Many startups that hope to become the next SpaceX

by

Robert Zubrin believes that by 2023, there will be at least six other private space launch companies that will join SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic and Stratolaunch in commercial space launch.

Robert Zubrin runs the Mars Society and he gets a close-up view of the private space ventures and those who are planning private space ventures.

Zubrin is aware of other groups of people in Russia who would like to pull together a Russian SpaceX. They have technical expertise over there and the sources of capital. Zubrin believes that there are people in China who would want to pull together a Chinese SpaceX.

Zubrin was well acquainted with the previous private efforts in the 1990s as well as Musk’s SpaceX. Elon did not just throw some money at the problem and quit as soon as it got tough. He put not only his fortune but his heart, mind and his soul into it. He learned rocketry himself, and he didn’t give up when his first three launches failed.

There are several small rocket launch startups in the USA, Japan, South Korea and China. Several have successfully reached orbit with launches.

China’s startups have some government and military support.

It seems like most want to have 3D printed very inexpensive cubesat or 1000 kilogram or lighter launches. Several want to reach 100 launches per year. The companies could then get additional funding to move up to compete against SpaceX and Blue Origin.

Rocket Labs

Rocket Lab is an American aerospace manufacturer with a wholly owned New Zealand subsidiary. They are making 3D printed rockets for launching cubesats.

Electron is a two-stage launch vehicle which uses Rocket Lab’s Rutherford liquid engines on both stages. It can delivering payloads of 150 kg to a 500 km Sun-synchronous orbit, the target range for the growing small satellite market. The projected cost is less than US$5 million per launch.

The Rutherford engine battery-powered electric motors for pumps rather than a gas generator, expander, or preburner. The engine is also fabricated largely by 3D printing, via electron beam melting, whereby layers of metal powder are melted in a high vacuum by an electron beam rather than a laser.

On 21 January 2018, their second rocket named “Still Testing” launched, reached orbit and deployed three CubeSats for customers Planet Labs and Spire Global.

Vector Launch

Vector Launch plans to recover the first stages of its rockets for reuse, however their strategy for doing so differs from those of other companies in that they do not plan to use powered rocket landings. Their rocket has a carbon fiber structure, some 3D printed engine parts, minimal infrastructure launch pads, and a fast launch cadence, which the company hopes will eventually reach 100 launches per year. The first client of Vector was Iceye, a company in Finland.

OneSpace Space Launch Startup

In May 2018, OneSpace, a startup based in Beijing, became China’s first private company to launch its own rocket. They successfully launched a 9-meter-tall OS-X rocket.

OneSpace’s OS-X rocket is designed to carry out tests and research during suborbital flights.

OneSpace works with Chinese military institutions on research and development and technical services. The OneSpace manufacturing plant in the southwestern city of Chongqing that is partly owned by the local government.

OneSpace Rockets

The OS-M1 is a light-launch spacelaunch launch vehicle rocketing payloads to low Earth orbit (LEO) and Sun synchronous orbit (SSO). It is projected to be capable of lofting 205 kg (452 lb) to 300 km (190 mi) high LEO; and 73 kg (161 lb) to 800 km (500 mi) high SSO. The first launch is scheduled for Q4 2018.

The OS-M2 is similar to the OS-M1, but has two boosters. Block A will be capable of lifting 390 kg (860 lb) to LEO and 204 kg (450 lb) to 800 km (500 mi) SSO, while block B will be capable of lifting 505 kg (1,113 lb) to LEO and 274 kg (604 lb) to 800 km (500 mi) SEO.

The OS-M4 has four boosters. Block A will be capable of lifting 552 kg to LEO and 307 kg to 800km SSO, while block B will be capable of lifting 748 kg to LEO and 446 kg to 800km SEO.

Future OS-M rockets

The firm is anticipating making future entries in the OS-M series of rockets in some way reusable.

OneSpace is developing a 59 ton rocket that was originally scheduled for launch in 2018. It is to have a 500 kg (1,100 lb) payload to LEO. This is projected to cost RMB ¥100,000 CNY/kg ($6500 USD/lb). OneSpace also envisions to eventually develop a crewed space capsule.

LandSpace, LinkSpace and ExPace

LandSpace, LinkSpace and ExPace are three other startup space launch companies in China.

