Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/09/2019 05:50 pmI 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 KyleBecause 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).
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
Whoa, where did this (tiSpace) come from?https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49583.msg2029701#msg2029701Demo flight is sitting on the pad awaiting launchSimilar general price bracket per launch as an ElectronSubstantially better payload capacity than an ElectronSubstantially better cost per kg than an Electron Not chinese so no unusual restrictions on flying USA payloadsIf their demo launch goes well, Rocket Labs could be facing genuine competition sooner than expected.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-astra-rocket/Astra orbital flight is NET February 21st. Not sure what to put it down as, this article just calls it 'Astra' and FAA licence is for flights of 'Rocket 3'.
https://www.space.com/amp/orbex-rocket-factory-first-look-photos.html?__twitter_impression=truePayload is 180kg not sure if that is LEO or SSO. 1stage is 6x7klbs. Plan to be reuseable, RL recovery efforts should give them some encouragement as the LVs are very close in size.Some BS about their LVs fuel efficiency " Each Prime rocket is approximately 50 times more fuel-efficient than other small-satellite launch vehicles, which use up to 440,000 lbs. (200,000 kg) of fossil fuels. "Don't mention that other LV can also lift 50 times more mass to orbit.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 02/19/2020 04:30 pmsnipThat payload statistic is definitely for SSO because they can’t actually launch to LEO from their planned launch site in Scotland.
snip
Quote from: HeartofGold2030 on 02/19/2020 04:50 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 02/19/2020 04:30 pmsnipThat payload statistic is definitely for SSO because they can’t actually launch to LEO from their planned launch site in Scotland.Most such SSO are a type of LEO.
Eldorado will later this year begin launching into low earth orbit CubeSats up to 12 kilograms in weight.We took 50-year-old ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (the same solid fuel used in the Space Shuttle’s strap-on boosters) and improved it using modern materials, processes, and some common sense. NO 3D printing! The result is a cheaper rocket that can sit on the shelf for years then be launched as-needed within hours.Our rocket is eight times more efficient than the SS-520 and the ONLY difference is air launching. With continued solid fuel development we confidently expect our 1050 kg rocket to eventually put 40 kg in orbit — 27 times more efficient than the $4.4 million SS-520-5.There’s actually plenty of clever IP inside Eldorado, but what mainly keeps another startup from just copying our work is the required fleet of Mach 2.2+ launch aircraft. We bought all of them, you see… all of them on the planet.
I just got off the phone with Rick Svetkoff, the founder and owner of Starfighters Aerospace. Remember how earlier in this thread I mentioned there was a contact form on the Starfighters.net website? Well, I used it. And he got in touch with me. To be blunt: Starfighters has NOT BEEN SOLD. There was never any negotiation for its sale, nor is there any potential of a sale in the future. He did confirm that Eldorado was in TALKS to potentially PARTNER with Starfighters (as many other companies have done– see the Starfighters.net website for a list of companies, including CubeCab), but that the talks were preliminary only and there was no signing of any “term sheet”, which means that no money has changed hands, and there is no contract yet for any money to change hands.
Is there an updated version of the original list?
Is there an updated version of the original list?It would be interesting to see it and compare it to previous versions, perhaps from the end of each of the three years since the OP. After all this time there is one repeatedly launching small rocket (Rocketlab’s Electron), a proven vehicle with no known customers (Pegasus),two (?) successful demonstration launches from China (both of which stretch the definition of “private”) without second launches,a few with assembled rockets closing in on debut (Astra, LauncherOne, others?) a few failed attempts (Strypi? Others?), and a bunch of groups with various amounts of hardware. edit: Then there are “efforts” with hot air and PowerPoint presentations.
I can't believe how private launcher startups are still able to convince investors for funding knowing the super-saturated launcher market in these days. In the next couple of years it would be interesting to see the bubble exploding.
Quote from: Comga on 02/26/2020 05:12 pmIs there an updated version of the original list?U're aware of the list which is regularly posted and maintained in this thread? Last instance is 10 posts upwards.
Quote from: PM3 on 02/26/2020 07:25 pmQuote from: Comga on 02/26/2020 05:12 pmIs there an updated version of the original list?U're aware of the list which is regularly posted and maintained in this thread? Last instance is 10 posts upwards.That WAS my question and I was not aware of it. It would be great if there was one place to look for a link to the most recent update Thank you.
