Countdown to new smallsat launchers

[Tywin]

Interesting, how many small space tugs with SEP, are being development in the moment...and all are very happy with the rideshare of Spacex...

“If you look at what SpaceX has done, it’s $5,000 per kilogram,” Ferrario said. “That is several times less than prices we are used to seeing. This means it becomes more convenient to have regular rideshare launches and then leave it to in-space transportation businesses to do the last mile.”

https://spacenews.com/spacex-cheap-rideshare-flights-change-propulsion-equation/

[TrevorMonty]

Interesting, how many small space tugs with SEP, are being development in the moment...and all are very happy with the rideshare of Spacex...

“If you look at what SpaceX has done, it’s $5,000 per kilogram,” Ferrario said. “That is several times less than prices we are used to seeing. This means it becomes more convenient to have regular rideshare launches and then leave it to in-space transportation businesses to do the last mile.”

https://spacenews.com/spacex-cheap-rideshare-flights-change-propulsion-equation/

Some interesting trades for smallsat companies.
1) Add extra DV and use lowcost rideshare.
2) Only provide enough DV for station keeping and use spacetugs with rideshare or small LV which will deliver smallsat to target orbit.

With ridehare need to add extra cost of more DV or spacetug.

Smallsat propulsion companies are hoping smallsat builders add extra DV.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Today that's true. But what happened after 1998 that made them go from 6 launches every year (like RocketLab this year, apparently 'priced out of the market' at the time) down to 1 or 2 a year.

That's basically about the same time as the first elements of ISS were being launched. All those small payloads that were being individually launched on separate satellites were now being sent to the ISS.

What about the Conestoga I?

It came after Pegasus and was not successful, spectacularly failing on its first and only launch in 1995. Despite what all the Youtubers are saying, Conestoga I was not the first private orbital launch vehicle.

[high road]

Today that's true. But what happened after 1998 that made them go from 6 launches every year (like RocketLab this year, apparently 'priced out of the market' at the time) down to 1 or 2 a year.

That's basically about the same time as the first elements of ISS were being launched. All those small payloads that were being individually launched on separate satellites were now being sent to the ISS.

Ah yes, that seems obvious now. Thanks.

[Bean Kenobi]

What about the Conestoga I?

It came after Pegasus and was not successful, spectacularly failing on its first and only launch in 1995. Despite what all the Youtubers are saying, Conestoga I was not the first private orbital launch vehicle.

I think you're not right Steven : Tywin speaks about Conestoga I which flew in 1982, not Conestoga 1620 (1995) you showed

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/conestoga-1.htm

[gmbnz]

Tywin speaks about Conestoga I which flew in 1982, not Conestoga 1620 (1995)

I guess that depends on what we mean. Since we all love all LVs and everyone deserves a consolation prize how about the following:

Conestoga: First private orbital class rocket launched
Pegasus: First private orbital rocket launched successfully to orbit
Falcon 1: First liquid fuelled private orbital rocket launched to orbit
Electron: First orbital rocket launched from a private launch range

[Steven Pietrobon]

Conestoga 1 flew right under my radar! I was in my first year of university and my access to current space events was limited to what the local newspaper published. But I did have books like "Space Exploration" which had a couple of paragraphs on OTRAG. They tried to develop a modular launch vehicle (similar to InterOrbital Systems Neptune vehicle), with quite a few test flights in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Their first flight was on 18 May 1977.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/otrag.htm

[john smith 19]

Conestoga: First private orbital class rocket launched
Pegasus: First private orbital rocket launched successfully to orbit
Falcon 1: First liquid fuelled private orbital rocket launched to orbit
Electron: First orbital rocket launched from a private launch range

Pegasus being private is debatable. They had quite a lot of DARPA funding at the time, who were pursuing (as they continue to pursue) cheaper on demand access to space.

But it was the first one with even close to private funding that made orbit.

Everything else before that failed to do so.  And until F1 everything else continued to do so.

[Skyrocket]

Tywin speaks about Conestoga I which flew in 1982, not Conestoga 1620 (1995)

I guess that depends on what we mean. Since we all love all LVs and everyone deserves a consolation prize how about the following:

Conestoga: First private orbital class rocket launched
Pegasus: First private orbital rocket launched successfully to orbit
Falcon 1: First liquid fuelled private orbital rocket launched to orbit
Electron: First orbital rocket launched from a private launch range

If you include the suborbital one stage Conestoga-1, you should perhaps also include SSI's liquid fueled Percheron, which also made it to the launch pad and which pre-dated Conestoga-1. It had a launch pad explosion on 05 August 1981.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/percheron.htm

[gmbnz]

Pegasus being private is debatable. They had quite a lot of DARPA funding at the time, who were pursuing (as they continue to pursuing) cheaper on demand access to space.

