Gilmore Space Technologies will be attempting the first launch of their Eris 3 stage orbital rocket as early as Thursday this week from the Bowen launch complex in Queensland.
It’s great to see an Aussie company try to compete in the space industry across the globe.
If they can get this rocket off the pad and reach some decent altitude I think they can give themselves a big pat on the back. Reaching orbit is a remote chance but anything can happen in this risky business.
I'm a bit sceptical about this company. I've been watching them for years and they seem to be good at signing various agreements and making big promises but they have not shown any convincing technological developments. Why on earth use hybrid engines for an orbital launch? As far as I understand the only advantage is simplicity but that comes at the cost of combining the worst characteristics of solid and liquid fuel engines.
I'm a bit sceptical about this company. I've been watching them for years and they seem to be good at signing various agreements and making big promises but they have not shown any convincing technological developments. Why on earth use hybrid engines for an orbital launch? As far as I understand the only advantage is simplicity but that comes at the cost of combining the worst characteristics of solid and liquid fuel engines.
I agree with Stefan on this.
Across the pond (Noo Zuland )they have put several payloads into orbit using home grown...well with the help of Monash Uni Aero-Engineering grads from Oz who couldn't use their skills here...anyway I digrress...using home grown 3D printed rocket engines.
Very clever stuff!
Meanwhile back in Oz....we have a Space bureaucracy with no actual launch capability....
Hybrids obviously still have to be proven over time ( cost , reliability and performance ) just like Methalox has with the Space X Raptor.
All space agencies/ companies both government and private across the globe have experienced RUD’s as part of iterative development and testing and GST is no different. As I mentioned if they can get this thing off the launch pad and reach some altitude then this may stir some interest outside our country.
We need global interest which could lead to investment !!
Have to say one might need a Musk style purge of the Australian Space Agency...of whom I've been doing a little poking about to see what they have achieved with their $2 BILLION budget to date.
First up, Zero launch capability so far.
Another pearler is allocating:
"$65.7 million over five years from 2021–22 to set the conditions for rocket launches from Australia and fast track the launch of space assets"
Now to give this some perspective, the Kiwi's (bless 'em) have got the cost
of their Neutron heavy lift vehicle (circa 15,000kg) down to $50 million and are undercutting Space X (the space-Uber service preferred by ASA) significantly.
Meanwhile the seagulls (a term of endearment about admin pilots from my flying days: they'll only fly if you throw rocks at them) at ASA are pondering
the "conditions for rocket launches"
Sorry...getting a little worked up: need to have "Bex and a lie down"
(younger readers might need to Google that )
My dear mother use to take “Vincent’s with confidence” during the 60’s and little did they know what harm this white powder did to your long term health.
Anyway ……,
Yep totally agree our Government hasn’t taken future Space technology seriously with those sorts of budgets and with the northern half of our country ideal for “space ports” not to mention natural resources at hand, we are watching the rest of the world pass us by.
We need visionaries and bold decision makers to take advantage of this growing industry and technology.
We had launch facilities in the 60-70's but our Govt saw no future in space technology - no visionaries in Govt and there are still none - they want to buy nuclear subs but hell what's the point in that if we don't have nuclear missiles - Australia's decision to forgo a nuclear deterrent reflects a combination of international obligations, strategic priorities, and supposedly public opinion that favours non-proliferation and conventional military capabilities, but what good is that when you have someone like Trump in power who treats friends like enemies. We as a nation should be way ahead of numerous other poorer less stable countries but we are not.
"After securing approval from the Australian Space Agency, takeoff is expected within a multi-day window starting on Thursday, weather permitting, chief executive Adam Gilmour told AFP on Wednesday.
But he's not setting his hopes too high for now
If it actually orbits Earth "I would probably have a heart attack, actually, because I'll be so surprised, but deliriously happy", Gilmour said.
"Look, we're going to be happy if it gets off the pad -- 10, 20, 30 seconds of flight time: fantastic. So orbit is just not in the realm of my belief right now, even though it's theoretically possible."
The 23-metre vehicle -- designed to launch small satellites into low-Earth orbit -- is being prepared for takeoff from Abbot Point, about 1,000 kilometres (600 miles) up from the Queensland capital Brisbane.
Weighing 30 tonnes fully fuelled, it relies on a "fairly unique" hybrid propulsion system, using a solid inert fuel and a liquid oxidiser, which provides the oxygen for it to burn, Gilmour said.
The payload for the test flight is a jar of Vegemite -- a popular Australian toast topping -- but the rocket design is for a capacity of 100-200 kilogrammes (220-440 pounds), with further upgrades being developed.
---------------
Gilmour received final approvals for launch from the Australian Space Agency and CASA last week and now has a lift-off window from 7.30am AEST through to Sunday
I read the following today:
"Gilmour has previously pointed out that it took Elon Musk four attempts to launch the Falcon 9 rocket successfully, and Musk is now experiencing a similar sequence of unsuccessful initial Starship launches"
Interestingly, the Von Braun rocket team had no significant failures with the Saturn V program over a half century ago....in fact their record at NASA was almost faultless.
