Countdown to new smallsat launchers

[edkyle99]

Someone is doing some non-trivial engineering.  Ceres-1 has three solid motor stages.  If it is based on DF-21/25/26, etc., which use two solid motor stages, some design and development has occurred.  Note that the CEO of Galactic Energy formerly worked at CALT.  Either Galactic Energy has a development team, or that work is farmed out and the company is primarily used to raise commercial capital.  Fascinating that China has enabled so many similar efforts, using numerous combinations of missile motors.

 - Ed Kyle

[TrevorMonty]

Someone is doing some non-trivial engineering.  Ceres-1 has three solid motor stages.  If it is based on DF-21/25/26, etc., which use two solid motor stages, some design and development has occurred.  Note that the CEO of Galactic Energy formerly worked at CALT.  Either Galactic Energy has a development team, or that work is farmed out and the company is primarily used to raise commercial capital.  Fascinating that China has enabled so many similar efforts, using numerous combinations of missile motors.

 - Ed Kyle

Starting with ex missile SRMs is good idea, allows them to get it orbital LV flying early. Now they are flying start developing liquid engines and stages, starting with US and work down to a reuseable booster.

[john smith 19]

Remove those requirements for stability and longevity, and what you have are metal tubes with a hollow polymer cast into them, where that polymer happens to be highly flammable. If you can stomach handling them, the actual motors themselves can be manufactured simply and cheaply.

Wrong.

What you have a hollow tube packed with high explosive. Rather like a giant fragmentation grenade.

Under the wrong conditions that (relatively) well behaved burn rate transitions into a detonation with the power of a small nuclear warhead. Mfg can be done by a small team (the fuel segments of the Ariane 5 boosters are done by a team of about 70 in Guiana) but the process is non trivial. Fine powders are capable of dust explosions on their own, so mixing and casting is tricky.
If you can buy it from someone who's done most of the work for you at a reasonable price then yes they are a cheap and fast way to orbit. As Orbital found in the early 90's with Pegasus.

You are also totally reliant on they supplier of those stages for your vehicle who dictate your core costs, as Orbital also found. 

[Rik ISS-fan]

May I view what is happening in China with their solid small launchers based on surplus ICBM motors as very efficient. I want to turn this discussion around. Why has the US wasted this capability and has it relied on foreign launchers (PSLV) for small commercial satellites.
The US developed: Pegasus, Minotaur I, IV/V/VI, C, Athena and Falcon 1. All were either to expansive or unreliable. Why does the US have such a bad track record on the development of small launchers?

[su27k]

Because solid is a dead end, pretty much every Chinese commercial launch company is pivoting towards (reusable) liquid boosters, their solid LV is just for fund raising and may be some (limited) experience.

[russianhalo117]

May I view what is happening in China with their solid small launchers based on surplus ICBM motors as very efficient. I want to turn this discussion around. Why has the US wasted this capability and has it relied on foreign launchers (PSLV) for small commercial satellites.
The US developed: Pegasus, Minotaur I, IV/V/VI, C, Athena and Falcon 1. All were either to expansive or unreliable. Why does the US have such a bad track record on the development of small launchers?

Ask Congress and prior administrations that question. The use of Surplus Motors was curtailed to government launches primarily to allow for ex Soviet missiles to enter orbital conversion to allow civil launches of our payload on them to keep them busy. Second primary reason was it would drop the bottom out of the global market, cause problems and international controversy. Now that China has done just that it is time to reconsider as motor storage and maintenance costs inflate year by year. Third primary reason is that MDA et al has first dibs on motors for targets, experiments and inactive reserves.
Congressional and executive oversight and decisions are the major players in the delay at the starting gun.

[Comga]

May I view what is happening in China with their solid small launchers based on surplus ICBM motors as very efficient.
I want to turn this discussion around.
Why has the US wasted this capability and has it relied on foreign launchers (PSLV) for small commercial satellites.(?)
The US developed: Pegasus, Minotaur I, IV/V/VI, C, Athena and Falcon 1. All were either to(o) exp(e)nsive or unreliable.
Why does the US have such a bad track record on the development of small launchers?

The "US" did not develop Falcon 1, nor did it use solid rocket motors.
SpaceX developed the liquid fueled Falcon 1, as we all well know.

