Countdown to new smallsat launchers

[Rik ISS-fan]

  finally Dawn Aerospace has been discovered here. It's a spinoff from the TU Delft/DARE Stratos II(+) project. And they have worked for a Dutch micro/cubesat component company. They offer N2O-Propene; 0,5N cubesat propulsion systems and 20N micro satellite thrusters. Besides they are developing their reusable suborbital MkII-Aurora rocket (with a 3U payload). [A 3U satellite has a >0.5U bus, so payload can be <2.5U long).]
I found it odd they use H2O2-RP1 for their (sub)orbital rocket engine. I get the simplicity of a H2O2 cathalist GG turbopump, but I expected the continuation of using propene. (Also read here a critic to HyImpulse)

Another interesting point is that several European launcher startups start with suborbital/sounding rockets.
I think a reason for this, is that the supply of surplus solid motors isn't large in Europe. Besides they import most motors (S30/S31 and BlackBrand). There is a decent demand for suborbital launch, it's much less hard and can be used to prove technologies and generate revenue for the orbital rocket.
Let's list several:
Dawn Aerospace (NZ/NL) with MkII-Aurora 3U suborbital and later MkIII-? 2 stage orbital.
HyImpulse (Germany) with their pressure feed SR75 suborbital rocket, before their turbopump feed 3stage orbital rocket.
PLDspace (Spain) with suborbital Miura 1 to get to Orbital Miura 5 (?? with different engines)
Nammo (Norway) with NucleusNEO sounding rocket as product before the orbital NorthStar launcher.
[Government CTA/DLR (Brazil/Germany) with the VS-50 and VLM1 suborbital and orbital solid rockets.]
And I forgot Skyrora with suborbital Skylark L and orbital Skylark L.

I find it actually odd many companies take the direct approach.
But the situation in the US is different, NASA has acces to many surplus rocket motors, buys Oriole and imports BlackBrand motors. This leaves hardly any demand for startups. But two companies in the US found suborbital niches.
UP Aerospace with Spaceloft XL (smaller payloads) and Spyder that are also taking the suborbital ... orbital approach.
And Blue Origin New Shepard (Large payloads/ ISS lockers) before New Glenn.

I wonder how others view this. (as off topic apparently    )

[ChrisWilson68]

But two companies in the US found suborbital niches.
UP Aerospace with Spaceloft XL (smaller payloads) and Spyder that are also taking the suborbital ... orbital approach.
And Blue Origin New Shepard (Large payloads/ ISS lockers) before New Glenn.

UP Aerospace has launched just 3 times in the last 4 years, all for NASA.  That's not much of a niche.

New Shepard has only flown test flights, not any flights for customers at all.  That's not really finding a niche.

[meberbs]

New Shepard has only flown test flights, not any flights for customers at all.  That's not really finding a niche.

Last I checked, they had paying customers on the last couple flights, they aren't ready for people yet, but payloads are flying. The flight rate argument you mentioned for the other company would be a more useful one to consider for New Shepard.

[ChrisWilson68]

New Shepard has only flown test flights, not any flights for customers at all.  That's not really finding a niche.

Last I checked, they had paying customers on the last couple flights, they aren't ready for people yet, but payloads are flying. The flight rate argument you mentioned for the other company would be a more useful one to consider for New Shepard.

OK, I didn't know that.  But are they real payloads that are paying the costs of those New Shepard flights?  Or are they just payloads that were added to test flights because you might as well defray the cost of your test flights by getting some revenue out of them?  If they're not really paying the costs of the flight, the case that they represent a found niche is weak.

[TrevorMonty]

NS isn't smallsat launcher so isn't applicable to this thread.

[high road]

Same for the other suborbital stuff in the last page or two, IMO. That's a different category.

[high road]

Answer 2: SpaceX wants to block a small launcher firm like Rocket Lab competing for USG resources and contracts that might allow them to be a future heavy launch competitor. So they take away their customers. It is actually an anti-competitive move by SpaceX.

I don't think this is likely. SpaceX is betting the farm on Starlink at a rate of 8 of their launches this year being for Starlink, 3 for NASA, including the IFA, and a total of two commercial launches. SpaceX needs every launch contract they can get, now. Companies launching itty bitty rockets to save up for eventually getting to a bigger rocket is far less of a problem than the companies with big budgets already working on and competing for bigger launch contracts.

So it's all answer one IMO: every million they can get by putting other payloads on Starlink launches, helps them reduce the massive initial deployment cost.

As I love falsifiable claims, a clear sign that SpaceX would be actively trying to put smallsat companies out of existence in a preemptive strike would be far more dedicated smallsat launches, as in not Starlink launches. The ones currently listed are not likely to push anyone out of business, and appear more like tentatively feeling whether SpaceX can offer this option profitably.

[bobthemonkey]

Anyone aware of Kepler Aerospace, who appear to be planning an entry into the air-launch market?

There's very little in the way of solid info on their website; but the following two paragraphs stand out.

By upgrading and reengineering proven advanced aviation technnologies, Kepler is developing both highly efficient and economically viable satelite delivery systems.

Kepler has several technologies in the fields of microwave, propulsion and energy and has recently filed for 8 Trademarks in both the flight and defence use categories.

They came to my attention from a post on the PPruNe forums where they were named as the buyer of the Vickers VC10 which has been stored at Dunsfold since it retired from the RAF as a Tanker. Kepler have seemingly paid for it to be returned to flight status, purchased the ex-RAF sims and allegedly are looking at purchasing another two retired airframes.

It seems an interesting choice of airframe since there are no examples currently flying and this airframe hasn't flown since retirement in 2013 (although it seems to have been maintained in airworthy condition). Lots of discussion on the other forum https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/635036-vc-10-fly-again-tanker.html.

[gongora]

Anyone aware of Kepler Aerospace, who appear to be planning an entry into the air-launch market?

There's very little in the way of solid info on their website; but the following two paragraphs stand out.

By upgrading and reengineering proven advanced aviation technnologies, Kepler is developing both highly efficient and economically viable satelite delivery systems.

Kepler has several technologies in the fields of microwave, propulsion and energy and has recently filed for 8 Trademarks in both the flight and defence use categories.

They came to my attention from a post on the PPruNe forums where they were named as the buyer of the Vickers VC10 which has been stored at Dunsfold since it retired from the RAF as a Tanker. Kepler have seemingly paid for it to be returned to flight status, purchased the ex-RAF sims and allegedly are looking at purchasing another two retired airframes.

It seems an interesting choice of airframe since there are no examples currently flying and this airframe hasn't flown since retirement in 2013 (although it seems to have been maintained in airworthy condition). Lots of discussion on the other forum https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/635036-vc-10-fly-again-tanker.html.

Ummm, their home page says they're working on plasma drives, levitation, anti-gravity...  I don't think we really need to worry about this company actually producing a launch vehicle.

[TrevorMonty]

Its hard enough getting into space for new launch company using conventional RP1 LOX engines let alone unproven propulsion technologies.

[CameronD]

Cross-posting from https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46926.80 for those that missed it:

From Southern Launch:

Wow! After a huge week for Southern Launch, we've had time to process all that we have achieved over the past 10 days. To successfully launch not just one, but TWO space-capable rockets before noon on the 19th of September, was a remarkable achievement by the team. We demonstrated that we can provide our customers with safe & responsive access to space. Our processes and protocols were followed flawlessly throughout all 3 launch attempts (including the first launch attempt and misfire on the 15th) thanks to the leadership from our Launch Director, Alexander Linossier.

TWO commercial launches within an hour of each other is pretty impressive!

[Steven Pietrobon]

Here's another one! Jarmyn Enterprise Space Pty Ltd is based right here in Adelaide in the suburb of Mawson Lakes! They are designing a single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicle using methalox that puts 50 kg into LEO. The vehicle is called Hawk Jnr.

https://www.jarmynenteprisespace.com.au/hawk-jnr

[TrevorMonty]

Cross-posting from https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46926.80 for those that missed it:

From Southern Launch:

Wow! After a huge week for Southern Launch, we've had time to process all that we have achieved over the past 10 days. To successfully launch not just one, but TWO space-capable rockets before noon on the 19th of September, was a remarkable achievement by the team. We demonstrated that we can provide our customers with safe & responsive access to space. Our processes and protocols were followed flawlessly throughout all 3 launch attempts (including the first launch attempt and misfire on the 15th) thanks to the leadership from our Launch Director, Alexander Linossier.

TWO commercial launches within an hour of each other is pretty impressive!

Here's another one! Jarmyn Enterprise Space Pty Ltd is based right here in Adelaide in the suburb of Mawson Lakes! They are designing a single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicle using methalox that puts 50 kg into LEO. The vehicle is called Hawk Jnr.

https://www.jarmynenteprisespace.com.au/hawk-jnr

Doing SSTO first up is very risky, every extra kg dry mass is 1kg less of payload. I think its worth a shot with successful 2stage to base it on, more likely to hit dry mass design figures.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Yes, I think if they get past GO, they'll at least be adding a kick stage, like what Electron did.

