4 ms·

Could we be at the very beginning of a Cambrian explosion for space exploration? Exciting times.

by mrfusion 7y ago

ExodusOrbitals1 7y ago
We pretty much are! Both nanosatellite and small launcher companies are booming hard in the last few years.
kardos 7y ago
With Kessler syndrome looming it may be the wrong kind of excitement
- jdsully 7y ago
  Low earth orbit satellites decay very quickly. Without extra boost most satellites launched by these rockets will reenter within a year or two. On a wider note, I find the dramatic pessimism of our times rather unfortunate. It seems every technical advance is now met with some prediction of doom. I miss when technical forums were optimistic.
  - prestonh 7y ago
    I havent researched the orbital dynamics much here, but wouldnt it be possible for the satellite fragments resulting from a collision at orbital speeds to have much greater speeds, possibly ending up in elliptical orbits with lower total drag? Seems like just waiting for orbits to decay after a Kessler syndrome like event wouldnt be feasible.
    - jdsully 7y ago
      An elliptical orbit would require the perigee to be even closer to the earth further increasing drag. It is possible for small fragments to potentially be moved to higher orbits (with counter balancing mass being moved lower) But the conservation of momentum prevents the vast majority of fragments from suffering this fate. Baring exceptionally bad luck a collision in LEO would usually decrease the time before the orbit decays. Remember a debris field has more surface area than an intact satellite.
    - marcosdumay 7y ago
      Yes, it is possible. If you get an explosion, many fragments will be in an elliptical orbit where they can stay longer than on LEO. But there is a trade-off here, the time during what a fragment is dangerous is exactly the same time it is in a high drag region, so if it's not feasible to wait for it to fall down, it is also not really dangerous either.
CydeWeys 7y ago
By launched volume, it seems like. By diversity of launch platforms ... maybe not. SpaceX seems poised to dominate everything with Starship, even small launch.
DuskStar 7y ago
Either that or the beginning of a new dot-com bubble. Most of those smallsat companies are financially viable on the expectation that they capture a meaningful fraction of the smallsat market - like 1/5th or more. They can't all win - and that's assuming any of them win. SpaceX seems to be planning to own the rideshare market [0], and so unless a customer really cares about having a particular orbit that's going to be pretty tough competition. 0: https://www.spacex.com/smallsat https://www.spacex.com/smallsat
- Narkov 7y ago
  > They can't all win - and that's assuming any of them win. While I agree with your general point, do we completely understand the opportunity that space launch/travel/exploration provides yet? The opportunity may be exponentially bigger than we currently understand.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    But smallsat launchers only make sense if they have a lower cost/kg (unlikely vs the F9) or if they're being used for an orbit/launch time that doesn't have enough demand for a rideshare. And if the space launch market gets big enough to support 100 smallsat launchers, a F9 rideshare into that special orbit will probably have enough takers to make it cheaper than the smallsat launcher would have.
    - elil17 7y ago
      Smaller diameter rockets have a much worse fuel ratio (because of fuel tank geometry issues), so there’s no way they’ll ever be cheaper than larger rockets. They fundamentally must use more fuel per kg of payload than large rockets because fuel tank wet mass to dry mass ratio increases linearly with diameter.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        Right, and that's why smallsat launchers are only really viable for orbits/launches that can't be served by rideshares. Better to pay $5mil for an Electron to launch your smallsat than to book an entire Falcon 9, even if the $/kg is far higher.

Could we be at the very beginning of a Cambrian explosion for space exploration? Exciting times.

ExodusOrbitals1 7y ago

We pretty much are! Both nanosatellite and small launcher companies are booming hard in the last few years.

kardos 7y ago

With Kessler syndrome looming it may be the wrong kind of excitement

jdsully 7y ago
Low earth orbit satellites decay very quickly. Without extra boost most satellites launched by these rockets will reenter within a year or two. On a wider note, I find the dramatic pessimism of our times rather unfortunate. It seems every technical advance is now met with some prediction of doom. I miss when technical forums were optimistic.
- prestonh 7y ago
  I havent researched the orbital dynamics much here, but wouldnt it be possible for the satellite fragments resulting from a collision at orbital speeds to have much greater speeds, possibly ending up in elliptical orbits with lower total drag? Seems like just waiting for orbits to decay after a Kessler syndrome like event wouldnt be feasible.
  - jdsully 7y ago
    An elliptical orbit would require the perigee to be even closer to the earth further increasing drag. It is possible for small fragments to potentially be moved to higher orbits (with counter balancing mass being moved lower) But the conservation of momentum prevents the vast majority of fragments from suffering this fate. Baring exceptionally bad luck a collision in LEO would usually decrease the time before the orbit decays. Remember a debris field has more surface area than an intact satellite.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    Yes, it is possible. If you get an explosion, many fragments will be in an elliptical orbit where they can stay longer than on LEO. But there is a trade-off here, the time during what a fragment is dangerous is exactly the same time it is in a high drag region, so if it's not feasible to wait for it to fall down, it is also not really dangerous either.

CydeWeys 7y ago

By launched volume, it seems like. By diversity of launch platforms ... maybe not. SpaceX seems poised to dominate everything with Starship, even small launch.

DuskStar 7y ago

Either that or the beginning of a new dot-com bubble. Most of those smallsat companies are financially viable on the expectation that they capture a meaningful fraction of the smallsat market - like 1/5th or more. They can't all win - and that's assuming any of them win. SpaceX seems to be planning to own the rideshare market [0], and so unless a customer really cares about having a particular orbit that's going to be pretty tough competition. 0: https://www.spacex.com/smallsat https://www.spacex.com/smallsat

Narkov 7y ago
> They can't all win - and that's assuming any of them win. While I agree with your general point, do we completely understand the opportunity that space launch/travel/exploration provides yet? The opportunity may be exponentially bigger than we currently understand.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  But smallsat launchers only make sense if they have a lower cost/kg (unlikely vs the F9) or if they're being used for an orbit/launch time that doesn't have enough demand for a rideshare. And if the space launch market gets big enough to support 100 smallsat launchers, a F9 rideshare into that special orbit will probably have enough takers to make it cheaper than the smallsat launcher would have.
  - elil17 7y ago
    Smaller diameter rockets have a much worse fuel ratio (because of fuel tank geometry issues), so there’s no way they’ll ever be cheaper than larger rockets. They fundamentally must use more fuel per kg of payload than large rockets because fuel tank wet mass to dry mass ratio increases linearly with diameter.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      Right, and that's why smallsat launchers are only really viable for orbits/launches that can't be served by rideshares. Better to pay $5mil for an Electron to launch your smallsat than to book an entire Falcon 9, even if the $/kg is far higher.