Countdown to new smallsat launchers

[Rik ISS-fan]

@Donderman:
Your over looking there are currently new technologies coming to market.
I'm not posting direct links to sources, but the European projects don't want to ship >85%H2O2.
In my opinion HTP is a good replacement for hydrazine.

And I beg to differ that BO has permanently shelved the BE-2 HTP engine technology.
But we shall see.

I want to added to Steven Pietrobon post:
HTP-RP-1 (EtOH or other non cryogenic hydrocarbon) and LOx-LNG/Methane have no temp. difference.
So no chance on a SpaceX static test scenario.

I think It's odd VLM-1 is classed as uncertain and excluded from the 2016 small launcher list.
While it is backed by two governments and chosen as basic launcher for a launch service that is included in the document.

[meberbs]

I am not sure Blue Origin's detailed reasons for moving on from hydrogen peroxide, whether it is related to performance, storage issues, or something else. What I do know is that a Blue Origin employee gave me the distinct impression that while they would keep their data on it in case they ever had a reason to go back, none of their forward plans involve H2O2.

I had also considered if peroxide could be used as a monopropellant thruster, but I am not sure if there is a good way to keep high concentration peroxide stable enough for a long duration mission.

[Danderman]

What the world needs now is a generic/universal kick stage for a small launcher, to be able to propel very small payloads beyond LEO.

[Katana]

What the world needs now is a generic/universal kick stage for a small launcher, to be able to propel very small payloads beyond LEO.

Or a small electric upperstage for orbit manuver,  distribute one constellation in one launch.

[Katana]

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.

Should the list include pressure fed or hybrid booster stage? Many instances, No orbital success.

[sdsds]

What the world needs now is a generic/universal kick stage for a small launcher, to be able to propel very small payloads beyond LEO.

At that scale what propulsion technology works with sufficient isp? Electric pump fed hypergolics maybe?

[Katana]

What the world needs now is a generic/universal kick stage for a small launcher, to be able to propel very small payloads beyond LEO.

At that scale what propulsion technology works with sufficient isp? Electric pump fed hypergolics maybe?

This is in the scale of satellite RCS:
Pressure fed hypergolics / monoprellant
Ion / plasma

[Steven Pietrobon]

But if a technology has a 0 percent success rate in commercial rocketry, then it stays on the list.

HTP was successfully used by Black Knight and Black Arrow. Thus it should not be on the list. Peroxide is also used on rocket packs, that are strapped right next to a human being. It was also used on the Mercury capsule and is used in the Soyuz capsule for attitude control. The Soyuz launch vehicle also uses HTP to power its turbopumps.

I'm not posting direct links to sources, but the European projects don't want to ship >85%H2O2.

But they're happy to ship toxic N2O2 and hydrazine? Their website is down at the moment, but Peroxide Propulsion happily ships HTP (85% and above) all over the world.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161119100406/http://www.peroxidepropulsion.com/

or other non cryogenic hydrocarbon) and LOx-LNG/Methane have no temp. difference.
So no chance on a SpaceX static test scenario.

LOX has an NBP of -182.9 C. Methane has an NBP of -161.5 C and freezes at -182.5 C. Thus, there is a minimum temperature difference of 0.4 K. Any subcooling of LOX and the temperature difference widens, provided you can keep methane just above its freezing temperature.

[Steven Pietrobon]

I had also considered if peroxide could be used as a monopropellant thruster, but I am not sure if there is a good way to keep high concentration peroxide stable enough for a long duration mission.

My understanding is that if you can keep the peroxide below 5 C and above its freezing point, that the decomposition rate falls to zero.

[RanulfC]

I had also considered if peroxide could be used as a monopropellant thruster, but I am not sure if there is a good way to keep high concentration peroxide stable enough for a long duration mission.

My understanding is that if you can keep the peroxide below 5 C and above its freezing point, that the decomposition rate falls to zero.

Cite: http://www.hydrogen-peroxide.us/history-US-General-Kinetics/AIAA-2005-4551_Long_Term_Storability_of_Hydrogen_Peroxide.pdf

Page 8, paragraph XI;
"In addition, a second set of drums containing 90% hydrogen peroxide have been in storage at 5 deg. Celsius for over 17 years and have been recently measured at 90.5%8. This demonstrates that at 5 deg. Celsius (41F) that essentially no decomposition occurred for 17 years."

@Danderman:
Your over looking there are currently new technologies coming to market.
I'm not posting direct links to sources, but the European projects don't want to ship >85%H2O2.
In my opinion HTP is a good replacement for hydrazine.

That's a bulk shipping regulatory constraint. Smaller quantities such a Peroxide Propulsion and others can get higher percentages but considering billions of gallons are transported per year around the world "handling" issues are a bit over-blown.

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.

Then by your own criteria H2O2 should NOT be on the list as it has a long and successful history of use in early rocketry and satellites including commercial use. I realize the "list" is your opinion and therefore non-debatable but don't say you are 'just following history' when you're actually not and get called on it.

Randy

[Danderman]

What commercial firms have launched successfully using H2O2 as an oxidizer?

[Kryten]

What commercial firms have launched successfully using H2O2 as an oxidizer?

Blue Origin, with Goddard and PM-2.

[Danderman]

What commercial firms have launched successfully using H2O2 as an oxidizer?

Blue Origin, with Goddard and PM-2.

A great example of a company looking at H2O2 and deciding not to go with it.

Here is another company that started with H2O2 and will probably discontinue:

Lin Industrial has got an explosion during their peroxide engine test a couple of days ago. One person was wounded.

[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/

This is a ICBM derivative, Not really commercial.

If they start to offer launches commercially, for 10,000$/kg, I'd say it's commercial.
Anyway, i think the list can really benefit from $/kg price target column.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Here is another company that started with H2O2 and will probably discontinue:

Lin Industrial has got an explosion during their peroxide engine test a couple of days ago. One person was wounded.

Other people have been killed during engine tests, mostly because they were too close during the test. I suspect the same in this case. I tried to find confirmation of this event, but there is nothing on the Lin Industrial web site. https://en.spacelin.ru

[sdsds]

I hear the Wehrmacht used peroxide for quite a few small-payload sub-orbital launches. They had some trouble with the precision descent part of the flight profile, though.

[Danderman]

It seems that new contenders are popping up all over now. Perhaps it is time for a poll.

[dror]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english
http://spacenews.com/new-documents-reveal-state-of-spacexs-finances

A Danish company has purchased a launch on a small Chinese vehicle.
Gomspace signed a contract with Chinese company Landspace for the launch of a cluster of small satellites on a Landspace-1 rocket in 2018. The privately developed Landspace-1 is expected to make its first launch later this year or in 2018. [Xinhua]

[Robotbeat]

The Soyuz rocket uses peroxide today to drive turbopumps, and uses peroxide as a mono propellant on the capsule.

It's in use commercially. I'd say it's worth considering for small vehicles. For big rockets, you might as well go with LOx.

[CameronD]

It's in use commercially. I'd say it's worth considering for small vehicles. For big rockets, you might as well go with LOx.

Seriously, at the end of the day what people will go with will depend upon (a) what they can get, (b) what kind of infrastructure they wish to invest in and (c) the amount of regulatory hurdles they are happy to jump.  The size of the rocket has very little to do with it... other than perhaps as an indicator of my point (b) above.