Наноракета для наноспутников?

[PIN]

ZOOR пишет:
150 кг- реально, но трудно, 250 - нет (дабл/трипл/квадро ... шот).

И много таких клиентов?

Если за 3U просят 200 тыс,
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=043442de0da6fcdd266e9c80de347ec1

то и весьма платежеспособных...но при этом не желающих полететь с кем-то попутчиком.
Кроме военных никого не представляю (халявщиков-каскадеров с HiakaSat первого пуска не считаем), а вы?

[freinir]

Дмитрий В. пишет:

freinir пишет:
Тогда ничего не надо нового    

Для начала надо сделать "старое".

А чего тогда рисуете новое?

[Дмитрий В.]

freinir пишет:

Дмитрий В. пишет:

freinir пишет:
Тогда ничего не надо нового    

Для начала надо сделать "старое".

А чего тогда рисуете новое?

Из-за невозможности реализовать "старое"

[freinir]

А чего тогда про МИТ говорите? Надо делать новое!!!
Кстати, а пакетную схему не смотрели?

[Дмитрий В.]

freinir пишет:
А чего тогда про МИТ говорите? Надо делать новое!!!
Кстати, а пакетную схему не смотрели?

Смотрел, но применительно, скорее, к схеме Сатурн-1В - связку из "пучка" прессованных труб. Для РН такой малой размерности не вижу особой необходимости городить классический пакет. Хотя, создатели Скорпиусов (http://www.smad.com/scorpius/ ) думают иначе.

[freinir]

Ну понадёжней сделать РН...

[avmich]

SOE пишет:

freinir пишет:

Так в чём вопрос? Ктонить в
России может аналог СПАРКа воспроизвести?

А зачем? Чтобы наносаты и микросаты летали не на халяву, а за деньги? Боюсь, они не захотят...

Не знаю, как в России - в Штатах вроде бы достаточно заказчиков наноспутников, готовых платить больше за удобный (более близкий, как правило) срок запуска и за возможность выбора орбиты.

[avmich]

SOE пишет:

ZOOR пишет:
150 кг- реально, но трудно, 250 - нет (дабл/трипл/квадро ... шот).

И много таких клиентов?

Если за 3U просят 200 тыс,
 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=043442de0da6fcdd266e9c80de347ec1

то и весьма платежеспособных...но при этом не желающих полететь с кем-то попутчиком.
Кроме военных никого не представляю (халявщиков-каскадеров с HiakaSat первого пуска не считаем), а вы?

И сейчас в России немало наноспутников запускается... были бы такие РН и такие услуги - могли бы найти спрос даже помимо российских заказчиков.

[avmich]

freinir пишет:

Дмитрий В. пишет:

freinir пишет:
Тогда ничего не надо нового    

Для начала надо сделать "старое".

А чего тогда рисуете новое?

Потому что старого на самом деле нет? Или нет технически, или нет по нужным ценам?

[freinir]

avmich пишет:

SOE пишет:

freinir пишет:

Так в чём вопрос? Ктонить в
России может аналог СПАРКа воспроизвести?

А зачем? Чтобы наносаты и микросаты летали не на халяву, а за деньги? Боюсь, они не захотят...

Не знаю, как в России - в Штатах вроде бы достаточно заказчиков наноспутников, готовых платить больше за удобный (более близкий, как правило) срок запуска и за возможность выбора орбиты.

А сколько заказчиков и за какие деньги готовы пускать? И сколько Даурия за запуск своего первого спутника заплатит?

[PIN]

avmich пишет:
Не знаю, как в России - в Штатах вроде бы достаточно заказчиков наноспутников, готовых платить больше за удобный (более близкий, как правило) срок запуска и за возможность выбора орбиты.

1. О ком речь, конкретно?
2. О каком "выборе орбиты" идет речь? Чудо это пороховое выводит исключительно на низкие и очень низкие, наверняка с ограничениями по азимуту (наклонению). И какой "выбор" может быть, если пуск в любом случае групповой (12 или 24 размера 3U, точно не помню). Или, вы полагаете, что вместо 200 тыс за один 3U найдутся желающие оплатить весь праздник?

Кстати, помимо обслуживания военщины и NRO может быть и еще один реальный бизнес у этого чуда - погребение в космосе. 

