Another smallsat launch co., @ablspacesystems, sheds a little stealth...- Trailer-based launch platform- 650kg to SSO- Launching from AK and GA- $17m price point- Engines by Ursa Major- 1st launch Q3 2020Welcome to the small space race!
Sucks to be Vector.
Quote from: ringsider on 03/04/2018 11:22 amSucks to be Vector.650 kg to SSO for 17 million dollar?Definitely not the same market Vector is targeting. More like Launcher One, or Terran 1.
It truly baffles me that an engineer intimately familiar with SpaceX - someone who led development of freaking grid fins - thought it was a reasonable idea to start an expendable rocket startup specifically intended to rely on external suppliers for all major components. In late 2017. With an estimated (probably optimistic) purchase price almost 30% that of pre-reusability discount Falcon 9. For maybe 5% of Falcon 9's reusable performance. With commercial operations expected to begin no earlier than the tail end of 2020. https://www.shoreschool.org/page/news-detail?pk=1153770&fromId=222526The smallsat launch vehicle bubble is soooo real right now. I'm sure their tech is strong, and Ursa Major seems like a great propulsion startup, but there is literally NO sane economic rationale for investing in tiny expendable rockets when Falcon 9 Block 5 is < 100 days from first flight, without even considering the potential of BFR.
Quote from: Bananas_on_Mars on 03/04/2018 12:59 pmQuote from: ringsider on 03/04/2018 11:22 amSucks to be Vector.650 kg to SSO for 17 million dollar?Definitely not the same market Vector is targeting. More like Launcher One, or Terran 1.650kg SSO is lot from 70klb 1st stage, Electron is 150kg with 35-40klbs of thrust for 1st stage.
It truly baffles me that an engineer intimately familiar with SpaceX - someone who led development of freaking grid fins - thought it was a reasonable idea to start an expendable rocket startup specifically intended to rely on external suppliers for all major components. In late 2017. With an estimated (probably optimistic) purchase price almost 30% that of pre-reusability discount Falcon 9. For maybe 5% of Falcon 9's reusable performance. With commercial operations expected to begin no earlier than the tail end of 2020. https://www.shoreschool.org/page/news-detail?pk=1153770&fromId=222526The smallsat launch vehicle bubble is soooo real right now. I'm sure their tech is strong, and Ursa Major seems like a great propulsion startup, but there is literally NO sane economic rationale for investing in tiny expendable rockets when Falcon 9 Block 5 is < 100 days from first flight, without even considering the potential of BFR, New Glenn, or the existence of Virgin Orbit and Rocket Lab. Edit: Oh god, the podcast is even worse. The CEO, Hanley, very literally states that a bunch of vendors with a few prime contractors (he uses the major players in the auto industry as a positive example...) is superior to vertically integrated, in-house technology development. He clearly has no awareness whatsoever of the history of aerospace or the comical failures of the contractor Matroshka doll hell most aerospace and auto companies of the past and present are obsessed with The vendor-prime paradigm had already all but monopolized aerospace, and the result was impossibly expensive rockets, R&D laziness, arrogance, and aggressive attempts to kill potential competitors before they could stand up.https://audioboom.com/posts/6403192-building-rockets
It truly baffles me that an engineer intimately familiar with SpaceX - someone who led development of freaking grid fins - thought it was a reasonable idea to start an expendable rocket startup specifically intended to rely on external suppliers for all major components. In late 2017. With an estimated (probably optimistic) purchase price almost 30% that of pre-reusability discount Falcon 9. For maybe 5% of Falcon 9's reusable performance. With commercial operations expected to begin no earlier than the tail end of 2020. https://www.shoreschool.org/page/news-detail?pk=1153770&fromId=222526 The smallsat launch vehicle bubble is soooo real right now. I'm sure their tech is strong, and Ursa Major seems like a great propulsion startup, but there is literally NO sane economic rationale for investing in tiny expendable rockets when Falcon 9 Block 5 is < 100 days from first flight, without even considering the potential of BFR, New Glenn, or the existence of Virgin Orbit and Rocket Lab. Edit: Oh god, the podcast is even worse. The CEO, Hanley, very literally states that a bunch of vendors with a few prime contractors (he uses the major players in the auto industry as a positive example...) is superior to vertically integrated, in-house technology development. He clearly has no awareness whatsoever of the history of aerospace or the comical failures of the contractor Matroshka doll hell most aerospace and auto companies of the past and present are obsessed with The vendor-prime paradigm had already all but monopolized aerospace, and the result was impossibly expensive rockets, R&D laziness, arrogance, and aggressive attempts to kill potential competitors before they could stand up.https://audioboom.com/posts/6403192-building-rockets
The only thing different from then to now is metal 3D printing (which is still expensive, but everyone is using it because it’s super cheap to get started).
