Countdown to new smallsat launchers

[john smith 19]

For high mach operation, all airbreathers are limited by fuel energy density v.s. incoming air energy density. Even scramjets can't be much better than ramjets (gaining better mach range but loose lots of T/W ratio). Skylon is also limited to mach 5.

You seem to have a problem separating "Skylon," which is the vehicle concept, from SABRE, which is the engine.
SABRE In airbreathing mode is limited to M5,after which it closes the airflow path entirely and switches to full rocket mode.

An idea that some people also seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding.

For low mach operation,  RBCC/TBCC/skylon are much more complex than either ramjets or pure rockets.

As always that depends where you draw the system boundaries. When you include "accelerate from zero speed" or "Don't burn through your entire propellant supply in 10 minutes" it turns out TBCC (which SABRE is a form of) as the SR71 and Concorde were ((in super cruise it's been estimated about 68% of Concorde thrust was generated by its inlets, much like the SR71, but without needing continuous after burner).

If ramjets can't compete on R&D COST v.s. pure rockets (F9R style vtvl), nothing else can.

A low Mach ramjet can compete on R&D but you're comparing Apples with Oranges. One is a system that's basically a cruise engine and the other a semi-reusable launch system to full orbit. Like all air breathers (or systems with air breathing modes) it scores on the Isp front. In atmosphere the SSME got c380secs. A bad airbreather gets 2000secs.  That has huge implications for mass fraction of the vehicle.

Are you also confusing ramjets with SCramjets? Ramjets have been deployed in multiple operational systems since the mid 1950's. No SCramjet has (despite Northward of $4Bn in current year $) ever been fielded.

[Katana]

Even ramjets of 1950s (Talos, Bomarc, Navaho) have much worse Thrust / R&D cost ratio compared to rockets of 1950s, either engine or vehicle.

No other airbreathers could be cheaper.

[john smith 19]

Even ramjets of 1950s (Talos, Bomarc, Navaho) have much worse Thrust / R&D cost ratio compared to rockets of 1950s, either engine or vehicle.

No other airbreathers could be cheaper.

I see, you equate the engine with the vehicle.

That's a bad habit to have, given the engine builders were normally different companies. In fact I think most of them came from the Marquadt company.

Did you not know that air breathers have much worse T/W ratios than rockets but much better Isp's? The J58 used in the SR71 had a thrust to weight of about 5.5:1. The nacelle roughly doubled the weight. However wings and good aerodynamics meant despite that it could still cruise at M3+.

You also seem to ignore the fact that while some of them were vertically launched they spent most of the mission in horizontal flight, where thrust does not need to be > GTOW.

Is there some specific point you're trying to make? Perhaps you should make it more clearly.

[john smith 19]

I reckon anyone who wants to get into the LV business should read this.

It's Georg Koopman's presentation about the AMROC rocket and how the company did business and designed it. I've often wondered if Elon Musk ever read it. I suspect not.

What's quite astonishing is that despite it being over 30 years old the numbers are still surprisingly current.

Amroc started before a major financial crash and nearly died, as did SpaceX.

What actually killed the company was Koopman's car driving off the road and hitting an obstacle a few months prior to their biggest engine test (250 000 lb). It failed due to LOX leakage freezing water vapor out of the air into some of the controls. Just like several other launch failures. His leadership and technical skills were the driving force. Without him it failed.

You have to wonder what would happen to SX if anything happened to Musk.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

35 small launch vehicles (<1000 kg @ LEO) claim to be under development worldwide.  An additional 30 that I'm watching for further information. 8 have terminated since I started tracking. #SmallSat #Rocket #Crazy

https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/949850176650346496

[Kosmos2001]

35 small launch vehicles (<1000 kg @ LEO) claim to be under development worldwide.  An additional 30 that I'm watching for further information. 8 have terminated since I started tracking. #SmallSat #Rocket #Crazy

https://twitter.com/RocketScient1st/status/949850176650346496

The "defunct" bar grows faster than the "operational" one.

[Svetoslav]

The "defunct" bar grows faster than the "operational" one.

Yah, I also noticed that.

I personally don't expect the situation to be different than the Suborbital Tourism hype 15-20 years ago. Only one company flew a spacecraft, most of them went bankrupt or eventually adopted other goals.

Right now the hype is about smallsats, but can we expect there will be more than several successful companies?

[ringsider]

The "defunct" bar grows faster than the "operational" one.

That is as you would expect. 80/20 - 80% of the gain from 20% of the work. At that rate you should expect there to be 10-15 companies actually building something that flies, and of those you would expect the same 80/20 principle to apply, and to end up with just 2-3 with surviving, thriving businesses. Anyone who gets to flight with a "me-too" approach is probably already doomed.

[ringsider]

Spanish PLD Space say they have a "big announcement coming tomorrow, the first of 2 big announcements in January":-

https://twitter.com/PLD_Space/status/949276449550295040

[imprezive]

The "defunct" bar grows faster than the "operational" one.

