The most advanced private space company of the present time

I`ve got an interesting point for discussion. Today private space companies really succeeded in the space exploration area and manufacture pretty good technology and space vehicles. Just how a look how advanced became Space X, what projects they have and what they can accomplish in the nearest future. But what do you think is the most advanced private space company at the present time except Space X ? (as it can be considered right now as the best space agency in the world at all)

Closer to space x than space planes although I think this one may blow some minds. Tory Bruno is the man !

Such a company as Blue Origin is worth being mentioned. This company is not so advanced as SpaceX in the space exploration area but still, Blue Origin has great spacecrafts and concepts of future missions that are worth attention. Also, it would be fair to mention Boeing and Virgin Galactic. Taking into consideration recent events, the last one staggered many people.

The last point I wanna add is short information about a space company I could have mentioned on this forum in another thread. This rocket engine company is called Skyrora and it has rather interesting technology too.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

They've launched two demo stations previously.

The first was Genesis I, with out 400 cubic feet of volume, launched in 2006. Originally intended to operate for six months, it managed to eke out around two and a half years. Like it's extended operations, it was also supposed to deorbit after around a decade. It still remains in orbit.

Genesis II followed in 2007. It had some advancements compared to its predecessor, including reaction wheels, more cameras and sensors, and an improved inflation system. Similar in volume and mission scope, it also operated for two and a half years and still remains in orbit.

In 2016, BEAM was launched. This inflatable addition to the ISS adds nearly 600 cubic feet of volume to the ISS and was expected to last a year. Following the initial testing phase it was recertified to stay berthed until 2020. It has subsequently been extended until 2028.

They also have other, larger independent stations in development, however I believe they have contracted with ULA for launches and the delays of the Vulcan Centaur heavy-lift vehicle have caused some issues.

It's rather difficult to even hypothesize about since the subject is one of the most secret endeavors in the current society, subject to careful suppression and misdirection over several decades.

But I sincerely doubt any organization using brute force and propellants while being prominent in public media is the "most advanced private company."

I think the most important factor by far is reusability of launch vehicles. Elon Musk has proven he can place payloads in orbit cheaper than anyone in the world, including the Chinese, because he can reuse his first stages and side boosters as many as 10 times, possibly more. 

Many firms have grandiose plans for exploiting the manufacturing advantages of space, mainly microgravity and vacuum. Others want to mine rare materials from the moon and NEOs, or extract water, ore, silicon, etc., from them. All of that becomes feasible if access to space decreases by at least an order of magnitude. SpaceX is the only company so far that has that potential, because it reuses the most expensive parts of its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy vehicles and plans to reuse all of its Starship Super Heavy.

So I'd have to say Blue Origin and Relativity Space have the second and third best technology, in that order, because they're the farthest along on reusing launch vehicles after SpaceX. 

Blue Origin seems slow to develop its launch vehicle compared to SpaceX, but then everyone seems slow in comparison. Jeff Bezos has already poured $2.5 billion into R&D over the last 20 years, so you know he's dead serious and committed. His BE-4 methalox engine is so promising that ULA chose it for the Vulcan launch vehicle tapped to replace the venerable Atlas. 

Relativity Space plans to print entire launch vehicles using additive manufacturing and already boasts the world's largest 3D printer of metals, which it developed in-house. Relativity has secured $1.3 billion in funding to develop its Terran R launcher, with a 2024 target for first launch. Unlike Blue Origin's New Glenn, which will reuse only its vertical take off, vertical landing first stage, the Terran R will be completely reusable. Relativity is going to repurpose a 1 million square foot aircraft factory to build Terran Rs, which are designed to place up to 44,000 lb. in LEO. 

Blue Origin's New Glenn will be able to place 99,000 lb. payloads in LEO, and 30,000 lb. in GTO. Its first launch could occur in late 2022. New Armstrong will succeed New Glenn eventually, but Bezos is tight lipped about its size and capabilities. 

The main players in space launch seem to finally understand that nonreusable vehicles won't be able to compete without heavy subsidies. Musk predicts Starship Super Heavy will be able to place payloads in orbit for as little as $10 a pound, which is more than two orders of magnitude less than anyone else. Fuel and oxidizers are cheap; rocket ships are not (altough Musk thinks he can cut the cost of Starship dramatically).

Numerous companies are still developing or launching new, throwaway rockets, betting they can use new methods to build rockets much cheaper than before.

