Lessons Learned: Rockets in the 1980s and 1990s and now

[josespeck]

One thing I'd like to see someone try is to use one of those human-carrying drones (or maybe an uncrewed electric motorglider) to haul a peroxide mono propellant rocket to a higher altitude for launch. I bet you could get to 30000ft, which might give you enough of an Isp boost to get to the Karman line.

This might interest you on towed launch:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/FS_TGLAS_150129-1.pdf?linkId=14885220

Met one of the self-proclaimed gray beards of the project last year. Got me excited.

Thanks, it's what I wanted.

[HMXHMX]

One thing I'd like to see someone try is to use one of those human-carrying drones (or maybe an uncrewed electric motorglider) to haul a peroxide mono propellant rocket to a higher altitude for launch. I bet you could get to 30000ft, which might give you enough of an Isp boost to get to the Karman line.

This might interest you on towed launch:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/FS_TGLAS_150129-1.pdf?linkId=14885220

Met one of the self-proclaimed gray beards of the project last year. Got me excited.

Thanks, it's what I wanted.

It's not from the 1990s (more connected to AirLaunch's experiences in the mid-2000s) but here's a relevant paper with a similar technology, that was informed by both Kelly Space experiences and also discussion with the Dryden folks referenced above.

[Kansan52]

Very nice. Fig 10 on pg 8 reminds me of SpaceShip 2.

[john smith 19]

It's not from the 1990s (more connected to AirLaunch's experiences in the mid-2000s) but here's a relevant paper with a similar technology, that was informed by both Kelly Space experiences and also discussion with the Dryden folks referenced above.

Interesting.

It appears from this paper the NASA team with their towed glider project have seriously underestimated the issues of control authority that a glider capable of generating its own lift can have IE The tail wagging the dog.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Heard a great HTP story the other day. This was from someone who was in the RAF and worked in Woomera. During 1960-1965 the Blue Steel standoff missile was being tested at Woomera. The missiles would go to Edinburgh north of Adelaide where electronic testing would be performed, up to Woomera where they would be filled with HTP and kerosene, flight tested without being launched, drained of the propellants and then sent back to Edinburgh. Part of the work done on return was drying the propellant tanks. One technician opened the HTP tank at the bottom plug. There was still quite a bit of HTP left in the tank and it poured out onto his hands, arms and jacket. He rushed off to the water bath flinging the jacket to the ground before plunging his arms into the bath. A few seconds later, whoomf! The jacket caught on fire. The technician was unharmed.

[jongoff]

What is for sure hard is for purebreed engineers building their favorite technology, with no connections into the finance world, to raise private risk capital from professional investors. That is why most of these firms can't find money beyond SBIR/STTR/SAN/FFF etc. They can explain the tech but not the A-B of the deal.

While I think you might be tarring the industry with a little bit broader of a brush than is strictly fair, I can empathize a bit with what you're saying. I've been at it for coming up on 7yrs, and I think I'm only now getting to the point where I have a business plan solid enough to have a shot at raising even a modest seed round (most likely through groups like SAN, and leveraging a lot of SBIRs). And that's in spite of trying to go in with a market-pull focus, not just technology push. It's just genuinely hard finding and developing realistic business opportunities outside the safe spaces of proven markets like space telecom and earth observation.

Ironically though, when I've been talking with investors, it's often them steering the conversation back to the technology when I want to talk about the business side of things.

~Jon

[Robotbeat]

Space telecomms: don't knock it. It might be the only >$100 billion/year "killer app" for space, but it's real and has potential for further dramatic growth.

BTW, Iridium, Globalstar, and ORBCOMM all actually deployed their networks, which is more than you can say for most of the 80s and 90s alt-space concepts. Both Iridium and ORBCOMM, after going through bankruptcy, are now profitable and both are modernizing their networks. As kind of anchor customers for SpaceX.

So yeah, it's not all failure. Telecomm is a very good application for space, and even though it's a crowded market, if you have the ability to execute efficiently, you can probably make a go of it.

[jongoff]

Space telecomms: don't knock it. It might be the only >$100 billion/year "killer app" for space, but it's real and has potential for further dramatic growth.

BTW, Iridium, Globalstar, and ORBCOMM all actually deployed their networks, which is more than you can say for most of the 80s and 90s alt-space concepts. Both Iridium and ORBCOMM, after going through bankruptcy, are now profitable and both are modernizing their networks. As kind of anchor customers for SpaceX.

So yeah, it's not all failure. Telecomm is a very good application for space, and even though it's a crowded market, if you have the ability to execute efficiently, you can probably make a go of it.

I wasn't trying to knock telecom. Just pointing out that there are a lot of additional capabilities most of us would like to see happen in space, and getting those to happen is a lot harder to get started. As awesome and important as space telecom and earth observation are, I think both of us would be really sad if those were the only thing space was ever profitably used for by the time we retire. They'll likely be the major players for the foreseeable future, and will likely enable many of the other areas of development, but I hope we can diversify this ecosystem a lot going forward.

~Jon

[ringsider]

What is for sure hard is for purebreed engineers building their favorite technology, with no connections into the finance world, to raise private risk capital from professional investors. That is why most of these firms can't find money beyond SBIR/STTR/SAN/FFF etc. They can explain the tech but not the A-B of the deal.

While I think you might be tarring the industry with a little bit broader of a brush than is strictly fair, I can empathize a bit with what you're saying. I've been at it for coming up on 7yrs, and I think I'm only now getting to the point where I have a business plan solid enough to have a shot at raising even a modest seed round (most likely through groups like SAN, and leveraging a lot of SBIRs). And that's in spite of trying to go in with a market-pull focus, not just technology push. It's just genuinely hard finding and developing realistic business opportunities outside the safe spaces of proven markets like space telecom and earth observation.

Well I think that last sentence explains precisely why it is hard to get investors. They inveat in business opportunities and want to see an ROI. If there isn't a business opportunity, what is the rationale for investment? Altruism?

This is what I meant about engineers developing something they like. That's fine. There may be a niche that will support 5 guys indefinitely, with regular government support to pay $500k-1m annually. But if that tech has maybe 1-2 customers and the value is a total business revenue of say $10m-15m over 10 years, it's really not a good investment for any VC. Maybe angels, who often have some people who are just enthusiasts in the mix, but not VCs.

VCs don't own the money, they manage it on behalf of LP investors. That means they need to have a solid rationale to put money in and a reasonable shot at a 100x+ return. The entire VC model needs this, it's like the music or movie business, they depend on hits to make most of the money back. VCs know 75% of their investments will die or become zombies, 20% will be moderately successful, returning 5-10x and hope that 5% will be big hits (if they have 50-100 companies in their portfolio).

But to get into the portfolio they ALL need to have a shot at 100x. The market has to be $500m-1b with more than just NASA as a customer. They need one or more strong competitive advantages, preferably patentable. They need to have a realistic view of competition and a solid plan to beat it. The industry structure needs to have the right shape for success. The team needs to be solid. They need traction with early adopters paying money, and typically validation from some significant and trustworthy industry player.

I do feel that many space sector  companies can't tick even one of those boxes, or think they can but actually can't. There are some slides floating around the internet that are just shocking - I'll dig one of my favorites out. If they want to attract VC money they need have all of those attributes and more, as well as some links into the finance sector. Relativity Space had no links but went via Y Combinator which delivers a very strong platform to those links via Demo Day.

I'm not picking on Altius - I don't really know much about your business - but I guarantee you will increase your chances of winning pro VC funding dramatically if you look at some of those factors and have a solid investment proposition that offers a chance to return buckets of money. If you determine you don't have those and still want VC money then you probably need to find another idea that does have those attributes, and a way into those finance circles with that story. Just look at the space startups that did get VC money and I bet they will all have those attributes.

[Katana]

What is for sure hard is for purebreed engineers building their favorite technology, with no connections into the finance world, to raise private risk capital from professional investors. That is why most of these firms can't find money beyond SBIR/STTR/SAN/FFF etc. They can explain the tech but not the A-B of the deal.

While I think you might be tarring the industry with a little bit broader of a brush than is strictly fair, I can empathize a bit with what you're saying. I've been at it for coming up on 7yrs, and I think I'm only now getting to the point where I have a business plan solid enough to have a shot at raising even a modest seed round (most likely through groups like SAN, and leveraging a lot of SBIRs). And that's in spite of trying to go in with a market-pull focus, not just technology push. It's just genuinely hard finding and developing realistic business opportunities outside the safe spaces of proven markets like space telecom and earth observation.

