK/Ukr    Skyrora
2024  [2023 (https://www.space.com/european-rocket-launch-companies-targeting-2023)]  Spectrum     Germany   ISAR Aerospace
2024  [2023 (https://www.space.com/european-rocket-launch-companies-targeting-2023)]  RFA One      Germany   RFA / OHB
2024+ [2022 (https://spacenews.com/taiwans-tispace-to-try-again-after-launch-attempt-ends-in-flames/)]  Kestrel      Aus/Twn   ATSpace / TiSpace
2024+ [2023 (https://spacenews.com/new-launch-vehicles-set-for-test-flights-from-chinas-jiuquan-spaceport/)]  Hyperbola-2  China     iSpace

2025  [2023 (https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/gilmour-space-announces-inmarsat-as-provider-of-space-based-telemetry-for-2023-launch)]  Eris         Australia Gilmour

Intentionally not listed:

- ARCA EcoRocket [2022 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50041.msg2388991#msg2388991)], too dubious
- Innospace Hanbit-Nano [2022 (https://payloadspace.com/innospace-will-conduct-suborbital-launch-from-brazils-alcantara-spaceport/)], just a suborbital stage test
- Tlon Aventura I [2022 (https://www.rosario3.com/tecnologia/Tlon-la-innovadora-empresa-argentina-a-la-vanguardia-de-la-industria-aeroespacial-20220225-0044.html)], too dubious
- Bellatrix Chetak [2023 (https://www.northeasttoday.in/2021/09/16/isro-chairman-inaugurates-research-lab-at-space-startup-bellatrix-aerospace/)], too unclear if this will ever launch
- Phantom Daytona [2023 (https://payloadspace.com/phantom-sees-no-blockage-reaching-orbit-in-2023/)], too dubious
- SES Hello-1 [2023 (https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/small-manitoba-airport-could-play-role-in-testing-hypersonic-aircraft-for-space-1.5658895)], too dubious
- Vaya Dauntless [2023 (https://www.vayaspace.com/dauntless)], too dubious
- iRocket Shockwave [2023 (http://irocketusa.com/)], too dubious
- Interstellar Zero [2023 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42521.msg2246379#msg2246379)], not funded
- Rocket Pi Darwin-1 [2023 (https://spacenews.com/new-chinese-launch-firm-signs-deal-for-reusable-rocket-engines)], probably just a hop or suborbital test
- C6 Launch [2024 (https://mundogeo.com/2022/09/13/c6-launch-uma-verdadeira-empresa-do-new-space-que-proporciona-acesso-democratico-ao-espaco-exterior/)], too dubious
- Launcher Light [2024 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/launcher-raises-11-million-ramps-up-hiring-for-2024-flight/)], too dubious
- SpinLaunch [2025 (https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/spin-me-up-scotty-up-into-orbit-2656442408)], too dubious
- other launches announced for ≥ 2024, too far away to evaluate:
  - Astraius launcher [2024 (https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/08/21/propulsion-deal-offers-boost-for-scottish-horizontal-space-launches/)]
  - Deep Blue Nebula-1 [2024 (https://spacenews.com/chinese-reusable-rocket-startup-secures-new-funding-round/)]
  - HyImpulse SL1 [2024 (https://news.satnews.com/2022/08/01/hyimpulse-technologies-signs-a-launch-services-contract-with-in-orbit-aerospace/)]
  - Latitude Zephyr [2024 (https://www.cieletespace.fr/actualites/la-start-up-francaise-venture-orbital-systems-compte-lancer-ses-propres-fusees-des-2024)]
  - PLD Miura 5 [2024 (https://www.rtve.es/play/audios/fallo-de-sistema/485-miura-1-cohete-espanol-27-11-21/6228959/)]
  - Reaction Dynamics launcher [2024 (https://www.reactiondynamics.space/tech)]
  - Gilmour Eris 2 [2024 (https://www.businessnewsaustralia.com/articles/gilmour-space-technologies-planning-to-send-australia-s-first-rideshare-mission-into-orbit.html)]
  - bluShift Red Dwarf [2024+ (https://www.mainebiz.biz/article/next-sascha-deri-rocket-scientist-aiming-high-really-high)]
  - IAE/DLR VLM-1 [2025 (https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/lancamento-ainda-distante/)]
  - MaiaSpace Mini [2026 (https://www.jeccomposites.com/news/arianegroup-is-launching-maiaspace/)]
  - Roketsan MUFS [2026 (https://www.defenceturk.net/roketsan-2026da-mufs-ile-yorungeye-mikro-uydu-gonderecek)]
  - Honda rocket [2030 (https://spacenews.com/japanese-carmaker-honda-developing-reusable-rocket-for-leo-satellites/)]
- rockets without an announced launch date
- projects without notable media coverage

Unclear - no update on launch date:

- Super Stripy derivate (X-Bow/US), announced for 2019
- Blue Whale 1 (Perigee/Korea), announced for 2020
- Newline-1 (Linkspace/China), announced for 2021 in 2019
- Ravn X (Aevum/US), announced for 2021 in 2019
- Xingtu-1 (Spacetrek/China), announced for 2021 in 2019
- Simorgh (Iran), no news since failure in Dec. 2021

Canceled:

- Boeing XS-1 (US) - not launched
- Zhuque-1 (Landspace/China) - one failed orbital launch attempt
- Vector-R and -H (US) - no orbital launch attempts
- OS-M (OneSpace/China) - one failed orbital launch attempt
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: HVM on 09/21/2022 06:24 pm
Is this the famous Kiwi banter:
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: c4fusion on 09/22/2022 10:47 am
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/24/2022 11:56 am
There are quite few Euporean small LVs in development, enough to expect a few make to launch pad.

https://twitter.com/AndrewParsonson/status/1573567925243486208?t=FdHPKzpvzTVGuKyx5jgXIw&s=19
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: DeimosDream on 09/24/2022 01:08 pm
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?

That did seem odd in a small-lift context, but Firefly and Relativity have plans for medium lift rockets that will compete with Neutron. Dumping on their small-liflt designs felt like a cheap shot, but hey, marketing.

The other pair, Astra and Virgin Orbital, have made orbit and of course had to be acknowledged.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Vultur on 09/26/2022 05:10 pm
So there are 3 that might launch in the next 2 months? Firefly, ABL, and Terran?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 09/26/2022 05:30 pm
So there are 3 that might launch in the next 2 months? Firefly, ABL, and Terran?

Terran won't launch this year, no matter what nonsense launch dates their PR department  is publishing. Launch NET Q2 2023 IMHO. But Chinese Kuaizhou-11 and Jielong-3 might launch soon.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Vultur on 09/26/2022 05:56 pm
Why not Terran (specifically vs ABL - Firefly's prior launch attempt I can see making them more likely)?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 09/26/2022 07:40 pm
Why not Terran (specifically vs ABL - Firefly's prior launch attempt I can see making them more likely)?

Take a look at the first post on this page (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2406378#msg2406378). And please use this thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56487.msg2411824#msg2411824) to discuss the Terran 1 launch.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/01/2022 08:41 am
https://twitter.com/cosmic_penguin/status/1576129460755054592

Quote
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)
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Vultur on 10/03/2022 06:21 pm
Firefly joins the club, is ABL up next?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/04/2022 10:21 am
Firefly joins the club, is ABL up next?

When you scroll up to the top of this page, you will always find an up-to-date small launcher schedule. ABL is most likely the next commercial inaugural launch, presuming they are granted a launch license and there is no surprise by Chinese Kuaizhou-11.

[Edit:] Some old post in this thread was deleted. This shifted all the last three schedule posts to the end of the previous page. The current one is now here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38583.msg2406378#msg2406378).

[Another edit:] The small launcher history and schedule is now maintained in a separate thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57429.0
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/19/2022 04:31 pm
Re lower entry price point for 50kg payloads on F9 rideshare:

https://twitter.com/spaceabhi/status/1582770402488504321

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edzieba on 10/19/2022 05:38 pm
Re lower entry price point for 50kg payloads on F9 rideshare:

https://twitter.com/spaceabhi/status/1582770402488504321

Quote
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 10/19/2022 06:32 pm
Re lower entry price point for 50kg payloads on F9 rideshare:

https://twitter.com/spaceabhi/status/1582770402488504321

Quote
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.
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 10/19/2022 11:35 pm
Re lower entry price point for 50kg payloads on F9 rideshare:

https://twitter.com/spaceabhi/status/1582770402488504321

Quote
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.
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.