Several private Chinese firms are developing reusable launchers, albeit very small compared to the SpaceX, Blue Origin and Relativity Space vehicles. There've been rumors that the massive first stage of the Chinese Long March 9 rocket might later be developed for vertical landing. Ariane 6, the next generation ArianeGroup launcher, might be redesigned for recovery of its first stage engines -- the most expensive part of most launchers. ULA might do the same with Vulcan. I think they're all going to be desperately sorry they didn't start much earlier and with much more funding to develop reusable vehicles like Starship Super Heavy, New Glenn/New Armstrong and Terran R. 

a reply to: Scapegrace
Yeah, I agree with you about the fact the Space X is far ahead of other space agencies. Reusable rockets it`s a huge leap in the space exploration area that no space agency can repeat.

originally posted by: james00
a reply to: Scapegrace
Yeah, I agree with you about the fact the Space X is far ahead of other space agencies. Reusable rockets it`s a huge leap in the space exploration area that no space agency can repeat.

Meanwhile, NASA and Congress continue flushing billions of our tax dollars down the toilet with the SLS monstrosity ($20 billion already). While impressively powerful, SLS is completely throwaway except for its Orion capsule. It will probably wind up costing just as much per launch as the Space Shuttle, maybe $1 billion a pop or more, perhaps much more. Hopefully, NASA will get out out of the launch business forever after this expensive lesson in government waste. Private launch vehicles like Starship Super Heavy and New Glenn/New Armstrong will be ridiculously cheaper than SLS and able to launch at a much higher cadence.

originally posted by: Scapegrace
So I'd have to say Blue Origin and Relativity Space have the second and third best technology, in that order, because they're the farthest along on reusing launch vehicles after SpaceX.

I'd place Rocket Lab ahead of both of them (but especially Relativity), by a long shot. Rocket Lab has placed payloads in orbit successfully and has begun reusing their rockets even. They're definitely moving at breakneck speeds, having only had their first launch in 2017. Granted, they're smaller birds and payloads and non-propulsive landings, but definitely not something to discount.

Blue Origin seems slow to develop its launch vehicle... Jeff Bezos has already poured $2.5 billion into R&D over the last 20 years... His BE-4 methalox engine is so promising that ULA chose it for the Vulcan launch vehicle tapped to replace the venerable Atlas.

I can imagine that behind the scenes ULA heads are fuming at the delays. They announced the partnership and expected to have engines ready in 2019. I still think the delayed date of 2022 is highly optimistic. I bet we'll see SpaceX pick up some of the DoD contracts after then because they'll be barred from flying security payloads on RD-180s.

Relativity Space...

I'm still expecting this one to be vaporware. I guess we'll see what happens when they fly Terran-1 in October. That one is going to be roughly 10% 3D printed and they have even said that it will take a decade for them to get to where they're the main stage is fully reusable.

All they've done so far is had some successful rounds of fundraising and throw up some slick marketing/social media, but they are no where near where any of other companies are. How many electric car companies have come and gone promising the next Tesla? How many are still around?

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid

originally posted by: Scapegrace
So I'd have to say Blue Origin and Relativity Space have the second and third best technology, in that order, because they're the farthest along on reusing launch vehicles after SpaceX.

I'd place Rocket Lab ahead of both of them (but especially Relativity), by a long shot. Rocket Lab has placed payloads in orbit successfully and has begun reusing their rockets even. They're definitely moving at breakneck speeds, having only had their first launch in 2017. Granted, they're smaller birds and payloads and non-propulsive landings, but definitely not something to discount.

Blue Origin seems slow to develop its launch vehicle... Jeff Bezos has already poured $2.5 billion into R&D over the last 20 years... His BE-4 methalox engine is so promising that ULA chose it for the Vulcan launch vehicle tapped to replace the venerable Atlas.

I can imagine that behind the scenes ULA heads are fuming at the delays. They announced the partnership and expected to have engines ready in 2019. I still think the delayed date of 2022 is highly optimistic. I bet we'll see SpaceX pick up some of the DoD contracts after then because they'll be barred from flying security payloads on RD-180s.

Relativity Space...

I'm still expecting this one to be vaporware. I guess we'll see what happens when they fly Terran-1 in October. That one is going to be roughly 10% 3D printed and they have even said that it will take a decade for them to get to where they're the main stage is fully reusable.

All they've done so far is had some successful rounds of fundraising and throw up some slick marketing/social media, but they are no where near where any of other companies are. How many electric car companies have come and gone promising the next Tesla? How many are still around?

