Countdown to new smallsat launchers

[CameronD]

Time to add Taiwanese company tiSPACE's "Hapith I" to the list??  Potentially 2 launches from the Southern Launch's new Whalers Way Orbital Launch Complex before December 2021.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46926.msg2281329#msg2281329

Hapith I is suborbital, right? I thought that was why it was omitted, while the orbital Hapith V is listed (under the "Unclear - no update on launch date" section).

Yes, Hapith I is suborbital.. sorry, I hadn't realised the list was orbital only.  With no announcement on Hapith V I guess we'll have to wait and see, but at least it's promising to know tiSpace aren't in the "hopeful" category, like many others on the list (ARCA, Gilmour, etc.)

[TrevorMonty]

Stefan Powell of Dawn Aerospace on FISO last week.

http://fiso.spiritastro.net/telecon/Powell_4-28-21/

Not lot new, have finally gain flight clearance for Aurora II to start test flights out of South Island airfield. Don't think its actually flown yet.

Sold a few of their cubesat thrusters with some in space. 285ISP VAC is quite respectable from their pressure fed Nitrous/Propane thrusters. No mention of Aurora engine my guess is its same fuel combination.

Aurora III is now being designed for 250kg to orbit. My guess is its still a powerpoint LV at this stage. Successful flights of II should help with fund raising.

Aurora can glide back to airfield from 300km down range.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Huh, although the presentation in that link (as well as their website describing the Mk-II) says "50-100 kg payloads to any orbit" for the Mk-III, the audio itself (around 36 minutes in) does mention 250 kg to orbit. Apparently such a PowerPoint LV that they haven't fully updated their PowerPoints...

Dawn have started test flights of MK2 Aurora spaceplane, these are with jet engines. Jets are probably good idea at this stage while they fine tune autopilot, lot more forgiving than rockets. Rocket engine is in final stages of development. Airfield is on approach road to Mt Cook village. Covid might be plus to Dawn as air traffic is down considerable without overseas tourists.

See link on youtube for Space.com article.
Mk3 is designed for 250kg to LEO.



Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[trimeta]

If you don't mind me asking, PM3, why is Isar after Orbex? As recently as May of this year, Isar was claiming "mid 2022" for first launch. Are you broadly thinking that the caveat about launch site readiness at Andøya will be the real bottleneck, even moreso than Sutherland in the case of Orbex?

[Comga]

Darn
Still no change to the list this week.
Firefly follows Astra with a good but insufficient attempt.

[ringsider]

Update 08-31: Astra NET 2021 after failure; Firefly and ARCA Q3 => September; Nebula-1 likely slips to 2022; Eris 2023 (estimate) => 2022 (as announced)
Update 09-03: Firefly NET 2022 after failure

Smallsat launcher schedule / first (successful) orbital flight since thread opening:

2018-01  Electron      US/NZ     Rocket Lab
2018-03  SS-520        Japan     IHI/JAXA
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     Kuaizhou-11   China     ExPace (state-owned)
2021     RS1           US        ABL
2021     Simorgh       Iran      ISA (state-owned)
2021     Zoljanah      Iran      (military?)
2021     OS-M          China     OneSpace
2021     Jielong-2     China     Chinarocket (state-owned)
2021     Rocket 3      US        Astra
2021     SSLV          India     ISRO (state-owned)

2022     Terran 1      US        Relativity
2022     Nebula-1      China     Deep Blue
2022     Kairos        Japan     Space One / Canon
2022     Firefly α     US/Ukr    Firefly
2022     Vikram        India     Skyroot
2022     Eris          Australia Gilmour
2022     Rocket 4      US        Astra

2023     Prime         UK        Orbex
2023     Spectrum      Germany   ISAR Aerospace
2023     Skyrora XL    UK/Ukr    Skyrora
2023     RFA One       Germany   RFA / OHB

Intentionally not listed:

- ARCA EcoRocket (2021-09), too dubious
- Aevum Ravn (2021), too dubious
- HyImpulse SL1 (2023) => NET 2024 with usual delays
- Interstellar Zero (2023) => NET 2024 with usual delays
- everything announced for ≥ 2024, those dates are too unreliable

Unclear - no update on launch date:

- Super Stripy derivate (X-Bow/US), announced for 2019
- Blue Whale 1 (Perigee/Korea), announced for 2020
- Hapith V (Tispace/Taiwan), announced for 2020
- Newline-1 (Linkspace/China), announced for 2021 in early 2019

Canceled:

- Boeing XS-1
- Zhuque-1 (Landspace/China)

Quoting the dates the launcher firms give is fine but perhaps we can do better by measuring them against a common yardstick.

There are several now who have formed, developed and got to first launch. It should be possible to benchmark claims like those of Isar, who were saying end of 2021 just 8 months ago (!) by comparing to the time it has taken Firefly, Virgin Orbit, Rocket Lab, Astra etc to get to 1st (serious) orbital launch attempt after being founded.

You would have to suspect the average time is about 6-8 years, not 2-4.

Rocket Lab for example can be measured from the time they pivoted to orbital, when Mark Rocket left in early 2011. They had first flight in May 2017, so circa 6-7 years for a small 150kg vehicle incl. Stage 1.

Firefly can be measured from the founding date in Jan 2014 until almost end of 2021, so circa 8 years for a 1 ton launcher. You could say 7 years if you are generous about the restructuring year in 2016-17. Also included the Stage 1 development.

Virgin Orbit was spun out of Galactic in March 2017, but there was a lot of work going on prior to that date. I can find references to the initial LauncherOne program from 2015 for example. They got to first launch in May 2020. So 5 years but they substituted a 747 for a large, new first stage component.

Astra was founded in Oct 2016 and if we ignore the suborbital attempts the first launch was either Sep or Dec 2020 depending on what you count, for a very small 50kg launcher. So around 4 years, incl. Stage 1, but the scale there might make that a bit on the small side for direct comparison.

What's coming?

Relativity was formally founded in Jan 2016. They are developing a 1250kg launcher incl. Stage 1.

ABL was founded in Aug 2017. They will develop a 1350kg launcher incl. Stage 1.

Isar Aerospace was founded in mid-2018. They are developing a 1200kg launcher, incl. Stage 1.

Rocket Factory Augsburg was founded in mid-2018. They are building a 1200kg launcher incl. Stage 1.

Orbex was founded in 2016. They are developing a 150kg launcher incl. Stage 1.

Just looking at that history and starting points would tend to suggest those who started in 2017-2018 building 1-ton-plus launchers are being somewhat optimistic quoting orbital launches after just 4-5 years. Those who started 1-2 years earlier, esp. those with smaller vehicles, might well be launching in the next 12-18 months.

[ringsider]

The dates in the list are not direct quotes. I evaluate all available information and adjust implausible dates by +1 year.

My point is that you can compare to direct results now and benchmark those estimates against what actually happened in similar situations and thus adjust more accurately.

The late starting 1,000kg+ launchers are the obvious example. If they started mid-2018, launching 2022 or even 2023 looks aggressively optimistic - about 2-3 years optimistic for similar vehicles from others, incl. SpaceX, Relativity and Firefly.

Unless you think that some of the new  players are 2-3x better at building rockets than those guys it's hard to see how they achieve even your estimated timelines, and not by a few months but by literally years.

You could say some are buying in e.g. propulsion technology; but that is also true of Firefly for example, and it still took them 7-8 years. What makes you believe the German launchers will be launching by 2022-2023, for example, with that background evidence? It would be more like 2025 based on what others have done.

[ringsider]

You could say some are buying in e.g. propulsion technology; but that is also true of Firefly for example, and it still took them 7-8 years. What makes you believe the German launchers will be launching by 2022-2023, for example, with that background evidence? It would be more like 2025 based on what others have done.

I don't believe into any of those dates. SSLV probably will not launch in 2021, Vikram and Rocket 4 not in 2022 and Skyrora not in 2023. No idea if and when any German launcher will make it to orbit. If you think you are able to estimate all that e.g. from company founding dates, feel free to take over and produce the first ever realistic launch schedule.

But you are producing a list that states first launch dates, apparently dates you don't believe in, and that you think are unrealistic. Why not just benchmark claims against historical fact instead of posting what you yourself consider to be outright disinformation?

All I am suggesting is that you have factual data from several of these startups now that gives a baseline for measuring estimates more accurately than PR and guesswork.

I've produced subjective lists - on this thread - in the past, long before you joined the forum. No offense intended, I just think we are in a different time now, and can make better estimates of reality based on elapsed time from starting work for similar projects. They all have to do fundamentally the same job to get to launch so it's not a stretch to use existing facts as a benchmark.

[PM3]

I have deleted the "disinformation" and quit maintaining the schedule. Good luck to ringsider in doing better.

[bolun]

And yet another launcher company to add in the list: Pangea Aerospace. Recently created, in 2018.

They have reached an agreement with DLR to test an engine

DLR agrees co­op­er­a­tion with Span­ish start-up Pangea Aerospace

[trimeta]

That is probably Launcher thread but I can't find it.

FYI: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47486.0

[TrevorMonty]

That is probably Launcher thread but I can't find it.

FYI: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47486.0

Thanks

Moved my post.

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

[su27k]

https://twitter.com/MeaganMCrawford/status/1443550248434028545

Rolling through my Twitter feed, and saw two new launch companies announced this morning. That brings us to 165. This is getting ridiculous, folks. Stop building launch companies and start building things to be launched.

[Comga]

Meagan Crawford @MeaganMCrawford
Rolling through my Twitter feed, and saw two new launch companies announced this morning. That brings us to 165. This is getting ridiculous, folks. Stop building launch companies and start building things to be launched.

I’d like to see that list of 165, but I really like PM3’s.
But “getting ridiculous”?
It’s been absurd for years and it just keeps going.


