-
#140
by
Lars-J
on 05 Mar, 2015 00:06
-
After three launches in 60 days? 
I think it is a MUCH safer bet that all the business plans of these small-sat launcher startups aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
None of them launched on time.. and it still takes three years to get on the manifest.
But that wasn't what your "bet" was about. Nonetheless I look forward to seeing the launch frequency (& timeliness!) of these small sat players, if they ever fly.
-
#141
by
QuantumG
on 05 Mar, 2015 00:17
-
Nonetheless I look forward to seeing the launch frequency (& timeliness!) of these small sat players, if they ever fly.
Me too. It makes sense that a smaller vehicle in mass production should be more responsive, but there's no guarantees.
-
#142
by
Impaler
on 05 Mar, 2015 02:14
-
If the 'dispenser' system on conventional size rockets works and becomes the norm then it really resolves the whole 'hitching a ride' problem for the small stat and leaves no advantage is 'booking time' and flexibility for the small rocket. Rather then directly approaching and negotiating with the launch provider to effectively bum a ride, they book with the dispenser provider which dose the interface with the launch provider AS a full fledged customer of the launch provider, that is going to get you a lot more clout and a lot lower chance of getting bumped in time or dumped into some undesirable orbit.
Now the small sat maker is arguably in a better position then the manufacturer of a whole launch vehicle using traditional satellite, because they can jump in at virtually the last minute if their is still room in the dispenser systems manifest and assuming the dispenser launches regularly enough they get to orbit is less lead-time on average. It's like the difference in lead time between booking a whole plane vs buying a single ticket at the airport.
P.S. I found it really nutting that they claim launching small sats and creating small sat constellations is what will lead to space-colonization. By definition these small launch vehicles are incapable of being used in manned space flight even to LEO (a human rated capsule for 1 person exceeds their launch capability), their is no way they can colonize anything with this tech even if they had thousands of them and they were fully reusable.
-
#143
by
ChrisWilson68
on 05 Mar, 2015 02:42
-
P.S. I found it really nutting that they claim launching small sats and creating small sat constellations is what will lead to space-colonization. By definition these small launch vehicles are incapable of being used in manned space flight even to LEO (a human rated capsule for 1 person exceeds their launch capability), their is no way they can colonize anything with this tech even if they had thousands of them and they were fully reusable.
Maybe they meant colonization by ants. :-)
-
#144
by
QuantumG
on 05 Mar, 2015 02:48
-
P.S. I found it really nutting that they claim launching small sats and creating small sat constellations is what will lead to space-colonization. By definition these small launch vehicles are incapable of being used in manned space flight even to LEO (a human rated capsule for 1 person exceeds their launch capability), their is no way they can colonize anything with this tech even if they had thousands of them and they were fully reusable.
It takes thousands of companies to make an industry. Currently there's very few actually operating anything in space. Their argument is that they can help increase that number. Whether they can actually do that or not is the question.
It's important to remember that some of us still think space will be colonized by humanity, not just Elon Musk.
-
#145
by
TrevorMonty
on 05 Mar, 2015 02:57
-
If these small LVs can achieve the high flight rates that Firefly and Rocketlab are talking about then expect them to keep innovating and drive launches prices down while advancing LV technology.
-
#146
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Mar, 2015 03:09
-
It's worth noting that Firefly's payload market is an order of magnitude above RocketLab's 110kg.
RocketLab is to Firefly as Firefly is to SpaceX's F9R.
I'm not sure $5m is cheap enough for such a tiny payload.
-
#147
by
meekGee
on 05 Mar, 2015 04:08
-
Paper rockets always launch on time, and are 100% reliable.
3 years manifest has nothing to do with the size of the rocket. Why would a smaller rocket company that's wildly successful have a shorter waiting list?
Or if there's no waiting list - how well does that bode to the business plan?
---
Anyway, 1 ton and $5M puts FF in the same category as Launcher One. For context, consider Weiler's 700 satellite constellation. Should they be launched, one by one, using Launcher One? What's the total cost there? And will they launch one per day for two years?
