Countdown to new smallsat launchers

[high road]

That video is quite disingenious 

[ChrisWilson68]

I'm sure many on here remember ARCA's long history of promising radical launch solutions that never came anywhere close to reality.

[Steven Pietrobon]

ARCA have a white paper on their technology. They heat the water to 250 C and 4 MPa. 93% of the heating is performed using an external power source and 7% using onboard lithium polymer batteries. Isp ranges from 50 to 67 seconds. I think the way this works is that the water is stored at below the boiling point for the given pressure. The heaters at the base are then used to heat the water above the boiling point so it converts to steam with the gas released through the nozzle.

For the LAS 50R, dry mass is 4.8 t, propellant mass 18 t and Isp is 67 seconds. Second stage mass is 6 t. This gives a delta-V of 67*g*ln(1+18/(4.8+6)) = 644 m/s (2320 km/s compared to 2300 km/h in the paper). Note that due to gravity and drag losses, the actual velocity at cutoff will be less.

For a thrust of 50 t (giving an initial acceleration of 50/(4.8+18+6) = 1.74g) the "burn" time is 18*67/50 = 24.1 s (slightly more than the 23 s given in the paper). For 4 MPa pressure and 50 t of thrust, the "effective" exit area is 50,000*g/4,000,000 = 0.123 m².

[envy887]

ARCA have a white paper on their technology. They heat the water to 250 C and 4 MPa. 93% of the heating is performed using an external power source and 7% using onboard lithium polymer batteries. Isp ranges from 50 to 67 seconds. I think the way this works is that the water is stored at below the boiling point for the given pressure. The heaters at the base are then used to heat the water above the boiling point so it converts to steam with the gas released through the nozzle.

For the LAS 50R, dry mass is 4.8 t, propellant mass 18 t and Isp is 67 seconds. Second stage mass is 6 t. This gives a delta-V of 67*g*ln(1+18/(4.8+6)) = 644 m/s (2320 km/s compared to 2300 km/h in the paper). Note that due to gravity and drag losses, the actual velocity at cutoff will be less.

For a thrust of 50 t (giving an initial acceleration of 50/(4.8+18+6) = 1.74g) the "burn" time is 18*67/50 = 24.1 s (slightly more than the 23 s given in the paper). For 4 MPa pressure and 50 t of thrust, the "effective" exit area is 50,000*g/4,000,000 = 0.123 m².

Then "burn"out should be around 10 km altitude and about Mach 1.2, which is a lot better than most airlaunch systems (especially considering most of the velocity is vertical), but still a very, very long ways from orbit. What is the the upper stage delta-v capability?

[ChrisWilson68]

ARCA have a white paper on their technology. They heat the water to 250 C and 4 MPa. 93% of the heating is performed using an external power source and 7% using onboard lithium polymer batteries. Isp ranges from 50 to 67 seconds. I think the way this works is that the water is stored at below the boiling point for the given pressure. The heaters at the base are then used to heat the water above the boiling point so it converts to steam with the gas released through the nozzle.

For the LAS 50R, dry mass is 4.8 t, propellant mass 18 t and Isp is 67 seconds. Second stage mass is 6 t. This gives a delta-V of 67*g*ln(1+18/(4.8+6)) = 644 m/s (2320 km/s compared to 2300 km/h in the paper). Note that due to gravity and drag losses, the actual velocity at cutoff will be less.

For a thrust of 50 t (giving an initial acceleration of 50/(4.8+18+6) = 1.74g) the "burn" time is 18*67/50 = 24.1 s (slightly more than the 23 s given in the paper). For 4 MPa pressure and 50 t of thrust, the "effective" exit area is 50,000*g/4,000,000 = 0.123 m².

Then "burn"out should be around 10 km altitude and about Mach 1.2, which is a lot better than most airlaunch systems (especially considering most of the velocity is vertical), but still a very, very long ways from orbit. What is the the upper stage delta-v capability?

ARCA's upper stage is fantasy.  It's exactly the same vehicle that they've been claiming for years is going to be a single-stage to orbit small launch vehicle, without a shred of evidence.

[CameronD]

ARCA have a white paper on their technology. They heat the water to 250 C and 4 MPa. 93% of the heating is performed using an external power source and 7% using onboard lithium polymer batteries. Isp ranges from 50 to 67 seconds. I think the way this works is that the water is stored at below the boiling point for the given pressure. The heaters at the base are then used to heat the water above the boiling point so it converts to steam with the gas released through the nozzle.