Ironically though, when I've been talking with investors, it's often them steering the conversation back to the technology when I want to talk about the business side of things.

~Jon

Rocket market and satellite market are significantally different. Satellite market is a part of  information technology (telecom and  imaging need, available devices from electronics industry), while rocket market follows the need of satellite market.

Other business models are generally harder to find investors. However the satellite and rocket industry may still be overheated by VC to form bubble , as in 80~90s.

Overcrowding happens really late, VC usually cuts off until at least 10 companies have been squeezed in one hot business model (even more for hot Internet business model). Below this limit most projects die themselves without deliver.

[savuporo]

I wasn't trying to knock telecom. Just pointing out that there are a lot of additional capabilities most of us would like to see happen in space, and getting those to happen is a lot harder to get started. ..

It doesn't work without value chains. For telecom, its

billions of end users, hundreds of billions dollars > service providers > satellite operators > satellite and ground equipment builders, tens of billions > launch, small billions

That funnel only works if revenues on the left side are higher than the next value add in the chain. Earth observation markets are currently carving out a workable chain, as the market for delivered data is expanding. How does it work for these additional capabilities ?

[jongoff]

Well I think that last sentence explains precisely why it is hard to get investors. They inveat in business opportunities and want to see an ROI. If there isn't a business opportunity, what is the rationale for investment? Altruism?

I said it was hard, not impossible. Obviously investors will only put money into something they expect will have a strong ROI and scalability. My point was two-fold: 1) that it is hard and takes time to develop new business opportunities outside the traditional areas of telecomm and earth obs, and 2) that even if you really do find it, that investors tend to be very cautious about new business opportunities outside the lines of what has worked in the past. Both mean that if you're not starting with significant capital, it can take a while to build traction and critical mass.

I'm not picking on Altius - I don't really know much about your business - but I guarantee you will increase your chances of winning pro VC funding dramatically if you look at some of those factors and have a solid investment proposition that offers a chance to return buckets of money. If you determine you don't have those and still want VC money then you probably need to find another idea that does have those attributes, and a way into those finance circles with that story. Just look at the space startups that did get VC money and I bet they will all have those attributes.

I think we're closing in on something that could fit many of those things. It's been a learning process, but we are starting to make some real progress. The only one of those boxes I'm not sure I can tick off is the 100x and $500-1B/yr market one--we're probably looking at something about one step below that level. It's just taken 6.5 years of bootstrapping off or commercial, NASA, and DARPA R&D contracts to get to that point, in part because we're trying to do something that doesn't fit the usual mold.

But yeah, I totally agree that barring a philantropic investor, you have to show a clear and believable business model, real customer traction, sustainable competitive advantage, and an opportunity big enough for the investor in question.

~Jon

[jongoff]

I wasn't trying to knock telecom. Just pointing out that there are a lot of additional capabilities most of us would like to see happen in space, and getting those to happen is a lot harder to get started. ..

It doesn't work without value chains. For telecom, its

billions of end users, hundreds of billions dollars > service providers > satellite operators > satellite and ground equipment builders, tens of billions > launch, small billions

That funnel only works if revenues on the left side are higher than the next value add in the chain. Earth observation markets are currently carving out a workable chain, as the market for delivered data is expanding. How does it work for these additional capabilities?

That's part of the fun and challenge--trying to find a way to develop needed infrastructure while doing so in a manner that can realistically secure investment. It's a harder game than going after the proven markets, but I think it's still possible, if done right. The key is making sure you have something that's a legitimate and investable business opportunity that moves the ball down the road.

In our case, we're going after a service that some of the bigger megaconstellation developers are going to need, so we're tapping into that same value chain somewhere near satellite and ground equipment builders.

There are several other desirable technologies/infrastructures that people are trying to launch that are also trying to tap into the same space telecom value stream (satellite servicing, in-space manufacturing of satellites, etc). It'll be interesting to see if they can close their case in the coming years.

Anyhow, those are a few thoughts,

~Jon

[ringsider]

I do feel that many space sector  companies can't tick even one of those boxes, or think they can but actually can't. There are some slides floating around the internet that are just shocking - I'll dig one of my favorites out.