I would argue the lack of "off the shelf" OTV services compatible with Transporter rideshare ports was limiting the exodus of small payloads due to specific orbit requirements of the individual customers. With now at least 2 Transporter mission compatible OTV's available and more soon, the previous thinking no longer applies (though that was dependent on commercial OTV availability and not simpler/easier chances to ride on Transporter in a more ad hoc/slot available manner by not having to be grouped with others into a larger port mounted dispenser first).

This announcement seems to be more a symptom of payload cat herding dragging payload launch dates due to dispenser filling (so a substantial to SpaceX determined number of sats that are ready to fly but waiting on others in a grouping), so trying to be more customer-centric from SpaceX's perspective (which operates a bus, not a paratransit van).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: niwax on 10/20/2022 12:25 am
Re lower entry price point for 50kg payloads on F9 rideshare:

https://twitter.com/spaceabhi/status/1582770402488504321

Quote
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.
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.
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.

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.

Transporter 1 alone had about as many payloads as Electron in its entire life. Since then, each Transporter has carried more than the entire small launch industry that year combined, except SpaceX flies four of them. While there might well be a market for the occasional dedicated launch, they will always be at the disadvantage of low volume, which increases prices, which lowers volume...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/20/2022 12:59 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/20/2022 01:46 am
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/20/2022 02:04 am
The small launch industry is not viable. Period.

The bottom is not about to fall out. It already fell out when Electron lost ~80% of its market to SpaceX rideshare offerings and RL had to replace it with the hastily developed Neutron concept rocket.

Electron flying a dozen times a year at $7M revenue per launch is not a viable business. And at the moment they’re not even achieving that.

All small launchers are doomed - other than ones that are artificially kept alive by very limited government dedicated launch needs.

Ask yourself - if Neutron operates as claimed, will RL keep Electron alive? Does it warrant the ongoing cost? It is a very difficult financial case to make.



Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/20/2022 03:07 am
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.

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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/20/2022 03:22 am
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.

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.
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.
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.
You imply that Stoke (and others) will become "smooth and operational" before Starship does. Is this likely?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/20/2022 03:24 am
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.

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.
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.
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.
You imply that Stoke (and others) will become "smooth and operational" before Starship does. Is this likely?
Not really what I meant.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 10/20/2022 03:41 am
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.

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.
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.
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.
You imply that Stoke (and others) will become "smooth and operational" before Starship does. Is this likely?
Not really what I meant.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/20/2022 04:27 am
So, is…

Blue Origin
Virgin Orbit
Rocketlab
Astra
Firefly
Relativity
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?

Looks like lessons are just not being learned.



Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/20/2022 04:32 am
So, is…

Blue Origin
Virgin Orbit
Rocketlab
Astra
Firefly
Relativity
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?...
No. Just arguing it's possible to carve out a niche and survive is not saying someone's gonna dethrone SpaceX. Come on.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/20/2022 04:34 am
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.

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.
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.
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.
You imply that Stoke (and others) will become "smooth and operational" before Starship does. Is this likely?
Not really what I meant.

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.
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).

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/20/2022 04:40 am
So, is…

Blue Origin
Virgin Orbit
Rocketlab
Astra
Firefly
Relativity
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?...
No. Just arguing it's possible to carve out a niche and survive is not saying someone's gonna dethrone SpaceX. Come on.

I was just surprised at the enthusiasm for Stoke, who seem years behind every one of the above companies, yet have wildly more ambitious goals.

I read Eric’s interview with the Stoke founders. Basically, two ex-BO engineers who went through all the other space company options, listing why each was not a good fit for them, and when it came to SpaceX their sole criticism was that SpaceX work their people too hard.

Yep, well, good luck developing a fully reusable rocket in competition with SpaceX by recruiting the people who couldn’t keep up the pace at SpaceX. That seems a…less than optimal strategy.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 10/20/2022 05:32 am
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.

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.
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.
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.
You imply that Stoke (and others) will become "smooth and operational" before Starship does. Is this likely?
Not really what I meant.

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.
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).

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.

Electron does not compete with F9, they launch what doesn’t fit well with SpaceX rideshare. There is a market there but it’s small and they don’t make any money on it. Re-usability for Electron isn’t likely to change their price at all just buy them some margin back.

It’s not even clear it’s possible to make a fully re-usable small launcher. Those vehicles tend to have very tight margins so giving it up for re-usability forces you to grow. There is a reason Terran R is so much larger than Terran 1.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/20/2022 06:17 am
I think the small launch vehicles being developed is just good practice for developing a large launch vehicle, just like what SpaceX did from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9. Rocketlab is going the same direction, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop Electron once Neutron is operational.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Kryten on 10/20/2022 09:52 am
 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 10/20/2022 02:36 pm
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.

Definitively they do not since the ones who have launched paying customers are public. Save maybe the Chinese companies but they don’t launch very frequently either.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 10/20/2022 03:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/20/2022 04:39 pm
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.

I actually don’t know if anything smaller than 1 tonne makes sense, even if fully reusable. And definitely not expendable. (Except as munitions.)

I have no idea if Stoke will be successful or not; I think their technology approach is too focused on novelty. But a fully reusable launch vehicle just over 1 tonne has a possibility of succeeding, whereas a 200kg payload expendable rocket has no real, non-military future IMHO.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: butters on 10/20/2022 05:06 pm
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.

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?

We've now seen what a 60-per-year launch cadence looks like. Can we conceive of a launch rate an order of magnitude higher, with multiple launches pretty much every day? Can we imagine what kind of launch operations team and infrastructure that would involve, if they could secure the licensing to launch that frequently?

Now compare the challenge of scaling out to the routine execution of multiple daily launches to the challenge of scaling up from a small launch vehicle to a medium launch vehicle. Which is harder: cadence or performance? Scaling out via launch cadence seemed like a good idea when a dozen launches a year was an aspirational goal for medium launch systems. Ramping cadence could be easier for a smaller system. But that droneship has sailed. Medium lift has ramped cadence faster than any of the small launchers could. With an order of magnitude less performance per launch, the cadence challenge has become impractical.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 10/20/2022 09:41 pm
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.

Of course, Issacman's description of what a potentially-successful space company might look like lines up with someone in particular...

Quote from: Jared Issacman
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.

As I alluded to earlier, I think a break-even small launch service could have value to such a company even if it's not making meaningful money, if this lets them test their solar panels, star trackers, reaction wheels, software-defined radios, separation systems, flight software, and integrated satellite bus "for free" (since the actual payload customer paid for the launch itself). Of course, the ability of one company to find value in such at-cost launches makes it harder for other companies to profit from such launches.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/20/2022 10:47 pm
<snip>
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>
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.

Shamelessly rip off the concept from the arsenal ship concept.  :P
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 10/20/2022 11:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/21/2022 08:57 am
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1583136827803697157?s=21&t=ZJa2XDL5dM8BD20wNvE2lw
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/21/2022 07:09 pm
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 10/21/2022 08:37 pm
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?

Yes. Most constellations with go to at most 2-3 different inclinations.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/22/2022 04:35 am
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1583136827803697157?s=21&amp;t=ZJa2XDL5dM8BD20wNvE2lw
Self generated demand, without starlink F9 would sitting around a dozen a year.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/22/2022 04:55 am
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1583136827803697157?s=21&amp;t=ZJa2XDL5dM8BD20wNvE2lw
Self 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 10/22/2022 05:14 am
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1583136827803697157?s=21&amp;t=ZJa2XDL5dM8BD20wNvE2lw
Self 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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/22/2022 05:18 am
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1583136827803697157?s=21&amp;t=ZJa2XDL5dM8BD20wNvE2lw
Self 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.
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 10/22/2022 05:43 am
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?
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?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/22/2022 09:58 am
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1583136827803697157?s=21&t=ZJa2XDL5dM8BD20wNvE2lw
Self 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.
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.
Dragon (crew & cargo) and rideshares are funded by customers. Starlink missions with rideshares are partially funded by customers.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: M.E.T. on 10/22/2022 01:10 pm
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?
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?

You’re just reinforcing the point made by Eric.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 10/22/2022 02:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: su27k on 10/23/2022 10:15 am
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.

And Elon Musk probably realized this back in 2014, before many of the smallsat launch companies even existed...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 10/23/2022 02:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: DanClemmensen on 10/23/2022 04:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 10/24/2022 08:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: AmigaClone on 10/24/2022 10:07 pm
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.