[avmich]

SOE пишет:

avmich пишет:
Не знаю, как в России - в Штатах вроде бы достаточно заказчиков наноспутников, готовых платить больше за удобный (более близкий, как правило) срок запуска и за возможность выбора орбиты.

1. О ком речь, конкретно?
2. О каком "выборе орбиты" идет речь? Чудо это пороховое выводит исключительно на низкие и очень низкие, наверняка с ограничениями по азимуту (наклонению). И какой "выбор" может быть, если пуск в любом случае групповой (12 или 24 размера 3U, точно не помню). Или, вы полагаете, что вместо 200 тыс за один 3U найдутся желающие оплатить весь праздник?

Кстати, помимо обслуживания военщины и NRO может быть и еще один реальный бизнес у этого чуда - погребение в космосе.

Подробности, например, тут - http://unreasonablerocket.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-business-plan-info.html

[PIN]

avmich пишет:
Подробности, например, тут

В упор не вижу никаких "подробностей". Бизнес-план из пальца (если не сказать точнее...), из тех 250 жаждущих космоса кубосатов большинство - университетские и научные (читайте - уже не просто халявщики, а "партнеры". Но столь же голопопые.). Остальные разлетятся попутчиками (часто бесплатными) с теми, кто летит именно туда, куда им надо или уже имеют бюджеты на запуск, заложенные жирными спонсорами от военщины до национальных космических агентств или международных организаций по распределению денежных потоков. Или не улетят никуда и никогда.

[avmich]

SOE пишет:

avmich пишет:
Подробности, например, тут

В упор не вижу никаких "подробностей". Бизнес-план из пальца (если не сказать точнее...), из тех 250 жаждущих космоса кубосатов большинство - университетские и научные (читайте - уже не просто халявщики, а "партнеры". Но столь же голопопые.). Остальные разлетятся попутчиками (часто бесплатными) с теми, кто летит именно туда, куда им надо или уже имеют бюджеты на запуск, заложенные жирными спонсорами от военщины до национальных космических агентств или международных организаций по распределению денежных потоков. Или не улетят никуда и никогда.

1. Подробности приведены по сравнению с форумом.
2. Какого (экскиза) бизнес-плана Вы ожидаете?
3. Университеты вполне способны оплатить запуск, когда его цена измеряется сотнями тысяч долларов.
4. Часто чем ниже бюджет, тем легче найти спонсора.

[PIN]

avmich пишет:
2. Какого (экскиза) бизнес-плана Вы ожидаете?

Такого же, как всегда и везде - содержащего оценку платежеспособного спроса и идентифицирующего клиентов. А также, несколько менее наивного SWOT анализа. Как минимум.

[avmich]

SOE пишет:

avmich пишет:
2. Какого (экскиза) бизнес-плана Вы ожидаете?

Такого же, как всегда и везде - содержащего оценку платежеспособного спроса и идентифицирующего клиентов. А также, несколько менее наивного SWOT анализа. Как минимум.

Вот, например -

In the last 5 years the nanosat has transitioned from an interesting idea sponsored by a few universities to a market with satellites performing real missions funded by a broad range of customers. The number of manifested nanosat missions in 2011 increased by more than three times over the previous 5 year average. There are now multiple organizations that have flown repeat missions. The There are 250+ nanosats presently waiting for a ride.

Конкретные названия спутников, думаю, можно найти, но не думаю, что это нужно для инвесторов, которые знакомы с темой.

Автор - бизнесмен, ракеты которого летали, так что называть анализ наивным нужно обоснованно. Какие есть конкретные претензии?

[Salo]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2197/1

A prize competition fails to launch
by Jeff Foust
Monday, December 3, 2012

One of the biggest obstacles to greater use of small satellites has been getting them into space. Existing small launch vehicles have been too expensive to attract much demand fr om government, commercial, or academic customers, and in many cases are still oversized to effectively serve the growing interest in nanosatellites and even smaller CubeSats. Secondary payload opportunities, often called rideshares, have increased in recent years. These offer more affordable ways to get to space than dedicated launchers, but offer little flexibility in schedules or orbits for the hitchhiking smallsats (see "New opportunities for smallsat launches", The Space Review, August 22, 2011)."The existence of the SWORDS and ALASA projects may have contributed to this NASA decision to end the Challenge," Luney wrote, referring to two government launch vehicle efforts.

One solution that had the potential to provide low-cost dedicated launches of the very smallest smallsats was the Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge, a prize competition that was part of NASA's Centennial Challenges prize program. Announced in July 2010, the competition offered $2 million (later increased to $3 million) in prizes to vehicles that could launch CubeSats. To win the $1.5-million first prize, a team had to be the first to launch a "1U" CubeSat—10 centimeters on a side and weighing 1 kilogram—that completed one orbit of the Earth, and then do it again within one week.

However, last week NASA quietly shut down the prize competition before even the final version of the prize rules had been approved. On Tuesday, November 27, Space Florida, the "allied organization" sel ected by NASA last November to run the competition, announced that it had been informed by NASA that the space agency was terminating the Space Act Agreement to run the competition. The letter, dated November 18 (oddly, a Sunday) and signed by NASA chief technologist Mason Peck, gave Space Florida 30 days' notice of NASA's intent to cancel the agreement. It did not, however, give a reason for the cancellation.

In his email to potential competitors, Percy Luney, the Space Florida vice president running the competition, speculated that two government-sponsored smallsat launch programs played a role in the competition's cancellation. "The existence of the SWORDS and ALASA projects may have contributed to this NASA decision to end the Challenge," Luney wrote.

SWORDS, the Soldier-Warfighter Operationally Responsive Deployer for Space, is a small launch vehicle under development by the US Army's Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) with industry partner KT Engineering. The goal of SWORDS is to develop a small launch vehicle, fueled by liquid methane and liquid oxygen, that can place up to 25 kilograms into low Earth orbit (LEO) for $1 million per launch. An orbital flight test of SWORDS is planned for 2014.

The Airborne Launch Assist Space Access (ALASA) program is an effort by DARPA to develop an air-launch system for smallsats. The goal of ALASA is a system that can launch satellites weighing up to 45 kilograms (100 pounds) to LEO for $1 million per launch. In June, DARPA awarded contracts to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Virgin Galactic to work on system concepts, while three other companies—Northrop Grumman, Space Information Laboratories, and Ventions—won contracts to work on various enabling technologies.


Government small launch vehicle development efforts, like DARPA's ALASA (above), played a role in NASA's decision to cancel a nanosatellite launch vehicle competition. (credit: DARPA)

A NASA spokesman confirmed to The Space Review that that ALASA and SWORDS—or, rather, the perceived lack of an industrial base beyond the companies involved in those programs—played a role in the agency's decision to cancel the competition. Dave Steitz said that the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) studied potential competitors for the competition. "The study identified more than 15 efforts under way," he said, "and concluded that other than the teams selected for ALASA and SWORDS, the companies lacked experience in designing, developing, or operating launch vehicles and none of the companies seemed to be sufficiently capable of self-financing to deliver the target capability (at approximately $1 million per launch) in the next 3–5 years."Potential competitors, said NASA's Steitz, "lacked experience in designing, developing, or operating launch vehicles and none of the companies seemed to be sufficiently capable of self-financing to deliver the target capability... in the next 3–5 years."

NASA declined to release the NESC report, citing proprietary company data included in it. However, Steitz did provide the names of the 15 organizations it covers. They include the three companies with ALASA systems concepts contracts as well as SWORDS's KT Engineering. Also included are several companies developing suborbital vehicles with an eye towards later orbital systems, including Armadillo Aerospace, Interorbital Systems, Whittinghill Aerospace, and XCOR Aerospace. The rest are a mix of companies that are working on, or have expressed an interest in, small launch vehicles: Exquadrum, Garvey Spacecraft Corporation, Microcosm, Rocketlab New Zealand, Space Propulsion Group, and Ventions. The study also included one largely government program: the Super Strypi vehicle proposed by the Operationally Response Space (ORS) Office and Sandia National Laboratory.

Another factor in NASA's decision, said Steitz, was a request for information (RFI) about the competition released by NASA in August. The RFI sought information fr om both potential competitors in the challenge as well as prospective customers of the vehicles that would be developed for it. In the RFI, NASA suggested it was looking at alternative models for the competition, including one where the prize would go to the team that launched the most payloads of ten kilograms or less in one year, and another where the prize focused instead on the development of key launch vehicle components, such as avionics, instead of a full-fledged vehicle.

Steitz said the RFI responses, also not released by NASA, confirmed the NESC conclusion that there were not enough viable competitors for the competition. "Response to the request for information indicated a community that was not prepared to develop a complete launch system in response to the NSL [Nano-Satellite Launch] challenge," he said.

Luney said last week that Space Florida neither had been involved in, nor was even aware of, the NESC study, but knew the RFI was holding up the competition. "Space Florida was aware that NASA was reevaluating the NanoSat Launch Challenge in light of the responses to the RFI," he said. "NASA's delay in approving the revised rules for the Challenge and the RFI indicated that there was a debate going on within NASA about the Challenge."

While Luney expressed frustration with NASA's decision and the lack of communication during the progress—they had no warning that NASA was thinking of cancelling the competition prior to receiving the formal notice—Steitz said NASA's decision had nothing to do with Space Florida's performance running the competition. "Space Florida has been an excellent partner during the formulation and study of the challenge," Steitz said. "We hope to work with Space Florida in the future on other partnering opportunities.""If Space Florida has a new source of prize money for the competition, Space Florida will seriously consider a request to continue the competition," Luney said.

NASA's decision to cancel the Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge was met with dismay by many in the relatively small community of vehicle developers and rocketry enthusiasts, who had heard rumors for weeks that the competition was in jeopardy. Some took issue with NASA's logic that there wasn't a sufficient experience base in industry for the competition to succeed, noting that a previous NASA competition, the Lunar Lander Challenge (LLC), was a success even though industry had limited experience in building vertical takeoff and landing vehicles when the competition started.

Among those disappointed with NASA's decision was one person whose organization not included in the NESC report. Paul Breed created Unreasonable Rocket several years ago to compete in the LLC, flying vehicles in the competition but missing out on the prize money. Recently he announced plans to try and develop a nanosat launcher, pitching the proposal at the NewSpace Business Plan competition during the NewSpace 2012 conference in July. In October, he posted his business plan on his website prior to an appearance on The Space Show.

In an email interview, Breed said he was surprised that NASA canceled the competition, which he thought, in its original form, was ideal. "For the initial set of rules I though the prize and rules were almost perfect," he said.

Without the competition, Breed said he's thinking of revising his plan for a nanosat launcher by going even smaller. "Now I'm thinking that it's a 50-gram payload wh ere the main vehicle CPU runs the show. Maybe a simple low-res camera or maybe just a simple radio transponder," he said.

In Luney's initial message announcing the cancellation of the competition, he appeared to leave the door open to reviving it as a non-NASA affair. "Without the prize funds provided by NASA, Space Florida is unable go forward with the NanoSat Launch Challenge at this time. We are considering other options," he wrote. He later confirmed that to be the case, if someone else provided the prize purse. "If Space Florida has a new source of prize money for the competition, Space Florida will seriously consider a request to continue the competition," he said.

Steitz also said that NASA might develop a new nanosat launch competition down the road. NASA's Space Technology Program, he said, "will continue to monitor and support the development of nanosat launchers and will revisit a NSL Challenge concept if needs and opportunities emerge."

[Salo]

http://www.spacenews.com/article/nasa-cancels-nanosatellite-launch-vehicle-competition#.UMkDXKy3mHA

NASA Cancels Nanosatellite Launch Vehicle Competition
By Jeff Foust | Dec. 10, 2012

WASHINGTON — NASA canceled last month a multimillion-dollar prize competition to support the development of a dedicated nanosatellite launch vehicle after concluding potential entrants — beyond those already involved in two existing government launch vehicle programs — lacked the ability to build such a vehicle in a timely fashion.

Space Florida, the organization running the competition on behalf of NASA's Centennial Challenges program, notified potential competitors Nov. 27 that NASA was terminating the Space Act Agreement between the two governing management of the Nano-Satellite Launch (NSL) Challenge. In that message, Space Florida Vice President Percy Luney said NASA did not give a reason for canceling the agreement.

NASA announced the competition in July 2010 as one of several new prize competitions in its Centennial Challenges program. The prize, originally set at $2 million and later raised to $3 million, was to support development of small launch vehicles that could be used for dedicated launches of very small spacecraft. The winning vehicle had to be able to place a payload measuring 10 centimeters on a side and weighing at least 1 kilogram — the dimensions and mass of a single cubesat — into orbit, and duplicate the feat within a week.

