Charle Pooley and Ed LeBoutillier have a new book out.
16 thoughts on “Microlaunchers”
That sounds interesting. Ever since I first heard of cubesats, I’ve wondered: What is the smallest rocket that could launch a single cubesat into orbit?
I’m not saying that it would be cost-effective to launch them one at a time; I’m just curious about what would be the theoretical minimum size for an orbital launch vehicle.
I’m just curious about what would be the theoretical minimum size for an orbital launch vehicle.
The Redstone could put about 10 cubsats into orbit…
Looks like Vanguard was even smaller. According to Wikipedia:
Juno I
Mass: 64,070 lbs.
First stage thrust: 93,563 lbf
Payload to LEO: 11 kg/24 lbs.
Vanguard
Mass: 22,156 lbs.
First stage thrust: 30,303 lbf
Payload to LEO: 23 kg (citation needed)
Both of those are much more than needed to launch a single cubesat. I’m still curious, though. Given advances in lightweight materials and engine design, an even smaller orbital rocket should be possible.
Compared to those two, Falcon 1 was a behemoth. Again, citing Wikipedia:
Falcon 1
Mass: 85,000 lbs.
First stage thrust: 102,000 lbf
Payload to LEO: 430 kg/990 lbs.
“For the US based Mk. III vehicle only, the primary payload location is an external dorsal mounted pod, which holds up to 650 kg (1433 lbs)and is large enough to hold a space telescope or a two stage carrier to launch multiple nanosatellites into low Earth orbit. ” http://www.xcor.com/lynxpayloads/
The Microlaunchers book mentions the Japanese Lambda 4S, an all-solid satellite launch vehicle which had a lift-off mass of about 9400 kg and, according to JAXA, orbited a 24-kg satellite.
Using air launch and solid propellants, the Caleb weighed 2000 pounds and had a payload to LEO of 7 KG. It wasn’t successful but we’ve learned a lot since 1958. If you’re willing to risk air launch with liquid propellants, you could go a lot smaller than Caleb. I’d take off with only the oxidizer tanks filled and then load the fuel during climbout. That way, if you had to jettison the rocket for some reason during takeoff, it wouldn’t be a bomb.
If you’re going small and air launched, a supersonic aircraft becomes a feasible platform. Anyone got a scrap B-1A or Concorde lying around?
Neither of those choses are necessary or economical. You can buy a MiG-21 for a few hundred thousand dollars. In fact, here’s one listed for $69,000!. If you need something with more lifting capacity, here’s a MiG-23 and a MiG-29 for sale (call for price). I’ve also seen listings for an F-104G for under $100,000. The MiG-29 would be the most capable choice but also the most expensive.
Minimum gauge and atmospheric drag would seem to be killers at the lower end of launcher scale. Air launch would seem to help against the latter.
I’m looking forward to the day John Powell starts launching rockets from his airships.
Aside from the acquisition of (ridiculuous) $2B in facebook likes again… will this bring John Carmack back to space ? Maybe the armadillos arent dead after all.
Others have been speculating about that, at least on Twitter.
I can definitely see a large future market for small satellites. With current technology, the smallest practical satellite would probably be the size of a soda can when packed for launch. It’s just about within the reach of amateurs for a rocket where that’s the only payload. With the amount of experience JP Aerospace has picked up over the last few years, it’s only a matter of time before someone approaches them to launch a rocket from 20 miles up.
The component circuit boards for cubesats – everything from GNCC to propulsion – are already widely available via the Open Source community. This is putting space hardware within reach of high school students.
Rand has often lamented that space isn’t important. I think that nanosatellites are going to be a way to make space important for a lot more people, the same way home computers made computers more important to people.
I hope you’re right, but satellites made space important for a lot of people over the years, but they didn’t understand that what was important came from space.
That’s true. I remember an incident many years ago (IIRC, mid to late 1990s) where the failure of a single communications satellite took out POS credit card purchases (e.g. gas stations) and ATMs all over the country. Until that time, most people didn’t know that gas stations and ATMs often use VSAT communications terminals for credit card transactions. If you look closely, you can see the small dish antennas on the roofs of many businesses just for that purpose.