The only satellites I see being launched using smallsat launchers to large constellations would be a few launches a year to replace the occasional satellite that had a much shorter lifetime than expected (as opposed to those that might not survive the launch, or are just test beds.)

Even so, companies that design, build and run constellations that are either owned or otherwise associated with a launch provider that includes medium or heavy lift vehicles likely would prefer to use their own resources as opposed to contracting another party.

To use three examples of large constellations and the likelihood of them using smallsat launchers to launch occasional replacements on demand.

Starlink - The first 4408 Starlink constellation is about 2/3s deployed. Once complete I suspect there will be on-orbit spare satellites that would be refreshed periodically initially with Falcon 9 launches, later using Starship. Likely the same story for the other planned constellation(s).

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.

OneWeb - Is the most likely of the three to use smallsat launches on a consistent basis to replace the odd failed satellite. Granted, if more than a certain number replacing at the same time, I suspect they would use a larger launch vehicle (Ariane 6, one of the Indian launch vehicles, or SpaceX.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 10/24/2022 11:08 pm
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:

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1580226794430627841
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 11/28/2022 07:32 am
Three new small launchers will try to reach orbit in December:

- ABL RS1, launch window from Dec. 7 to 14. Third try, after two launch attempts in November were aborted after engine ignition. => launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55274.0)

- Chinese Jielong-3, a solid-fuel rocket, first attempt on Dec. 9 to 15. => launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51854)

- Chinese Kuaizhou-11, also a solid rocket, in late December. Second try, after first launch failed in June 2020. => launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57747)

There is also a chance for another Zoljanah (suborbital?) test launch in Iran.

Relativity was claiming to launch their Terran 1 rocket before year end, but I think that's way too optimistic. My guess is Q2 2023, presuming that there are no engine issues. => launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56487.0)

See New small launcher history and schedule (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57429.0) for a list of past and upcoming small launcher maiden flights.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 03/17/2023 08:12 am
Since this thread was started, nine new privately developed small launchers tried to go orbital; two more are just standing on the pad for first flight:

Electron - successful in service
Zhuque-1 - one failed orbital launch, canceled
OS-M - one failed orbital launch, canceled
Hyperbola-1 - 3 of 4 orbital launches failed
Ceres-1 - successful in service
LauncherOne - 4 of 6 launches succeeded, but economic failure
Rocket 3 - 6 of 8 orbital launches failed, canceled
Alpha - tbd, one failed and one partially successful demo launch
RS1 - tbd, one failed demo launch
Terran 1 - demo launch in progress, may be canceled (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56487.msg2464287#msg2464287) thereafter
Tianlong-2 - tbd, first launch imminent

This is a rather sobering intermediate result, and I think it will go on this way.

So far these are six American rockets (with support from New Zealand and Ukraine), and five Chinese (with some technology transfer from state companies). The first non-US and non-Chinese private small launches are expected NET 2024. See New small launcher history and schedule (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57429.0) for a list of past and upcoming small launcher maiden flights.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Solarsail on 04/12/2023 06:22 pm
Though Zhuque-2, unlike Zhuque-1 has not been cancelled
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/12/2023 06:34 pm
Though Zhuque-2, unlike Zhuque-1 has not been cancelled

I think it's not listed here because ZQ-2 is too big.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Vahe231991 on 05/29/2023 03:36 pm
The Hyperbola-1's recent launch last month reached orbit, and the Tianlong-2's first launch on April 2, 2023 was successful, while the Terran 1 did not reach orbit on its first launch.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/14/2023 06:14 pm
https://twitter.com/brycespacetech/status/1679908649404370944

Quote
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/14/2023 07:54 pm

Quote
60% of the 5,966 smallsats launched between 2018 –2022 were carried on Starlink & OneWeb launch vehicles.
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".
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/14/2023 08:47 pm

Quote
60% 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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: abaddon on 08/25/2023 08:14 pm
SpaceNews:  Rideshare industry adapting to a changing smallsat market  (https://spacenews.com/rideshare-industry-adapting-to-a-changing-smallsat-market/)

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: DJPledger on 08/26/2023 08:04 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/26/2023 11:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 08/28/2023 01:30 am
The supposed reduction in individual smallsat payload launches (even as constellation launches proliferate) begs the question, can a fully reusable smallsat launcher exist, this late in the game? The remaining market would have to support the recovery of development costs for such a vehicle, and that seems increasingly difficult in a commercial context. Even in a government context it would be difficult under the best of circumstances.