Falcon 9 is perhaps the dominant rocket in the commercial market, even neglecting their own Starlink launches.
CRS with the Falcon 9 and Dragon provided a capability for NASA that they could not afford to develop with their standard contracting or workforce. 
(Please don't say what could have been.  It didn't happen.)
The Air / Space Force has also found the capability very attractive and competitive. 
Europe and Russia are trying to catch up.
ULA says they are trying to catch up.  (Vulcan, still in development, will employ "smart reuse" someday, they say.)
This success is the result of allowing the marketplace to function, albeit with some support.
Using surplus rockets would not do that.
Launching some of the small number of satellites on them suppresses the market that drove the success.
(Also what russianhalo117 said.  It's multifaceted.)


Perhaps you can see the systemic reason why no derivative solid rocket has been a success.

The same goes for smallsat launchers.


If the Chinese military wants someone to spread the cost of their solid rocket factories, or they want to subsidize the capture of market share like they have done with so many industries, they can support "startups" building rockets out of missiles or missile parts.
(What does "startup" tied to the military production chain mean in China? It's not just venture capital.)
But it won't fundamentally reduce the cost of access to space.

My opinion is that they are distinct from the commercial small satellite launchers.


PS  Were my edits to your post what you intended?  It was somewhat confusing.

[edkyle99]

The US developed: Pegasus, Minotaur I, IV/V/VI, C, Athena and Falcon 1. All were either to expansive or unreliable. Why does the US have such a bad track record on the development of small launchers?

I would argue against including Pegasus in a "bad track record" list.  It has been flying since 1990, essentially taking over for NASA's old Scout after STS-51L.  Pegasus flew almost three times per year during the 1990s.  It hasn't failed since 1996!  It was designed primarily for government work during the latter days of the Cold War, so it simply isn't cost competitive these days.  After its early days, Pegasus and its ground-launched cousin Taurus essentially lost work to the government-supported Minotaurs, which also earned money for Orbital.  Pegasus did spawn other, more lucrative work for Orbital etc., with around 19 suborbital flights from the Pegasus family, primarily ABM related.  During the 1970s, before STS took over, Scout averaged about three launches per year.  When you add up all the Pegasus/Taurus/Minotaur/"Taurus-Lite"/Hyper-X launches flown until now, they turn out to average (guess-what?) three per year.

 - Ed Kyle

[Zed_Noir]

May I view what is happening in China with their solid small launchers based on surplus ICBM motors as very efficient.
I want to turn this discussion around.
Why has the US wasted this capability and has it relied on foreign launchers (PSLV) for small commercial satellites.(?)
The US developed: Pegasus, Minotaur I, IV/V/VI, C, Athena and Falcon 1. All were either to(o) exp(e)nsive or unreliable.
Why does the US have such a bad track record on the development of small launchers?

The "US" did not develop Falcon 1, nor did it use solid rocket motors.
SpaceX developed the liquid fueled Falcon 1, as we all well know.

Falcon 9 is perhaps the dominant rocket in the commercial market....
<snip>
This success is the result of allowing the marketplace to function, albeit with some support.
Using surplus rockets would not do that.
Launching some of the small number of satellites on them suppresses the market that drove the success.
(Also what russianhalo117 said.  It's multifaceted.)


Perhaps you can see the systemic reason why no derivative solid rocket has been a success.

The same goes for smallsat launchers.

<snip>

IMO. Most solid fueled rockets and most small launchers have about the same overhead (pad, payload processing,etc.) as large liquid launchers to tossed up small mostly non-commercial payloads at a much higher cost per kg to LEO.

Commercial payloads are either large or huge GEO comsats along with SSO Earth observation satellites. Which solid fueled rockets and small launchers are not capable of orbiting or too expensive.

[CameronD]

IMO. Most solid fueled rockets and most small launchers have about the same overhead (pad, payload processing,etc.) as large liquid launchers to tossed up small mostly non-commercial payloads at a much higher cost per kg to LEO.

Actually, as Southern Launch recently demonstrated, that isn't true at all.  All a solid-fuelled stage needs is (a) a safe place to  store the motor(s) and (b) a cheap flat concrete pad to launch from; whereas a liquid-fuelled stage needs a bunch of propellant storage tanks, pipes and valves, plus a properly designed pad for spill containment.

One major downside with solids though that may or may not have been mentioned.. they have a limited shelf-life. That's a key reason old solid-fuelled missiles make cheap launchers - it's better to fire 'em off to some useful purpose than have them go bang in storage.