Yes, that's true, and even the F1 had a lot of help in developing the Merlin from the Fastrac.

If you include the suborbital one stage Conestoga-1, you should perhaps also include SSI's liquid fueled Percheron, which also made it to the launch pad and which pre-dated Conestoga-1. It had a launch pad explosion on 05 August 1981.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/percheron.htm

I'd never come across that one before, thanks!

Also a bit off topic (please excuse the newbie question): how do I 'like' someones post?

[Bean Kenobi]

Also a bit off topic (please excuse the newbie question): how do I 'like' someones post?

Top right of each post

[Arb]

Also a bit off topic (please excuse the newbie question): how do I 'like' someones post?

Top right of each post

And if it's not there, turn your add blocker off...

[edkyle99]

China showed how it's done today, with two KZ-1A launches within six hours, both from road-mobile launchers at Taiyuan.  That's an unmatched quick-reaction surge capability, being used in part to build a high resolution "remote sensing" constellation that will ultimately image the entire world every 10 minutes or so.  What happened to US plans for smallsat quick-response launch?

 - Ed Kyle

[jstrotha0975]

China showed how it's done today, with two KZ-1A launches within six hours, both from road-mobile launchers at Taiyuan.  That's an unmatched quick-reaction surge capability, being used in part to build a high resolution "remote sensing" constellation that will ultimately image the entire world every 10 minutes or so.  What happened to US plans for smallsat quick-response launch?

 - Ed Kyle

The DARPA launch challenge. https://www.darpa.mil/launchchallenge

Boeing Phantom Express XS-1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XS-1_(spacecraft)

[edkyle99]

China showed how it's done today, with two KZ-1A launches within six hours, both from road-mobile launchers at Taiyuan.  That's an unmatched quick-reaction surge capability, being used in part to build a high resolution "remote sensing" constellation that will ultimately image the entire world every 10 minutes or so.  What happened to US plans for smallsat quick-response launch?

 - Ed Kyle

The DARPA launch challenge. https://www.darpa.mil/launchchallenge

Boeing Phantom Express XS-1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XS-1_(spacecraft)

DARPA challenge is down to only one "Stealth Team" (thought to be Astra Space by some), the others (including Virgin) having dropped out.  Astra would use RP/LOX, so I don't see how this is "responsive". 

Phantom Express, LH2/LOX powered, needing good weather at a runway somewhere, would be even less responsive, IMO.

I doubt that either is an all-out awash in money development effort, and neither could launch two payloads within six hours like KZ-1A.  The big problem, really, is that since the Pershing II's were sliced into pieces, the U.S. has had no road-mobile missiles that could serve as a fast-response building block*. 

 - Ed Kyle 

* Six Pershing II missiles were launched in one day (within a three-hour span, actually) from Cape Canaveral LC 16 on February 15, 1988.  Additional six-launch efforts were performed prior to this test.

[meberbs]

DARPA challenge is down to only one "Stealth Team" (thought to be Astra Space by some), the others (including Virgin) having dropped out.  Astra would use RP/LOX, so I don't see how this is "responsive". 

Phantom Express, LH2/LOX powered, needing good weather at a runway somewhere, would be even less responsive, IMO.

I doubt that either is an all-out awash in money development effort, and neither could launch two payloads within six hours like KZ-1A.  The big problem, really, is that since the Pershing II's were sliced into pieces, the U.S. has had no road-mobile missiles that could serve as a fast-response building block. 

 - Ed Kyle

XS-1 is fully funded with a program goal of demonstrating 10 launches in 10 days. It is reasonable to doubt whether the program will meet its goals (DARPA specifically funds high risk, high return things) and it also is reasonable to question whether it would actually transition into a operational launcher after the program, but reusing the same booster 10 times in 10 days seems a more significant capability than reusing just the pad 2 times in 6 hours. However you count it, both demonstrate improving launch rates.

[edkyle99]

XS-1 is fully funded with a program goal of demonstrating 10 launches in 10 days. It is reasonable to doubt whether the program will meet its goals (DARPA specifically funds high risk, high return things) and it also is reasonable to question whether it would actually transition into a operational launcher after the program, but reusing the same booster 10 times in 10 days seems a more significant capability than reusing just the pad 2 times in 6 hours. However you count it, both demonstrate improving launch rates.

I look at it this way.  Responsive launch would most-likely be needed in an emergency, perhaps even war-time situation.  Why not use military (missile-based, solid-propellant, always-ready) systems to address this problem?

 - Ed Kyle

[john smith 19]

I look at it this way.  Responsive launch would most-likely be needed in an emergency, perhaps even war-time situation.  Why not use military (missile-based, solid-propellant, always-ready) systems to address this problem?

