SpaceX's Rising Tide - Discussion of non-SpaceX launch companies

[bxr140]

Not exactly front page news, but H2 launched yesterday.

The next H3 attempt (recall that the first one failed) is coming up in a few weeks. 2024 is shaping up to be a potentially good year for new heavies: Vulcan, hopefully H3, possibly Ariane 6, presumably Starship, maybe New Glenn, and maybe Neutron.

 

[JB47394]

Sierra Space's inflatable habitat goes through burst testing. NASA wanted to see 60 psi. That's the pressure encountered 100 feet underwater.

 

[TunaBug]

Sierra Space's inflatable habitat goes through burst testing. NASA wanted to see 60 psi. That's the pressure encountered 100 feet underwater.

The thought that keeps going through my head when I read about Sierra's inflatable habitats is "what's taking so long?". I've been hearing about them for a really long time, but it's really just a minor blip every couple of years.

So what's taking so long? Are they having a hard time delivering? Or is it just that there is no market? Who is their market? It seems to me they should pivot to building and operating stations, advertising lower cost, easier accessibility, and less red tape than the ISS. That seems more like an ongoing business. And if you tell me why there is no market for a privately run station, isn't that also saying there is no market for space bubbles?

 

[JB47394]

Are they having a hard time delivering? Or is it just that there is no market? Who is their market?

As of right now I think their only customer is Blue Origin for the Orbital Reef space station. Given Blue Origin's progress on their goals, there's no rush. So I suspect that Sierra Space has a fairly small team on the project and they're slowly working through the technology, building test articles and so forth. They may also be working entirely off government funding, limiting how aggressively they can pursue development. They don't have Elon's deep pockets.

 

[ecarfan]

Sierra Space's inflatable habitat goes through burst testing. NASA wanted to see 60 psi. That's the pressure encountered 100 feet underwater

Based on the video it appears they achieved 75psi before the habitat experienced a RSD (Rapid Scheduled Disassembly

I hope this company is successful. I like the concept. I think the “what’s taking so long?” is likely related to the many technological challenges that have to be solved to ensure such a habitat is safe for humans. They are trying to do something that has never been done before. Whether they can compete in the future with Starships designed to be LEO stations remains to be seen. My SWAG is that SpaceX could build such a vehicle for less than $200 million, which seems cheap for a space station with that much volume.

Below is a screen capture from the Sierra Space video showing their layered construction. Very few details about the habitat on the Sierra Space website. I’m not clear on what “Outer Cover Atomic Oxygen” means. Presumably that layer is resistant to degradation from cosmic rays.

 

[mongo]

Below is a screen capture from the Sierra Space video showing their layered construction. Very few details about the habitat on the Sierra Space website. I’m not clear on what “Outer Cover Atomic Oxygen” means. Presumably that layer is resistant to degradation from cosmic rays.

Yeah, that layer is designed to handle the atomic oxygen in LEO formed by photo-dissociation.
Atomic Oxygen Environments, Effects, and Mitigation - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Atomic Oxygen Effects on Spacecraft Materials - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

 

[JB47394]

Whether they can compete in the future with Starships designed to be LEO stations remains to be seen.

The funny thing there is that once Starship is flying, inflatables will be that much more practical. Given a Super Guppy Starship variant, they might even be able to put up something like the Bigelow BA 2100 module. That company is shut down, but the idea is appealing. It's a concept for a 100 ton module that provides 2,250 m^3 of habitable volume. It would need an 8 meter diameter fairing and 17.8 meters of length.

Create a ring of those (or as few as a pair) and slowly spin it for gravity. Make provision for zero gravity via the hub. Create two counter-rotating rings to avoid having to use propellant to spin and stop the thing. Though that may be dynamically unstable.

Or how about an HLS variant that deploys the inflatable while remaining attached to the Starship? Deploy it once you're in space and then leave it that way for the lifetime of the ship. Done right, and sections of the Starship nose would cover the surface of the inflatable, providing additional MMOD protection. It would make for a nice taxi around the vicinity of the Earth and the Moon. Mars not so much because you need to aerobrake.

I have no idea how large Sierra Space wants to go with their habitats. Shouldn't it scale arbitrarily, bound only by their ability to produce the parts?

 

[ecarfan]

Given a Super Guppy Starship variant

For those who don’t know, see Super Guppy.

 

[bxr140]

So what's taking so long? Are they having a hard time delivering? Or is it just that there is no market? Who is their market?

Sierra is a pretty old space company, so they're not keen to go out on a financial R&D limb in "build it and they will come" mode, especially when there's still a gazillion dollars being dumped into ISS. From the land of Ideas Are Free, plenty of folks have grand ideas on how to evolve the way humans utilize/interact/live in space...but when it comes time for proper commitment to the cause, its mostly just muted coughing from the middle-back rows.

Yeah, that layer is designed to handle the atomic oxygen in LEO formed by photo-dissociation.

TLDR, the main concern with atomic oxygen (aka ATOX or AO) is erosion of material over time, as a function of the highly reactive single O atom that wants to kidnap other atoms, especially ones that aren't super strongly bonded. This phenomenon is most prevalent in low LEO, around 500-550 or so and below (makes sense--more atmosphere). It impacts some materials more than others (less so metals, more so things like tape), and higher rates of degradation are typically seen on the leading edges of a satellite (as it rams though the atmosphere).

It's typically not a huge design driver, but there's inevitably conversations like "how many mils of this kapton tape will erode over the mission life" and corollary boxes to check to makes sure nothing falls through the cracks.

 

[Grendal]

SpaceX is included for comparison purposes. Shoutout to mandrewa who posted this in the comments at a Space News article.

All current and projected rockets, built by democracies, with a payload to LEO greater than seven metric tons.

