Sidereus SSTO micro sat launcher

Michel Van

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
13 August 2007
Messages
8,367
Reaction score
10,747
So a balloon tank steel launcher with open cycle Kerolox engines, Well I guess this can SSTO, after all Atlas had the same basic design choices and it was almost there

Then it has a recovery using parafoil according to their site (their animation seem wrong), well I guess that is also proven for the rocket’s small size
23E98206-4CE2-4313-B4C9-D005B832F6FD.png


Now making it reusable with any useful payload? Considering a single additional kilogram above the design would reduce the payload by 10%? I don’t believe it all

Are they using a plug nozzle?

This would make more sense used as the second stage of one of the countless European small launchers currently in development.

europeanspaceflight.com

Sidereus Space Dynamics Complete Integrated Static Fire Test

Italian rocket builder Sidereus Space Dynamics has completed an integrated hot fire test of its single-stage-to-orbit EOS rocket.
europeanspaceflight.com europeanspaceflight.com

On the positive side it doesn’t look like much funding went into that, so it can still be considered as one of the many adorable Bono-like SSTO projects over the decades, and not a waste of money.

I wish them good luck, as dubious some of the choices are it’s still better than Avio, sadly Avio’s predominance in the Italian launcher business means it’s unlikely this will ever get enough industrial-political support at the European level
 
I have also doubt on this SSTO
According theory reusable spacecraft have empty mass increase by 38% in form Heat shield, RCS, parachute etc.
My guess is that Siderius will have weight around 80 to 90 tons.

Such small SSTO Launcher make sense from standpoint of reuse and economic
but if Siderius survive on Launch market is another matter
it biggest disadvantage is low payload of 13 kg
 
Last edited:
Minimum mass fractions to make orbit with zero payload and zero reusability
- 0.95 for a Merlin gas generator cycle, kerolox, 348 s specific impulse
- 0.93 for a Raptor like advanced methalox engine, isp 370 s
- 0.88 for hydrolox isp 466 seconds - in vacuum, below 60 000 ft it's 370 seconds.
That altitude thing also applies to the other two.
The rocket equation is such a b***tch - female dog I meant.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • mockingbird.pdf
    2.5 MB · Views: 23
Best of luck to them, unless they're really just another pipe-
TheKutKu said:
Or maybe more accurately the Mockingbird...
View attachment 736340
It does seem to be virtually the same size, mass and payload (1700 kg/10 kg vs 1500 kg/10kg) too!
Main difference is in the propellant, Kerolox vs Keroxide
Click to expand...
What *exactly* is Keroxide supposed to be - JP-5/H2O2? I cannot find any definition, let alone a scientifically valid one, on the open web for this moniker. Fanboi fever dreams that have no factual backing at any TRL level have no place in this forum, other than in the loony bin section in The Bar. This is not a Trump rally, where one can freely sling obscene lies that fly smack dab in the face of documented reality, so fess up or shut up.
 
martinbayer said:
Best of luck to them, unless they're really just another pipe-

What *exactly* is Keroxide supposed to be - JP-5/H2O2? I cannot find any definition, let alone a scientifically valid one, on the open web for this moniker. Fanboi fever dreams that have no factual backing at any TRL level have no place in this forum, other than in the loony bin section in The Bar. This is not a Trump rally, where one can freely sling obscene lies that fly smack dab in the face of documented reality, so fess up or shut up.
Click to expand...
Kerozene (here JP-5) and High test Peroxide, admittedly an uncommon shortening but one that is used on this forum. Sorry if this was confusing.

I’m not sure how this rocket is a fanboy fever dream?
 
TheKutKu said:
Kerozene (here JP-5) and High test Peroxide, admittedly an uncommon shortening but one that is used on this forum. Sorry if this was confusing.

I’m not sure how this rocket is a fanboy fever dream?
Click to expand...
Can you provide any *verifiable* data or information on any rocket engine at all that has successfully run on this propellant combination, whether on a test stand or in actual flight? Because *that* is the TRL determinant, which in turn is a measure of technical feasibility. Hardware walks.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Can you provide any *verifiable* data or information on any rocket engine at all that has successfully run on this propellant combination, whether on a test stand or in actual flight? Because *that* is the TRL determinant, which in turn is a measure of technical feasibility. Hardware walks.
Click to expand...
Not quite the same Kerozene, but the black arrow.
 

Attachments

  • 642E0208-A38B-4E8E-AE20-491CAAF94E16.jpeg
    642E0208-A38B-4E8E-AE20-491CAAF94E16.jpeg
    204 KB · Views: 14
martinbayer said:
What *exactly* is Keroxide supposed to be - JP-5/H2O2? I cannot find any definition, let alone a scientifically valid one, on the open web for this moniker.
Click to expand...

You won't find anything using "kerolox" or "hydrolox" either as it is "frowned on" for official publications :) It's a short-cut term that's used mainly on the inter-web. Keroxdie is another shortcut. In this case it was JP8 IIRC and peroxide with some other work showing a possible use of JP10 for denser fuel.

martinbayer said:
Fanboi fever dreams that have no factual backing at any TRL level have no place in this forum, other than in the loony bin section in The Bar. This is not a Trump rally, where one can freely sling obscene lies that fly smack dab in the face of documented reality, so fess up or shut up.
Click to expand...

As noted there were many engines designed and built to use the combination, including the LR40 built and tested but not used for the Crusader supersonic fighter among others. LLNL based the Mockingbird engines on small lab thrusters they were working in-house combined with a propellant "piston-pump" system they were also building and testing at the time. It was the engines and pump system that they were actually presenting in the MARD presentation more than the "Bricklifter" (alternate name :) ) concept.

The "math" worked but only if (as usual) everything else worked out to specifications. A perennial problem for SSTO :)

Randy
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom