US Smallsat Launchers 2023

[edkyle99]

2023 will end, it seems, with only one US smallsat launcher success, by Firefly Alpha FLTA003.  Four other launch attempts failed, one each by RS-1, Terran-1, LauncherOne, and Alpha FLTA004.  LauncherOne and Terran-1 have been retired (one due to company failure).  Astra's Rocket did not fly as that company fights to survive.

South Korea had two orbital smallsat successes this year, twice as many as the US.  India and Iran and North Korea all scored one smallsat launcher success.

New Zealand's Electron ended with eight orbital successes in nine attempts, along with one suborbital success.

Meanwhile, China has hosted, so far, 19 smallsat launches with 18 successes, by eight different launch vehicles. 

Not quite sure what to make of all this.

 - Ed Kyle

[TheKutKu]

Based on recent NOTAM, there may be as much as 3 more (2xkZ-1A and 1xCeres-1) Chinese smallest launches before the end of the year.

[lightleviathan]

US hasn't had much luck this year
I guess it depends if you count Rocket Lab as an American company or not (I do) but I digress.

[seb21051]

|Meanwhile, China has hosted, so far, 19 smallsat launches with 18 successes, by eight different launch vehicles.

Not quite sure what to make of all this.|

If the US didn't have SX, you'd probably see a lot more smallsat launch variety. I think things are still shaking out in China. There are all kinds of companies in the mix there, including some NewSpace entities, following closely in SX's footstaps, in terms of Methalox, and Reuseability. I hear they are seriously thinking of >100 tonne payload capability as well. They did after all put the first Methalox rocket with payload successfully into orbit

https://www.youtube.com/@DongfangHour/videos

[edkyle99]

I wonder how the money is flowing to the numerous smallsat launch companies in China.  Many appear to be allowed to use IRBM or ICBM solid motors and other technology - something that is not allowed in the US.  Two have flown interesting liquid propellant rockets, one of those using liquid methane fuel, but both are 3.35 meters in diameter, which happens to be the same diameter as the DF-5/CZ SAST designed launch vehicle family.

Meanwhile, in the US, two companies who actually made it to orbit have suffered financially.  One shut down altogether.  The other is hanging on but not flying at present.  Firefly itself had to be rescued at one point by non-US money. 

Rocket Lab is a success story, I think, because of its leadership, and some pretty good engineering.  Hopefully, like Rocket Lab, and even SpaceX in its early days, Firefly will work through its second stage problems.

 - Ed Kyle

[TrevorMonty]

Rocket Lab is a success story, I think, because of its leadership, and some pretty good engineering.  Hopefully, like Rocket Lab, and even SpaceX in its early days, Firefly will work through its second stage problems.

 - Ed Kyle

Lot of RL and SpaceX success is thanks to owners choosing right CEO. Adam Spice beside day to day running of RL is very good at M&A which is reason RL's space systems is what it is today. Beck vision was always to have strong SS division and chose right person to help achieve it.
Without SS division built from SPAC cash injection I suspect RL would be a struggling SLV company.

[trimeta]

Rocket Lab is a success story, I think, because of its leadership, and some pretty good engineering.  Hopefully, like Rocket Lab, and even SpaceX in its early days, Firefly will work through its second stage problems.

 - Ed Kyle

Lot of RL and SpaceX success is thanks to owners choosing right CEO. Adam Spice beside day to day running of RL is very good at M&A which is reason RL's space systems is what it is today. Beck vision was always to have strong SS division and chose right person to help achieve it.
Without SS division built from SPAC cash injection I suspect RL would be a struggling SLV company.

Musk and Beck are the CEOs of SpaceX and Rocket Lab, respectively. Although if you were alluding to Shotwell (President/COO) and Spice (CFO), you're certainly correct that an effective leadership team is more than just the CEO.

[deltaV]

2023 will end, it seems, with only one US smallsat launcher success, by Firefly Alpha FLTA003.

2023 will end with ~70 successful Falcon 9 launches where the primary payload was small satellites (mostly Starlink). SpaceX will have launched over 1000 small satellites this year with a combined mass of around 1000 tonnes. That's either ~70 or 1000+ "US smallsat launcher success[es]" depending on whether you're counting launches or satellites.

You presumably meant there's only been one "US small-launcher success" this year, with "small" modifying "launcher" rather than "satellite". The US is behind in small launchers if you don't count Rocket Lab or the many US small launchers that didn't have a successful launch this year but small launchers are serving a niche market at best so this isn't a problem. Remember that Falcon 1 and Terran 1 were US small launchers that were canceled due to the market being too small.

[edkyle99]

You presumably meant there's only been one "US small-launcher success" this year, with "small" modifying "launcher" rather than "satellite". The US is behind in small launchers if you don't count Rocket Lab or the many US small launchers that didn't have a successful launch this year but small launchers are serving a niche market at best so this isn't a problem. Remember that Falcon 1 and Terran 1 were US small launchers that were canceled due to the market being too small.

Makes me wonder why when it comes to China.  If there is no market, why?  It is obviously a huge effort there to facilitate development of all of these differing "responsive" smallsat launch vehicles.  They include this year Ceres 1, KZ-1A, Hyperbola 1, CZ-11, Jielon 3, Lijian 1, and the two liquid rockets Tianlong 2 and ZQ-2.  Others not on this list have flown in recent years.

 - Ed Kyle

[deltaV]

Makes me wonder why when it comes to China.  If there is no market, why?

The best reason to build small launchers may be as a warm-up exercise to train and test companies before you give them a bigger budget to build a bigger launcher. That's what Falcon 1 and Terran 1 ended up being used for and may be what China is up to. That may also be why Europe is building several small launchers.

[PM3]

Then why are ArianeGroup and Avio developing small launchers? And why is Electron so successful?

There is a market for launching smallsats to dedicated orbits. Not a huge market, but big enough for sustaining a few small launchers per continent.

Regarding the US vs. China thing: Space is hard, and you need extraordinary and highly motivated engineers and managers to build working orbital rockets. China has many of them. The US too, but most of them probably working for SpaceX ...?

On the bottom line, the top-notch "innovation race" is SpaceX vs. China. For rockets, for spaceships, and for interplanetary human spaceflight.

[TheKutKu]

Then why are ArianeGroup and Avio developing small launchers?

To be fair, their current projects are partially reusable small launchers.

[spacenut]

Ariane is a government run business, which has far more bureaucracy and can't turn on a dime like private companies. 

[Zed_Noir]

Makes me wonder why when it comes to China.  If there is no market, why?

The best reason to build small launchers may be as a warm-up exercise to train and test companies before you give them a bigger budget to build a bigger launcher. That's what Falcon 1 and Terran 1 ended up being used for and may be what China is up to. That may also be why Europe is building several small launchers.

Also to get some expertise on non-hypergolic launchers with non-critical payloads.

[thespacecow]

On the bottom line, the top-notch "innovation race" is SpaceX vs. China. For rockets, for spaceships, and for interplanetary human spaceflight.

Always has been....

"Our primary long-term competition is in China" - Elon Musk from 2012

A win for SpaceX is a win for the entire western world, a loss for SpaceX is a loss for the entire western world, it's sad many westerners are still in denial about this, time to wake up.

[ringsider]

Then why are ArianeGroup and Avio developing small launchers? And why is Electron so successful?

Avio and ArianeGroup are trying to hurt their local European competitors.

By building their own small launchers they make it harder for the new entrants to a) raise money and b) gain market share.

And that makes it harder for them to move to the heavier launcher domain, where they might take real money away from the governmental budgets flowing towards Ariane 6 and later Next.

That may be changing with Avio breaking out of Arianespace but not short term.

Electron is successful numerically, but doesn't yet break even financially does it?

[TheKutKu]

Makes me wonder why when it comes to China.  If there is no market, why?

That may also be why Europe is building several small launchers.

In Europe’s case there also was simply not the capability to make anything more than a small launcher in term of skills, infrastructure and test infrastructures outside of the established companies; at least within reasonable funding and timespan.

 50 years of Geographic return policy resulted in spread (and local specialisation) of capabilities which  is counterproductive to the emergence of vertically integrated newspace companies



And with the lesser public funding and VC investment in Europe there was no choice other than making small launcher.