In January 2017, LandSpace became the first private Chinese commercial spacelaunch company to sign a launch contract with a foreign customer when it formed a partnership with the Danish firm GOMSpace.

Zhuque-1, also called LandSpace-1, is a 19-meter-tall, three-stage solid-propellant rocket. Its maiden flight is scheduled for the end of 2018, carrying a satellite for China Central Television. Zhuque-1 has a takeoff mass of 27 metric tons and a thrust of 45 tons, and is able to carry 300 kg of payload into a 300 km low Earth orbit. The rocket is likely to launch from the Wenchang Spacecraft Launch Site.

LandSpace is also developing liquid-fuelled rockets, in addition to the solid-fuelled ones. Zhuque-2 (ZQ-2) is a medium-sized rocket powered by liquid oxygen and methane capable of lifting 4,000 kg of payload into a 200km low Earth orbit, or 2,000 kg of payload into a 500km Sun-synchronous orbit. The rocket is planned to be launched in 2020.

LinkSpace

LinkSpace is developing reusable rockets.On July 2016, they successfully hovered a single-engine thrust-vectored rocket. By September 2017, they had built three hovering rockets, tested in Shandong Province.

The LinkSpace New Line 1 is a two-stage rocket under development to launch microsats and nanosats, with a reusable first stage. It is to be a liquid-fuelled rocket, with a diameter of 1.8 m (5.9 ft), height of 20 m (66 ft). It would have a lift-off mass of 33 t (32 long tons; 36 short tons) and take-off thrust of 400 kN (90,000 lbf), allowing a payload of 200 kg (440 lb) to be lifted into a Sun synchronous orbit (SSO) of 249–550 km (155–342 mi) high. The first stage would have four liquid engines, fuelled by kerolox (liquid oxygen and kerosene), each producing 100 kN (22,000 lbf) of thrust. It is projected to have an initial launch cost of $4.5 million, dropping to $2.25 million using a reused first stage. As of the end of 2017, the main rocket engine has been tested over 200 times, and first launch is planned for 2020.

LinkSpace is developing a reusable second stage, in addition to the reusable first stage, is anticipated for in a future vehicle, such as New Line 3.

ExPace

ExPace is a subsidiary of missileer China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation.

ExPace’s line of Kuaizhou rockets use solid rocket motors.

Kuaizhou 1 (KZ-1):
200 kg (440 lb) to SSO; First launch: 2013;

Kuaizhou 1A:
300 kg (660 lb) to LEO; First launch: 2017;

Kuaizhou 11 (KZ-11):
2.2m diameter; 2.2-2.6m payload fairing; 78t lift-off mass; 1.5t to LEO; 1t to SSO; $10,000/kg;
First launch: projected 2018;

57 thoughts on “Many startups that hope to become the next SpaceX”

  1. Orbital rocketry is not novel given that we have been doing it for more than half a century. Affordable orbital rocketry is perhaps somewhat novel but only because the political decision was made not to pursue it.. The original vision of what became NASA was to build space station in orbit and then explore the moon, a vision that influenced the movie 2001: a Space Oddessy. But President Kennedy prioritized going to the moon so NASA focused on building a quick expensive solution to exploring the moon, one that bypassed building up the infrastructure of mass production rocketry and orbital space stations. After the moon landing, there was talk about building a reusable rocket but instead the U.S.. chose to build the Space Shuttle, parts of which were somewhat reusable but which still was expensive, in the end, too expensive and failure prone to be viable. That private companies have now started to make the investments to making the investments to make space affordable is an indictment of the political leadership ( of the U..S., Soviet Union/Russia and the ESA) Governments have proved to be a more an impediment to space exploration and exploitation than a promoter.

  2. Orbital rocketry is not novel given that we have been doing it for more than half a century. Affordable orbital rocketry is perhaps somewhat novel but only because the political decision was made not to pursue it.. The original vision of what became NASA was to build space station in orbit and then explore the moon a vision that influenced the movie 2001: a Space Oddessy. But President Kennedy prioritized going to the moon so NASA focused on building a quick expensive solution to exploring the moon one that bypassed building up the infrastructure of mass production rocketry and orbital space stations.After the moon landing there was talk about building a reusable rocket but instead the U.S.. chose to build the Space Shuttle parts of which were somewhat reusable but which still was expensive in the end too expensive and failure prone to be viable.That private companies have now started to make the investments to making the investments to make space affordable is an indictment of the political leadership ( of the U..S. Soviet Union/Russia and the ESA) Governments have proved to be a more an impediment to space exploration and exploitation than a promoter.