I promised to post one of my "favorite" slide decks:-

http://www.techuk.org/component/techuksecurity/security/download/704?file=1555_-_The_business_case_for_launching_small_satellites_from_the_UK_-_Adam_Baker.pdf

[Proponent]

Propane (LPG) have isp very near to kerosene but inferior density. Vector is trying propylene, with slightly better energy characteristics and flame speed.

Propyne as well as acetylene with carbon triple bond could decompose and detonation in liquid state.

On the general topic of the the trade be specific impulse and density, here's a plot of specific impulse as a function of bulk density for a variety of hydrocarbons with lox at a chamber pressure of 20 MPa, an expansion ratio of 40, and other assumptions as described here.

The contour lines are a figure of merit (higher numbers being better) for a particular set of assumptions (described in the same place) applied to a ground-launched stage with a delta-V of 4 km/s.

[AncientU]

Propane (LPG) have isp very near to kerosene but inferior density. Vector is trying propylene, with slightly better energy characteristics and flame speed.

Propyne as well as acetylene with carbon triple bond could decompose and detonation in liquid state.

On the general topic of the the trade be specific impulse and density, here's a plot of specific impulse as a function of bulk density for a variety of hydrocarbons with lox at a chamber pressure of 20 MPa, an expansion ratio of 40, and other assumptions as described here.

The contour lines are a figure of merit (higher numbers being better) for a particular set of assumptions (described in the same place) applied to a ground-launched stage with a delta-V of 4 km/s.

Was engine reuse (low coking) considered as a factor in the FoM? Multiple stages using single fuel to control costs? Long term storage/transfer on orbit?  Boil-off/freezing/etc. properties during transit to Mars or other BEO/distant destinations?

If these FoM are only for a traditional(1980s vintage), Earth-launched, expendable first stage, they have limited use today.

[Proponent]

Was engine reuse (low coking) considered as a factor in the FoM? Multiple stages using single fuel to control costs? Long term storage/transfer on orbit?  Boil-off/freezing/etc. properties during transit to Mars or other BEO/distant destinations?

No, none of those things goes in the FoM, and the FoM is not very relevant to the discussion here.  It's just that the plot already had the FoM contours on it, so I thought I'd better explain them.  For purposes of this discussion, their principal value is that they illustrate the trade between specific impulse and density and show why it is often not desirable to maximize specific impulse.

[envy887]

Would you care to redo this plot with cryogens cooled to 10 C above freezing? Sub cooled methalox at 3.8:1, for instance, has a bulk density of 1060 kg/m³, which is higher than boiling LOX with room temp RP-1 at stoich ratios.

Since the denser fuels and oxidizers are already near freezing, they don't gain much from sub cooling, while the boiling cryogens gain substantially.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Would you care to redo this plot with cryogens cooled to 10 C above freezing? Sub cooled methalox at 3.8:1, for instance, has a bulk density of 1060 kg/m³, which is higher than boiling LOX with room temp RP-1 at stoich ratios.

Uhh, what? LOX at 66.5 K is 1.2539 kg/L and methane at 101 K is 0.438 kg/L (10 K above freezing). At 3.8 to 1 the average density is 4.8/(3.8/1.2539+1/0.438) = 0.9033 kg/L, which is 15% below your value. Also, 3.8 to 1 may not be practical as its very close to stoichiometric at 3.989 to 1. More likely is that 3.5 will be used, like in Russian staged combustion methalox engines. See RD-192 http://www.astronautix.com/r/rd-192.html

[envy887]

Would you care to redo this plot with cryogens cooled to 10 C above freezing? Sub cooled methalox at 3.8:1, for instance, has a bulk density of 1060 kg/m³, which is higher than boiling LOX with room temp RP-1 at stoich ratios.

Uhh, what? LOX at 66.5 K is 1.2539 kg/L and methane at 101 K is 0.438 kg/L (10 K above freezing). At 3.8 to 1 the average density is 4.8/(3.8/1.2539+1/0.438) = 0.9033 kg/L, which is 15% below your value. Also, 3.8 to 1 may not be practical as its very close to stoichiometric at 3.989 to 1. More likely is that 3.5 will be used, like in Russian staged combustion methalox engines. See RD-192 http://www.astronautix.com/r/rd-192.html

Err, yeah. I calculated with a volumetric ratio rather than a mass ratio. 1060 kg/m³ methalox would require a mass O/F ratio of 10.4:1, which is clearly not happening.