[trimeta]

Electron is successful numerically, but doesn't yet break even financially does it?

Lately Electron's revenues have exceeded its cost of revenues. That of course doesn't account for fixed costs like SG&A, let alone the original R&D that went into Electron, but it seems likely to me that going forward (especially with the planned cadence for 2024), Rocket Lab will make more money flying Electron than if they just cancelled that part of their business and focused solely on space systems and Neutron.

[deltaV]

Then why are ArianeGroup and Avio developing small launchers? And why is Electron so successful?

There is a market for launching smallsats to dedicated orbits. Not a huge market, but big enough for sustaining a few small launchers per continent.

ringsider has a good theory for what ArianeGroup and Avio are up to, namely trying to maintain their dominance of European medium launch by interfering with the emergence of small launcher companies who would likely build a larger vehicle later.

Currently there appear to be zero profitable western small launchers - Electron does not appear to be profitable yet. If someone such as Stoke or SpaceX gets full reuse working well the number of profitable small launchers will likely remain at zero. Otherwise there may be 1-2 profitable western small launchers in the future. I'm not seeing the hundreds of small launches per year of demand that would be required for "a few small launchers per continent" to make profits. Taxpayer subsides or dumb investors may support some non-profitable companies.

[seb21051]

Interesting piece from China. Making much, amongst other things, of the fact that they were first to put 3 smallsats into orbit with a methalox rocket, and hinting that they have reused a booster:

It would seem they are intent on out-Eloning SX.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-12-24/Tech-Please-Getting-up-to-speed-with-China-s-reusable-rockets-1pNafmWOFGw/p.html

[ringsider]

Electron is successful numerically, but doesn't yet break even financially does it?

That of course doesn't account for fixed costs like SG&A, let alone the original R&D that went into Electron

You often read on this forum that companies have to worry about recovering the original R&D costs, but this is not correct in the startup / VC world.

Think about it from the point of view of who invested in the R&D and thus who should be paid back. If you think about it like this, it becomes obvious that none of the VCs backing early stage rocket firms cares about recovering the R&D investments they made via revenue/earnings.

They invested in equity and expect to recover their investment by rapid appreciation of the value of that equity, specifically on an exit event such as a trade sale, SPAC or IPO.

As long as the equity value appreciates,  the company has returned the investment in the way it really matters.

There is still an accounting item showing a loss on the balance sheet, but it's irrelevant to the reality of the cash investment, which for Rocket Lab already paid off handsomely.

This leads to a misunderstanding, as it looks like the company has a big net loss on that project. And technically it does. But in reality its just an accounting item, it has no real meaning. The investors got paid back when the company was sold.

[ZachF]

Makes me wonder why when it comes to China.  If there is no market, why?

The best reason to build small launchers may be as a warm-up exercise to train and test companies before you give them a bigger budget to build a bigger launcher. That's what Falcon 1 and Terran 1 ended up being used for and may be what China is up to. That may also be why Europe is building several small launchers.

This.

Plus I get the feeling that the Chinese solid fueled smallsat launchers are mostly just disguised/laundered ICBM tests.

[Steven Pietrobon]

"Our primary long-term competition is in China" - Elon Musk from 2012

As long as Western satellites are banned from using Chinese launch vehicles, there is no competition with China.

[Zed_Noir]

"Our primary long-term competition is in China" - Elon Musk from 2012

As long as Western satellites are banned from using Chinese launch vehicles, there is no competition with China.

Then China will just sell their satellite along with the launcher with a lower price point as a package deal with low interest Chinese financing. An attractive offer to countries with limited budget.

China will gain market share with low or negative profit per satellite and launcher package deal. Western satellite manufacturers will have to compete within a lower price ceiling market.

[edkyle99]

With so many of China's small launch vehicles using what appear to be mobile launchers, or at least mobile equipment that allows relatively quick launch set up, I'm thinking that the driver for these systems may be quick response orbital launch that is also hard to "target" in the event of a conflict.  The US has nothing similar right now.

 - Ed Kyle

[PM3]

With so many of China's small launchers using what appear to be mobile launchers, or at least mobile equipment that allows relatively quick launch set up, I'm thinking that the driver for these systems may be quick response orbital launch that is also hard to "target" in the event of a conflict.  The US has nothing similar right now.