-
#148
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Mar, 2015 04:13
-
The cost of Firefly's vehicles is supposed to be $8-9 million, but that's for a ~1 ton payload.
-
#149
by
QuantumG
on 05 Mar, 2015 04:19
-
3 years manifest has nothing to do with the size of the rocket.
Yeah, it does. Not only can you find more payloads (and not have to wait until multiple smaller payloads come together) you can also turn around the pad faster for a smaller vehicle. You need less operations staff, less complicated logistics to get the rocket to the pad, off-the-shelf logistics to get the payload to the rocket, etc, etc. The advantage of scale works both ways, they're just different advantages
-
#150
by
TrevorMonty
on 05 Mar, 2015 04:21
-
The cost of Firefly's vehicles is supposed to be $8-9 million, but that's for a ~1 ton payload.
Actually Alpha is 400kg to LEO, Electron is 110kg to SS.
-
#151
by
meekGee
on 05 Mar, 2015 06:40
-
3 years manifest has nothing to do with the size of the rocket.
Yeah, it does. Not only can you find more payloads (and not have to wait until multiple smaller payloads come together) you can also turn around the pad faster for a smaller vehicle. You need less operations staff, less complicated logistics to get the rocket to the pad, off-the-shelf logistics to get the payload to the rocket, etc, etc. The advantage of scale works both ways, they're just different advantages
I don't agree.
"Waiting for payloads to come together" is only relevant if each customer only wants to launch one. That's the fallacy.
Mini satellites work in constellations. Every customer wants to launch a large quantity of them. Basing your plan on "one-each" means that you will only have as many mini-launches as there are customers (for prototyping, perhaps) and then of course you'll be able to provide a rocket right away, since your manifest will be rock empty....
The idea of serving a market that wants unplanned launches right away - I don't see that market yet. It takes time to develop hardware, and so customers can sign up a couple of years in advance.
We'll see. I think the mini-launchers companies are in bubble mode. It doesn't add up financially, it just sounds good in relation to mini-sats.
-
#152
by
QuantumG
on 05 Mar, 2015 07:10
-
That's the fallacy.
There's more of them than constellations.
Mini satellites work in constellations. Every customer wants to launch a large quantity of them.
No. Not at all.
-
#153
by
TrevorMonty
on 05 Mar, 2015 07:23
-
-
#154
by
ChrisWilson68
on 05 Mar, 2015 08:25
-
-
#155
by
fast
on 05 Mar, 2015 09:46
-
-
#156
by
QuantumG
on 05 Mar, 2015 19:37
-
$5-8 million for 13 150 kg to LEO 
With an aspiration of 12 launches per year.. woooo.. they're totally going to own the entire market for launches with that!
-
#157
by
TrevorMonty
on 05 Mar, 2015 20:52
-
Good luck booking a F9R launch in need few years for $8m.
-
#158
by
RanulfC
on 05 Mar, 2015 21:12
-
P.S. I found it really nutting that they claim launching small sats and creating small sat constellations is what will lead to space-colonization. By definition these small launch vehicles are incapable of being used in manned space flight even to LEO (a human rated capsule for 1 person exceeds their launch capability), their is no way they can colonize anything with this tech even if they had thousands of them and they were fully reusable.
Maybe they meant colonization by ants. :-)
This leads to having to point this out:
"The Program"
(Background)http://www.klydemorris.com/theprogram.cfm
(Strip itself)http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?Strip_ID=286
Ants in space
Randy
-
#159
by
ChrisWilson68
on 05 Mar, 2015 22:03
-
$5-8 million for 13 150 kg to LEO :D
With an aspiration of 12 launches per year.. woooo.. they're totally going to own the entire market for launches with that!
Yeah, I'm sure you believe 100% that SpaceX's aspirations stop at 12 launches a year. :-)
I think it is a MUCH safer bet that all the business plans of these small-sat launcher startups aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
