Constellations, Launch, New Space and more…
News

Multiple Small Satellite Launch Vehicles Under Development

By Doug Messier
Parabolic Arc
September 23, 2015
Filed under , , , , ,
LauncherOne stage separation. (Credit: Virgin Galactic)

LauncherOne stage separation. (Credit: Virgin Galactic)

There are at least 20 launch vehicles under development around the world designed to launch small satellite payloads weighing up to 1,000 kg (2,205 lb).

That was the conclusion of a recent survey by Carlos Niederstrasser and Warren Frick of Orbital ATK. They presented their results in a paper titled, “Small Launch Vehicles – A 2015 State of the Industry Survey,” during the Smallsat 2015 conference in Utah last month.

The authors identified active launcher programs according to a set of criteria. They did not attempt to assess the viability of any of the rockets being developed.  And there may be some projects they missed.

The tables below are adapted from the paper. I’ve combined several of their tables into single ones. I’ve also made some minor changes due to some developments that have occurred since the paper was written. For example, Virgin Galactic has increased the payload for LauncherOne. And the Kodiak Launch Complex has been renamed as the Pacific Spaceport Complex — Alaska.

SMALL SATELLITE LAUNCH VEHICLES

Organization(s) Launch Vehicle Name
 Country of Origin
 Current First Launch Date
 Performance Orbit(s)
 Projected Launch Cost
 Estimated Cost Per Kg
Ventions LLC SALVO USA 2015 4 kg LEO
CubeCab CubeCab USA July 2017 5 kg 400 km $0.25 M $50 k
Lin Industrial Таймыр Russia 9 kg LEO $0.18 M $20 k
XCOR Aerospace Lynx Mark III USA 2017+ 15 kg 400 km
Garvey Spacecraft Corporation Nanosat Launch Vehicle USA 20 kg 450 km
Generation Orbit GO Launcher 2 USA Q4 2016 30 kg 425 km 300 $2.5 M $56 k
Interorbital Systems NEPTUNE N5 USA Q4 2015 40 kg 310 km SSO $0.25 M $13 k
Celestia Aerospace Sagitarius Space Arrow Spain Q1 2016 4-16 nanosats 600 km $0.24 M No mass spec
Boeing ALASA USA Q1 2016 45 kg LEO $1 M $22 k
Open Space Orbital Neutrino 1 Canada 50 kg LEO
zero2infinity Bloostar Spain 75 kg 600 km SSO
Rocket Lab Electron USA/New Zealand 2015 100 kg 500 km SSO $4.9 M $49 k
Scorpius Space Launch Company Demi-Sprite USA 160 kg LEO $3.6 M $23 k
Swiss Space Systems SOAR Switzerland 2017 250 kg LEO <$10 M $40 k
 U. Hawaii, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Sandia National Lab Super Strypi USA October 2015 250 kg 400 km SSO $12 M $48 k
Firefly Space Systems Firefly α USA 2017 200 kg SSO 400 kg LEO LEO/ SSO $8-9 M $20 k
Virgin Galactic LauncherOne USA Q4 2016 200 kg SSO 400+ kg LEO LEO/ High SSO <$10 M <$20 k
ARCA Space Corp. Haas 2C Romania/USA 400 kg LEO
MISHAAL Aerospace M-OV USA 454 kg LEO
Orbital ATK Pegasus XL USA 1990 468 kg 200 km 00
Orbital ATK Minotaur I USA 2000 584 kg 200 km 28.50
Lockheed Martin Athena Ic USA After contract award 470 kg
760 kg		 700 km SSO
500 km

As shown, the launch vehicles cover quite a range of orbits and payloads, ranging from 4 kg (8.8 lb) to 760 kg (1,676 lb). Most of the vehicles are being developed by small startups, although you will notice the presence of larger companies such as Orbital ATK, which has two active launch vehicles, and Lockheed Martin, which is upgrading the older Athena rocket family.

Another aerospace giant, Boeing, is developing its ALASA launch vehicle under a DARPA contract. Vention’s smaller SALVO air-launched rocket also was developed with defense funding under the ALASA program.

