Quote from: Zed_Noir on 08/01/2014 08:20 pmMy speculation. There might be some sort of a Heavy version of the Electron in the future. Perhaps even a 5 or 7 core super Heavy version. I wondered the same. The otrag unit of the teens?
My speculation. There might be some sort of a Heavy version of the Electron in the future. Perhaps even a 5 or 7 core super Heavy version.
There are any number of efforts to build smallsat launchers. People do pursue this potential market.
Quote from: Comga on 08/03/2014 03:42 pmThere are any number of efforts to build smallsat launchers. People do pursue this potential market.They pursue it because they really, really want to build rockets and they can't afford to even attempt anything bigger.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 08/03/2014 04:52 pmQuote from: Comga on 08/03/2014 03:42 pmThere are any number of efforts to build smallsat launchers. People do pursue this potential market.They pursue it because they really, really want to build rockets and they can't afford to even attempt anything bigger.DARPA can't afford anything larger?
What you say may be true for most of the efforts but that doesn't prove or disprove anything. I think it more likely that this effort is sincere in going for the stated target.
The F9 class LV market is well supported, very expensive to enter and has limited payloads.The cubesat market is not very supported by dedicated launches, is lot less expensive to enter. The payload market is growing rapidly.Rocketlab' s forecast of 30+ ($150m) a year is not small change.
Quote from: fatjohn1408 on 07/31/2014 08:27 amSo did the Atea 2 project die then?I don't remember hearing anything about it. Source?
So did the Atea 2 project die then?
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/31/2014 10:01 amQuote from: fatjohn1408 on 07/31/2014 08:27 amSo did the Atea 2 project die then?I don't remember hearing anything about it. Source?http://web.archive.org/web/20131127062937/http://www.rocketlab.co.nz/space-and-defense/sounding-rockets/
{snip}And as SpaceX develops reusability, it will only make the situation worse for small launchers. Who in their right mind would pay $5 million for 100 kg to LEO when a reusable Falcon 9 can carry 100 times as much for $5-7 million?
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 08/04/2014 06:11 am{snip}And as SpaceX develops reusability, it will only make the situation worse for small launchers. Who in their right mind would pay $5 million for 100 kg to LEO when a reusable Falcon 9 can carry 100 times as much for $5-7 million?The client for the small launcher can specify the orbit where as the secondary payloads on the Falcon 9 have to use what is given.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 07/31/2014 11:51 pmIt is a composite structure. Maybe all the connections are on the side away from the camera view. After all this is a publicity photo. It could also be a mock-up.Surely you're not suggesting that the hold-downs are only on one side.
It is a composite structure. Maybe all the connections are on the side away from the camera view. After all this is a publicity photo. It could also be a mock-up.
What I find funny, is that this Electron and also the Firefly launcher, both use webpages that are all-but blatant copies of Space-X's vehicle page. Same grey background, mostly the same fonts and sizes and even the same general layout.
At the stated price, that's $45,000/kg to LEO. That's not a bargain basement price at all.
Quote from: yegors on 08/06/2014 09:33 pmAt the stated price, that's $45,000/kg to LEO. That's not a bargain basement price at all.You're confusing "cheap" with "good value".$3 for a cup of coffee is cheap, but you'd be a sucker to pay that much if you were buying in bulk.