Can I really post anything here?

[TommyJ]

Hello! I'm Tom. And I would like to talk about some cosmic things in real life.
I recently read this:
"Skyrora's LEO engine is unique as it can re-ignite numerous amounts of times in orbit to deliver payloads into different altitudes and phases, as required for the mission and acting as a‘ taxi ’service to satellite customers."
It seems like it hasn’t happened yet, right?
As I understand it, this gives quite a lot of new opportunities that were not previously available. And not only the cleaning of garbage from LEO and the delivery of goods described in the article.
Let's imagine how this can be applied?

[Broomstick]

Yes, you are able to post anything here.... but somethings it's not a good idea to post anywhere. Discretion is advised.

A link to an article or more information to this LEO engine would be nice.

The cleaning out of orbital junk may not be a glamorous application but it's an important one if we want to continue to use LEO space.

[Raw Shark]

"Skyrora's LEO engine is unique as it can re-ignite numerous amounts of times in orbit to deliver payloads into different altitudes and phases, as required for the mission and acting as a‘ taxi ’service to satellite customers."
It seems like it hasn’t happened yet, right?

At last, I get to go to space! 15 years in the taxi business? Check. Named my dog Korben Dallas? Check. Willing to deal with vomit in zero-G? If I must. I'm a shoo-in for the job! I'll let you all know when I start.

[The_Saint]

Raw Shark piloting a space taxi seems like it might be closer to a Stainless Steel Rat book than 5th Element.

Regarding a reignitable engine I'm not sure I'd call this one unique, there's been several flown multiple ignition rocket engines already and I'm not sure what's "new" in this case. It doesn't quite help that in this case it's still only a paper design.

A space tug/taxi needs refueling in space not just a pilot light that doesn't run out.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, I mean in 1968 we were flying people to the Moon and back with a re-ignitable rocket engine. It's not a new concept.

[TommyJ]

Um, yes, I know it all, the first post is a quote from an article on the Skyrora website.
Actually, here is this article
As I understand it, the news is not in the engine itself, but in the estimated costs of creating such equipment so that it can be used not for Billions of dollars, but a relatively reasonable price for such tasks.
The site also lists planned launches from 2023.
And no, it's not just on paper.
Tests on Earth under approximate conditions have been carried out.

[TimothyC]

Um, yes, I know it all, the first post is a quote from an article on the Skyrora website.
Actually, here is this article
As I understand it, the news is not in the engine itself, but in the estimated costs of creating such equipment so that it can be used not for Billions of dollars, but a relatively reasonable price for such tasks.
The site also lists planned launches from 2023.
And no, it's not just on paper.
Tests on Earth under approximate conditions have been carried out.

That's a press release, not an article, and the engine they are talking about is both not new, and not novel.

Edit: Nothing about this is novel. the engine they are talking about - a 3.5kN Kerosene/HTP engine is very similar to what is going into the SNC Dreamchaser RCS system. It's reinventing the wheel. Heck, that fuel combination was used on the British Black Knight and Black Arrow rockets.

[The_Saint]

If they've come up with some new method of say, 3D printing the engines for cheaper than current/previous methods then sure... they have a cool new innovation but I haven't seen anything that suggests they have anything ground breaking that anyone else hasn't or isn't already testing.

[Lord Revan]

Well there's some things that are categorically banned in the rules (essentially anything illegal as defined by Canadian laws and some subjects which will never lead to anything good) but outside of those it's pretty much anything goes and as far as I can tell your suggestion is within the rules but if you're unsure I'd ask a mod or admin (and I'm neither of those).

My main advice is to read the rules and you'll be fine.

[TommyJ]

Um, yes, I know it all, the first post is a quote from an article on the Skyrora website.
Actually, here is this article
As I understand it, the news is not in the engine itself, but in the estimated costs of creating such equipment so that it can be used not for Billions of dollars, but a relatively reasonable price for such tasks.
The site also lists planned launches from 2023.
And no, it's not just on paper.
Tests on Earth under approximate conditions have been carried out.

That's a press release, not an article, and the engine they are talking about is both not new, and not novel.

Edit: Nothing about this is novel. the engine they are talking about - a 3.5kN Kerosene/HTP engine is very similar to what is going into the SNC Dreamchaser RCS system. It's reinventing the wheel. Heck, that fuel combination was used on the British Black Knight and Black Arrow rockets.

Maybe I'm too naive and impressionable, but still, I was impressed by the achievements of a young, only 3-year-old company. Yes, maybe the technologies are not new, I'm just too happy about new companies. I don't know, it gives me pleasure. It gives me hope that with the emergence and development of such companies, people will be able to achieve a greater level of progress in this direction in general.

[TimothyC]

Maybe I'm too naive and impressionable, but still, I was impressed by the achievements of a young, only 3-year-old company. Yes, maybe the technologies are not new, I'm just too happy about new companies. I don't know, it gives me pleasure. It gives me hope that with the emergence and development of such companies, people will be able to achieve a greater level of progress in this direction in general.

You are both naive and impressionable, and that's fine so long as you can recognize it, and work around it. Space rated hardware if hard, expensive, and takes a lot of work. For every SpaceX & RocketLab, there are the corpses of a dozen companies that were unable to get the hardware to work, or get the finding to fly, or any of a hundred little things.

