Bit semantics here I suppose, but folks generally don't consider them different sizes. C is simply seen as a performance evolution, not dissimilar to F9 evolutions from V1 through FT.
ESA's Vega evo chart
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
We are looking for another podcast participant who can act as a lead co-host to join the TMC Podcast. If you are interested in participating please see this thread.
SpaceX's Rising Tide - Discussion of non-SpaceX launch companies
- Thread starter bxr140
- Start date
Bit semantics here I suppose, but folks generally don't consider them different sizes. C is simply seen as a performance evolution, not dissimilar to F9 evolutions from V1 through FT.
ESA's Vega evo chart
Bad news for two different companies. As we have all heard: Getting to space is hard. Good luck to them in the future.
spacenews.com
spacenews.com
First ABL Space Systems launch fails
The first flight of ABL Space Systems’ RS1 rocket failed to reach orbit Jan. 10, the second loss of a commercial small launch vehicle in 24 hours.
spacenews.com
First Virgin Orbit U.K. launch fails
Virgin Orbit’s first launch from the United Kingdom failed to reach orbit Jan. 9, dealing a high-profile setback to a company with financial struggles.
spacenews.com
Last edited:
VO was always a pretty risky idea. First order its quite clever, but get into The Real Work and it was always going to be tough to close the business model. I guess hindsight could be a bit of a cloud on this, but (as I've babbled on before here) small launchers were always a long shot at success. The only way they make sense is to have a rocket that a) is big enough to launch something meaningful into space (so, not Electron or Astra), b) can launch frequently enough to be a viable constellation solution (so, ~tens of times a month, as Astra aspires to), and c) is financially competitive with the 5m class (which you pretty much can only achieve through mega high volume). Put another way, a small vehicle with the launch rate of a 5m class vehicle is commercially unsustainable.
As goofy as Branson is I'm actually a little surprised he got roped into this venture. While I think he's willing to take more risks than others, I generally think he's pretty thorough with due diligence. ...but maybe it wasn't a big financial load for him to sign on vs the <ahem> upside" of being another meglomaniac-billionaire-with-a-rocket? Maybe his 747 was a mad write-off? Maybe he was clairvoyant enough to see that the future would rain SPAC money on anyone that could spell R-O-C-K-E-T?
Bummer for ABL, same story on small launchers. I think they have a vague roadmap for a 5m vehicle (vs, say, Relativity that's actively building the 5m and are only planning on launching a few of their smaller vehicles), but I think the market is going to OBE them before they can get there.
A big one for Firefly:
spacenews.com
Firefly wins second NASA CLPS mission
NASA selected Firefly Aerospace to land payloads on the far side of the moon and to place a European satellite into lunar orbit.
spacenews.com
Both the first and second stage casing length and diameters are ~meters larger and need new tooling and whole vehicle is five meters longer. Same size my ass.
ESA blames carbon-carbon nozzle throat insert for the failure:
Ukrainians don't agree:
Blamed for Vega-C Rocket Failure, Ukraine Calls Investigation 'Premature'
Ukraine's space agency is criticizing the Vega-C rocket failure investigation, which blamed a component sourced from a Ukrainian company.
gizmodo.com
Kazakhstan Impounds Property Of Russian Cosmodrome Operator In Baikonur
www.rferl.org
Kazakhstan Impounds Property Of Russian Cosmodrome Operator In Baikonur
Kazakh authorities have impounded the property of Russia's main operator of spacecraft launching sites in Baikonur (Baiqonyr) in the Central Asian nation's southern region of Qyzylorda.
www.rferl.org
I think you guys may both be making valid points, it's the context here that makes the difference:
@ecarfan initially posted that:
And your reply , @HVM pointed out that it would seem that from an engineering perspective they are significantly different vehicles, so lumping their failures together might not accurately portray the situation. I think that's a valid point.
Whereas @bxr140 says that:
Which is probably right from a customer perception/performance standpoint, which seems reasonable to me as well... certainly that chart uses the term "evolution"...
Space industry deals with launch shortage
Even as the space industry complains of a shortage of launch capacity, SpaceX said it has room to increase an already surging pace of launches.
spacenews.com
The article talks about Vulcan, Arianne 6, and New Glenn. On the flip side you have the following statement in the article:
SpaceX has conducted 19 launches so far this year and company is sticking with a goal of 100 launches this year, up from 61 in 2022 and 31 in 2021. “It’s definitely a challenge that we are up to,” said Tom Ochinero, senior vice president of commercial business at SpaceX.
He cited the company’s three active launch pads in Florida and California and a “fully mature” reusability effort for that increase in launch rate. “Everything is really dialed in at this point,” he said. “We’re hitting our stride in terms of being able to deliver on that cadence.”
He suggested that the company could continue to increase its launch rate to meet demand. “In terms of scaling from 100 to 200 launches, we have the hardware, we have the infrastructure, we can scale the staffing,” he said. “There isn’t any reason we can’t keep going. It’s just a matter of market needs and how fast Starship develops.”
Wow. That is impressive. Considering the total size of the commercial launch market (excluding China and Russia of course) SpaceX is saying they can handle it all!
Blue Origin failure report: melted a hole in the nozzle.
Blue Origin NS-23 Findings | Blue Origin
Blue Origin NS-23 Findings | Blue Origin