My primary issue with PM3’s list is that there could be an easier way to find the most recent update, which is fun to read even if one doesn’t follow this thread every day.

[thrwnt]

I’d like to see that list of 165

It's up on SpaceFund's website:

https://spacefund.com/launch-database/

[PM3]

My primary issue with PM3’s list is that there could be an easier way to find the most recent update, which is fun to read even if one doesn’t follow this thread every day.

My list is suspended due to ringsider's criticism of my methology. I based it on the launch dates published by the rocket builders*, which he (correctly) percieved as disinformation. The purpose of those dates is mostly collecting naive investor's money and snatching launch contracts, not informing about a real launch schedule.

(* with some minor reality adjustments by my own estimates)

Still, it was fun to maintain the list, and it was better than nothing. If there is some consensus here that the list should be continued they way it was, I could do that and put it into a separate thread.

[Fmedici]

My primary issue with PM3’s list is that there could be an easier way to find the most recent update, which is fun to read even if one doesn’t follow this thread every day.

My list is suspended due to ringsider's criticism of my methology. I based it on the launch dates published by the rocket builders*, which he (correctly) percieved as disinformation. The purpose of those dates is mostly collecting naive investor's money and snatching launch contracts, not informing about a real launch schedule.

(* with some minor reality adjustments by my own estimates)

Still, it was fun to maintain the list, and it was better than nothing. If there is some consensus here that the list should be continued they way it was, I could do that and put it into a separate thread.

I understand ringsider's criticism, but I think that a list should still be maintained, and basing it as much as possible on the official dates is the only way to keep it "impartial". Speculating about which could be the real dates is a good thing since almost no company sticks to the announced ones, but those speculations could be influenced by individual perceptions and prejudices and could make the list too biased.

(Btw keeping track of how many times a company officially postpones its maiden flight date could be a good indicator of the reliability of those announcements and another metric to compare companies and business plans)

[trimeta]

I understand ringsider's criticism, but I think that a list should still be maintained, and basing it as much as possible on the official dates is the only way to keep it "impartial". Speculating about which could be the real dates is a good thing since almost no company sticks to the announced ones, but those speculations could be influenced by individual perceptions and prejudices and could make the list too biased.

(Btw keeping track of how many times a company officially postpones its maiden flight date could be a good indicator of the reliability of those announcements and another metric to compare companies and business plans)

Conversely, I think basing things on official dates gives a huge advantage to wildly optimistic companies compared to realistic ones, when it comes to comparing progress levels. Consider the NewSpace Index of small satellite launchers, specifically the ones allegedly going to launch in 2021. In addition to the companies and organizations which will probably launch in 2021 or 2022, you have a few which frankly may never launch. Some degree of editorial judgement is probably necessary.

One thing that might help back up that sort of judgement is justifying it in more detail. I know once or twice, I was unsure why PM3 made a particular decision with regards to placement, and they were able to give some links to support their choices. Putting that information into the post itself may make people more comfortable with those decisions, and also give them the sources they need to come to their own conclusions. This does make it more time-consuming to create and maintain the list, of course, and I'm not sure how the formatting would work: one link per entry may not be enough, especially if further discussion were necessary to explain why you do or don't entirely believe that source.

[trimeta]

The list is also missing Nammo with the suborbital Nucleus sounding rocket 70kg to >100km that can be ordered.
They are working on the UM-2 100kN turbopump feed engine, that will be used in Nucleus XL and for several orbital launchers studies. I expect some news later this year. ... 

Is Nammo even still working on an orbital version of their vehicle? There were rumors of a "North Star" orbital system discussed in their forum thread, but with the various changes to their website I was unclear if that was still under development...or even consideration.

Edit: Huh, that page on Nucleus does mention orbital aspirations and even NorthStar...probably should have read it before commenting. Still, I'd rate this alongside Honda's recent aspirations to build a small-lift launcher: by the time they're anywhere close to complete, will the market justify it? And since it's part of a larger company, that also makes it easier to cancel this project and reassign people somewhere else.

[JEF_300]

I think it would be best to just include more information in the list.

So list them with their officially claimed launch date, but then along with that have a column with some sort of feasibility rating (perhaps the SpaceFund Reality rating that was linked to upthread?), and then another column which list their stage of progress on a spectrum from PowerPoint to Operational (I'm thinking PowerPoint, Mock-Up, Test Hardware, Flight Hardware, Flight Stages Assembled, Test Flights, Operational).

That way only existing, objective data is being presented by the list, but it also includes information that may temper a company's optimistic launch dates. Personally, I would probably sort them by stage of progress first, and then by claimed launch date, to further that point.

[CameronD]

I suspect the real issue is that more than a few of these companies launch with really big dreams and then, over years of little progress, side slowly down the ladder into oblivion.  Behaviour like that is really tricky to capture in a list without high-quality inside knowledge of each company and where they are really at - not just their press releases.

I notice the list started in 2015.  That's a pretty good run!  Are you volunteering, JEF_300??