Countdown to new smallsat launchers

[DanClemmensen]

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".

[Zed_Noir]

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.

[abaddon]

SpaceNews:  Rideshare industry adapting to a changing smallsat market

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.”

[DJPledger]

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.

[TrevorMonty]

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.

[Asteroza]

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.

[ringsider]

The remaining market would have to support the recovery of development costs for such a vehicle

This is not the right way to think about this sector. Recovery of R&D costs is not a factor for a VC investor.

[TrevorMonty]

The remaining market would have to support the recovery of development costs for such a vehicle

This is not the right way to think about this sector. Recovery of R&D costs is not a factor for a VC investor.

With SPAC companies VC investors have already recovered their investment. Shareholders of public listed companies hold out for higher share price and maybe some dividends when company is profitable and not spending fortune on R&D.

[TrevorMonty]

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.

[DJPledger]

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.

[trimeta]

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.

[TrevorMonty]

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.

[trimeta]

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).

[Rik ISS-fan]

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.

[TrevorMonty]

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.

[Zed_Noir]

<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.

[ringsider]

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

...(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.

[trimeta]

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)?

[c4fusion]

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.

[trimeta]

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).