Rocket Lab is an amazing company. I had no idea they're working on a man-rated launcher with a reusable first stage. And a much bigger payload than Electron: 17,600 lb. to LEO for Neutron vs. 660 lb. Quite an upgrade.

The New Space boom is very exciting for an old space cadet like me, who followed every manned launch he could beginning with the Gemini program. I check out the Teslarati and Space News websites several times a day; it's unbelievable how frenetic the space industry has become. Every nation seems eager to get a piece of the action. Investors are throwing billions at so many startups, I can't begin to keep track of more than a fraction. It's wild, and a lot of these new firms are bound to fail because the market can't support so many launch providers or satellite constellations.

originally posted by: Scapegrace
Every nation seems eager to get a piece of the action. Investors are throwing billions at so many startups, I can't begin to keep track of more than a fraction. It's wild, and a lot of these new firms are bound to fail because the market can't support so many launch providers or satellite constellations.

To use an auto analogy again, that can be seen as similar to the early 1900s in auto manufacturing. How many companies were there in Detroit alone at one time? At least a dozen, if not more. They were all eventually dissolved or absorbed into other companies, leaving us with the Big Three.

I'm sure we'll wind up with another similar Big Three for space exploration. It's clear two of them are SpaceX and ULA. Who the third one will be has many contenders vying for the spot.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid

originally posted by: Scapegrace
Every nation seems eager to get a piece of the action. Investors are throwing billions at so many startups, I can't begin to keep track of more than a fraction. It's wild, and a lot of these new firms are bound to fail because the market can't support so many launch providers or satellite constellations.

To use an auto analogy again, that can be seen as similar to the early 1900s in auto manufacturing. How many companies were there in Detroit alone at one time? At least a dozen, if not more. They were all eventually dissolved or absorbed into other companies, leaving us with the Big Three.

I'm sure we'll wind up with another similar Big Three for space exploration. It's clear two of them are SpaceX and ULA. Who the third one will be has many contenders vying for the spot.

I think Blue Origin will almost certainly be a player. Bezos is the richest person on Earth and well along in developing his technology. Once he gets the BE-4 up and running there's no holding him back. Now I'm not saying he'll be able to compete with Musk for launch business once Starship Super Heavy becomes operational; that thing's gonna be impossible to match pricewise until someone -- probably Bezos -- also develops a fully reusable heavy-lift rocket. He'll also have to reduce his production costs enormously, because Starship SH might be so cheap to build it could be entirely throwaway and still have the lowest cost-per-pound for payloads.

But the thing about Bezos is he's not interested in colonizing Mars. He's focused on exploiting lunar resources and perhaps NEOs eventually. He could possibly make a lot of money exploiting in situ-resources; water seems like a no-brainer for a start. Every ton of water obtained from the moon or NEOs is roughly (I think) a ton of oxygen, hydrogen or plain old water you don't have to launch from Earth. Bezos could use it for his own space ops or sell it to others for use in space. I don't see any way Musk can make enough money with his Mars ops to pay for even a fraction of the costs of colonization. The only customers willing to pay billions for that would be governments I should think.

a reply to: Scapegrace

SpaceX is light-years ahead of all other private companies. What Elon Musk has done is truly remarkable.

We will see with Blue Origin, they are having issues with their BE-4 engines that has led to ULA's new Vulcan rocket being delayed. Also the timeline for their heave lift rocket, the New Glenn keeps getting pushed back. It will not fly this year and looking more likely it will not debut until at least 2023, though their launch pad and facilities are coming together nicely at Cape Canaveral, Fl.

The New Glenn is crucial for Blue Origin's success, it will be their first orbital class rocket and on paper rival and even exceed the Falcon 9.

Meanwhile SpaceX continues to develop the Starship and is very likely to achieve orbit this year with a Starship prototype....perhaps years before New Glenn is even assembled. It will also be fully reuseable, as the 2nd Stage of the Falcon 9 is not recoverable and burns up upon re-entry in the Earth's atmosphere.

SpaceX has now become the world leader in launches per year and has drastically cut the US taxpayer burden on launch costs. The resuseability of the Falcon 9 booster was a game changer and has enabled SpaceX to save a lot of money, now having launched and recovered a booster 10 times! Their Starlink launches have enabled them to push the Falcon 9 further than most thought was possible while not risking a customer's payload.

Somewhat surprisingly the most cost effective Space Program is India, but they have yet to attempt a self landing booster like SpaceX.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Scapegrace

SpaceX is light-years ahead of all other private companies. What Elon Musk has done is truly remarkable.