That sounds interesting. Ever since I first heard of cubesats, I’ve wondered: What is the smallest rocket that could launch a single cubesat into orbit?
I’m not saying that it would be cost-effective to launch them one at a time; I’m just curious about what would be the theoretical minimum size for an orbital launch vehicle.
I’m just curious about what would be the theoretical minimum size for an orbital launch vehicle.
The Redstone could put about 10 cubsats into orbit…
Looks like Vanguard was even smaller. According to Wikipedia:
Juno I
Mass: 64,070 lbs.
First stage thrust: 93,563 lbf
Payload to LEO: 11 kg/24 lbs.
Vanguard
Mass: 22,156 lbs.
First stage thrust: 30,303 lbf
Payload to LEO: 23 kg (citation needed)
Both of those are much more than needed to launch a single cubesat. I’m still curious, though. Given advances in lightweight materials and engine design, an even smaller orbital rocket should be possible.
Compared to those two, Falcon 1 was a behemoth. Again, citing Wikipedia:
Falcon 1
Mass: 85,000 lbs.
First stage thrust: 102,000 lbf
Payload to LEO: 430 kg/990 lbs.
“For the US based Mk. III vehicle only, the primary payload location is an external dorsal mounted pod, which holds up to 650 kg (1433 lbs)and is large enough to hold a space telescope or a two stage carrier to launch multiple nanosatellites into low Earth orbit. ”
http://www.xcor.com/lynxpayloads/
The Microlaunchers book mentions the Japanese Lambda 4S, an all-solid satellite launch vehicle which had a lift-off mass of about 9400 kg and, according to JAXA, orbited a 24-kg satellite.
Using air launch and solid propellants, the Caleb weighed 2000 pounds and had a payload to LEO of 7 KG. It wasn’t successful but we’ve learned a lot since 1958. If you’re willing to risk air launch with liquid propellants, you could go a lot smaller than Caleb. I’d take off with only the oxidizer tanks filled and then load the fuel during climbout. That way, if you had to jettison the rocket for some reason during takeoff, it wouldn’t be a bomb.
If you’re going small and air launched, a supersonic aircraft becomes a feasible platform. Anyone got a scrap B-1A or Concorde lying around?
Neither of those choses are necessary or economical. You can buy a MiG-21 for a few hundred thousand dollars. In fact, here’s one listed for $69,000!. If you need something with more lifting capacity, here’s a MiG-23 and a MiG-29 for sale (call for price). I’ve also seen listings for an F-104G for under $100,000. The MiG-29 would be the most capable choice but also the most expensive.
Minimum gauge and atmospheric drag would seem to be killers at the lower end of launcher scale. Air launch would seem to help against the latter.
I’m looking forward to the day John Powell starts launching rockets from his airships.
This is off topic but
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/25/the-creator-of-doom-is-now-a-facebook-employee/
Aside from the acquisition of (ridiculuous) $2B in facebook likes again… will this bring John Carmack back to space ? Maybe the armadillos arent dead after all.
Others have been speculating about that, at least on Twitter.
I can definitely see a large future market for small satellites. With current technology, the smallest practical satellite would probably be the size of a soda can when packed for launch. It’s just about within the reach of amateurs for a rocket where that’s the only payload. With the amount of experience JP Aerospace has picked up over the last few years, it’s only a matter of time before someone approaches them to launch a rocket from 20 miles up.
The component circuit boards for cubesats – everything from GNCC to propulsion – are already widely available via the Open Source community. This is putting space hardware within reach of high school students.
Rand has often lamented that space isn’t important. I think that nanosatellites are going to be a way to make space important for a lot more people, the same way home computers made computers more important to people.
I hope you’re right, but satellites made space important for a lot of people over the years, but they didn’t understand that what was important came from space.
That’s true. I remember an incident many years ago (IIRC, mid to late 1990s) where the failure of a single communications satellite took out POS credit card purchases (e.g. gas stations) and ATMs all over the country. Until that time, most people didn’t know that gas stations and ATMs often use VSAT communications terminals for credit card transactions. If you look closely, you can see the small dish antennas on the roofs of many businesses just for that purpose.