The majority of the launch vehicles are American; in two case, there is U.S. participation with partners in New Zealand and Romania. Spain, Switzerland, Russia and Canada are also represented.

The table below shows the different launch methods and locations used for the launch vehicles.

LAUNCH METHODS & LOCATIONS

Organization(s) Launch Vehicle Name
 Launch Method
 Launch Location(s)
 Current First Launch Date
 Performance Orbit(s)
 Projected Launch Cost
Ventions LLC SALVO Air CCAFS 2015 4 kg LEO
CubeCab CubeCab Air Int’l Water July 2017 5 kg 400 km $0.25 M
Lin Industrial Таймыр Land 9 kg LEO $0.18 M
XCOR Aerospace Lynx Mark III Air/ Suborbital  KSC or Mojave 2017+ 15 kg 400 km
Garvey Spacecraft Corporation Nanosat Launch Vehicle Land PSC-Alaska 20 kg 450 km
Generation Orbit GO Launcher 2 Air USA, PR, UK Q4 2016 30 kg 425 km 300 $2.5 M
Interorbital Systems NEPTUNE N5 Land Q4 2015 40 kg 310 km SSO $0.25 M
Celestia Aerospace Sagitarius Space Arrow Air Int’l Water Q1 2016 4-16 nanosats 600 km $0.24 M
Boeing ALASA Air Global Q1 2016 45 kg LEO $1 M
Open Space Orbital Neutrino 1 Land 50 kg LEO
zero2infinity Bloostar Balloon  Int’l Water 75 kg 600 km SSO
Rocket Lab Electron Land Birdling’s Flat, NZ 2015 100 kg 500 km SSO $4.9 M
Scorpius Space Launch Company Demi-Sprite Land 160 kg LEO $3.6 M
Swiss Space Systems SOAR Air/ Suborbital 2017 250 kg LEO <$10 M
U. Hawaii, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Sandia National Lab Super Strypi Land PMRF Barking Sands — Hawaii October 2015 250 kg 400 km SSO $12 M
Firefly Space Systems Firefly α Land PSC-Alaska preferred 2017 200 kg SSO 400 kg LEO LEO/ SSO $8-9 M
Virgin Galactic LauncherOne Air Int’l Water Q4 2016 200 kg SSO 400+ kg LEO LEO/ High SSO <$10 M
ARCA Space Corp. Haas 2C Land 400 kg LEO
MISHAAL Aerospace M-OV Land 454 kg LEO
Orbital ATK Pegasus XL Air Int’l Water — Multiple locations demonstrated 1990 468 kg 200 km 00
Orbital ATK Minotaur I Land  CCAFS, PSC-Alaska, VAFB, WFF 2000 584 kg 200 km 28.50
Lockheed Martin Athena Ic Land 4 US Spaceports After contract award 470 kg
760 kg		  700 km SSO
500 km

Ten of the vehicles use some form of air launch, including two using reusable suborbital system and a third using a high-altitude balloon. The rest are launched from the ground.

As mentioned, Virgin Galactic recently increased the payload capacity to 200 kg (441 lb) for sun synchronous orbit and 400+ kg (882+ lb) for LEO. This puts the company in direct competition with Firefly Space Systems, which is advertising a similar payload range for its ground-based launcher. Firefly is run by Tom Markusic, who used to Virgin Galactic’s vice president of propulsion.

Doug Messier

45 responses to “Multiple Small Satellite Launch Vehicles Under Development”

  1. Iain says:
    September 24, 2015 at 5:17 am
    0
    0

    Not sure what the criteria was for their selection, but another one which I have been following is PLD space, http://pldspace.com/. They seem to be funded and are just starting engine testing. You’ll find most updates on their facebook or twitter.

    • Carlos G. Niederstrasser says:
      September 28, 2015 at 10:00 pm
      0
      0

      Our criteria for selection was fairly simple. They had to 1) Have a stated goal of developing a commercial LV 2) Have had some activity in the last three years, 3) Nothing public indicating they were cancelled or stopped working 4) the development is for an entire launch vehicle (not just pathfinder tech) and 5) be aiming to put up less than 1000 kg to “LEO” (however they defined it). Thank you for the link, my immediate glance at it is that PLD qualifies for the list. I will look into it in more detail and add them, if appropriate.

  2. savuporo says:
    September 24, 2015 at 8:17 am
    0
    0

    Actually they still missed a few

  3. ArcadeEngineer says:
    September 24, 2015 at 2:04 pm
    0
    0

    There’s also a pair of Chinese vehicles; Kuaizhou/FT-1, being offered for commercial launches by CASIC and which has already flown, and CZ-11, which is likely to be offered commercially by China Great Wall and is due to fly in a few hours.

  4. Hemingway says:
    September 24, 2015 at 2:34 pm
    0
    0

    ARCA Space Corporation is not a realistic developer. ARCA plans have been considered as a hoax in the past. In addition, ARCA has been criticized by the Romanian Space Agency, which says people from ARCA are some “amateurs” who “are making excessive publicity.”

    I read numerous articles on ARCA (Association of Romanian Cosmonautics and
    Aeronautics- now ARCA Space Corporation), and some of the Romanian stories raise serious concerns about ARCA and its product’s technical capability.

    Here is a pathetic test of the Haas 2C orbital rocket launcher:
    https://www.youtube.com/wat…

    From 2004 to the present, ARCA MEDIA has produced the following videos. There is hardly any substance to the videos. You do not see any product in production or demonstrated – just poor prototype. ARCA MEDIA only produces animated videos of future products like Haas. Some of the videos are laughable. Doug – please watch these videos:

    https://www.youtube.com/wat…

    https://www.youtube.com/wat…

    https://www.youtube.com/wat…

    https://www.youtube.com/wat…

    https://www.youtube.com/wat…

    https://www.youtube.com/wat…

    https://www.youtube.com/wat…

    https://www.youtube.com/wat…

    • Aerospike says:
      September 24, 2015 at 3:17 pm
      0
      0

      I agree with you, ever since the original X-Prize days, ARCA has delivered not much beyond publicity stunts.

      They seem to be capable of some impressive composite work, but there isn’t really any serious rocketry to be found, as most stuff they build looks like it is for show only and not operational. Notice the complete lack on any credible hotfire pictures/videos.

      A few years ago people (even including armchair rocket scientists like myself) have debated with Dumitru Popescu online for days, trying to convince him that his “pendulum rocket” scheme will not work, but he just would not listen. I don’t know if anything has changed since then.

      • Hemingway says:
        September 24, 2015 at 4:42 pm
        0
        0

        The Department of Economic Development of New Mexico will contribute $ 500,000 to build the new hangar and production space of 14,000 sq. ft. The initial City LEDA support for locating in Las Cruces is approximately $60,000, and includes waiver of first year rent at the 8960 Zia Blvd. facility for office and showroom space, and assistance in the first year’s rent of an assembly facility at the airport. The state will provide assistance for future expansion. ARCA will add 100 jobs in the process. $ 1.2 million was allocated for investment to start the business.

        In addition New Mexico has one of the most generous training incentive programs in the country. The Job Training Incentive Program (JTIP) funds classroom and on-the-job training for newly-created jobs in expanding or relocating businesses for up to 6 months. The program reimburses 50-75% of employee wages. Custom training at a New Mexico public educational institution may also be covered. ARCA will get all this extra money from New Mexico – Manna from heaven for ARCA!

      • Hemingway says:
        September 24, 2015 at 5:13 pm
        0
        0

        There is no credible evidence that a HAAS rocket was launched in 2010.
        Here are photos of the balloon that carried a questionable rocket.

        http://picasaweb.google.com…

        Here is a discussion of the ARCA attempt.

        http://spacefellowship.com/…

        • Aerospike says:
          September 25, 2015 at 7:40 am
          0
          0

          That’s the online discussion I was referring to, I participated in that thread 😉
          thanks for doing the search, I wasn’t sure where that discussion happened after all that time.

        • Christopher James Huff says:
          September 25, 2015 at 12:29 pm
          0
          0

          Hah. I hadn’t realized it was so questionable whether their test flights worked at all. I’d assumed their apparent success was just a combination of aerodynamic stabilization and a burn too short to show the instability of the vehicle.

