Jump to content

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Naturally. But you'll note that I did address the cost-benefit analysis above; I just don't see any way doing a TSTO could possibly be more expensive if their mass fractions really are as stellar as they claim.

We are beyond the time when material costs dominated, very far so in the western economies. The difference between 100kg of aluminium and 500kg of composite won't pay a single engineer for a month. Yet it is not the per launch costs that is the issue, it's the once over development costs. They must be paid in full before you can begin to recoup them in launch fees. If you run out of money before you have a working launcher, you are not going to space, you are going bankrupt.

So there is a limit how much a company can spend in product development. For ARCA cash in the bank is probably most of it. They don't have much of a selling product right now do they? And with history like that how much capital do you think they can raise?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Found these videos on their youtube channel delving into the process to build a demonstrator rocket using a linear aerospike. So it looks like they have a team of at least 6 people working on it.  Hopefully they don't run out of funds before then!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They make shiny mockups, take money from rubes, and occasionally launch solid fireworks. A big liquid propellant rocket, even monoprop, is vastly outside their realm of expertise.

EDIT: They just put up a post on facebook saying their stock price is likely to rise, but cannot fall regardless of the launch outcome. That's the kind of people we're dealing with. I'm not even sure they can legally say that, they certainly couldn't in this country.

Edited by Kryten
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its expendable right? Why does it not deorbit itself? Or does it? If not, they better send cubesats on that rocket that deorbit himself and his dead space junk friends!

Seriously though, the fact that its 4x more expensive per KG than a F9 is kind of sad. Not my ride to space, sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kryten said:

They make shiny mockups, take money from rubes, and occasionally launch solid fireworks. A big liquid propellant rocket, even monoprop, is vastly outside their realm of expertise.

EDIT: They just put up a post on facebook saying their stock price is likely to rise, but cannot fall regardless of the launch outcome. That's the kind of people we're dealing with. I'm not even sure they can legally say that, they certainly couldn't in this country.

I think those sorts of announcements are strictly illegal under EU rules. Wonder how that meshes with their moving into the US a couple years back...

That said, I feel sadness. I think the technical premise does have merit. It just needs to be executed with due engineering. And find a business niche of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, NSEP said:

Seriously though, the fact that its 4x more expensive per KG than a F9 is kind of sad. Not my ride to space, sorry.

Comes with the territory. You will not find any smallsat launcher that's nearly as cost efficient to orbit as a large-scale rocket utilizing all of its payload capacity.

However, when given the option to choose between going somewhere you don't want to be for cheap, or going exactly where you want to be for a higher price, most companies would gladly pick the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Comes with the territory. You will not find any smallsat launcher that's nearly as cost efficient to orbit as a large-scale rocket utilizing all of its payload capacity.

However, when given the option to choose between going somewhere you don't want to be for cheap, or going exactly where you want to be for a higher price, most companies would gladly pick the latter.

Yes, if you just want to get into space with an small payload to do space science or test technology an secondary payload is most economical. 
if you want to get in an specific orbit it can be hard to impossible to get an secondary payload slot, worse if you also have time constraints. 

An small launcher makes sense to replace the planned low orbit communication satellite clouds. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2017 at 7:26 AM, magnemoe said:

Yes, if you just want to get into space with an small payload to do space science or test technology an secondary payload is most economical. 
if you want to get in an specific orbit it can be hard to impossible to get an secondary payload slot, worse if you also have time constraints. 

An small launcher makes sense to replace the planned low orbit communication satellite clouds. 
 

Indeed.

But SSTO is not the way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Indeed.

But SSTO is not the way to go.

Two stage to orbit is fine for the big boys (and presumably even down to Falcon 1), but expect to need even more efficiency gains as you get smaller.  Pegasus launches at altitude (which helps nozzle Isp as well as drag losses.  But it still uses two stages), and I think a recent Japanese* attempt at using a tiny rocket for satellite launch had 5 stages.

* not to be confused with a fairly current private sounding rocket that is in the news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29.7.2017 at 0:06 AM, wumpus said:

Two stage to orbit is fine for the big boys (and presumably even down to Falcon 1), but expect to need even more efficiency gains as you get smaller.  Pegasus launches at altitude (which helps nozzle Isp as well as drag losses.  But it still uses two stages), and I think a recent Japanese* attempt at using a tiny rocket for satellite launch had 5 stages.

* not to be confused with a fairly current private sounding rocket that is in the news.

The Japanese is solid fuel, they tend to have more stages, much easier to make many stages with solid fuel 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry if this seems too harsh but THIS IS SUCH A DUMB IDEA! like, seriously?! Firstly, when did this company ever have anything else to do with aerospace? and like many others said on the thread, the falcon 9 RUD wasn`t because of staging, and also, if you want simplicity, use a freaking srb, there simple, right? Also, from the animation on the pitch, they are docking a booster to the iss, with a satellite on the front of it, anyone else see a problem with it? Oh, and obviously, having 12 more explosive bolts on a craft makes it way more likely to fail (ok, i`m exaggerating there).

rant over, sorry about that

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2017 at 1:16 PM, RoadRunnerAerospace said:

sorry if this seems too harsh but THIS IS SUCH A DUMB IDEA! like, seriously?! Firstly, when did this company ever have anything else to do with aerospace? and like many others said on the thread, the falcon 9 RUD wasn`t because of staging, and also, if you want simplicity, use a freaking srb, there simple, right? Also, from the animation on the pitch, they are docking a booster to the iss, with a satellite on the front of it, anyone else see a problem with it? Oh, and obviously, having 12 more explosive bolts on a craft makes it way more likely to fail (ok, i`m exaggerating there).

rant over, sorry about that

Yeah, docking a booster to the ISS is impossibly stupid.

And they were all "plus if this gets refueled in orbit it can go further!" Uh, what? You can't refuel a pressure-fed engine, there's no restart capability, there is no inherent advantage to refueling an SSTO in comparison to a typical upper stage, AND who on earth would send a refueling mission to refuel an empty, heavy booster?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, if the normal layman came across this video and saw it, they would go "Huh, fancy concept. Seems like it might work". The KSP community, in general, are not lay-people with this spaceflight thing. So I would guess that this is more to attract business people into funding some idea that may be inefficient and stupid, and not even get off the ground.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 4/3/2017 at 3:05 PM, sevenperforce said:

company's track record isn't very good,

Are you talking about the ludicrously expensive ARCAboard that only lasts for 6 minutes per charge anyway?

I do like how they are trying to build an actual orbital rocket without billions of dollars(and using Aruinos.)  

I also watch all the very interesting weekly progress updates, where they detail all the parts.  Very interesting.  

 

 

On 7/26/2017 at 5:45 AM, NSEP said:

Why does it not deorbit itself? Or does it? If not, they better send cubesats on that rocket that deorbit himself and his dead space junk friends!

They were asked that in a Q/A and said that since it is a single solid object, it supposedly doesn't matter.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, .50calBMG said:

"friendly, familiar shape"... well, rectangles have been around a while I guess, but it doesn't look too friendly to me.

I know.  The amount of hype and over emotion is that video is comically high

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...