[JEF_300]

I think the idea of a smallsat SSTO is worth investigating, so I will be keeping an eye of this project.

[Comga]

I think the idea of a smallsat SSTO is worth investigating, so I will be keeping an eye of this project.

Why would you say that?
Some things don’t scale well, like computers and transmitters, and so are proportionally greater burdens to small vehicles. This is critical, probably fatal, to small SSTO, which need high mass fractions per the rocket equation.
And if they achieve the high mass fraction, final acceleration becomes untenably high without extremely low throttling.
We have seen lots of attempts at reducing the costs, recurring and initial. SSTO is not common for good reasons.

[john smith 19]

Why would you say that?
Some things don’t scale well, like computers and transmitters, and so are proportionally greater burdens to small vehicles. This is critical, probably fatal, to small SSTO, which need high mass fractions per the rocket equation.
And if they achieve the high mass fraction, final acceleration becomes untenably high without extremely low throttling.
We have seen lots of attempts at reducing the costs, recurring and initial. SSTO is not common for good reasons.

That's for vertical take off SSTO, where T/W ratio must exceed 1:1 just to lift off. HTOL opens more options if you have a suitable engine.

[john smith 19]

I think the idea of a smallsat SSTO is worth investigating, so I will be keeping an eye of this project.

I note they are planning to do this with what looks like a launcher of standard aspect ratio.

This gives all the issues of larger launchers without so much volume to pack the solution inside.   

It looks like  they were batting ideas along the lines of "How can we make our (yet another) TSTO stand out from the crowd"?

SSTO has lots of implications and starting with "It'll just be like a regular TSTO, but shorter" is pretty much a guaranteed route to failure.   

Generically these smallsat launch concepts have been called "bricklifters" given their payload is around the mass of a housebrick.  I suppose they should be called cubesat launchers but I don't think there's a mass limit on the cubesat spec's, just what you can pack into a litre of volume.

[JEF_300]

I think the idea of a smallsat SSTO is worth investigating, so I will be keeping an eye of this project.

Why would you say that?
Some things don’t scale well, like computers and transmitters, and so are proportionally greater burdens to small vehicles. This is critical, probably fatal, to small SSTO, which need high mass fractions per the rocket equation.
And if they achieve the high mass fraction, final acceleration becomes untenably high without extremely low throttling.
We have seen lots of attempts at reducing the costs, recurring and initial. SSTO is not common for good reasons.

I thought Elon and Peter Beck had worked had worked this kind of thinking out of us. For years, people said that recovering first stages was impractical because of the recovery mass. Well Elon proved it was perfectly practical, though it did require, and I'll phrase this roughly the way Peter Beck did, 'turning a small rocket into a big rocket'. A smallsat SSTOs is perfectly possible, it just won't be small.

Now, if they were proposing some crazy new tech to make their SSTO work (aerospike, air-breathing, beamed power, etc.), then I would call this is nonsense. But they talk about using existing technologies. And when you consider the greatly increased performance of modern engines, the decreased size of computers (at least when compared to the rest of spaceflight history), and new materials technologies like composite cryogenic tanks... I think it's a concept viable enough to warrant an attempt.

And frankly, in an age when orbital rockets land "just like in Buck Rogers" I don't see why we should be dismissive of the idea that they could launch that way too.

All that being said, while I think their worth keeping an eye on, they'll still probably die out along with most smallsat launchers. And even if they get to launching, their site says their payload is 50kg, which really is about as bad as you can get when it comes to scaling your SSTO (I was assuming it would be something like 300 kg when I made my first post), and doesn't seems like a number that would compete on the market anyway.

[CameronD]

All that being said, while I think their worth keeping an eye on, they'll still probably die out along with most smallsat launchers. And even if they get to launching, their site says their payload is 50kg, which really is about as bad as you can get when it comes to scaling your SSTO (I was assuming it would be something like 300 kg when I made my first post), and doesn't seems like a number that would compete on the market anyway.

Well, it does seem Jarmyn will be in direct competition with Perigee (who IIRC plan to also set up in Adelaide under the name 'Apogee'.. kinda clever play on words, I thought) but Perigee are a long ways further down the track than they are, having built a vehicle, tested hardware and negotiated a launch spot at Whalers Way already.