That is as you would expect. 80/20 - 80% of the gain from 20% of the work. At that rate you should expect there to be 10-15 companies actually building something that flies, and of those you would expect the same 80/20 principle to apply, and to end up with just 2-3 with surviving, thriving businesses. Anyone who gets to flight with a "me-too" approach is probably already doomed.

I think once two of them are in operation it’s going to be tough for any new commercial companies to compete. At that point it’s much easier for an existing company to simply build more rockets than for someone to design something from scratch. You’d need to invest a ton of money into a step change of rocket technology to compete and I don’t see many VCs being willing to so that. You’ll probably see some new government backed entries but going the pure commercial route will be brutal.

[TrevorMonty]

With Electron succesful launch, smallsat LVs are finally here. By end of 2018 Vector and Virgin should be operational.

Its now upto smallsat companies to support them and prove there is business case for these small LVs.

[CameronD]

In the news today:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/new-zealand-successfully-launches-first-rocket-into-space/9347886

New Zealand has trumped Australia in the space race, with a spaceflight start-up successfully launching a rocket from its own launch pad on the North Island.

Frankly, I didn't know it was a race, given that the Kiwis started long before us.

[Lar]

With Electron succesful launch, smallsat LVs are finally here. By end of 2018 Vector and Virgin should be operational.

Should be ... sure. But I'm dubious they will be. we will see.

[Steven Pietrobon]

In the news today:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/new-zealand-successfully-launches-first-rocket-into-space/9347886

New Zealand has trumped Australia in the space race, with a spaceflight start-up successfully launching a rocket from its own launch pad on the North Island.

Frankly, I didn't know it was a race, given that the Kiwis started long before us.

We started long before the Kiwis in 1967! For orbital launches we're still ahead by one (Sparta-Redstone and Black Arrow with one launch each). Expect that record to be broken soon. Hopefully Gilmour can get us back in the race.

[john smith 19]

I think once two of them are in operation it’s going to be tough for any new commercial companies to compete. At that point it’s much easier for an existing company to simply build more rockets than for someone to design something from scratch. You’d need to invest a ton of money into a step change of rocket technology to compete and I don’t see many VCs being willing to so that. You’ll probably see some new government backed entries but going the pure commercial route will be brutal.

Indeed.

It's still a fully expendable LOX/RP1 LV. The question is what are the new things they bring to the table that every other MFG does  not?

[TrevorMonty]

I think once two of them are in operation it’s going to be tough for any new commercial companies to compete. At that point it’s much easier for an existing company to simply build more rockets than for someone to design something from scratch. You’d need to invest a ton of money into a step change of rocket technology to compete and I don’t see many VCs being willing to so that. You’ll probably see some new government backed entries but going the pure commercial route will be brutal.

Indeed.

It's still a fully expendable LOX/RP1 LV. The question is what are the new things they bring to the table that every other MFG does  not?

Electric pumps with jettison of used batteries, carbon fibre fuel tanks, 3D printed engines and private launch site.

None current flying LVs have any of these. Merlin may use 3D parts but not majority of engine.

[CameronD]

In the news today:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/new-zealand-successfully-launches-first-rocket-into-space/9347886

New Zealand has trumped Australia in the space race, with a spaceflight start-up successfully launching a rocket from its own launch pad on the North Island.

Frankly, I didn't know it was a race, given that the Kiwis started long before us.

We started long before the Kiwis in 1967! For orbital launches we're still ahead by one (Sparta-Redstone and Black Arrow with one launch each). Expect that record to be broken soon. Hopefully Gilmour can get us back in the race.

Fair point.. Must brush up on my ancient military history.

Personally, I'm backing things happening in your own state that (cross fingers) if happen as planned are far more serious commercially than Gilmour.  It's the Aussie Space Race!

[Kosmos2001]

I am quoting Chasm from another thread because he wrote down a very interesting information that belongs better here:

65 companies/start ups are currently working on small launch vehicles. 30 of those are of mostly unknown status.
(As presented on the 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. January 7–11, 2018 Washington DC)

[catdlr]

Rocket Lab launch is vote of confidence in small-rocket startups

LA Times Article in the Business Section:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rocket-lab-launch-20180122-story.html

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Stealth space catapult startup SpinLaunch is raising $30M
BY JOSH CONSTINE
3 hours ago

What if instead of blasting cargo into space on a rocket, we could fling it into space using a catapult? That’s the big, possibly crazy, possibly genius idea behind SpinLaunch. It was secretly founded in 2014 by Jonathan Yaney, who built solar-powered drone startup Titan Aerospace and sold it to Google. Now TechCrunch has learned from three sources that SpinLaunch is raising a massive $30 million Series A to develop its catapult technology.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/spinlaunch/amp/?__twitter_impression=true