 - Ed Kyle

Minotaur should be able to do that, but I assume you didn't mention it because it is not really prepared for mobile launch?

Astra, ABL, Virgin and Vector went for the responsive & mobile launch market. Two dead, one nearly out of business, but ABL can make it.

[TheKutKu]

"Our primary long-term competition is in China" - Elon Musk from 2012

As long as Western satellites are banned from using Chinese launch vehicles, there is no competition with China.

Because there was no competition in Space between the US and USSR?

SpaceX making and enabling new and larger space infrastructures, quicker space-based civilian and military communication, larger military satellites, and maybe - why not? - down the line, Point to point transport or moon transportation, absolutely force chinese companies and agencies to compete for strategic reasons, and the other way around.

[thespacecow]

With so many of China's small launch vehicles using what appear to be mobile launchers, or at least mobile equipment that allows relatively quick launch set up, I'm thinking that the driver for these systems may be quick response orbital launch that is also hard to "target" in the event of a conflict.  The US has nothing similar right now.

If Vandenberg, Cape Canaveral, Wallops and Boca Chica all got taken out in a conflict, then the US has much bigger problems than not being able to launch.

Besides, a responsive orbital launch needs responsive payloads, currently there is credible plan to build these payloads.

[edkyle99]

With so many of China's small launchers using what appear to be mobile launchers, or at least mobile equipment that allows relatively quick launch set up, I'm thinking that the driver for these systems may be quick response orbital launch that is also hard to "target" in the event of a conflict.  The US has nothing similar right now.

 - Ed Kyle

Minotaur should be able to do that, but I assume you didn't mention it because it is not really prepared for mobile launch?

All of the Minotaur versions have only done fixed site launches, involving gantries and cranes and days or weeks of set up.  They don't have a mobile option because the Minuteman and MX missiles they are based on were not mobile-launched.   Closest the US came was Midgetman, which was never deployed.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

If Vandenberg, Cape Canaveral, Wallops and Boca Chica all got taken out in a conflict, then the US has much bigger problems than not being able to launch.

They probably don't have to be "taken out".  Their use just needs to be denied or degraded.  Look what's happened to Red Sea/Suez Canal shipping in the past few weeks - against ships that aren't even at war.

 - Ed Kyle

[Danderman]

The key for commercial space is cheap launch. Until someone develops a robust reusable system, the market is just going to remain small, and companies are going to eat their seed corn and die.

Even a partially reusable system would be useful - a Falcon 1 class reusable system for smallsats would be great.

[TrevorMonty]

The key for commercial space is cheap launch. Until someone develops a robust reusable system, the market is just going to remain small, and companies are going to eat their seed corn and die.

Even a partially reusable system would be useful - a Falcon 1 class reusable system for smallsats would be great.

It's not lack of demand that is causing small LV providers to fail but lack of execution and cash. VO had paying customer they just failed to execute reliably then ran out of money. Astra isn't much different and likely to go same way. Firefly and ABL are still struggling with execution.

Electron has +20 missions to fly in 2024 so demand is there.

[deltaV]

Even a partially reusable system would be useful - a Falcon 1 class reusable system for smallsats would be great.

PLD Space's Miura 5, MaiaSpace's Maia, Rocket Lab's Electron and Stoke Space's Nova are all planned to be partially or fully reusable. Many of these startups will probably fail but someone will surely succeed at making a reusable launcher for small payloads.

[Danderman]

It would be interesting to see a fully reusable Electron.

[Zed_Noir]

It would be interesting to see a fully reusable Electron.

Recovering the upper stage while retaining useful payload capacity don't seem to go together with something in Electron's size.

Of course if just launching a 1U to 5U cubesat on something like the Electron. Then probably the upper stage can be recovered. Don't think it is worthwhile to recovered the payload fairing, if there is one.

However there are likely few customer that wants to pay for the entire cost a fully recoverable Electron class launcher to launch a small cubesat. When there is the cheaper rideshare alternative.

AIUI the savings in launch cost isn't that much different between an expandable and a reusable launcher in Electron's class, with much of the launch cost consists of people, payload processing and ground support infrastructure.