For the LAS 50R, dry mass is 4.8 t, propellant mass 18 t and Isp is 67 seconds. Second stage mass is 6 t. This gives a delta-V of 67*g*ln(1+18/(4.8+6)) = 644 m/s (2320 km/s compared to 2300 km/h in the paper). Note that due to gravity and drag losses, the actual velocity at cutoff will be less.

For a thrust of 50 t (giving an initial acceleration of 50/(4.8+18+6) = 1.74g) the "burn" time is 18*67/50 = 24.1 s (slightly more than the 23 s given in the paper). For 4 MPa pressure and 50 t of thrust, the "effective" exit area is 50,000*g/4,000,000 = 0.123 m².

Hang on a sec.. never mind their testing, their images show they're still planning to use aerospike nozzles.  Do the calculations even stack up using superheated steam?!?

[Lars-J]

Why is *anyone* taking these guys seriously?

After delaying and delaying their latest engine test, they finally revealed it as a  ... tada ... water rocket. And now they are off trying to distract their followers with yet another new concept. (which will inevitably be delayed, to be replaced by a new concept) So predictable.

There are few repeat scam artists in rocketry... but these guys come awfully close to fitting that bill.

[Steven Pietrobon]

From page 15:

"Let’s consider LAS 50R. Adding an extra energy of 42MW/s, from 5A, 90C LiPo batteries (1680MW total
available), it will increase the vehicle’s weight with 1,940kg."

The MW/s unit is nonsensical. A watt is energy (joules) per second. So a W/s is joules per second per second! Anyway, I think what the authors are trying to describe are 90C 5Ah batteries. For example

https://www.amazon.com.au/Turnigy-Graphene-5000mAh-Hardcase-Approved/dp/B01HEMFQG4

These batteries have a discharge current of 5*90 = 450 A and a discharge time of 3600/90 = 40 seconds. Note that the flight time of the LAS 50R is 23 seconds, which means that only 58% of the energy in the battery can be used.  For a mass of 0.599 kg, this gives 1940/0.599 = 3239 batteries.

Each battery provides 450*14.8 = 6660 W, for a total power of 21.6 MW. Total battery energy is 21.6*40 = 863 MJ. Of that energy, only 863*23/40 = 496 MJ can be used. Lets assume the 42MW/s and 1680MW values are actually 42 MW and 1680 MJ. This my values are 49% less power and 70% less energy.

The authors do note that

"The batteries will not deplete completely during the vehicle’s 20s ascent, but only half of their total capacity."

The remainder of the energy in the batteries will be used for landing.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Then "burn"out should be around 10 km altitude and about Mach 1.2, which is a lot better than most airlaunch systems (especially considering most of the velocity is vertical), but still a very, very long ways from orbit. What is the the upper stage delta-v capability?

They are claiming only 3 km altitude, but a speed of Mach 1.2 for the expendable LAS and Mach 1.5 for the reusable LAS. See page 16 of the white paper. The upper stage is based on their LOX/HTP single stage to orbit vehicle, the Haas 2CA, It will need to complete the remaining delta-V to LEO after boost by the LAS first stage.

ARCA is planning to launch LAS 50R in Autumn 2019 with the LAS 50R/Haas 2CA Mini orbital vehicle in 2020. Launch cost is $1M for 200 kg ($5000/kg!).

[Steven Pietrobon]

ARCA will be testing their LAS 25D engine with a stainless steel propellant tank this month.

https://www.facebook.com/arcaspace/photos/a.10153942638068332/10158633946998332/?type=3&theater

[PM3]

Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) flight:

2018-01  Electron      US/NZ   Rocket Lab
2019-07  Hyperbola-1   China   iSpace
2019-08  Jielong-1     China   Chinarocket (state-owned)

Planned or expected (NET)

2019-09  Astra         US      Astra
2019-09  Simorgh       Iran    (state-owned)
2019-11  LauncherOne   US      Virgin
2019-12  SSLV          India   ISRO (state-owned)
2019     Kuaizhou-11   China   (state-owned)
2019     OS-M1         China   OneSpace

2020     Firefly α     US/Ukr  Firefly
2020-Q3  RS1           US      ABL
2020-12  Terran 1      US      Relativity

All the rest 2021+.

