Japan launches smallest rocket ever to carry satellite into orbit

"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/

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.


Alain Fournier

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."


Everyone already knew that. What's the cost per pound of cargo?


See:

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


No mention of cost. Sure, launching a small rocket is likely cheaper
than launching a big rocket, but it's not ENOUGH cheaper. Just launch
the little cargo on non-dedicated launchers, which is what we do now.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

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.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

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?

"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.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

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.


Alain Fournier

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

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 4:12:21 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

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

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.

That would depend on how many payloads need to be launched and to where.
How often would 10,000 small payloads need to be launched at the same
and to the same place?

One small payload to one particular place might be effective to launch
on one small rocket.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 4:12:21 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

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

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.


That would depend on how many payloads need to be launched and to where.
How often would 10,000 small payloads need to be launched at the same
and to the same place?


How likely is it that some launch of some other payload won't have a
few kilograms of extra capacity? THAT, after all, is the whole driver
behind 'cubesats'; they're so small that they can essentially 'ride
free' on other launches.


One small payload to one particular place might be effective to launch
on one small rocket.


And you'll need to do that perhaps once every decade or so (which is
why they're not making this TEST BED into a working launch system).

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw