Countdown to new smallsat launchers

[edkyle99]

So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.

The second one will be one of these: Virgin LauncherOne, Astra Rocket and ABL RS1. Next shot on Wednesday for LauncherOne!

Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/pegasus-rocket/

Orbital Sciences was "New Space" before there was such a thing.  It even developed its own Little-LEO comsat constellation for its own rocket to launch!

 - Ed Kyle

[PM3]

So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.

The second one will be one of these: Virgin LauncherOne, Astra Rocket and ABL RS1. Next shot on Wednesday for LauncherOne!

Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/pegasus-rocket/

Orbital Sciences was "New Space" before there was such a thing.  It even developed its own Little-LEO comsat constellation for its own rocket to launch!

(bold added by me)

Please note the difference between privately developed and privately funded. Pegasus development was a joint venture between Orbital Sciences and very-old-space Hercules. Hercules supplied the solid engines, which were based on government-funded development for ICBMs. SpaceX, on the other hand, developed everything from scratch without government-funded tech.

DARPA actually owns some of the Pegasus technolgy. Don't think that this is the case with SpaceX or Rocket Lab. (But it's the same with all the Chinese private rockets that launched so far, they licensed solid motor tech from government. So SpaceX and Rocket Lab are really special, worldwide.)

[Steven Pietrobon]

Please note the difference between privately developed and privately funded. Pegasus development was a joint venture between Orbital Sciences and very-old-space Hercules. Hercules supplied the solid engines, which were based on government-funded development for ICBMs. SpaceX, on the other hand, developed everything from scratch without government-funded tech.

The Merlin engine used technology from NASA's Fastrac program.

https://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket-engine-turbopumps/

"Barber-Nichols used its experience gained on the Fastrac and Bantam projects to rapidly develop the Merlin Turbopump."

[TrevorMonty]

.

[edkyle99]

So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.

The second one will be one of these: Virgin LauncherOne, Astra Rocket and ABL RS1. Next shot on Wednesday for LauncherOne!

Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/pegasus-rocket/

Orbital Sciences was "New Space" before there was such a thing.  It even developed its own Little-LEO comsat constellation for its own rocket to launch!

(bold added by me)

Please note the difference between privately developed and privately funded. Pegasus development was a joint venture between Orbital Sciences and very-old-space Hercules. Hercules supplied the solid engines, which were based on government-funded development for ICBMs. SpaceX, on the other hand, developed everything from scratch without government-funded tech.

DARPA actually owns some of the Pegasus technolgy. Don't think that this is the case with SpaceX or Rocket Lab. (But it's the same with all the Chinese private rockets that launched so far, they licensed solid motor tech from government. So SpaceX and Rocket Lab are really special, worldwide.)

Antonio Elias wrote that the Hercules motors were "loosely based" on the Midgetman motors, but that they were custom sized for Pegasus.   Also, this all happened in 1987, a much different era in spaceflight.  NASA had just been ordered to remove commercial satellites from STS.  Numerous companies proposed brand new launch vehicles to fill the void, but revised Delta/Atlas/Titan were refunded and restarted instead.  There was only one exception:  Pegasus. 

 - Ed Kyle

[PM3]

Agree that Pegasus was a new thing and the first step into a new era of private spaceflight. If it is counted as "new space" is a matter of definition.

[Robotbeat]

Please note the difference between privately developed and privately funded. Pegasus development was a joint venture between Orbital Sciences and very-old-space Hercules. Hercules supplied the solid engines, which were based on government-funded development for ICBMs. SpaceX, on the other hand, developed everything from scratch without government-funded tech.

The Merlin engine used technology from NASA's Fastrac program.

https://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket-engine-turbopumps/

"Barber-Nichols used its experience gained on the Fastrac and Bantam projects to rapidly develop the Merlin Turbopump."

It used experience gained, sure, but it's definitely not a Fastrac or Bantam engine. I've noticed this claim gain currency in the last few years as SpaceX's success has become undeniable and folks have to use SOMETHING to argue it's not a big deal.

I agree with you the tech was developed with government help, but that's true of liquid rocket engines in general. By that argument, you can't make a rocket engine today without it having had government tech development.

[gongora]

Another European entry, ENVOL.  Hybrid propulsion microlauncher NET 2024
https://envol-h2020.eu/

[PM3]

Another European entry, ENVOL.  Hybrid propulsion microlauncher NET 2024
https://envol-h2020.eu/

The Team page looks impressive. This is not a powerpoint project but an aerospace industry consortium. Nammo Raufoss is project coordinator; EU gave 4 M€ in 2020: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/870385

They are developing a Microlauncher:

ENVOL main objective is to provide Europe its prime commercial, competitive and green launch service, utilizing a true New Space approach to offer low-cost, frequent and flexible access to space to small satellites in the range of 100 to 200 kg to polar and sun-synchronous orbits in the altitude range 600 to 800 km by 2024.

https://www.gtd.eu/fr/news-and-events/gtd-be-part-envol-consortia-tech-breaking-microlauncher-nanosats

[Davidthefat]

Another European entry, ENVOL.  Hybrid propulsion microlauncher NET 2024
https://envol-h2020.eu/

The Team page looks impressive. This is not a powerpoint project but an aerospace industry consortium. Nammo Raufoss is project coordinator; EU gave 4 M€ in 2020: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/870385

They are developing a Microlauncher:

ENVOL main objective is to provide Europe its prime commercial, competitive and green launch service, utilizing a true New Space approach to offer low-cost, frequent and flexible access to space to small satellites in the range of 100 to 200 kg to polar and sun-synchronous orbits in the altitude range 600 to 800 km by 2024.

https://www.gtd.eu/fr/news-and-events/gtd-be-part-envol-consortia-tech-breaking-microlauncher-nanosats

That begs a question, will a consortium of companies be able to compete pricewise with low cost launch vehicles from smaller companies that already have made significant progress?

edit: Or does it sound like they are just name dropping their vendors to bolster their stance and image? In that it's not really a consortium, but the one company goes to different vendors for different services (GKN sounds like they can be the additive manufacturing vendor for them, ISIS the satellite dispenser/deployers, ect)? Like companies would often put ANSYS and Solidworks as "partners", while they are only using their products.

Can I put Saint Gobain, DuPont, and Parker as partners when I am using their seals and materials in my product?

[trimeta]

Another European entry, ENVOL.  Hybrid propulsion microlauncher NET 2024
https://envol-h2020.eu/

The Team page looks impressive. This is not a powerpoint project but an aerospace industry consortium. Nammo Raufoss is project coordinator; EU gave 4 M€ in 2020: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/870385

They are developing a Microlauncher:

ENVOL main objective is to provide Europe its prime commercial, competitive and green launch service, utilizing a true New Space approach to offer low-cost, frequent and flexible access to space to small satellites in the range of 100 to 200 kg to polar and sun-synchronous orbits in the altitude range 600 to 800 km by 2024.

https://www.gtd.eu/fr/news-and-events/gtd-be-part-envol-consortia-tech-breaking-microlauncher-nanosats

Nammo's involvement in this makes me wonder about Nammo's other project: the North Star Launch Vehicle. That was to be "suborbital sounding rocket to extremely small orbital rocket" plan, but I haven't seen much about it lately. The most recent article on their website is a press release about Nucleus (one of the sounding rockets on the way to North Star) from 2018, and they seem to have entirely removed the section discussing hybrid motors. Maybe from this we should interpret that North Star is no more, and instead they'll be using that technology towards the Envol rocket?

[Rik ISS-fan]

Another European entry, ENVOL. Hybrid propulsion microlauncher NET 2024
https://envol-h2020.eu/

I found ENVOL at least half a year ago. This is the continuation of the SMILE project.
 
NAMMO hasn't abandoned their hybrid technology. The Nucleus sounding rocket is improved into a Nucleus NEO.
The orbital launcher was planned to launch a much larger engine than the Nucleus, UM2 vs UM1.
The UM2 (initially only the turbopump and catalyst pack) was/is also planned to be used on the Bloodhound LSR.

Sorry, but I think the Nammo hybrid UM2 (HTP-HTPB) is better / more affordable than the HyImpulse THyPOLX. Also when used in a spin stabilized sounding rocket (UM1 vs HyPLOX75). 

But ISAR Aerospace Spectrum and RFA One are most likely superior to both. There isn't a relation between ENVOL and BOOST!.
Now I challenge you to find what program ENVOL is trying to win for their maiden launch.

[Danderman]

So far only one 100 % privately funded and U.S.-made smallsat launcher has reached orbit: Falcon 1, in September 2008.

The second one will be one of these: Virgin LauncherOne, Astra Rocket and ABL RS1. Next shot on Wednesday for LauncherOne!

Aren't you forgetting Pegasus, the "[w]orld's first privately developed space launch vehicle"?
https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/pegasus-rocket/

Orbital Sciences was "New Space" before there was such a thing.  It even developed its own Little-LEO comsat constellation for its own rocket to launch!

(bold added by me)

Please note the difference between privately developed and privately funded. Pegasus development was a joint venture between Orbital Sciences and very-old-space Hercules. Hercules supplied the solid engines, which were based on government-funded development for ICBMs. SpaceX, on the other hand, developed everything from scratch without government-funded tech.

DARPA actually owns some of the Pegasus technolgy. Don't think that this is the case with SpaceX or Rocket Lab. (But it's the same with all the Chinese private rockets that launched so far, they licensed solid motor tech from government. So SpaceX and Rocket Lab are really special, worldwide.)

Antonio Elias wrote that the Hercules motors were "loosely based" on the Midgetman motors, but that they were custom sized for Pegasus.   Also, this all happened in 1987, a much different era in spaceflight.  NASA had just been ordered to remove commercial satellites from STS.  Numerous companies proposed brand new launch vehicles to fill the void, but revised Delta/Atlas/Titan were refunded and restarted instead.  There was only one exception:  Pegasus. 

 - Ed Kyle

Although NASA was required to take commercial satellites off STS, NASA was still launching commercial sats on traditional launch vehicles. It wasn’t until 1990 and the passage of the Launch Services Purchase Act that NASA was required to procure launch services commercially.

[Comga]

https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889

According to telemetry, LauncherOne has reached orbit! Everyone on the team who is not in mission control right now is going absolutely bonkers. Even the folks on comms are trying really hard not to sound too excited.

Another one above the line!
Quoting:
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) orbital flight since thread opening:

2018-01  Electron         US/NZ    Rocket Lab
2019-07  Hyperbola-1   China     iSpace
2019-08  Jielong-1        China     Chinarocket (state-owned)
2020-04  Qased            Iran       (military)
2020-11  Ceres-1         China     Galactic Energy
2021-01  LauncherOne  US         Virgin Orbit

Announced or expected (NET)
2021-Q1  Firefly α       US/Ukr    Firefly
2021-Q1  Rocket         US          Astra
etc...

[trimeta]

https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889

According to telemetry, LauncherOne has reached orbit! Everyone on the team who is not in mission control right now is going absolutely bonkers. Even the folks on comms are trying really hard not to sound too excited.

Another one above the line!
Quoting:
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) orbital flight since thread opening:

2018-01  Electron         US/NZ    Rocket Lab
2019-07  Hyperbola-1   China     iSpace
2019-08  Jielong-1        China     Chinarocket (state-owned)
2020-04  Qased            Iran       (military)
2020-11  Ceres-1         China     Galactic Energy
2021-01  LauncherOne  US         Virgin Orbit

Announced or expected (NET)
2021-Q1  Firefly α       US/Ukr    Firefly
2021-Q1  Rocket         US          Astra
etc...

I find it interesting that Virgin Orbit's time between first and second launch attempts was only four days shorter than Rocket Lab's. What's even more odd is that both made their first attempt on May 25th of their respective years (2017 and 2020).

[Jon Salat]

https://twitter.com/virgin_orbit/status/1350892947160485889

According to telemetry, LauncherOne has reached orbit! Everyone on the team who is not in mission control right now is going absolutely bonkers. Even the folks on comms are trying really hard not to sound too excited.

Another one above the line!
Quoting:
Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) orbital flight since thread opening:

2018-01  Electron         US/NZ    Rocket Lab
2019-07  Hyperbola-1   China     iSpace
2019-08  Jielong-1        China     Chinarocket (state-owned)
2020-04  Qased            Iran       (military)
2020-11  Ceres-1         China     Galactic Energy
2021-01  LauncherOne  US         Virgin Orbit

Announced or expected (NET)
2021-Q1  Firefly α       US/Ukr    Firefly
2021-Q1  Rocket         US          Astra
etc...

There was also Japan's SS-520-5 in February 2018.

[Comga]

RocketLab is now 15 for 17, with launch 18 coming up tomorrow.
Has any other launcher on the list made orbit more than once?

(Perhaps I can make a post with links for each. 
I was unsuccessful in finding threads on most of the Chinese small rockets.
Here is a thread on the Kuaizhou-11 whose maiden launch failed.
The thread for Glactic Energy stops before the successful launch of Ceres-1.)

[trimeta]

Phantom Space (Jim Cantrell's ship-of-Theseus from Vector that's using Ursa Major Technologies engines) says they're working on a development pathfinder and should have it finished by end of Q1 this year. Seems like rapid development given the company's age, but with their lineage and not needing to build the actual engines, maybe not surprising.

https://twitter.com/PhantomSpaceInc/status/1351004034602315776

[TrevorMonty]

Phantom Space (Jim Cantrell's ship-of-Theseus from Vector that's using Ursa Major Technologies engines) says they're working on a development pathfinder and should have it finished by end of Q1 this year. Seems like rapid development given the company's age, but with their lineage and not needing to build the actual engines, maybe not surprising.

https://twitter.com/PhantomSpaceInc/status/1351004034602315776

Here specs from their webpage. SSO and LEO payloads masses are quite bit higher than Electon which uses 9x 5,800lbs Rutherford engines. On paper Electron has considerably more thrust. Not sure why there is such large difference.


The Phantom Daytona is a two-stage pump-fed launcher capable of placing 450 kg into a low inclination orbit and 370 kg into a polar orbit.  The oxidizer-rich stage combustion LOX/RP engines have completed flight qualification, are ready for integration and include a full complement of thrust vector control and engine controllers for each engine. These 5,000 lbf engines are 3D printed for low cost production.  The Phantom Daytona launch vehicle (LV) uses seven qualified 5,000 lbf engines on the first stage, a single 5,000 lbf engine on the second stage as common vendor/lowest cost approach.

[GWH]

The image and tweet was deleted by Phantom works after folks called them out for posting a render like its work completed:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1351179763361198087

Oh Jim....

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/1351185305974530052



EDIT: and it gets even better
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1351203481076555781