Since the prize's introduction, though, other government agencies have made progress on initiatives to develop dedicated small-satellite launch vehicles. The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command is working on its Soldier-Warfighter Operationally Responsive Deployer for Space (SWORDS), a vehicle that can place up to 25 kilograms into orbit for $1 million per launch. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is working with several companies on an air-launch concept called Airborne Launch Assist Space Access (ALASA) to place payloads of up 45 kilograms into orbit.

NASA spokesman David Steitz said in a Nov. 27 email that NASA's decision to terminate its agreement with Space Florida and end the NSL Challenge came after the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif., performed a study of 15 companies in the nanosatellite launch sector. That study, he wrote, "concluded that, other than the teams sel ected for ALASA and SWORDS, the companies lacked experience in designing, developing, or operating launch vehicles and none of the companies seemed to be sufficiently capable of self-financing to deliver the target capability (at approximately $1 million per launch) in the next 3-5 years."

Steitz said NASA would not release the NASA Ames study because it contained proprietary information provided by the companies surveyed. He did, though, release the list of 15 organizations in the study. They include the three companies sel ected by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in June for ALASA systems concepts studies — Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Virgin Galactic — as well as Huntsville, Ala.-based KT Engineering, which is working on SWORDS. The remaining are organizations that are working on or have expressed an interest in developing suborbital and small orbital launch vehicles.

In addition to the NASA Ames study, NASA issued a request for information in August regarding the competition, seeking feedback fr om potential competitors as well as organizations developing small satellites. "Response to the request for information indicated a community that was not prepared to develop a complete launch system in response to the challenge," Steitz wrote.

Luney said Space Florida was not aware of the NASA study and had little warning that NASA was going to cancel the competition, although work on the competition, including beginning registration of competitors, was on hold while NASA evaluated Space Florida's proposed rules. "Space Florida was aware that NASA was re-evaluating the Nano-Satellite Launch Challenge in light of the responses to the [request for information]," he said in a Nov. 29 interview. "NASA's delay in approving the revised rules for the challenge and the [request for information] indicated that there was a debate going on within NASA about the challenge."

Steitz said that NASA's decision was not based on Space Florida's performance in running the NSL Challenge, and that it would be open to revisiting the competition in the future. NASA "will continue to monitor and support the development of nano-sat launchers and will revisit a NSL Challenge concept if needs and opportunities emerge," he said.

Luney left open the possibility of reviving the competition outside of NASA, if the organization found another source of funds for the prize purse. "If Space Florida has a new source of prize money for the competition," he said, "Space Florida will seriously consider a request to continue the competition."

Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story said NASA's internal nanolauncher study was performed by the NASA Engineering Safety Center (NESC) at Langley Research Center in Virginia. NASA spokesman David Steitz said Dec. 11 that he had misspoke. The study was conducted by NASA's Ames Research Center "with input fr om one person at NESC, along with other agency participants," Steitz said.

[Salo]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/04/07/ventions-awarded-nasa-sbir-funding-for-nano-sat-laucher/#more-48182

Ventions Awarded NASA SBIR Funding for Nano-sat Laucher
Posted by Doug Messier
on April 7, 2013, at 8:54 am

NASA LOGOVentions LLC of San Francisco has been sel ected for a NASA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) worth up to $200,000 to develop an engine for a new launch vehicle capable of delivering nano- and micro-satellites into low Earth orbit.

The goal is to produce a new low-cost rocket capable of launching these satellites into orbit as primary payloads. Currently, these tiny satellites are launched as secondary payloads on much larger vehicles, limiting the number that can be placed in space and requiring much longer wait times.

In 2011, Ventions received two NASA SBIR Phase I awards and a separate SBIR from the Missile Defense Agency, all for propulsion work on launch vehicles. Last year, the company received separate contracts from DARPA in support of launch vehicle development and the ALASA program, which aims to develop an air-launch system capable of deploying payloads weighing 100 lbs. (46 kg) into orbit for under $1 million.

Ventions is the second company developing a nano-sat launcher to be selected for an award under this round of SBIR Phase I awards. Garvey Spacecraft Corporation of Long Beach, Calif., also was selected for up to $200,000 in funding to develop its own launch vehicle.

A summary of Ventions' proposal follows.