[john smith 19]

Commercial payloads are either large or huge GEO comsats along with SSO Earth observation satellites. Which solid fueled rockets and small launchers are not capable of orbiting or too expensive.

You might like to check that opinion.

AFAIK quite a lot of SSO small sats have been launched by Pegasus and Rocket Lab. Scout was also a popular choice for small SSO satellites in the Explorer and Discovery series.

You are correct that a small liquid fueled rocket needs the same pad services as a large rocket and those are dis economies of scale. 

OTOH they may be offset because the size of things like tanks and pumps for propellant may be more OTS at small launcher size while the multi ton payload carriers may take special order, long lead time hardware to handle the volume and the speed of filling needed.

[Zed_Noir]

Commercial payloads are either large or huge GEO comsats along with SSO Earth observation satellites. Which solid fueled rockets and small launchers are not capable of orbiting or too expensive.

You might like to check that opinion.

AFAIK quite a lot of SSO small sats have been launched by Pegasus and Rocket Lab. Scout was also a popular choice for small SSO satellites in the Explorer and Discovery series.

You are correct that a small liquid fueled rocket needs the same pad services as a large rocket and those are dis economies of scale. 

OTOH they may be offset because the size of things like tanks and pumps for propellant may be more OTS at small launcher size while the multi ton payload carriers may take special order, long lead time hardware to handle the volume and the speed of filling needed.

The Pegasus XL is unlikely to fly again. Mainly due to it's $40M price tag (circa 2018) to fly 450 kg to LEO. It is the most expensive US launch vehicle currently with a launch cost of about $89000 per kg. The Minotaur-C and other similar solid fueled launchers have a price range between $20000 and $50000 per kg to LEO. IMO, most small launchers are only viable if the bigger launchers costs a few magnitudes more to launch per mission.

You last point about launchers with OTS hardware seems unlikely. AIUI most launcher hardware bigger than bolts & screws is more or less bespoken and only manufactured after an order is placed.

[john smith 19]

The Pegasus XL is unlikely to fly again. Mainly due to it's $40M price tag (circa 2018) to fly 450 kg to LEO. It is the most expensive US launch vehicle currently with a launch cost of about $89000 per kg. The Minotaur-C and other similar solid fueled launchers have a price range between $20000 and $50000 per kg to LEO. IMO, most small launchers are only viable if the bigger launchers costs a few magnitudes more to launch per mission.

My point, was that there is a significant market for the launching of small earth observation satellites (and constellations of the same) to SSO which small LV's can address. anything for which people want repeated common exposure conditions in fact.

You last point about launchers with OTS hardware seems unlikely. AIUI most launcher hardware bigger than bolts & screws is more or less bespoken and only manufactured after an order is placed.

I was specifically talking about the ground support equipment around a launch pad. Fueling a Saturn V took a take farm of LH2 storage spheres, but a small LV can be loaded from a road tanker or two.

Outside consumer hardware there is a lot of industrial equipment that looks huge (by consumer standards)  but for which there is sufficient demand not just to make it but to make it for inventory, so it is available OTS. Up to a quite large size cryogenic pumps and tanks would be on that list. IIRC the LOX plant SX bought to load Falcon 1 was not made to order, they just bought it, either 2nd or 3rd hand.

For the actual LV  Pegasus pioneered the use of the PC104 form factor industrial PC as a GNC computer. These are about 4" square but have a stacking connector (no separate mother board to plug into) and can be assembled (with standard spacers and through bolts) to make a very rigid, vibration resistant, stack.

The tough parts are the engines, and actuators. Pegasus uses electric TVC driven by thermal batteries. These are (AFAIK) only  used by the military for single use weapon systems. A generation later RL have pioneered high power Li Ion batteries for TVC and pump drive.

There are still interesting design and mfg choices that have never been fully explored for various reasons. Sadly most of the small LV's just seem hell bent on producing yet another kerolox TSTO ELV.

And most of those will fail.

[TrevorMonty]

Astra and Firefly are schedule to launch in Dec, I think Virgin are also targetting Dec launch. There is potential for 3 new smal LVs to reach orbit this year.

Virgin and Astra have had their failures which should increase their probability of reaching orbit. History doesn't favour Firefly making orbit on first attempt, but here is hoping.