  3. Germany (who invented the modern rocket) has no one?, Europe a whole 500 million continent has none? where are the European entrepreneurs?

  5. There’s also the tail end of a chinese solid rocket ICBM manufacturing industry that wants to expand their work, which is where a lot of these new chinese players are sprouting from, reusing ICBM motor designs in a near lego fashion. Those guys are definitely not going to get their fixed costs that far down, but the military does have a need to maintain the industrial base and periodically test the solid rocket motors, so if civil launches mostly cover that gap, that satisfies most of the big stakeholders. Thankfully, there are some liquid fueled newspace startups in china, and a few are 100% in SpaceX follow mode, so we can expect decent things. As to how they will fare will somewhat depend not only on launch success but how blessed they are by the CCP and the various power holding academic institutions.

  6. IANARS but I’d suspect that a big part of this is that a lot of background technology has now reached the point where this stuff is so much more feasible than before. Materials and manufacturing tech now means you can make a rocket lighter and stronger for less money than in the 1980s, let alone the 1960s. Computer design and analysis tools means you need less prototypes and testing to failure. Improved off-the-shelf computers, software tools, and various aerodynamic modelling software means that designing a tail landing rocket is now something that you’d have a good chance of doing without a multi-billion dollar program. In short, it may be that SpaceX was the first to realise that the job was now possible, rather than the one to invent all this from scratch. And of course, once someone has done something, you can now see 1. It was possible, a VERY important step. 2. You can see the overall choices that actually worked. There were options that were not right (space shuttle style for example) and now a clear path has been demonstrated. To give an analogy. In the year 1300, Europeans just didn’t have the tech to colonise the Americas. By the 1490s they had more ocean ready ships, better navigation tech, and then once someone demonstrated that you COULD reach a new rich land just sailing west, a lot of different people found that they could too. I still worry we may be in the 1300s though. The Norse did reach the Americas, but they didn’t have the tech to make it profitable. So they could set up a “colony” and get it going for generations, but without enough tech to get a growing transatlantic economy they eventually froze in the empty wasteland. A possible fate for any Martian colony.

  7. Germany (who invented the modern rocket) has no one? Europe a whole 500 million continent has none? where are the European entrepreneurs?

  8. It’s nice to be first. The money is in being second.””- Larry Bell”””” aerospace engineer”””

  9. There’s also the tail end of a chinese solid rocket ICBM manufacturing industry that wants to expand their work which is where a lot of these new chinese players are sprouting from reusing ICBM motor designs in a near lego fashion. Those guys are definitely not going to get their fixed costs that far down but the military does have a need to maintain the industrial base and periodically test the solid rocket motors so if civil launches mostly cover that gap that satisfies most of the big stakeholders.Thankfully there are some liquid fueled newspace startups in china and a few are 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} in SpaceX follow mode so we can expect decent things. As to how they will fare will somewhat depend not only on launch success but how blessed they are by the CCP and the various power holding academic institutions.

  10. IANARS but I’d suspect that a big part of this is that a lot of background technology has now reached the point where this stuff is so much more feasible than before.Materials and manufacturing tech now means you can make a rocket lighter and stronger for less money than in the 1980s let alone the 1960s.Computer design and analysis tools means you need less prototypes and testing to failure.Improved off-the-shelf computers software tools and various aerodynamic modelling software means that designing a tail landing rocket is now something that you’d have a good chance of doing without a multi-billion dollar program.In short it may be that SpaceX was the first to realise that the job was now possible rather than the one to invent all this from scratch.And of course once someone has done something you can now see1. It was possible a VERY important step.2. You can see the overall choices that actually worked. There were options that were not right (space shuttle style for example) and now a clear path has been demonstrated.To give an analogy. In the year 1300 Europeans just didn’t have the tech to colonise the Americas. By the 1490s they had more ocean ready ships better navigation tech and then once someone demonstrated that you COULD reach a new rich land just sailing west a lot of different people found that they could too.I still worry we may be in the 1300s though. The Norse did reach the Americas but they didn’t have the tech to make it profitable. So they could set up a colony”” and get it going for generations”””” but without enough tech to get a growing transatlantic economy they eventually froze in the empty wasteland. A possible fate for any Martian colony.”””

  11. There are better targets for criticism than Von Braun. Like the bloated government agencies that have kept space launchers an impossibly expensive waste of money for decades after he passed away, even if he was also a result and a driver of those post-war big government space projects.

  12. Don’t know what link you tried to post, but… “[Goddard’s] rockets … may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles.” In fact, the only innovation von Braun was in charge of was the use of slave labor and non-defensive warheads.

  17. There are better targets for criticism than Von Braun. Like the bloated government agencies that have kept space launchers an impossibly expensive waste of money for decades after he passed away even if he was also a result and a driver of those post-war big government space projects.

  18. Don’t know what link you tried to post but… [Goddard’s] rockets … may have been rather crude by present-day standards”” but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles.””In fact”””” the only innovation von Braun was in charge of was the use of slave labor and non-defensive warheads.”””

  24. To you. Given you said Goddard beat Von Braun and that he did nothing else than using slave labor and non-defensive warheads.

  27. To you. Given you said Goddard beat Von Braun and that he did nothing else than using slave labor and non-defensive warheads.

  29. Nah. England is leaving Europe. At least this is what the newspapers tell me. I guess it will involve a lot of tug boats and some very strong rope.

  31. But being first positions you nicely to be second… SpaceX has the advantage now. They have the traffic going their way, and this gives them a massive flood of data, and opportunities to test incremental improvements while being paid, rather than their R&D being a pure money sink. This is big, and if they don’t try to rake in monopoly profits, they can hold that advantage for a long while. It can be reasonably expected that at *some* point, they’ll get fat and happy, and lose their edge.The most likely point for this to happen is when Musk stops being in control. But that could be a couple decades from today, or more. I think the “next” SpaceX is likely to be somebody who takes a chance on a non-rocket means of access to orbit. There are a number of potential approaches to that, and the thing they all have in common is that they would only be economical at high traffic levels, due to the large capital investment relative to the individual launch weight. They have to have a lot of traffic using them to break even. Musk is creating that traffic, and thus the preconditions for his rockets being replaced by something other than rockets. I would guess “single stage to tether”, possibly with an air breathing first stage.

  32. Nah. England is leaving Europe. At least this is what the newspapers tell me. I guess it will involve a lot of tug boats and some very strong rope.

  34. But being first positions you nicely to be second…SpaceX has the advantage now. They have the traffic going their way and this gives them a massive flood of data and opportunities to test incremental improvements while being paid rather than their R&D being a pure money sink. This is big and if they don’t try to rake in monopoly profits they can hold that advantage for a long while.It can be reasonably expected that at *some* point they’ll get fat and happy and lose their edge.The most likely point for this to happen is when Musk stops being in control. But that could be a couple decades from today or more.I think the ext”” SpaceX is likely to be somebody who takes a chance on a non-rocket means of access to orbit. There are a number of potential approaches to that”” and the thing they all have in common is that they would only be economical at high traffic levels due to the large capital investment relative to the individual launch weight. They have to have a lot of traffic using them to break even.Musk is creating that traffic”” and thus the preconditions for his rockets being replaced by something other than rockets. I would guess “”””single stage to tether”””””””” possibly with an air breathing first stage.”””

  37. If you want to reply to me, hit the word “Reply” to the lower right of the comment to which you want to reply. ” Goddard beat Von Braun and that he did nothing else than using slave labor and non-defensive warheads

  38. If you want to reply to me hit the word Reply”” to the lower right of the comment to which you want to reply.”””” Goddard beat Von Braun and that he did nothing else than using slave labor and non-defensive warheads “””” “””

  39. If you want to reply to me, hit the word “Reply” to the lower right of the comment to which you want to reply.

    ” Goddard beat Von Braun and that he did nothing else than using slave labor and non-defensive warheads ” <-- And out of liquid fuels, high percentage energy extraction of those fuels, use of cryogenic liquids, guidance by fins and vector control, turbopumps -- in all of these Goddard was first. Now in putting warheads on such a rocket built by slave labor for the purpose of prosecuting a war which was on the part of his nation a war crime, there von Braun was first.

  41. Nah. England is leaving Europe. At least this is what the newspapers tell me. I guess it will involve a lot of tug boats and some very strong rope.

