Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/4/2018 at 4:12 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 12:49:24 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Feb/3/2018 at 7:02 PM, wrote :
"Japan has set a new spaceflight record -- and unlike most of these feats, it's
defined by what wasn't involved. The country's Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
has successfully launched the smallest-ever rocket to carry a satellite into
orbit, a modest SS-520 sounding rocket modified with a third stage inside its nose
cone to get its payload into orbit. As you might guess, the key to the record was
the tiny cargo -- the rocket was carrying TRICOM-1R, a three-unit cubesat
measuring just 13.6 inches long. You don't need a giant vehicle when the mission
hardware would fit in the backseat of your car."

See:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/03/...te-into-orbit/

Cool. The entire SS-520 rocket fits into the Falcon Heavy fairing.


And can put up a whopping 4kg payload. That's around 0.007% of the
payload of a Falcon Heavy. In other words, you could stick tens of
thousands of such payloads on a single Falcon Heavy.


But with miniaturization of electronics today, isn't that 4 kg payload
very effective for many applications?


For very selective definitions of "very effective" and "many
applications". But you're missing the point. A Falcon Heavy launch
costs just under $100 million. So if your sounding rocket costs more
than $10 thousand or so per launch (and it most certainly does) it is
cheaper to launch 10,000 of the tiny payloads on Falcon Heavy than it
is to launch them on a tiny launcher.

Unless you want a particular orbit or particular time in orbit. Which
isn't something very unusual. It depends on the application, some
satellites don't mind being in any orbit but not all.


So it's a tiny launcher for a tiny niche (and thus relatively
unimportant in the scheme of things).


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn