They aren’t totally dead. In fact, they just put out this video:
Turns out it’s not that difficult to build a (small) satellite that handles 10,000 gees. Doesn’t have to be a solid block of epoxy or anything. Needs a few tweaks here and there for the more fragile components, but nothing too serious.
SpinLaunch was also featured prominently in the 11/12/24 episode (S51E15) of NOVA on PBS.
Europe is cooked, man.
The European Space Agency has published a third iteration of a proposed pathfinder study for the development of a European reusable super heavy-lift rocket capable of delivering 60 tonnes to low Earth orbit.
Not the third design of a reusable rocket. Not the third study into the design of a reusable rocket. The third proposal for a study into the design of a reusable rocket.
The ESA makes NASA look like SpaceX.
Actually it’s not even that. It’s the third proposal for a study of the business case which could lead into the design of a reusable rocket.
60 tons? There is only one active rocket (plus a few in development) left that can pull that capacity. and only one is planned to be fully reusable.
The Falcon Heavy can boost 57 tons to orbit in a partially reusable configuration (2/3s of the vehicle expended. 64 tons if all three Stage 1s are recovered.
SLS at just under 100 tons in Block 1, 130 tons in Block 2. Fully expendable and ridiculously expensive per launch. In development.
Long March 9 & 10. 150 and 70 respectively (I know, doesn’t make sense to me either). Both partially reusable. Both in development.
Starship. 150+ tons to LEO. Fully reusable in theory. In development, but farther along than SLS.
That’s 3 US and 2 Chinese rockets. Of those, 1 is active and 4 are not yet proven. The one successful vehicle has 10 paying payloads over 10 years (2/yr) and most of those expended the core first stage and all of them expended the 2nd stage.
So world-wide, the current market for launches at that weight is (assuming expansion) - 4 per year. Where’s the business case?
ESA has concepts of a plan of a business case.
Europe wants their own launch capacity and their own version of Starlink. That’s reasonable and justifies some EU subsidies.
But the Ariane 6–totally non-reusable, with limited cadence due to the solid motors and other things, and basically a shitty and expensive overall design–is not the vehicle to get them there.
A 60 t reusable vehicle is fine. They can just copy almost anyone at this point. Kerosene, methane, doesn’t matter. Figure out first stage reusability first and do second stage later. Return to launch site or drone ship, doesn’t matter. The booster should land vertically, which means at least 7 engines, and if they want to keep dev costs down they should probably go for more.
None of these design choices actually matter all that much, which we know because there’s a decent breadth of existing and upcoming vehicles that cover all the bases. Pick something and go for it. Whatever it is, it will be better than the Ariane 6 and the other non-reusable rockets. Just quit with the endless design studies!
In 1943 there was a famous prediction:
“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
This sounds similar: if there is a truly drastic reduction in space flight costs, then usage will explode.
The thing is, we don’t even have to speculate about use cases. We already know what Europe wants, because they’ve said so–they want their own version of Starlink. By its very nature, that means thousands of satellites in LEO, which implies hundreds or thousands of tons per year lift capacity at an affordable price. Great! That means a heavy or superheavy reusable launch vehicle. Anyone with an undergraduate degree in aerospace could bang out a high-level design in a week given a handful of constraints.
Thanks.
At this point, the need for a space industry is proven (not true of computers back then). We’re arguing about the need for a specific type of vehicle. Space X is over 100 launches this year with the Falcon 9 (around 8 tons to LEO in the reusable configuration). At 23 satellites per launch, that’s one year to 2000+ in orbit. That’s a working constellation. So rather than jump to 60+ tons, maybe shoot for 20-25 tons to cut constellation build time, but watch the cost!
Perhaps there’s some concern that by the time a brand new rocket goes from proposal to operational, Starship may make smaller launchers obsolete.
Envisaging a multi-orbital network of almost 300 satellites, Iris� aims to rival US satellite internet service providers such as Elon Musk’s Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper…
While Iris� counts on a lower number of satellites, its multi-orbital design puts it on par with a constellation of about 1,000 Starlink satellites in terms of performance, EU officials said.
They don’t need much rocket launch capacity to launch such a small network.
I don’t think I’m being excessively cynical to label ESA’s process just a standard jobs / pork program. The goal is to keep ESA and their contractors employed.
Delivering a functioning launch vehicle or satellite constellation is a nice-to-have side effect. The need-to-have part is the jobs & tax-funded expenditures in each country via their aerospace companies.
They are legitimately trying to deliver a rocket; it’s not a con. But they’re doing it in a way that doesn’t make economic or technological sense given the rest of the space launch ecosystem in year 2025+.
Pathetic. Incredible that they’d have such low ambitions. It doesn’t rival Starlink. It doesn’t even rival the number of satellites that SpaceX puts up in two months. They’ll have 30,000 satellites by the time this flies.
Yeah, it’s a jobs program. Why can’t they have an ambitious project and a jobs program?
I guess they’re gonna need a fourth iteration of a proposed pathfinder study into the business case of a reusable rocket if they can’t even depend on a LEO constellation as an anchor customer.
Maybe they’re trying to support European timber companies, too, for all the paper they’re going to need for this latest study.
Evidently the thesis is that all human endeavor is made better by being put under the control of a government ministry.
A couple news notes:
Possibly January 6 for the launch.
Following its record-breaking closest approach to the Sun, NASA’s Parker Solar Probe has transmitted a beacon tone back to Earth indicating it’s in good health and operating normally.
I suppose it will be several months before we find out if it discovered anything interesting.
The Parker Solar Probe travelled faster than any human made object ever built and has also spent some time deep in the sun’s gravitational field. I wonder how a clock on board would be affected? I know there wouldn’t be much of a time dilation but it would be interesting to know if the computer on board has a clock (presumably so) and whether or not it is noticeable.
I don’t know if the clock (which it definitely does have) is affected enough. But I’m fairly sure the radio signal from the craft would have its Doppler shift modified by relativistic time dilation, both from velocity and gravity. That is, if it communicated during close approach. But it does not do that, probably because its heat shield is in the way.