PROPOSAL SUMMARY

PROPOSAL TITLE: Regeneratively-Cooled, Pump-Fed Propulsion Technology for Nano/Micro Satellite Launch Vehicles

SUBTOPIC TITLE: Nano/Micro Satellite Launch Vehicle Technology

SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN
Ventions, LLC
San Francisco, CA

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT MANAGER
Adam P London

Estimated Technology Readiness Level (TRL) at beginning and end of contract:

Begin: 4
End: 5

AWARD TYPE: SBIR SELECT PHASE I

MAXIMUM VALUE: $200,000

TECHNICAL ABSTRACT

Ventions proposes the development of a pump-fed, 2-stage nano launch vehicle for low-cost on demand placement of cube and nano-satellites into LEO. The proposed vehicle uses high T/W and Isp pump-fed engines that operate at chamber pressures >750psi without the weight penalty of high pressure tanks, thereby realizing payload fractions in the 1-2% range. Ventions has already completed several component-level demonstrations in the area, and is proposing additional optimization / testing of a 5,000lbf LOX / RP-1 turbopump-fed engine as part of this Phase I in-order to demonstrate a flight-ready 1st stage propulsion system.

POTENTIAL NASA COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS

The proposed nano launch vehicle is aimed at providing low-cost and on-demand insertion of NASA cube- and nano-satellites into LEO as primary payloads. This will change the current model of launching such satellites as secondary payloads (which are often constrained by requirements of the primary payload), thereby extending this capability to a wider range of NASA experimental missions requiring on-demand and low-cost insertion of small satellites into specific orbits.

POTENTIAL NON-NASA COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS

Non-NASA applications for the same will include DoD and military missions requiring rapid on demand access to space fr om anywhere in the world (based on ground or air-launch), as well as university and research satellites. Additionally, the small-scale thrust chamber assemblies and turbomachinery technology components developed for the launch vehicle are also expected to have widespread applications in other in-space propulsion systems, upper stages, and orbital insertion / maneuvering thrusters, etc.

TECHNOLOGY TAXONOMY MAPPING

Cryogenic/Fluid Systems
Fuels/Propellants
Launch Engine/Booster
Spacecraft Design, Construction, Testing, & Performance (see also Engineering; Testing & Evaluation)
Spacecraft Main Engine
Vehicles (see also Autonomous Systems)

[Salo]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/739660main_apr5-2013.pdf

Prospector answers LSP call

By Steven Siceloff Spaceport News Nano- and microsatellites built by students, businesses and research organizations can catch their own rides into space now that a California-based company is launching operational flights of a high-altitude rocket big enough to carry payloads high into the atmosphere.
Garvey Spacecraft Corp.'s Prospector 18 (P-18 ) has made four flights so far, including an operational mission last December that saw it carry a research payload for NASA's Ames Research Center and California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly). The Long Beach, Calif.-based company is using the P-18 as a pathfinder for building a larger model that can reach orbit.
The development is important for NASA because it gives satellite builders a chance to fly high-altitude experiments before hitching a ride on a larger mission and rocket, said Garrett Skrobot of NASA's Launch Services Program who runs the CubeSat and Nanosat projects of the agency's ELaNa program, short for Educational Launch of Nanosatellites.
"Today, nanosat developers still depend on secondary ride opportunities to get to orbit," Skrobot said. "There are several operational issues with that approach. In response, with projects like this, we are taking the first steps with Garvey Spacecraft and other small launch vehicle developers to explore alternatives that could eventually lead to dedicated launch services that are tailored to the requirements of this market."
The High Altitude Launch Service contract paid for the December mission and another mission, scheduled to launch June 15. This flight will test the CP9/StangSat payload; a spacecraft being built by Merritt Island High School; Cal Poly's payload; a Rocket University experiment that is a product of Kennedy Space Center; and another research payload from Ames and a new lightweight nanosat carrier system.
The satellites in mind for the rocket are 4-inch squares that weigh about two pounds. Previously, they were carried inside a rectangular box fitted on larger rockets and sprung free into orbit once the main payload was deployed.
With a rocket fitted to the small satellite needs, though, more experiments and hardware also can be flown at a lower cost. The rocket's flight profile can be adjusted to meet specific needs of a research payload.


Photo courtesy of Kevin Baxter/Friends of Amateur Rocketry Inc.

The Prospector 18 suborbital reusable launch vehicle takes off last year during its first contracted launch performed for NASA's Launch Services Program