18.5 mt Falcon 9, booster and fairing recovered: ~$ 55 to $ 67 million
22.8 mt Falcon 9, expended: ~$ 90 million
57.0 mt Falcon Heavy, side boosters recovered: ~$ 97 million
63.8 mt Falcon Heavy, expended: ~$ 150 million
10.0 mt ISRO LVM-3: ~$ 63 million
95.0 mt SLS Block 1: $ 2.2 to $ 2.5 billion
19.0 mt Vulcan Centaur VC2: ~$ 100 million (?)
? (4.0-7.9 mt to GTO) JAXA H3: ~$ 67 million
[NET 2024-3] 150.0 mt Starship, early flights
[NET 2024-4] 24.6 mt Vulcan Centaur VC4L: ~$ 114 million (?)
[NET 2024-6] 10.3 mt Ariane 62: $ 75 million (?)
[NET 2024-8] 45.0 mt New Glenn, early flights
[NET 2024-12] 13.0 mt Neutron, early flights
[NET 2024] 150.0 mt Starship, booster recovered ~$ 50 million
[NET 2024] 150.0 mt Starship, booster and ship recovered ~$ 50 million
[NET 2024] 150.0 mt Starship, booster and ship recovered, refuelable in orbit: ~$ 50 million
[NET 2024] 45.0 mt New Glenn, booster recovered: ~$ 100 million
[NET 2025] 13.0 mt Rocket Lab Neutron, expended: ?
[NET 2025] 8.0 mt Rocket Lab Neutron, booster and fairing recovered: ?
[NET 2025] 21.6 mt Ariane 64: $ 115 million (?)
[NET 2025] 10.0 mt Northrup Grumman Antares 330: ?
[NET 2025] 16.0 mt Firefly MLV: ?
[NET 2026] 23.5 mt Relativity Space Terran-R, booster recovered: ?
[NET 2030] 10.0 mt ISRO NGLV, center core recovered, small side boosters expended: ?

This list excludes rockets no longer being sold like the Atlas V and the Ariane 5

The first number is the NET year of the first anticipated launch, if it hasn't launched yet.
The second number is the nominal maximum payload to LEO.
The third number is the estimated or actual price for a launch.

The poster goes on to explain in a different post that the numbers for SpaceX are likely not currently accurate because they are based on actual launches. Some of those maximums happened in older versions and more modern versions likely have more payload to orbit and the prices may have fluctuated based on reuse.

 

[ecarfan]

This line stands out…

95.0 mt SLS Block 1: $ 2.2 to $ 2.5 billion

 

[bxr140]

Some of those numbers are quite wrong, fwiw. It’s also useful to anchor these kinds of comparisons on a reference orbit, which these are not.

 

[Grendal]

Some of those numbers are quite wrong, fwiw. It’s also useful to anchor these kinds of comparisons on a reference orbit, which these are not.

"All current and projected rockets, built by democracies, with a payload to LEO greater than seven metric tons."

So categorized by LEO only. I get the point that many of these rockets are specialized for orbits besides LEO and have better stats for those orbits.

I also expect that the comment I added about the "based on known launch costs" also applies to alternative launchers besides SpaceX.

Any new unlaunched rockets are just based on speculation and advertised pricing.

 

[bxr140]

So categorized by LEO only.

Yeah that part is no problem. The issue is that “LEO” is pretty ill defined. It’s kinda as specific as saying “I live in the suburbs”. Having a reference orbit to which each vehicle is evaluated better normalizes performance comparisons. In years past ISS has been the quasai standard, but really, any orbit would make the spirit of that list more useful. Inclination and especially altitude make a big difference on performance.

Example, SX will not sell you 18.5T on a F9. That is both a REALLY low dropoff and also a function of SX compressing margins on the loads, neither of which they’ll actually sell you.

It’s also easy for a reader to interpret question marks in the list as implying some level of certainty/accuracy for the non question marked numbers. Put another way, the least correct numbers in that list do not have a question mark.

 

[scaesare]

Article by Berger saying B.O. is ramping up plans for a human orbital spacecraft: Blue Origin is getting serious about developing a human spacecraft

 

[Electroman]

Article by Berger saying B.O. is ramping up plans for a human orbital spacecraft: Blue Origin is getting serious about developing a human spacecraft

Let them first send a block of cheese in one full orbit and land it..

 

[JB47394]

Let them first send a block of cheese in one full orbit and land it..

I can just see the future of spaceflight involving the "Cheese Flight" as a key point in the test regime of all new vehicles.

 

[JB47394]

China to debut large reusable rockets in 2025 and 2026

China to debut large reusable rockets in 2025 and 2026 China’s main state-owned contractor plans test flights for two new large diameter reusable rockets in the next couple of years, despite existing commercial reusability efforts.

spacenews.com

HELSINKI — China’s main state-owned contractor plans test flights for two new large diameter reusable rockets in the next couple of years, despite existing commercial reusability efforts.

The China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) plans to launch four-meter and five-meter-diameter reusable rockets for the first time in 2025 and 2026 respectively, Wang Wei, a deputy to the National People’s Congress, told China News Service March 4.

The reports do not clearly identify the two rockets. CASC is known to be developing a new, 5.0m-diameter crew launch vehicle, known as the Long March 10. A single stick version would be used to launch a new-generation crew spacecraft to low Earth orbit and could potentially fly in 2025. A three-core variant will launch the “Mengzhou” crew spacecraft into trans-lunar orbit.

 

[scaesare]

I can just see the future of spaceflight involving the "Cheese Flight" as a key point in the test regime of all new vehicles.

RUD's shall be analyzed over a big plate of nachos...

 

[Grendal]

Astra agrees to go private

Astra Space has accepted a proposal from its founders to take the company private after previously warning its only other alternative was bankruptcy.

spacenews.com