We will see with Blue Origin, they are having issues with their BE-4 engines that has led to ULA's new Vulcan rocket being delayed. Also the timeline for their heave lift rocket, the New Glenn keeps getting pushed back. It will not fly this year and looking more likely it will not debut until at least 2023, though their launch pad and facilities are coming together nicely at Cape Canaveral, Fl.

The New Glenn is crucial for Blue Origin's success, it will be their first orbital class rocket and on paper rival and even exceed the Falcon 9.

Meanwhile SpaceX continues to develop the Starship and is very likely to achieve orbit this year with a Starship prototype....perhaps years before New Glenn is even assembled. It will also be fully reuseable, as the 2nd Stage of the Falcon 9 is not recoverable and burns up upon re-entry in the Earth's atmosphere.

SpaceX has now become the world leader in launches per year and has drastically cut the US taxpayer burden on launch costs. The resuseability of the Falcon 9 booster was a game changer and has enabled SpaceX to save a lot of money, now having launched and recovered a booster 10 times! Their Starlink launches have enabled them to push the Falcon 9 further than most thought was possible while not risking a customer's payload.

Somewhat surprisingly the most cost effective Space Program is India, but they have yet to attempt a self landing booster like SpaceX.

Yep. I think of Blue Origin as being somewhere beween SpaceX and ULA in regard to risk-taking. ULA will have to rely on lobbying and government contracts to compete. Reusable launchers are already the dominant launch technology solely because of Musk. Bezos is more of a "slow and steady wins the race" kinda guy, while ULA is a dinosaur that doesn't know it's doomed -- too set in its ways to adapt in time. Bezos has the advantage of knowing what works and hasn't worked for SpaceX. I doubt it's a coincidence that he also chose methalox engines, a VTVL first stage and drone ships for recovery. I suspect New Armstrong will be completely reusable, but unlike the much more open Musk, Bezos is much more secretive about Blue Origin's plans.

I'm also impressed with India's program. They had a successful Mars orbiter on their very first attempt. Not bad!

a reply to: Scapegrace

There has yet to be a methane powered rocket engine to make it out if the Earth's atmosphere.

The BE-3 on the New Shepard uses liquid oxygen and hydrogen.

The BE-4 and SpaceX's Raptor will both use Methane and liquid O2...and currently the Raptor is the only one to have flown and will be the first Methane powered rocket to.make it to space. The BE-4 is still not flight certified as it keeps having development issues.

The Falcon 9's Merlin engines use super chilled refined kerosene and liquid oxygen.
I am pretty sure they both went with methane because it can be made on Mars, perhaps even mined on Mars and is also found on some of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons.

It is a bit of a compromise as each type of commonly used rocket fuel past and present has it's benefits and problems.

Tim Dodd has a great youtube clips on rocket engines and a bunch of other space nerd stuff.

I can't find any source that states Bezos is interested in Mars. As far as I know, he's focused on the moon and wants to build giant Earth-normal habitats in space similar to Gerard K. O'Neill's High Frontier. I think he chose liquid methane for the BE-4 because it offers advantages over RP-1 and LH2, although there are some disadvantages.

Liquid methane is less dense than RP-1, but has higher performance. It's more dense than LH2, but has lower performance. 

It's much cleaner burning than RP-1, but not as clean as LH2. This means it deposits fewer soot particles (coking) on internal engine parts than RP-1, albeit more than LH2. Less coking of engines is key for reusing them with no or minimal refurbishment. 

It burns cooler than LH2, so it's easier on rocket engines. I suspect it burns hotter than RP-1, but I can't find a source to confirm that.

Its temperature range is more compatible with LOX: minus 260 F vs. minus 361 F. LH2 must be stored at minus 423 F and requires active cooling, while liquid methane uses mostly passive cooling. SpaceX chills its RP-1 to about 19 F to gain a slight increase in density (2.5-4 percent). 

One more key advantage: Liquid methane is MUCH cheaper than LH2, about $275 per tonne vs. up to $2,000 per tonne for liquid hydrogen. And as best I can tell, it's two to three times cheaper than the quantity of RP-1 needed for the same amount of performance. Producing rocket-grade RP-1 from kerosene is a costly process. Granted, fuel costs are about the cheapest part of total costs to launch something into orbit, but guys like Bezos and Musk didn't become the two richest people on Earth by wasting money.