11 ms·

Currently the smallest rocket to reach orbit appears to be the SS-520-5, weighing in at 2.6 metric tons. [1] I realize that physics is not scale free, and it f

Currently the smallest rocket to reach orbit appears to be the SS-520-5, weighing in at 2.6 metric tons. [1] I realize that physics is not scale free, and it favors bigger rockets over smaller because a small rocket has a high dry weight (relative to fueled weight), experiences more drag (relative to total mass), and probably other reasons. But I wonder how small a rocket could get and still reach orbit? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Series_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Series_(rocket_family)

sbierwagen 8y ago
Mockingbird SSTO concept: 1500 kg, 10 kg payload to orbit. http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11056 http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11056
- greglindahl 8y ago
  In case anyone is confused by this response, Mockingbird was a concept and was never built. The SS-520-5 was built and reached orbit once.
  - sbierwagen 8y ago
    Edited.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      Thanks :-)
owenversteeg 8y ago
What benefits in design do small rockets have? Are there aspects of construction/aerodynamics/materials/other effects that get easier when the rocket gets smaller? (I say this because I'd personally love to see more small rockets reaching orbit, and I'm wondering how that might be made possible)
- PeterisP 8y ago
  The only advantage seems to be if you need to get lots of small payloads into very different orbits, for everything else the square-cube law and other economies of scale work against small rockets.
- gnode 8y ago
  The primary benefit seems to be the lower cost / mass producibility. An alternative to making launch vehicles reusable, is to make their production automated and inexpensive. This is a lot more practical when they're on the scale of a family car, rather than a container ship.
allenz 8y ago
I think that the physics scales pretty well, actually. It's just that once you get small enough, ground-based or air-based launch systems are going to be more effective than rockets. We're talking railguns, ram accelerators, beam-powered propulsion, and particle accelerators for the really small stuff.
- gnode 8y ago
  I don't think that's true. When you get to smaller sizes, air resistance becomes the dominant factor. Ground based launch systems would need to impart ever greater velocities to be effective, and the launch vehicle capable of surviving greater frictional wear.
  - allenz 8y ago
    But then you're light enough for air launch or beam propulsion to be viable.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sbierwagen 8y ago

Mockingbird SSTO concept: 1500 kg, 10 kg payload to orbit. http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11056 http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11056

greglindahl 8y ago
In case anyone is confused by this response, Mockingbird was a concept and was never built. The SS-520-5 was built and reached orbit once.
- sbierwagen 8y ago
  Edited.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    Thanks :-)

owenversteeg 8y ago

What benefits in design do small rockets have? Are there aspects of construction/aerodynamics/materials/other effects that get easier when the rocket gets smaller? (I say this because I'd personally love to see more small rockets reaching orbit, and I'm wondering how that might be made possible)

PeterisP 8y ago
The only advantage seems to be if you need to get lots of small payloads into very different orbits, for everything else the square-cube law and other economies of scale work against small rockets.
gnode 8y ago
The primary benefit seems to be the lower cost / mass producibility. An alternative to making launch vehicles reusable, is to make their production automated and inexpensive. This is a lot more practical when they're on the scale of a family car, rather than a container ship.

allenz 8y ago

I think that the physics scales pretty well, actually. It's just that once you get small enough, ground-based or air-based launch systems are going to be more effective than rockets. We're talking railguns, ram accelerators, beam-powered propulsion, and particle accelerators for the really small stuff.

gnode 8y ago
I don't think that's true. When you get to smaller sizes, air resistance becomes the dominant factor. Ground based launch systems would need to impart ever greater velocities to be effective, and the launch vehicle capable of surviving greater frictional wear.
- allenz 8y ago
  But then you're light enough for air launch or beam propulsion to be viable.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]