Jump to content

Orbex thread

Mad Rocket Scientist
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mad Rocket Scientist

Mad Rocket Scientist

Posted
Posted

Orbex is a British aerospace startup. We didn't have a thread for it yet, so I thought I'd make one.

They appear to have a fancy website, $40 million, and a plan to build a commercial spaceport in Scotland, along with Lockheed Martin and the U.K. Space Agency. They are targeting 2021 for their first flight, and seem to be aiming for polar and SSOs.

Their first launch vehicle is called the Prime, and appears to fit into the Falcon 1/Vector-R/Electron category. They claim that Prime will be up to 30% and 20% more efficient that other smallsat launchers. They say that they will use bio-propane as a fuel, and I think LOX is the most likely oxidizer.

They claim to have developed a new staging and payload seperation system called "Magic" which is "zero-shock" and leaves no orbital debris. They say "It also features a novel reusability concept, with an innovative new low mass recovery and reflight system."

Their ignition system "no moving parts or electrics" which sounds like a polite way to say pyrotechnics.

It looks like they are using carbon fiber in their rockets, since they're hiring composite production engineers.

I know my tone is bit snarky about their lack of meaningful info, but I really do wish them all the best. And I believe this would be the first time a British rocket left the ground since the 70's.

Twitter

LinkedIn

Instagram

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
wumpus

wumpus

Posted
Posted
On 7/18/2018 at 4:19 AM, Wjolcz said:

Is it me or are all these space companies popping up like crazy recently?

Pretty much.  And there wasn't enough money to keep spacex in business with the Falcon 1.  Considering how many smallsats can piggy back on the big boys, I'm not remotely sure how they will survive now.  It doesn't help that Rocket Labs already has a successful flight.  Not to mention that the big boys might well be interested in using the Rutherford engine as a throttleable landing engine (at least it looks like one to me).

Pegasus has very few flights these days.  Falcon 1 is outright canceled.  Companies that have competed in this space are abandoning it, making me question just what it is that they are chasing (well I get the rocket scientists, it is who is funding them that doesn't make any sense).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ultimate Steve

Ultimate Steve

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, wumpus said:

Pretty much.  And there wasn't enough money to keep spacex in business with the Falcon 1.  Considering how many smallsats can piggy back on the big boys, I'm not remotely sure how they will survive now.  It doesn't help that Rocket Labs already has a successful flight.  Not to mention that the big boys might well be interested in using the Rutherford engine as a throttleable landing engine (at least it looks like one to me).

Pegasus has very few flights these days.  Falcon 1 is outright canceled.  Companies that have competed in this space are abandoning it, making me question just what it is that they are chasing (well I get the rocket scientists, it is who is funding them that doesn't make any sense).

The thing is, since Falcon 1, the smallsat and cubesat market has exploded. Many of these companies already have several launches booked despite not having launched anything yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wumpus

wumpus

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

The thing is, since Falcon 1, the smallsat and cubesat market has exploded. Many of these companies already have several launches booked despite not having launched anything yet.

 

10 hours ago, tater said:

It'll be interesting to see what happens. The cubesat market is predicated on the fact that the cost/kg to orbit is so very high. If that comes down...

This only makes sense if you are sufficiently picky about which orbit (mainly inclination) your smallsat/cubesat gets.  Otherwise you can hitch a ride with the big boys or simply group enough sats in one big launch.  Certainly it would cheaper/less risky to charter a falcon and fill it with a "group launch buy" than to build your own rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, wumpus said:

This only makes sense if you are sufficiently picky about which orbit (mainly inclination) your smallsat/cubesat gets.  Otherwise you can hitch a ride with the big boys or simply group enough sats in one big launch.  Certainly it would cheaper/less risky to charter a falcon and fill it with a "group launch buy" than to build your own rocket.

True, but I was also thinking literally about the size/mass. Cubesats are tiny, but when you have launchers like BFR and NG out there, it seems like in addition to hitching a ride, or launching MANY in one go, you can make them bigger (easier to make, hence cheaper), and even give them propulsion. The market has not had a reason to do this---yet---but the recent news about sats for NG using larger fixed antennas shows this will likely happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • 2 years 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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...