Failed: Vector

[2019-08-13: added Simorgh]
[2019-08-15: changed SSLV from September to December]
[2019-08-17: successful launch of Jielong-1]
[2019-08-21: added sources and adjusted RS1 and Terran 1 schedule]
[2019-09-04: update Simorgh; removed Zhuque-1, see report]
[2019-09-12: changed LauncherOne from October to November]

[high road]

If you put state owned launchers on that list, why leave out Long March 11? Purely based on number of launches, they're tied with RL

[PM3]

If you put state owned launchers on that list, why leave out Long March 11? Purely based on number of launches, they're tied with RL

... and why leave out Safir and Falcon 1 and Pegasus and all older smallsat launchers? Because this thread was opened in October 2015 and is about launchers that were in development at that time and did not fly yet. That's the starting point here, and that excludes LM11 which already was in service.

But! I forgot Simorgh, which had no successful orbital flight yet. Will add that.

[Solarsail]

I'm not sure this is interesting at all, but here's one more light launcher described on paper by a small company.  Don't know of any indications of work on the project in recent years, but this company's worked on various concepts for solid rocket motors, and described a small launcher using them: http://wickmanspacecraft.com/slv.html

[PM3]

OHB joins the "first launch in two years" club, does not tell any specs.

Maiden flight of the planned rocket is set for late 2021, OHB Chief Executive Officer Marco Fuchs said in an interview. The company has a team of about 35 employees in Augsburg, southern Germany, working on a so-called mini launcher designed to bring small payloads into orbit and with a low-cost approach, the CEO said. Key components of the rocket have already been developed and tested.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-27/german-space-firm-enters-rocket-business-shaken-up-by-elon-musk

[Steven Pietrobon]

Latest update. They had a problem in the April test of the LAS-25D, which was at 10% thrust. They forgot to allow the tank to vent air into the tank as the steam in the tank cooled down. This caused outside pressure to implode the tank walls, causing damage that could not be repaired. They have now replaced the damaged tank with a temporary steel tank, which will be replaced with a new composite tank when it is ready. The next step is to start building the LAS-25R, which is the first stage of their launch vehicle. Below is a screen capture of all their old hardware in the Air Force museum.

[abaddon]

Companies that provide both dedicated and rideshare launch services for small satellites say that price remains a major factor for their customers, with pressure from growing competition to lower them: https://spacenews.com/smallsat-launch-services-feel-pricing-pressure/

[WIgorN]

IMHO:
The optimal Cubsat's LVis rethought, on a new round of technologies - the Black Arrow, based on DC-XA and Cosmos-2 / which 11K63
ONLY 2 stages!
Reusability according to the scheme Vertical Takeoff Horizontal Landing. Using the aerodynamic quality  stages.
In small carriers do not have the fuel to return, landing burn!
Expendable rockets on semi-cryogenic components will never be available!

Where is all this
All plagiarize the ideas of Ilon Mask and the large expansible missiles...

[john smith 19]

Where is all this
All plagiarize the ideas of Ilon Mask and the large expansible missiles...

That's "Elon Musk" and you asked why has this not happened

Simple.

It is known VTO (or air launched 3 stage solids in the case of Pegasus) expendable n-stage LV's work

Once you get outside of these paradigms you are committing to a) Increased risk that your idea will meet an obstacle that is impossible to solve with the resources you have available (or in the worst case that is impossible to solve without a change in the laws of physics) which leads to b) Increased expense over what implementing a new competitor.

So unless you are wealthy enough to say "I'm going to do this my way and I'll work out how to make it pay later" you have to convince investors it will deliver at least what existing ELV's (or semi ELV's) can supply today. But since they are footing the development bill as well you have to develop it quite cheaply.

What Musk showed is that if you are not on a government funded, cost plus programme and use best commercial practice you can do you development work on a fairly small vehicle (F1) and deliver F9 for a total cost (up to 1st F9 launch) of about $300m.  This had long been suspected in the new space community but he demonstrated it was possible. 

The standard cost model (used by NASA and the DoD to work out how much a project of a certain size and capability should cost) put the budget at $2Bn, about 6.6x bigger.

Think of this as "cost model inflation" 

So to raise funds you need to
a) Deliver more than the same sized TSTO ELV
b) Do it at the same budget as a TSTO ELV

An impossible gating problem unless your architecture adds substantial other benefits 

[Comga]

This thread is approaching 4 years running
The OP has launches projected for the very next calendar quarter: Q1 2016.
Only one of them has achieved orbit, Rocketlab
It was several years beyond the projected date, which had already been pushed out, and the cost is half again what was projected, but they are a success. 
There are probably twice as many programs that could be or could have been added to the list, particularly if one includes Chinese "start-ups" that sell hardware from the military production lines.
Does anyone have a current list?
It could include a status column for adding "Defunct" to so many programs.