[GWH]

With recovery of Electron via parachute (so far) appearing successful this puts them even further ahead of the other small sat launchers that still haven't made orbit.

If parachute recovery is demonstrated to be relatively easy will other launchers follow suit?  Firefly's Alpha looks like it would be viable for helicopter capture in terms of total mass.

[john smith 19]

With recovery of Electron via parachute (so far) appearing successful this puts them even further ahead of the other small sat launchers that still haven't made orbit.

If parachute recovery is demonstrated to be relatively easy will other launchers follow suit?  Firefly's Alpha looks like it would be viable for helicopter capture in terms of total mass.

Good question.

When only SX had done it all the smallsat LV mfg could say "We don't need to think about this. It can't be done at our scale."  RL amongst them.

That has now changed. Some will say that only RL can do this because of their unique electric pump cycle engines. So still no reason to consider this.  I don't believe that's true. The stage makes no post separation Electron burns. A stage with different engines could also not make an engine burn in the same way. 
At a minimum I think designers should be considering material choices (magnesium alloys react badly to seawater) and ease of replacement. The more advanced ones will be doing that and extending their booster CFD models after separation and at least starting to look at where it ends up pointing and what they can do about it. The pack leaders (if they exist?) are already pricing ships and helicopters. 

A good question would be how does RL's staging conditions for altitude and speed compare to the F9, and how do other competitors of its size compare?  I got the impression its pretty standard, 50% of orbital, rather than the 25% of the F9 booster. So if they can make it work most others should be able to as well.

This is of course only half the problem. Refurb processes then need to be worked out. Again it might be that some mfg have made design choices that cannot be refurbed economically (and ultimately economics is the only reason to do R&R). 

Time will tell if Beck has blind sided every other competitor, who was caught short but is agile enough to be playing catch up and who has been thinking on similar lines since day one and planning to move straight into it (although I would have guessed if anyone had that plan they would have made a point of emphasizing it when they came out of stealth mode).

Of course it's possible that recovery is too unreliable and the needed refurbishment is too extensive to be worthwhile. Relying on RL failing sounds like a very bad plan to me. I suspect RL have done a lot of work behind the scenes to have a good idea of what sort of damage to expect. 

[TrevorMonty]

Beck has confirmed reuse of Electron is all go, in doing so RL have raised bar for their small LV competitors. Good news for competitors, RL has shown them are way to do reuse which most can use, larger ones may need reentry burn but they also have more mass margins to play with. Most importantly their investors shouldn't have any problems backing low risk upgrade which generates high returns.

At this stage an operational ELV would be massive achievement for RL's competitors, reuse will be ways down track for most of them.

[trimeta]

Time will tell if Beck has blind sided every other competitor, who was caught short but is agile enough to be playing catch up and who has been thinking on similar lines since day one and planning to move straight into it (although I would have guessed if anyone had that plan they would have made a point of emphasizing it when they came out of stealth mode).

A couple of companies (Orbex, Isar Aerospace, PLD Space) have discussed reuse previously, so it wouldn't come completely out of the blue with them.

[john smith 19]

A couple of companies (Orbex, Isar Aerospace, PLD Space) have discussed reuse previously, so it wouldn't come completely out of the blue with them.

Thanks for those links.

Based on a quick look over  PLD looks like the furthest into recovery development with parachute work.  The others have made mention of recovery but it's unclear if that's months, or years, away from becoming a part of actual hardware.

There's a pretty big difference between "It's on our (eventual) road map" and "We're drop testing stag simulators under helicopters."   

None of them have achieved first flight and given how difficult that has proved for other competitors that's a big achievement right there.  I'll wish them all luck. 2021 and 2021 should both  be pretty exciting years. 

[Rik ISS-fan]

A couple of companies (Orbex, Isar Aerospace, PLD Space) have discussed reuse previously, so it wouldn't come completely out of the blue with them.

Don't forget OHB daughter company RFA, with their RFA one Launcher. And the most interesting ones are more secretive.
I think PLDspace is the least mature of them all in nearly all technical aspects.
The EU is funding a lot of low TRL R&D projects for reusability. It might enable full small launcher reusability. 
Orbex is losing acces to this because of it being a British/Danish company.  Brexit 
But Orbex is the only one that has done full engine tests. (PLD space is developing a suborbital rocket)