The take-away may be Gilmour and Musk are clearly not "Rocket Scientists"
P.S.
I admit to setting my Mum's hedge on fire with my home built zinc-dust and sulphur powered rocket in the 1970's. It looked pretty cool until it arced into
the hedge.
It amazes me that they are taking so long to get back to the moon 50 years later with better technology, did NASA forget things
My thoughts…….,
The Saturn 5 was a ridiculously expensive expendable launch system to get humans to the moon within 10 years. Totally government funded endeavour ( NASA )
Starship will eventually be a totally reusable launch system to get humans to Moon , Mars and beyond. It might take until 2035/2040 to get humans to Mars ( if this is at all possible) Private company using its own funds irrespective of whether NASA is one of its customers.
The Apollo CSM with LM in tow carrying 3 astronauts to moon and the Starship with possibly up to 100 astronauts to Moon , Mars and beyond is like comparing an E scooter to a B double truck.
Thrust of Saturn 5 at launch around 7.5 million pounds
Thrust of Starship Booster at launch in its final version 3 configuration around 21 million pounds of thrust
The Saturn 5 was affectionately called the old man’s rocket as it was so inefficient and slow off the pad and slow to get to LEO consuming ridiculous mind boggling amounts of fuel.
Starship in comparison with its efficiency and thrust to weight ratio is bigger more powerful and orders of magnitude cheaper to get to LEO. Musk is talking about a cost per Starship launch of only $2 million dollars once the system is fully reusable.
The technology required today used by Space X in regard to total re usability is new technology. The goals are new goals and the launch vehicle and hardware is new and unproven. Blowing up rockets is all
part of their iterative approach to design development and qualification testing.
Why haven’t we been back to the Moon in 50 years ?
I suppose we’ve been there 6 times already and no one in private industry from 1975 to 2001 ( until Mr Musk arrived on the scene ) had the vision and money to invest in such a monumental endeavour and leap forward for humanity.
Governments ( NASA ) these days are reticent to the risks of human space travel, the days of Apollo are well and truly over.
It’s a new vision for a new frontier with so many unknowns to be resolved along the way.
I hope I’m still around to see at least an unmanned Starship orbit Mars and return to Earth.
Who knows ?
Actually, yes. There was a significant loss of working-level expertise in manned spaceflight between the Shuttle program and Artemis. Space agencies need to grow expertise incrementally. It'll be a few years yet before the space industry is large enough that there'll be significant mobility in experienced staff, IMHO.
Add to that the difference in funding profiles. Artemis is (was) a smaller share of a relatively smaller NASA budget. NASA's budget during Apollo peaked at 4.4% of all US Govt spending; today's total NASA budget is around 0.5%. Also, the Artemis budget is spread out more over time. The relative lower cost per launch (Artemis vs Apollo), sadly, won't be realised as the program has been cut short, including cancellation of lunar gateway.
Speaking of per-launch costs, private space flight isn't cheap but Starship costs are slated to be much lower because of design approaches and re-usability (though Artemis and Starship have different profiles and risks). Still, Starship isn't a success, yet.
With cancellation of Artemis after flight III, and lunar gateway, and pending retirement of the ISS, NASA risks losing the remainder of its internal expertise in manned space vehicles and may rely completely on industry. It seems as though NASA will entrench "forgetting things".
Edit:
I didn't see Martin's reply before posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Startrek
Starship launch of only $2 million dollars
I thought I read the per-launch target cost was US$50m? That's a lot cheaper than Artemis at $4.1 billion, though.
Actually, yes. There was a significant loss of working-level expertise in manned spaceflight between the Shuttle program and Artemis. Space agencies need to grow expertise incrementally. It'll be a few years yet before the space industry is large enough that there'll be significant mobility in experienced staff, IMHO.
Add to that the difference in funding profiles. Artemis is (was) a smaller share of a relatively smaller NASA budget. NASA's budget during Apollo peaked at 4.4% of all US Govt spending; today's total NASA budget is around 0.5%. Also, the Artemis budget is spread out more over time. The relative lower cost per launch (Artemis vs Apollo), sadly, won't be realised as the program has been cut short, including cancellation of lunar gateway.
Speaking of per-launch costs, private space flight isn't cheap but Starship costs are slated to be much lower because of design approaches and re-usability (though Artemis and Starship have different profiles and risks). Still, Starship isn't a success, yet.
With cancellation of Artemis after flight III, and lunar gateway, and pending retirement of the ISS, NASA risks losing the remainder of its internal expertise in manned space vehicles and may rely completely on industry. It seems as though NASA will entrench "forgetting things".
Edit:
I didn't see Martin's reply before posting.
I thought I read the per-launch target cost was US$50m? That's a lot cheaper than Artemis at $4.1 billion, though.
Musks future estimates once fully reusable and a continuous launch cadence was around $2 million per launch. Probably $50m each until they reach full launch cadence. He’s talking about sending 1000 ships to Mars ??? Hmm ….
)they have put several payloads into orbit using home grown...well with the help of Monash Uni Aero-Engineering grads from Oz who couldn't use their skills here...anyway I digrress...using home grown 3D printed rocket engines. 
