Well said Noah! I look forward to a rapid expansion in this critical space. Like with many other strategic industries... There is only so much capacity to go around in our allies, so if we don't want to get caught "with our pants down" in an emergency... We need to invest in these domestic capabilities, almost irregardless the cost. If we focus on the cost /kg to launch as compared to others... Well, we will never get started on the path to catching up. Look at the price differential as an insurance policy. & An investment - if we are serious about high paying jobs & IP retention in Canada.
What concerns me is not that we're trying to get to orbit, but that we're following an obsolete launch paradigm. It is imperative that the Tundra design be made with at least a reusable first stage like the Falcon9 to bring down the cost of kilograms-to-orbit and increase turn-around time to be competitive with other launch companies.
I believe the first stage for the Tundra is reusable. Given it’s a portable launch system with an approximate 1000 kg payload, if I recall it was something like $10,000/ kg with payloads limited to small LEO satellites. The follow up launch vehicle raises the payload to 5000kg. While not falcon9 level pricing, it’s pretty good given its mission and relatively short development. Shoot…falcon9 has something like 600 launches under its belt. I agree thou that the economics will be critical moving forward.
$20 million for a concrete pad in Nova Scotia, supposedly to launch a rocket from ISAR which had one test flight lasting 30 seconds before destruction, and no firm date for a second attempt. The rocket itself is slightly larger than the Redstone rocket that launched Alan Shepard into a sub-orbital flight in 1961. ISAR's core competency seems to be extracting government grants, not building rockets. Now more millions for what, another concrete pad? A rocket (Tundra) with a target cost of $10,000 per Kg to orbit, when Starship will be operating in a year or two at a cost of $50 per Kg to orbit? At great expense, we are trying to recreate the rocket technology of the 1950's and early 1960's. If the goal is the capability to put satellites into orbit, why are we trying to recreate the horse-drawn carriage in an age of EV's? Just license build a proven rocket design and focus on the satellites.
What makes you think there are licensible successful rocket designs out there? If they are a successfull, proven design that is current, it's currently being operated by the people who put the r&d in, and they are currently trying to turn those research dollars into profits. They aren't going to be be selling off copies of their golden goose any time soon. Eventually, when the market gets saturated, someone will get into the business of buying up bankrupt launch companies and making a buck by licencing or selling their IP, but if we wasted time standing around waiting for someone to gather up the IP and hand it to us with a bow on it, we'd be the idiots. If we want sovereign launch capability, we need to pay up, and slog through the painful process of failing a few/many times. You are falling into the classic risk-adverse Canadian trap of dismissing domestic efforts because they aren't as impressive or as successful as our neighbours to the south. Why try for a domestic industry when it's easier to piggy back on America's efforts? Well, because we can't rely on them, and most of us prefer to stand on our own two legs.
And before you dismiss the $20 million dollar concrete pad, you need to look at what launch pads cost to construct. Sobering numbers. $20 mil is pretty good. Heavy lift pads can top $1.5 billion. Space is not easy, and anybody who implies we can there on a shoe string is trying to sell you something you don't want.
Well said Noah! I look forward to a rapid expansion in this critical space. Like with many other strategic industries... There is only so much capacity to go around in our allies, so if we don't want to get caught "with our pants down" in an emergency... We need to invest in these domestic capabilities, almost irregardless the cost. If we focus on the cost /kg to launch as compared to others... Well, we will never get started on the path to catching up. Look at the price differential as an insurance policy. & An investment - if we are serious about high paying jobs & IP retention in Canada.
What concerns me is not that we're trying to get to orbit, but that we're following an obsolete launch paradigm. It is imperative that the Tundra design be made with at least a reusable first stage like the Falcon9 to bring down the cost of kilograms-to-orbit and increase turn-around time to be competitive with other launch companies.
I believe the first stage for the Tundra is reusable. Given it’s a portable launch system with an approximate 1000 kg payload, if I recall it was something like $10,000/ kg with payloads limited to small LEO satellites. The follow up launch vehicle raises the payload to 5000kg. While not falcon9 level pricing, it’s pretty good given its mission and relatively short development. Shoot…falcon9 has something like 600 launches under its belt. I agree thou that the economics will be critical moving forward.
$20 million for a concrete pad in Nova Scotia, supposedly to launch a rocket from ISAR which had one test flight lasting 30 seconds before destruction, and no firm date for a second attempt. The rocket itself is slightly larger than the Redstone rocket that launched Alan Shepard into a sub-orbital flight in 1961. ISAR's core competency seems to be extracting government grants, not building rockets. Now more millions for what, another concrete pad? A rocket (Tundra) with a target cost of $10,000 per Kg to orbit, when Starship will be operating in a year or two at a cost of $50 per Kg to orbit? At great expense, we are trying to recreate the rocket technology of the 1950's and early 1960's. If the goal is the capability to put satellites into orbit, why are we trying to recreate the horse-drawn carriage in an age of EV's? Just license build a proven rocket design and focus on the satellites.
What makes you think there are licensible successful rocket designs out there? If they are a successfull, proven design that is current, it's currently being operated by the people who put the r&d in, and they are currently trying to turn those research dollars into profits. They aren't going to be be selling off copies of their golden goose any time soon. Eventually, when the market gets saturated, someone will get into the business of buying up bankrupt launch companies and making a buck by licencing or selling their IP, but if we wasted time standing around waiting for someone to gather up the IP and hand it to us with a bow on it, we'd be the idiots. If we want sovereign launch capability, we need to pay up, and slog through the painful process of failing a few/many times. You are falling into the classic risk-adverse Canadian trap of dismissing domestic efforts because they aren't as impressive or as successful as our neighbours to the south. Why try for a domestic industry when it's easier to piggy back on America's efforts? Well, because we can't rely on them, and most of us prefer to stand on our own two legs.
And before you dismiss the $20 million dollar concrete pad, you need to look at what launch pads cost to construct. Sobering numbers. $20 mil is pretty good. Heavy lift pads can top $1.5 billion. Space is not easy, and anybody who implies we can there on a shoe string is trying to sell you something you don't want.