https://www.universetoday.com/13481 2/arca-unveils-worlds-fi

>>8803597
>electric beard trimmer

So much this. Hope it works out for them.

>>8803597
It's supersonic beard trimmer

>>8803597
Musk btfo?

___y


___N

You triple or quadruple the payload by making 2 stage
Single stage doesn't make any sense

>>8803597
How's it going to stay stable with only one potential axis of thrust vectoring and no fins?

>>8803743
No idea, but thrusters would be an obvious possibility.

>If successful, the company hopes to use this rocket to deploy small satellites to orbit in the coming decade.

Vaporware, will never be a result, these small sat launchers are a diamond dozen

There is no market for them, physically they are difficult to make work, they aren't much cheaper than a big rocket either.

>>8803710
Your face when Musk buys their aerospike

>>8803743

I assume a linear aerospike can still be gimbaled on two axes. It would have to rely on varying combustion chamber pressures to achieve roll control though.

Also if this thing is expendable it's literally a non-starter, the extremely complicated and expensive engine design will kill it before any metal is bent.

>>8803597
I'll take the Romanians seriously as soon as they actually put a payload into space and conducting actual test flights of complete rockets instead of just doing static test fires and strapping shit to balloons.

>>8803710
N

>>8803766

I think there is enough of a market for exactly one small satellite launch vehicle to exist, and that's gotta be Rocketlab. They're the furthest along, set to launch this year, they have the most straightforward design, and they're going to eat up every available contract before anybody else even gets a chance to compete.

The smallsat launch vehicle market is based not on dollars per kilogram but rather on actual launch price being much lower than a large launch vehicle. If you want to place your small satellite into a weird orbit that nobody else is going to launch into, you have no choice but to go with a small launch vehicle. If you don't want to wait until a ride-share slot opens up in 3 years to launch your payload, small launch vehicle it is.

The market won't be very large, but it will probably be enough to sustain Rocketlab when it comes online, which will probably coincide with the cancelling of all those other smallsat launch vehicle startups. Case in point, Firefly space was Rocketlab's closest competitor, but were behind enough that their main investors saw the writing on the wall and pulled out completely. Firefly is dead now.

>>8803597

If it isn't reusable, which it does not appear to be, then there's no point.

Any cost ''''savings'''' by excluding a second stage are more than made up for by the much smaller payload mass and increased cost of the first stage engine, which is supposed to do all kinds of fancy things like shutting down combustion chambers to limit G loads. Such complexity doesn't come cheap, which wouldn't be a problem if it were reusable, but it doesn't appear to be.

Now, if this thing were tweaked to use more efficient fuel, have a TPS and a body flap to protect the engine during reentry, and some winglets to control flight so that it could be landed and reused, then maybe they'd have something on their hands, despite the taste saying the words 'SSTO space-plane' leaves in my mouth. However, the fact that these guys are coming out of nowhere to essentially build Venture Star for dummies, and expect it to be economical, leads me to doubt they'll ever get beyond the conceptual pitch.

>>8803710

N

Expendable SSTO powered by Aerospike? Literally the most retarded launch vehicle design I've heard of recently, except for that one the French Mars Society came up with before Elon revealed the ITS. Read below if you want some keks.

http://planete-mars.com/what-could-the-mars-colonization-transport-mct-spacex-project-look-like-continued/

>>8804451
How big a market for satellites in funny orbits can exist?
5 launches a year?

Once SpaceX finishes their backlog, any small sat launcher market will disappear. Thats the real reason it exists, long backlogs on all other launchers.

>>8804554

SpaceX is the cheapest per kilogram, but they aren't the cheapest ride to space. Electron will be inferior to Falcon 9 in every way except launch cost, despite having a higher cost per kilogram. No one trying to gt their small sat launched has $40 million (stated price for a reused F9 booster) budgeted for their launch service.

>>8804432
>Also if this thing is expendable it's literally a non-starter

That is certainly one way to guess.

>>8804659
SpaceX could compete if they produced a reusable upper stage with a couple ton payload.
Obviously they won't be doing that, because theres no real money in it

If Rocketlab can actually deliver at that price point, then I imagine they will stay in business for a while.

>>8803597
Aerospikes are sexy as hell