There's potentially an interesting engineering/economics thesis there, that there exists a small/medium/large upgrade path for at least a single entity that can become a self-fulfilling prophesy, but also closes the door to later entrants.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 08/29/2023 01:12 am
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&amp;D costs is not a factor for a VC investor.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/29/2023 02:47 am
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&amp;D costs is not a factor for a VC investor.
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&amp;D.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/30/2023 04:50 pm
Optimist article on UK small LV.
 
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.


Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: DJPledger on 08/30/2023 08:30 pm
Optimist article on UK small LV.
 
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 08/30/2023 09:23 pm
Optimist article on UK small LV.
 
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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/31/2023 04:40 am
Optimist article on UK small LV.
 
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.
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.
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.
Both these LVs are Electron class so smallsats only.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 08/31/2023 06:44 am
Optimist article on UK small LV.
 
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.
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.
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.
Both these LVs are Electron class so smallsats only.

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.
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.

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).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 08/31/2023 07:50 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/31/2023 09:03 pm
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.

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.
There is also issue of transporting larger LVs between factory and site. Not problem for 1.5mt class.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/01/2023 03:20 am
<snip>
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 09/01/2023 07:01 am
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

There was a long article about the Saxavord site last week from European Spaceflight, with lots of question marks:-

https://europeanspaceflight.substack.com/p/whats-going-on-with-saxavord-contractors (https://europeanspaceflight.substack.com/p/whats-going-on-with-saxavord-contractors)

Quote
...(because no one else wanted to use it, everyone else picked SaxaVord instead).

It's worth exploring that customer list of Saxavord a little more closely.

Many of them have little or no money (C6, Canada); are very early stage (Latitude, France); are struggling with dwindling cash and weakening confidence and thus unlikely to be launching from Scotland any time soon (Astra, USA); are still in the sub-orbital phase, which apparently (see other reports from European Spaceflight this week) doesn't even need a spaceport license (HyImpulse, Germany); are still years way away from launch operations (Rocket Factory Augsburg, Germany and Skyrora, UK/Ukraine); or are still testing in the USA, and in any case only committed to a single launch (ABL / Lockheed Martin, USA).

Also worth noting the richest / most institutional European players, Isar Aerospace and Maiaspace, both went elsewhere - Norway, Sweden and French Guyana.

The attraction of Saxavord is that the spaceport is promising to pay for the development of the infrastructure, so the launcher firms can just rent a pad. This is cheaper - it literally costs you nothing to sign an MOU - and thus attractive when you have no money or are years distant from launching. The spaceport takes all the financial risk.

OrbEx might be alone, committing to and building a small spaceport for themselves with their own money, but that model worked just fine for Rocket Lab.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 09/01/2023 08:43 pm
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)?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: c4fusion on 09/01/2023 10:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 09/02/2023 04:22 am
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.
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).
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 09/02/2023 12:40 pm
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/02/2023 03:35 pm
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.
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).
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.

Quote
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.

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.

NZ had to create space agency because of RL. Being new they tried to reduce amount of paperwork needed to launch a LV. There was also lot to workout with FAA and other US agencies. Result is Mahia is very easy road to space and RL was allowed to use AFTS early on as there wasn't really any other choice.
NZ Space Agency and CAA (civil aviation authority) are also working closely help Dawn Aerospace to create regulations for space planes operating out of airfields.

Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: c4fusion on 09/06/2023 12:33 pm
Looks like more nails into the small sat launcher dream, this time from Tory Burno:

https://www.twitter.com/torybruno/status/1698121784003015116

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/06/2023 03:30 pm
Looks like more nails into the small sat launcher dream, this time from Tory Burno:

https://www.twitter.com/torybruno/status/1698121784003015116

Quote
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: mkent on 09/07/2023 05:24 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 09/07/2023 07:17 am
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.

Oh if only somebody had a boatload of the exact same sats needing to go up on a space-available basis to fill in those launch opportunities, and a pipeline of rockets deep enough that you could launch weekly if someone just steps up...
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/07/2023 08:36 am


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.

