5 ms·

It's worth noting I-Space [1] and Galactic Energy [2] both mostly use solid fuel, with Galactic Energy's Ceres-1 continuing tradition with a highly-toxic hydraz

It's worth noting I-Space [1] and Galactic Energy [2] both mostly use solid fuel, with Galactic Energy's Ceres-1 continuing tradition with a highly-toxic hydrazine stage. Those "new space" companies will struggle to re-use their vehicles with such technologies. Rocket Lab, Virgin Orbit and SpaceX Falcon use keralox (re-usable, with some coking issues), and Blue Origin and SpaceX Raptor uses methalox (cleanly re-usable). All those providers (except Virgin as far as I know) are pursuing re-usability and SpaceX and Rocket Lab are succeeding at recovering the first stage (with SpaceX far ahead at actually re-using them). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Space_(Chinese_company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Space_(Chinese_company) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Energy

baybal2 6y ago
> Those "new space" companies will struggle to re-use their vehicles with such technologies. Do they even need to? Material cost of solid fuel ICBMs go right into few megabucks each.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Yes, they do. The lowest cost per kg to orbit launch vehicles are not primarily solid.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    But if they can get missile cost to $1-2m, which I believe is very realistic, would there still be any big economic benefit from recovery when the launch will still cost few megabucks?
    - m4rtink 6y ago
      For one its unlike to scale - especially if you are using similar stages as the military, once you reach a certain maximum payload, making a bigger rocket will be much more expensive as you would no longer share the development and production costs of the new stages with the military.
      - Robotbeat 6y ago
        And guided missiles and ICBMs are expensive. In fact, the cheapest large missiles are usually liquid.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      But no one has in spite of there being a super strong incentive to do so. Reuse is taking over the launch market. And for good reason: expendable aerostructures cost basically the same to build as reusable ones, certainly within a factor of 2 or whatever. A cruise missile and a similar dry mass general aviation aircraft cost about the same. For all the talk about (& investment in) low cost expendables, nobody has made it cheaper. Besides, reusable liquid rockets are easier on the payload (less vibration, etc).

baybal2 6y ago

> Those "new space" companies will struggle to re-use their vehicles with such technologies. Do they even need to? Material cost of solid fuel ICBMs go right into few megabucks each.

Robotbeat 6y ago
Yes, they do. The lowest cost per kg to orbit launch vehicles are not primarily solid.
- baybal2 6y ago
  But if they can get missile cost to $1-2m, which I believe is very realistic, would there still be any big economic benefit from recovery when the launch will still cost few megabucks?
  - m4rtink 6y ago
    For one its unlike to scale - especially if you are using similar stages as the military, once you reach a certain maximum payload, making a bigger rocket will be much more expensive as you would no longer share the development and production costs of the new stages with the military.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      And guided missiles and ICBMs are expensive. In fact, the cheapest large missiles are usually liquid.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    But no one has in spite of there being a super strong incentive to do so. Reuse is taking over the launch market. And for good reason: expendable aerostructures cost basically the same to build as reusable ones, certainly within a factor of 2 or whatever. A cruise missile and a similar dry mass general aviation aircraft cost about the same. For all the talk about (& investment in) low cost expendables, nobody has made it cheaper. Besides, reusable liquid rockets are easier on the payload (less vibration, etc).