 - Ed Kyle

Because they are expensive, low performance (poor Isp Vs nearly any liquid system) and high accelerations (perfectly fine for warheads, not so good for general satellite launch).

[Asteroza]

It's not completely obvious, but I believe the KZ-1A launches did not share TEL's? Which at that point means about all the launch campaign shared was mission control/telemetry, and maybe a paved parking lot? Many modern large scale road mobile TEL's aren't designed for rapid reuse due to their missile encapsulation and flame bucket, but the KZ-1A is more old style with the exposed body (but enclosed payload container, ostensibly for payload umbilicals).


One has to look at the requirements (and the underlying assumptions) behind responsive launch.

Fast launch of a spysat (or minor spysat constellation) presupposes a pressing need to watch a particular patch of earth at high resolution in a timely manner, which presupposes that existing surveillance assets are either too thinly spread out (not enough sats for global realtime coverage and/or can't be tasked), or trying to avoid the problem of people hiding things when known satellites are overhead. But with a new healthy launch industry, the barriers to building a full realtime observation constellation have been substantially reduced.

Fast replacement, presupposes that fast launch assets are appropriate gapfillers for satellites lost at their reduced size, and a sufficient quantity have been premanufactured and waiting in storage. There is a problem with this line of thought though, because a constellation of gapfiller sats themselves, with on-orbit spares, would likely be a better use of funds. Fast replacement of a full constellation (or fast minimal replacement), presupposes catastrophic loss of a constellation though, and you have to wonder how bad a situation that would be that isn't a full-on war.

Then there's fast initial constellation surge, but the usual customer for that is a FOBS system deployment, which is really rattling the war sabers there. There was enough animosity over the potential for SDI to use a DC-Y like vehicle to fast surge a Brilliant Pebbles system. DC-X derivative vehicles have always been the posterchild of responsive launch, civil or otherwise.

Which leaves us with the interesting "emergency" category. What constitutes an emergency that requires responsive launch, and not a war scenario? An argument could be made that responsive launch overlaps with distributed launch. Which implies a highly divisible payload. One scenario I can imagine is some sort of rescue OTV that can attach to containerized propellant loads. But how often do you really need a rescue OTV to justify the development and standby status? (One could argue this might actually be a function/responsibility of a Space Guard, much in the vein as rescue lifeboats staged at lighthouses). In such a rescue situation, a launch azimuth agnostic system like Launcher One is handy, to be able to send followup propellant loads to a lofted OTV via orbit matching at launch through launch point shifting. But again, a rescue scenario is somewhat suspect. What are rescuing, and why bother (if you can expect an insurance payout)?

In the age of commercial manned launch, a botched abort-to-orbit that has concerns about capsule integrity is another rescue scenario, though the scenario itself is suspect.

[john smith 19]

And it's going to be some time still before a new small sat launcher beats their 39 successful launches. That would be a nice measure of success of the current flurry of new launchers. Even combined, they don't have accumulated 39 launches yet.

Which begs the question: most of Pegasus launches happened in the 90's. What happened afterward? Just the dotcom crisis? I would expect their launches returning to normal afterwards. But they never recovered. Or is this a complex issue I should be asking about in the historical section?

I'd guess a couple of things. In no particular order the launch aircraft is now about 3 decades older than it was (and it wasn't that young to start with). Secondly a lot of the cost is in the solid rockets that make up most of the vehicle.

These are supplied by another company that is also (or was) a partial owner of orbital. That's a cost Orbital have no control over (and does not count as part of the profit that they could charge on a cost plus government launch).  AFAIK those costs have gradually crept up while the falling launch rate has meant effectively you're having to pay at least part of the cost for keeping the whole staff involved working for the company in the intervening years.

The design also uses military grade tech like thermal batteries for on board power.  Their prices have probably gone up as well at rates well above general inflation (I'm not sure if the original application they were developed for is still in service. If not that's another obsolete piece of tech the programme is supporting).

Pegasus has been admired by small LV mfgs for it's ability to charge through-the-nose prices and still get customers, but that's obviously changing when SX can undercut them with a pre flown F9. A vehicle whose LEO payload is roughly  50x bigger.
 
My problem with the small LV market is at the end of the design process what have you got? Yet another liquid fueled TSTO with a 50/50 chance of failure on first launch and if it succeeds its failure rate is very unlikely to be better than 1 in 50.  Smarter players will push for booster reuse but RL is already going there and that gives them first mover advantage. RL's use of CFRP for a LOX tank and electric pump drive is the most innovative features in small LV design in decades

Which really doesn't say much for the pace of development in this sector. 

Now show me an engine with a T/W of a 1000:1, or an Isp of 2000secs plus that someone has actually built and I will be rather more impressed.