  5. Sam says:
    September 24, 2015 at 3:46 pm
    0
    0

    There is the brazilian vehicle VLM – Veículo Lançador de Microssatélite but its development is delayed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

    • Douglas Messier says:
      September 24, 2015 at 10:36 pm
      0
      0

      There’s VLM and VLS. I was thinking of mentioning them, but the schedules keep slipping. It’s never clear if there’s an actual commitment to building them and what the schedules are for either one.

      • Sam says:
        September 25, 2015 at 12:23 am
        0
        0

        Unfortunally, Mr. Messier, these projects are under Planalto’s policy and Brazilian goverment is a complete disaster! It’s bolivarian, like Venezuela.

        They are leaving aside PEB (Brazilian Spacial Program) since they took power, 13 years ago….

        Despite the IAE’s efforts (IAE is a Institute under Air Force command), these programs are terrible delayed.

        The current estimate is that the first VLM flight to take place in 2018.

        But, it is a doubt, indeed.

    • Carlos G. Niederstrasser says:
      September 28, 2015 at 10:09 pm
      0
      0

      It wasn’t clear to me that these rockets were planned to be available commercially. Delayed development is not an issue – many of the other entrants have seen delays, and likely will never fly. Do you have any further information on the current status of the VLM and whether it will be sold commercially or just used by the government of Brazil?

  6. Larry J says:
    September 24, 2015 at 4:54 pm
    0
    0

    I agree that there’s a high probability of a shakeout happening within 10 years. There just doesn’t seem to be enough market to support that many launch providers. This might offer some interesting possibilities for some of these companies to combine the best aspects of their technology. For example, Firefly Space Systems is developing a rocket with an aerospike engine. At the same time, Rocket Lab’s Electron booster is implementing novel electric propellant pumps instead of expensive turbopumps. It might be possible to combine the two technologies to create a lower-cost, more efficient booster than either of their projects separately.

  7. windbourne says:
    September 24, 2015 at 6:01 pm
    0
    0

    Great article.
    It IS interesting to see how many companies are jumping on this. Most will never make it, BUT, if even if say half a dozen do, the competition will bring the price down lower. We are very likely going to see a new renascence on space adventure.

  8. Douglas Messier says:
    September 24, 2015 at 7:45 pm
    0
    0

    Found another one today: SpaceLS. A company out of the UK. It’s hard to tell how much money they have backing them.

    http://www.spacels.com/

  9. Леонид Миронов says:
    September 24, 2015 at 9:20 pm
    0
    0

    Таймыр – is a URM (Universial Launch Modules) structure, there’s no only 9kg paylod to LEO type.

    Don’t forget to say, that it can carry 9 to 150 kg payload to LEO in 5 models.
    *Also, if there’s launchers, that can carry up to 700kg+ payload to LEO, so – where is such vessels as “Shavit”, “Saphir-2”, american’s wing-rocket launcher “Pegasus”, russian convertionised ICBM’s?

    They are all now in use! Bad post..

    • Aerospike says:
      September 25, 2015 at 4:56 pm
      0
      0

      This is not a bad post.

      1) The list is not by Mr. Messier, as is clearly stated in the text:
      “That was the conclusion of a recent survey by Carlos Niederstrasser
      and Warren Frick of Orbital ATK. They presented their results in a paper
      titled, “Small Launch Vehicles – A 2015 State of the Industry Survey,”
      during the Smallsat 2015 conference in Utah last month.”

      2) The list isn’t supposed to be complete, the projects got selected on some kind of criteria for a study, again clearly stated in the text:
      “The authors identified active launcher programs according to a set of criteria. They did not attempt to assess the viability of any of the rockets being developed. And there may be some projects they missed.”

