Okay /sci/, how do I send 1kg to a (mostly) stable orbit as cheaply

SpaceX charges $6500 per pound of additional space they have available. These are usually booked months in advance and there's a long waiting list.

Our University has launched a Cubesat.

>>8233431
Well, how can I build my own? I don't want to wait possibly years to send something into a stable orbit.

>>8233434
>Well, how can I build my own?

You can't. Even if you had the money and an Phd in aerospace it would be really hard without NASA, Russian or help of other space agencies. This is because the metallurgy used in rockets is a closely guarded secret. It's why only a handful of nations have a space program.

dont answer to american people haha they need to pay ariane or vostok to throw something in space

>>8233434
>>8233451
Companies do it every month aboard wee tiny rockets. Literally the only hurdles here are money and regulations. Just get a sponsor and get gud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg0FfxHPGXs

>asking this question on 4chan means you thought of it on the toilet and like that turd you flushed, will be gone and replaced with yet another turd of thought

>>8233507
This is basically a sounding rocket, not an orbital rocket.

OP was asking about orbit.

>>8233507

That rocket is a piece of shit. It's not even a real rocket ffs.

>>8233434
>>8233451
There are plenty of companies around the world that specialize in that sort of thing. Expect to spend about $100,000 to $200,000 for the simplest hello world satellite.

There are also regulations regarding what band you'll use to transmit data in. Licensing costs can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm not sure if there are unlicensed bands that are available for simple satellites.

Launch costs are reasonable but there are lots of other factors that contribute to the final price. It is not an easy thing to do, at all.

>>8233547
>>8233553
lol wut? I didn't say that was a rocket for putting payloads into space. I said companies do this shit, kid.

>>8233630
People were talking about how to launch something into orbit, and you said:
>Companies do it every month aboard wee tiny rockets.
...then you posted an example. Don't try and pretend it wasn't one.

Existing orbital launch vehicles are not "wee tiny rockets". The smallest orbital launcher I've ever heard of is Lambda 4s, a 9-and-a-half-ton rocket, which could only put 26 kg into orbit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_4S

For comparison with a practical system, Falcon 1 was a 40 ton rocket that was supposed to put 640 kg into orbit (although its biggest actual payload was 180 kg). The next-smallest orbital launcher was Vanguard, a 1950s American rocket (intended to put the first satellite into orbit, although both Sputnik and another American rocket worked first) with only a 7 kg payload.

>>8233451
It's most likely a aluminum magnesium alloy. It's a lightweight, and very sturdy building material.

>>8233740

No actually it isn't, I work for a cryogenic motor company that does space applications. You fail to account for CTE and the size change during space flight.

>>8233451
>the metallurgy used in rockets is a closely guarded secret. It's why only a handful of nations have a space program.
This is such fucking nonsense. Rockets are made from a variety of materials, many of which are public knowledge. You look at OTRAG, they just used off-the-shelf stainless steel pipe and fiberglass (they actually made the combustion chambers and nozzles by molding fiberglass/resin composite in the end of the pipe, which also provides ablative cooling), and it was working well until they were shut down for political reasons.

There's no secret sauce. It's just expensive, challenging, hazardous, and threatening/provocative due to weapon applications, with pretty limited benefits compared to just buying launches on established rockets.

There's only a handful of companies that make intercontinental airliners, too. That doesn't mean there's some deep secret to producing them.

>>8233697
>Don't try and pretend it wasn't one.

But they are not a company that launches things into orbit. The are an amateur rocket enthusiasts with sponsors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies

Next time bring something to the table worth discussing, kid.

>>8233791
>>Don't try and pretend it wasn't one.
>But they are not a company that launches things into orbit.
Oh, for the love of fuck. I'm not saying they launch things into orbit, I'm saying you obviously intended to present them as an example to support your claim that:
>Companies [launch things into orbit] every month aboard wee tiny rockets.

>>8233798
>>8233791
Also, there are precisely two companies on this list:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies
...with "operational" orbital launch vehicles. One is Orbital ATK, and the other is SpaceX, and the smallest rocket either operates is 23 tons and needs to be launched from the stratosphere by an airliner.

>>8233624
>There are also regulations regarding what band you'll use to transmit data in. Licensing costs can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm not sure if there are unlicensed bands that are available for simple satellites.

What is CFR 47 part 97?