[MKSheppard]

Space rated hardware if hard, expensive, and takes a lot of work.

If that was the truth, SpaceX wouldn't be anywhere near where it would be; do I need to tell you the stories about when they were a young company, and trying to get quotes on previously flight-rated hardware components (valves) and the company kept giving them bullshit prices so they went and developed their own?

Significantly, the Merlin engines—like roughly 80 percent of the components for Falcon and Dragon, including even the flight computers—are made in-house. That’s something SpaceX didn’t originally set out to do, but was driven to by suppliers’ high prices. Mueller recalls asking a vendor for an estimate on a particular engine valve. “They came back [requesting] like a year and a half in development and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just way out of whack. And we’re like, ‘No, we need it by this summer, for much, much less money.’ They go, ‘Good luck with that,’ and kind of smirked and left.” Mueller’s people made the valve themselves, and by summer they had qualified it for use with cryogenic propellants.

“That vendor, they iced us for a couple of months,” Mueller says, “and then they called us back: ‘Hey, we’re willing to do that valve. You guys want to talk about it?’ And we’re like, ‘No, we’re done.’ He goes, ‘What do you mean you’re done?’ ‘We qualified it. We’re done.’ And there was just silence at the end of the line. They were in shock.” That scenario has been repeated to the point where, Mueller says, “we passionately avoid space vendors.”

[MKSheppard]

Yeah, I mean in 1968 we were flying people to the Moon and back with a re-ignitable rocket engine. It's not a new concept.

Yes, but those engines required hypergolic propellants. Hypergols are deeply carcinogenic AND toxic; to the point where you have to wear moon suits to handle it.



They're wearing moonsuits because of the hypergolic RCS/OMS system.

HTP is somewhat toxic, to the point wearing a rubber suit and a respirator is probably a good idea; but you don't need a full scale moonsuit.

[Broomstick]

OK, that's an incremental improvement.

[TimothyC]

If that was the truth, SpaceX wouldn't be anywhere near where it would be; do I need to tell you the stories about when they were a young company, and trying to get quotes on previously flight-rated hardware components (valves) and the company kept giving them bullshit prices so they went and developed their own?

You and I both know that a lot of the SpaceX costs savings are coming from lower labor costs (relatively low pay and high turnover) combined with extensive vertical integration.

The hardware costs for SpaceX are broadly inline with the hardware costs for other high end spaceflight structures, and that their efforts to cut costs have resulted in a loss-of-vehicle accident.

Yes, but those engines required hypergolic propellants. Hypergols are deeply carcinogenic AND toxic; to the point where you have to wear moon suits to handle it.

OK, that's an incremental improvement.

What Shep is actively obfuscating here is that while some of the restartable engines were hypergolic (the AJ10 [on the Apollo Service module and the half sisters on the Titan Transtage, Delta upper stages, and eventually the Shuttle & Orion], the Bell engines used on Agena & the LM Descent Engine), restartable non-hypergol engines were in regular service in the 1960s in the form of the RL10 and J-2 (Hydrogen-Oxygen which limited on-orbit life, but they still were restartable). At the same time, the Soviets had the 11D33, which was a restartable kerosene-oxygen engine (albeit using a pyrotechnic charge to spin-up the turbine).

Or heck, even the American XLR-11 engine that powered various X-planes in the 1940s-70s, burning Ethylox or the XLR-99 which used oxygen and ammonia.

[MKSheppard]

The hardware costs for SpaceX are broadly inline with the hardware costs for other high end spaceflight structures, and that their efforts to cut costs have resulted in a loss-of-vehicle accident.

The failure in Falcon 9 in 2015 was due to a rod failing at 2,000 lbf instead of the design 10,000 lbf. NASA dinged them for using "industrial grade" rod ends, instead of "aerospace grade".

That boom on Amos 6 in 2016 was due to them pushing the limits of COPV's with chilled propellants. They moved back to a more conservative temperature profile.

In any case, if SpX's costs were broadly in line with other high end spaceflight costs, they wouldn't have all but driven the Russians out of the commercial launch business, given the absurdly low labor costs in Russia.

restartable non-hypergol engines were in regular service in the 1960s in the form of the RL10 and J-2 (Hydrogen-Oxygen which limited on-orbit life, but they still were restartable). At the same time, the Soviets had the 11D33, which was a restartable kerosene-oxygen engine (albeit using a pyrotechnic charge to spin-up the turbine).

J-2 was IIRC limited to just 1 restart (or maybe 2), while RL-10 was 10 restarts; NASA kept talking about using CECE evolutions for RL10 to bring that up to 25-50 starts; but who knows where that went.

Meanwhile, a hydrazine engine like the Shuttle OMS was rated for about 1,000~ starts.

[TommyJ]

Wow, here's a discussion. And the great thing here is that everything happens in a rather cultural way. And it's great that everyone is right about something.
I would just like to add that everyone started somewhere. This must be understood.
The small satellite market is growing. And the main direction of the company I mentioned in the original post is launch vehicles for launching small satellites into LEO.