Seems all of these small launch vehicle companies are banking heavily on potential customers being willing to pay more ($/kg) for their own launch vehicle instead of being part of a rideshare. Don’t know if that will pan out but I imagine SpaceX’s backlog will continue to grow and timelines for launching as a secondary payload will continue to increase (though price will likely decrease)
It truly baffles me that an engineer intimately familiar with SpaceX - someone who led development of freaking grid fins - thought it was a reasonable idea to start an expendable rocket startup specifically intended to rely on external suppliers for all major components.
Quote from: vaporcobra on 03/04/2018 09:40 pmIt truly baffles me that an engineer intimately familiar with SpaceX - someone who led development of freaking grid fins - thought it was a reasonable idea to start an expendable rocket startup specifically intended to rely on external suppliers for all major components.So it is important to note that we still dont know with all the sunk costs if reusability as been paid off by SpaceX, and even if it did it is still a LOT of upfront money, time, and engineering manpower. Considering ABL's smallsat market, probably not worth the upfront costs right now. How they are going about developing their LV is pretty much what SpaceX did with Falcon 1, a large percentage of the rocket came from outside industries. And speaking of Falcon 1, SpaceX managed to slice a HUGE portion of the LV costs using this method. ABL doesn't have to compete with the large Falcon 9, all it has to do is be the cheapest, most reliable small sat launcher to grab the smallsats that want to dictate their own orbit.
As it matures further a process of re-consolidation starts, typically with clusters of sub contractors or third tier suppliers starting to be bought up.So the question is "Is the launch industry still in "startup" mode, or is it "mature"?" ULA think it's mature, SX feels it is not.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 03/05/2018 08:31 pmQuote from: vaporcobra on 03/04/2018 09:40 pmIt truly baffles me that an engineer intimately familiar with SpaceX - someone who led development of freaking grid fins - thought it was a reasonable idea to start an expendable rocket startup specifically intended to rely on external suppliers for all major components.So it is important to note that we still dont know with all the sunk costs if reusability as been paid off by SpaceX, and even if it did it is still a LOT of upfront money, time, and engineering manpower. Considering ABL's smallsat market, probably not worth the upfront costs right now. How they are going about developing their LV is pretty much what SpaceX did with Falcon 1, a large percentage of the rocket came from outside industries. And speaking of Falcon 1, SpaceX managed to slice a HUGE portion of the LV costs using this method. ABL doesn't have to compete with the large Falcon 9, all it has to do is be the cheapest, most reliable small sat launcher to grab the smallsats that want to dictate their own orbit.The problem is that $17m per launch is by no means cheap. 650kg to a 500km SSO is 3-4x what Electron and LauncherOne are capable of, but Electron is already flying, and LauncherOne is probably less than a year away from its first launch. There's just nothing particularly novel with ABL's strategy, and the only unique aspect of their vehicle is lifting capacity. Electron is weeks away from commercial operations. Vector is years closer to realizing a "zero fixed infrastructure" approach with what appears to be a largely subcontracted launch vehicle. Virgin Orbit is doing air-launch. Relativity Space is building custom additive manufacturing capabilities to manufacture an array of LV components, and has conducted 90+ tests of an almost entirely 3D printed, 90kN methalox engine. EXOS is trying to do reusable suborbital nanolaunchers. It's just a REALLY saturated field/market at this point. ABL's claim to fame is... a "very reliable" rocket that can maybe sit in a warehouse for years (??), is aiming for first launch in 2021, and is 100% expendable. A multi-ignition upper stage is perhaps the only real draw. My point isn't really to insult their effort or their preliminary strategy of subcontracting subassemblies over in-house engineering - to some extent it is a useful way to begin as a rocket startup. It's just far too late and not in any way competitive alongside a flood of identical, superior, or far more mature rocket startups, many who have in fact succeeded in grabbing VC while preserving cultures that prefer in-house work. If ABL had an operational LV in 2019, they may have had a real niche. But with first launches NET ~2021, it's dead on arrival or at least a bad way to spend time and money.