How many ridesahare smallsats has ULA delivered to orbit in the last year. Answer =0. Good luck getting your smallsat to orbit on ULA LV.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/07/2023 09:00 am
Tory is still being generous.

Gwynne already put the number at zero, years ago. Her prediction is steadily and inexorably coming true.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 09/07/2023 02:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/07/2023 06:48 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Asteroza on 09/07/2023 11:59 pm
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.
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.

It only gets worse as OTV services that are comanifested on rideshare slots become a mature industry. Still waiting on Momentus to get around to using their robot arm partnership to actually be able to reach around and grab other sats from different rideshare ports to lash on though. Once that happens, that means an OTV can go full size/fuel on a rideshare port. Hell, if the propellant is water, being able to grab additional tanks on other rideshare ports to boost OTV fuel makes for even more interesting setup.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: imprezive on 09/08/2023 05:31 am
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.
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.

That wasn’t the statement I was replying to but even so Amazon was a rideshare with Astrobotic. They are only a primary because they are stuck on the ground otherwise.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edzieba on 09/08/2023 11:10 am
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.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: DanClemmensen on 09/08/2023 01:47 pm
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.

Strangely, the Atlas V is probably the cheapest alternative. Kuiper had already purchased all nine remaining available Atlas V launches. The incremental cost for using one early is the cost of NOT launching the extra 25 or so Kuipers that it could have launched. But those will not launch later on a cheaper (per satellite) launcher. If Amazon is smart, and if it is possible from a regulatory perspective, They will launch more than two test satellites on this test launch. There are a whole lot of beam switching scenarios that cannot be tested with only two satellites, and the two satellites do not pass over any one ground testing facility very often.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: ringsider on 09/10/2023 06:06 am
Looks like more nails into the small sat launcher dream, this time from Tory Burno:

https://www.twitter.com/torybruno/status/1698121784003015116

Quote
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:

https://www.twitter.com/torybruno/status/1698121784003015116

Quote
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.

Tory Bruno is the Mr Bean of forecasting the future of launch.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: AmigaClone on 09/10/2023 08:10 am
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.
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.

Of the Smallsats launched between 2018 and 2022 about 2/3 were either Starlink or OneWeb, with most OneWeb satellites being launched by Soyuz with some being launched on a Falcon 9 which was the launch vehicle for all Starlink satellites so far.

Not counting those two constellations, SpaceX's Falcon 9 was responsible for launching about a third of those satellites, with Soyuz, India's PSLV, and the Electron taking the next four spots.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: PM3 on 03/01/2024 05:12 pm
After two years that saw only one new commercial small launcher go to space (Tianlong-2 by Space Pioneer, which mostly consists of government-supplied solid engines), right now there are two genuine new private rockets sitting on the pad! Both due to launch in the upcoming weeks.

Japanese "Kairos" launcher by Space One, currently scheduled for  March 9 (launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60276.0))

American "RS1" launcher by ABL Space (launch thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58548.0)), which already did one failed launch attempt.

Godspeed!
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/01/2024 06:50 pm
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
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: trimeta on 03/01/2024 11:16 pm
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

I assume that PM3 doesn't consider Jielong-3 (developed by CALT), SSLV (developed by ISRO), Lijian-1 (developed by CAS), Qaem-100 (developed by IRGC), or SFSLV (developed by ADD) to be "commercial small launcher(s)", since every organization in that "developed by" list is a government agency. As for Terran-1, that's where "go to space" comes in: PM3 presumably was actually thinking "reached orbit," and since Terran-1 did not have second-stage ignition, it wasn't close to orbit.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/03/2024 05:39 am
SFSLV,  2023-

What is SFSLV?
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/03/2024 05:42 am
SFSLV,  2023-

What is SFSLV?

The South Korean military developed small launch vehicle that flew last December.
Title: Re: Countdown to new smallsat launchers
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/03/2024 06:31 am
The South Korean military developed small launch vehicle that flew last December.

Thanks! Presumably it stands for Solid Fuelled Space Launch Vehicle. The one I use is GYUB, the acronym for Goche Yeollyo Uju Balsache, the transliteration of 고체연료 우주발사체 (Solid Fuel Space Launcher).

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/gyub.htm