      3) Regarding the launchers that you think are missing from this list:
      a) Shavit: due to launch site restrictions, it is currently of pretty much zero use for the commercial market.
      b) Safir (Block II): due to political reasons, Iranian rockets had no relevance on the global market – this may change with improving relationships between Iran and USA/Europe
      c) Pegasus (XL) is on the list, look again 😉

    • Carlos G. Niederstrasser says:
      September 28, 2015 at 10:07 pm
      0
      0

      Our criteria for selection was fairly simple. They had to 1) Have a
      stated goal of developing a commercial LV 2) Have had some activity in
      the last three years, 3) Nothing public indicating they were cancelled
      or stopped working 4) the development is for an entire launch vehicle
      (not just pathfinder tech) and 5) be aiming to put up less than 1000 kg
      to “LEO” (however they defined it).

      When a entrant was part of a family of vehicles, we only included the smallest one. That was the case with Таймы. The thrust of the paper was to focus on small launch vehicles, which is why we did this.

      We did include Pegasus (it is made by our company, after all)! Shavit and Saphir-2, to the best of our knowledge are not available commercially, which is why we didn’t include them. If you have information to the contrary, we would welcome that so we can update the list.

  10. Vladislaw says:
    September 24, 2015 at 9:36 pm
    0
    0

    Exactly what you would expect in the speculation phase, capital comes flooding in to every little tech startup with launch or rocket in it’s name. This creates over production. That starts off a chain of price cutting as companies fight for market share. This is also a time of peak innovation as companies are now faced with innovate or die. As we know, necessity is the mother of invention. Then the shake out phase as companies start going bankrupt and market leaders start buying up assets and innovations pennies on the dollar. Finally the new equilbrium prices with set in …

    going to be fun to watch.. can’t wait to see it happen for space based destinations, space based transportation. earth to LEO transportation… et cetera..

  11. TimR says:
    September 25, 2015 at 5:21 am
    0
    0

    At the NEWSPACE conference in San Jose last month, one statement that stood out during the on stage discussions was a response to – is there still space in newspace for new startups. Yes but not with new launch vehicles was emphasized by one. That might have been self-serving. Given this list, probably not.

  12. TimR says:
    September 25, 2015 at 5:27 am
    0
    0

    Hey. There are six claiming first launch between now and EOY 2016. How many do you expect we’ll see happen?

  13. Christopher James Huff says:
    September 25, 2015 at 12:19 pm
    0
    0

    Bloostar is bizarre. That toroidal stage structure makes an inefficient use of mass while being more difficult to manufacture. With the pancake-shaped vehicle, gimbaling is going to be really ineffective, so the main means of control would be differential throttling, which is likely to be slower and less reliable (poor throttle response being what made the last Falcon 9 landing attempt fail, and that wasn’t trying to balance multiple engines).

    And I really wonder about the added potential for propellant slosh. Apart from the instability it can add (remember Falcon 1 flight 2?), when the propellant levels get low, they’re going to have a hard time feeding it into those engines, and even a low level left remaining in those toroidal tanks is going to amount to a relatively large fraction of the capacity.

    And then they launch the whole thing from a balloon to avoid drag losses resulting from the goofy form factor, which are normally almost negligible for conventionally shaped rockets launched from the ground. So they add in a whole new batch of complexities and limitations there…

  14. ArcadeEngineer says:
    September 25, 2015 at 12:24 pm
    0
    0

    Another; Argentina’s Tronador II (200kg to 600km polar LEO), and the beefed-up Tronador III (750kg to 600km PLEO). Has seen some slippage, but is at the point of flying smaller demonstrators, unlike Brazil’s effort. Full-scale test planned for next year.

  15. Ian1102 says:
    September 25, 2015 at 6:16 pm
    0
    0

    This list also seems to be missing Bagaveev http://bagaveev.com/ which has Silicon Valley funding I believe.

    • Carlos G. Niederstrasser says:
      September 28, 2015 at 10:02 pm
      0
      0

      Thank you for the link, my immediate glance at it is that Bagaveev qualifies
      for the list (see criteria in a different comment). I will look into it in more detail and add them, if
      appropriate.

  16. SpaceLS says:
    October 1, 2015 at 1:18 pm
    0
    0

    We would like to be added to list.
    Douglas, if you require any more information please feel to free to contact us.
    Regards

Leave a Reply

MORE FROM News