  43. But being first positions you nicely to be second…

    SpaceX has the advantage now. They have the traffic going their way, and this gives them a massive flood of data, and opportunities to test incremental improvements while being paid, rather than their R&D being a pure money sink. This is big, and if they don’t try to rake in monopoly profits, they can hold that advantage for a long while.

    It can be reasonably expected that at *some* point, they’ll get fat and happy, and lose their edge.The most likely point for this to happen is when Musk stops being in control. But that could be a couple decades from today, or more.

    I think the “next” SpaceX is likely to be somebody who takes a chance on a non-rocket means of access to orbit. There are a number of potential approaches to that, and the thing they all have in common is that they would only be economical at high traffic levels, due to the large capital investment relative to the individual launch weight. They have to have a lot of traffic using them to break even.

    Musk is creating that traffic, and thus the preconditions for his rockets being replaced by something other than rockets. I would guess “single stage to tether”, possibly with an air breathing first stage.

  47. There are better targets for criticism than Von Braun. Like the bloated government agencies that have kept space launchers an impossibly expensive waste of money for decades after he passed away, even if he was also a result and a driver of those post-war big government space projects.

  48. Don’t know what link you tried to post, but…

    “[Goddard’s] rockets … may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles.”

    In fact, the only innovation von Braun was in charge of was the use of slave labor and non-defensive warheads.

  53. Germany (who invented the modern rocket) has no one?, Europe a whole 500 million continent has none?
    where are the European entrepreneurs?

  55. There’s also the tail end of a chinese solid rocket ICBM manufacturing industry that wants to expand their work, which is where a lot of these new chinese players are sprouting from, reusing ICBM motor designs in a near lego fashion. Those guys are definitely not going to get their fixed costs that far down, but the military does have a need to maintain the industrial base and periodically test the solid rocket motors, so if civil launches mostly cover that gap, that satisfies most of the big stakeholders.

    Thankfully, there are some liquid fueled newspace startups in china, and a few are 100% in SpaceX follow mode, so we can expect decent things. As to how they will fare will somewhat depend not only on launch success but how blessed they are by the CCP and the various power holding academic institutions.

  56. IANARS but I’d suspect that a big part of this is that a lot of background technology has now reached the point where this stuff is so much more feasible than before.
    Materials and manufacturing tech now means you can make a rocket lighter and stronger for less money than in the 1980s, let alone the 1960s.
    Computer design and analysis tools means you need less prototypes and testing to failure.
    Improved off-the-shelf computers, software tools, and various aerodynamic modelling software means that designing a tail landing rocket is now something that you’d have a good chance of doing without a multi-billion dollar program.

    In short, it may be that SpaceX was the first to realise that the job was now possible, rather than the one to invent all this from scratch.

    And of course, once someone has done something, you can now see
    1. It was possible, a VERY important step.
    2. You can see the overall choices that actually worked. There were options that were not right (space shuttle style for example) and now a clear path has been demonstrated.

    To give an analogy. In the year 1300, Europeans just didn’t have the tech to colonise the Americas. By the 1490s they had more ocean ready ships, better navigation tech, and then once someone demonstrated that you COULD reach a new rich land just sailing west, a lot of different people found that they could too.

    I still worry we may be in the 1300s though. The Norse did reach the Americas, but they didn’t have the tech to make it profitable. So they could set up a “colony” and get it going for generations, but without enough tech to get a growing transatlantic economy they eventually froze in the empty wasteland. A possible fate for any Martian colony.

  57. Orbital rocketry is not novel given that we have been doing it for more than half a century. Affordable orbital rocketry is perhaps somewhat novel but only because the political decision was made not to pursue it..

    The original vision of what became NASA was to build space station in orbit and then explore the moon, a vision that influenced the movie 2001: a Space Oddessy. But President Kennedy prioritized going to the moon so NASA focused on building a quick expensive solution to exploring the moon, one that bypassed building up the infrastructure of mass production rocketry and orbital space stations.

    After the moon landing, there was talk about building a reusable rocket but instead the U.S.. chose to build the Space Shuttle, parts of which were somewhat reusable but which still was expensive, in the end, too expensive and failure prone to be viable.

    That private companies have now started to make the investments to making the investments to make space affordable is an indictment of the political leadership ( of the U..S., Soviet Union/Russia and the ESA) Governments have proved to be a more an impediment to space exploration and exploitation than a promoter.

Comments are closed.