Countdown to new smallsat launchers

[TrevorMonty]

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.

[ringsider]

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.

[TrevorMonty]

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.

[CameronD]

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.

[savuporo]

Relevant tweets from Brian Berger https://twitter.com/Berger_SN

"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

[ringsider]

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.

[TrevorMonty]

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.

[TrevorMonty]

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

[topsphere]

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.

[savuporo]

Nope, Vector is right there in the first table. There is even an acknowledgement at the end to you all.

[ringsider]

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.

[savuporo]

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

[dror]

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/

[Danderman]

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

[Kansan52]

Why not H202?

[Steven Pietrobon]

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!

[meberbs]

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)

[Katana]

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.

[Steven Pietrobon]

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.

[Danderman]

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.