Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Routine_Shine_1921 t1_iwgu2bw wrote

Actually private, actually to orbit, crewed: SpaceX only.

Actually private, actually to orbit, non-crewed: SpaceX, RocketLab, Astra, Firefly, VirginOrbit.

Actually private, but sub-orbital crewed: Virgin and BO.

I won't count companies like ULA, because they aren't truly private projects. That is, they were handed down most of the tech plus the money to do it by the government, and continue to be heavily subsidized, so not exactly privately funded and developed rockets.

14

IsraelZulu t1_iwh5w61 wrote

You didn't cover "actually private, sub-orbital, non-crewed". Is that because there are none, or there are too many?

As I wrote this though, I realized that probably most worthwhile applications for a sub-orbital non-crewed rocket would be military...

3

Routine_Shine_1921 t1_iwh9b80 wrote

Yup. First, there are way too many, as basically any sounding rocket counts as suborbital non-crewed, up to an including any amateur rocket. Also, the private line is just too hard to define, as most are companies that are doing it for the military, or with military support.

Finally, it's not super interesting. It gets interesting when it's done as a stepping stone to something else, but otherwise it's, well, just a basic sounding rocket, a tube full of solid propellant and little more.

2

IsraelZulu t1_iwh9ubq wrote

>up to an including any amateur rocket

Ok, now you've gotten my curiosity. Who's actually sending shit up to space (and back) from their backyard‽

2

AWildDragon t1_iwhiowz wrote

Check out the annual Balls rocket launch event. Out in the middle of nowhere and you can get a waiver for pretty much any altitude you want.

Or spaceport America cup if you are a student.

2

Routine_Shine_1921 t1_iwhawyg wrote

Well, not "to space", but suborbital doesn't require you to reach the kármán line. So, where do you draw the line? If you draw it at the kármán line, you leave outside a lot of actual sounding rockets being used by research institutions and the military. If you don't, you include amateurs like BPS space.

1

IsraelZulu t1_iwheuk0 wrote

Any vehicle or payload that returns to Earth's surface, without completing at least one unpowered lap around it, is technically sub-orbital - right?

Personally, I think describing a vehicle or payload, or the flight thereof, in terms of "orbital" or "sub-orbital" is only really relevant if it reaches an altitude where an unpowered orbit is even possible to begin with. That would put the minimum height at around 150 km.

But, per Wikipedia at least, it seems the Kármán line (or a similar "border of space" that's relatively close to it) is the more commonly-accepted mark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-orbital_spaceflight

2

Routine_Shine_1921 t1_iwhn71g wrote

>Any vehicle or payload that returns to Earth's surface, without completing at least one unpowered lap around it, is technically sub-orbital - right?

Yup. Technically, if you throw a ball, it's a suborbital flight ;)

>Personally, I think describing a vehicle or payload, or the flight thereof, in terms of "orbital" or "sub-orbital" is only really relevant if it reaches an altitude where an unpowered orbit is even possible to begin with. That would put the minimum height at around 150 km.

Sure, but that would leave out a lot of important historic flights, for instance, all of the V-2 flights, both those performed by the Nazis and the early tests after the US acquired the technology.

>But, per Wikipedia at least, it seems the Kármán line (or a similar "border of space" that's relatively close to it) is the more commonly-accepted mark.

Yes, the kármán line defines "space", but that doesn't mean sub-orbital requires going to space. In any case, it's all just semantics :)

0

Hattix t1_iwhov44 wrote

SpaceX only did crewed flights to orbit after a huge influx of NASA/Space Act money and could lend against future milestone payments as part of the CRS contract. It also had a lot of handed down tech, like the FASTRAC engine design. It really blurs the boundaries between "actually private" and "aren't truly private projects".

It was, however, first to reach orbit uncrewed on purely private funding (Merlin-1 was still heavily based on donated taxpayer technology) with the last flight of Falcon 1. The CRS big bucks enabled SpaceX to skip Falcon 5 for Falcon 9.

Scaled Composites won the Ansari X-Prize by flying suborbital, which was also a privately funded SpaceShipOne and White Knight. It was the first ever privately funded spaceflight with entirely privately developed technology. The next company to achieve the same was Blue Origin.

3

spcialkfpc t1_iwhmqv3 wrote

How much of SpaceX isn't funded through Government contracts? "Private" is extremely loose when it comes to space.

2

Routine_Shine_1921 t1_iwhnmha wrote

We're talking about companies that managed to reach orbit or launch their rocket without government funding. SpaceX got there without government funding or intervention. Nada, zip, zero. In fact, it was the other way around, on top of taxes, the US government was getting money from spacex, since they where charging them through the nose for the use of launch facilities. Only well after SpaceX reached orbit, did the US award some contracts. And, in that case, it's clearly never been funding, but rather contracting. The US pays for a service, SpaceX delivers it. What they get from the government is not significant to their operation.

−1

spcialkfpc t1_iwhvbno wrote

Correct. SpaceX developed a vehicle for space launches with private capital. In order to launch it, the DoD provided funding under DARPA, and access to the launch site, which was subsidized by the US Government. Under the same program, a dummy payload was successfully put into orbit. The first time SpaceX put its vehicle into orbit (Falcon 1, 2008) was with a NASA funded competition for servicing the ISS. The first SpaceX manned flight was with NASA, and NASA funded with NASA astronauts. SpaceX built a launch site in Texas, with Government subsidies and agreements. SpaceX has successfully put hundreds of satellites into orbit, with both commercial and Government money. SpaceX has yet to put a vehicle in sustained orbit, but that is being subsidized with Government money and contracts.

SpaceX is steeped in Government money, by design.

1

Routine_Shine_1921 t1_iwhynbp wrote

Not true. SpaceX put its vehicle in orbit for the first time in late 2008, they paid for it themselves, with a mass simulator. DARPA did pay for two launches earlier, neither of them was their first orbital test.

Far from "access to the launch site" being subsidized, the government not only charged them for it, but also screwed them, literally, multiple times (as expected, the government exists for the sole purpose of screwing the people over). They paid for Vandenberg, built a lot of infrastructure then, and then the military said "yeah, we weren't expecting you to actually use it, you can't launch", so SpaceX lost all of that investment and had to move in a hurry.

−1