Scorpius

Listed below are some of the most Frequently Asked Question about the Scorpius project. If you are unable to find the answer you are looking for please email us.

Q: Many companies claim to have the secret to low cost launch but few have succeeded. What sets Microcosm apart?

A: We begin with the philosophy, "Build it simple; build it robust; build it inexpensively." This breaks down as follows:

"Build it simple." This means we minimize or eliminate failure-prone, complex, expensive parts and replace them with proven, off-the-shelf technologies. Why use turbo pumps if you can get comparable performance with a pump-fed system?

"Build it robust." Too many aerospace products have been made to maximize performance at the sake of all else. As a result, they have small design margins and require complex and expensive fabrication techniques. Our philosophy is to sacrifice some performance if it allows manufacturing and testing at a fraction of the cost while still meeting requirements.

"Build it inexpensively." Extremely tight manufacturing tolerances and high performance requirements have driven companies to use expensive tooling, materials, and fabrication techniques. The result is a one-of-a-kind rocket that must be treated with kid gloves. Microcosm's approach employs techniques and tolerances more akin to those used in the automotive and construction trades, where low cost and high production rates are crucial.

Q: Could you give some examples?

A: We use simple, ablatively cooled rocket chambers at the heart of every Scorpius vehicle. These chambers require minimal tooling, have short fabrication times, and have sizeable operating life margins. The costs to design, build, and test these chambers are a small fraction of those for most space launchers.

Our booster family features duplicate liquid-fueled pressure-fed propulsion pods. By making multiple copies of the same simple designs, we maximize production efficiencies, minimize tooling, and minimize testing requirements.

Q: As the engines are ablative, what are the implications of a scrubbed launch?

A: None. The engines are ablative but have a life significantly longer than required to get to orbit. Starting and stopping is harder on a rocket engine than continuous firing. Nonetheless, most of our testing to date has been with sequences of short duration burn that have worked very well. A scrubbed launch prior to ignition is no problem.

In general, a scrubbed launch in the very brief period between ignition and lift-off is acceptable, although probably not a good thing. In this case, the launcher could be used again. An abort in the first few seconds after lift-off is not a good idea in any launch system and typically results in a very efficient transformation of both launcher and payload into small pieces and combustion by-products.

Q: Why an expendable vehicle instead of a reusable one? Aren't reusable vehicles supposed to be a lot cheaper than expendables?

A: Not necessarily. While a reusable launch may be able to use the same hardware over multiple flights, the requirements for high performance, right tolerances, and long components lines, especially for single-stage-to-orbit vehicles, makes expendables very efficient.

Q: Will Scorpius be man-rated?

A: No.

Q: I see that the Scorpius family includes plans for a 50,000 lbs to LEO launcher. I'd like to know roughly how much one of those is going to cost, including ground support.

A: As yet, there is no sufficiently detailed design for the heavy-lift version to permit accurate costing. A ball park estimate is on the order of $25 million.

Q: The cost numbers are very impressive, and I wish you luck in achieving cheap access to orbit. Can you provide additional data related to the following?

Data measured from engines tested:

Thrust/weight (does weight include injector, valve, etc.)

Area ratio

Specific impulse

Chamber pressure

Ratio of demonstrated firing life to required life in launch vehicle

Design data for launcher stages:

Mass ratio of propellant to stage burnout

Tank pressure/feed pressure

Tank weight

Tank volume

Mass ratio of propellant to tank

Tank pressurant and its mass

Tank pressurization system mass (e.g., gas bottle mass)

A: You requested specific data on both the engines and stages. Unfortunately, this data is proprietary. This is for two purposes. Obviously, it is to protect the data and our approach from being copied too closely by others. Second, we don't want to freeze our design parameters at this stage of the program as tends to happen when specific numerical values become public. Our goal is to dramatically drive down costs. If to do this we need to take a few hits of a few points in the Isp, for example, we will certainly do so. It is the reliability, total cost, and cost per kg to orbit that are of concern.

So far as specific numeric values for engine performance, they are consistent with our original objectives and adequate to meet our performance goals in getting the payload to orbit with some margin. We believe that this is the key concern.

Q: What is the time-line for a demonstration launch that will quiet the nay sayers??

A: Our first suborbital vehicle flew on January 27, 1999, and our first orbital vehicle should fly before March 1, 2001. These dates are dependent on financial, political, and government funding issues more than technical ones.

Q: Is there a mailing list I can join to keep track of Scorpius developments?

A: No, but we may consider an e-mail list, if enough people are interested. In the meantime, we will continue to post developments on the Scorpius Home Page (www.scorpius.com).

Q: What is the next stage of development?

A: Several things need to happen in order to move forward. First we need additional engine testing. While a long demonstration firing is good, we need multiple tests to both characterize and verify the available performance. We also need substantial engine testing to characterize the available control authority. We have developed and tested a lower cost injector that meets our performance and chamber wall compatibility requirements. Our next substantive test will be a flight test of a much larger twin-engine suborbital test rocket (SR-XM). SR-XM will flight demonsrate key aspects of our launch vehicle propulsion "pod" as well as a higher energy sounding rocket capability.

Q: How does the Scorpius development time scale compare with the Venture Star/X33?

A: There is no realistic way to say, since both efforts are driven much more by the available funding than by the technical development time. An unbiased observer might reasonably conclude that Scorpius has the far easier technical task and that the Venture Star and the SSTO have far greater political support. Predicting what will actually transpire in the world of space politics is almost impossible.

Q: Have you come up with a better cost estimate for heavy lift than that given above?

A: Yes. A recent study resulted in the design of an even larger, unmanned heavy lift vehicle than previously evaluated. The estimated cost for putting 160,000 lbs into LEO is $80 million or about $500/lb.

Q: What is the current status of the program?

A: The program is moving along smoothly, although more slowly than we would like due to funding limitations. We have built nearly 20 ultra-low engines, which are described in professional papers. We have built and burst tested low-cost subscale tanks. The first flight sets of avionics were integrated into our first suborbital vehicle.

We have flown the first elements of the Scorpius technology and are under contract to validate several others. We are demonstrating that low-cost components can, in fact, be assembled into a low-cost system.

Email us at microcosm@smad.com HOME

Q: Many companies claim to have the secret to low cost launch but few have succeeded. What sets Microcosm apart? A: We begin with the philosophy, "Build it simple; build it robust; build it inexpensively." This breaks down as follows: "Build it simple." This means we minimize or eliminate failure-prone, complex, expensive parts and replace them with proven, off-the-shelf technologies. Why use turbo pumps if you can get comparable performance with a pump-fed system? "Build it robust." Too many aerospace products have been made to maximize performance at the sake of all else. As a result, they have small design margins and require complex and expensive fabrication techniques. Our philosophy is to sacrifice some performance if it allows manufacturing and testing at a fraction of the cost while still meeting requirements. "Build it inexpensively." Extremely tight manufacturing tolerances and high performance requirements have driven companies to use expensive tooling, materials, and fabrication techniques. The result is a one-of-a-kind rocket that must be treated with kid gloves. Microcosm's approach employs techniques and tolerances more akin to those used in the automotive and construction trades, where low cost and high production rates are crucial.
Q: Could you give some examples? A: We use simple, ablatively cooled rocket chambers at the heart of every Scorpius vehicle. These chambers require minimal tooling, have short fabrication times, and have sizeable operating life margins. The costs to design, build, and test these chambers are a small fraction of those for most space launchers. Our booster family features duplicate liquid-fueled pressure-fed propulsion pods. By making multiple copies of the same simple designs, we maximize production efficiencies, minimize tooling, and minimize testing requirements.
Q: As the engines are ablative, what are the implications of a scrubbed launch? A: None. The engines are ablative but have a life significantly longer than required to get to orbit. Starting and stopping is harder on a rocket engine than continuous firing. Nonetheless, most of our testing to date has been with sequences of short duration burn that have worked very well. A scrubbed launch prior to ignition is no problem. In general, a scrubbed launch in the very brief period between ignition and lift-off is acceptable, although probably not a good thing. In this case, the launcher could be used again. An abort in the first few seconds after lift-off is not a good idea in any launch system and typically results in a very efficient transformation of both launcher and payload into small pieces and combustion by-products.
Q: Why an expendable vehicle instead of a reusable one? Aren't reusable vehicles supposed to be a lot cheaper than expendables? A: Not necessarily. While a reusable launch may be able to use the same hardware over multiple flights, the requirements for high performance, right tolerances, and long components lines, especially for single-stage-to-orbit vehicles, makes expendables very efficient.
Q: Will Scorpius be man-rated? A: No.
Q: I see that the Scorpius family includes plans for a 50,000 lbs to LEO launcher. I'd like to know roughly how much one of those is going to cost, including ground support. A: As yet, there is no sufficiently detailed design for the heavy-lift version to permit accurate costing. A ball park estimate is on the order of $25 million.
Q: The cost numbers are very impressive, and I wish you luck in achieving cheap access to orbit. Can you provide additional data related to the following? Data measured from engines tested: Thrust/weight (does weight include injector, valve, etc.) Area ratio Specific impulse Chamber pressure Ratio of demonstrated firing life to required life in launch vehicle Design data for launcher stages: Mass ratio of propellant to stage burnout Tank pressure/feed pressure Tank weight Tank volume Mass ratio of propellant to tank Tank pressurant and its mass Tank pressurization system mass (e.g., gas bottle mass) A: You requested specific data on both the engines and stages. Unfortunately, this data is proprietary. This is for two purposes. Obviously, it is to protect the data and our approach from being copied too closely by others. Second, we don't want to freeze our design parameters at this stage of the program as tends to happen when specific numerical values become public. Our goal is to dramatically drive down costs. If to do this we need to take a few hits of a few points in the Isp, for example, we will certainly do so. It is the reliability, total cost, and cost per kg to orbit that are of concern. So far as specific numeric values for engine performance, they are consistent with our original objectives and adequate to meet our performance goals in getting the payload to orbit with some margin. We believe that this is the key concern.
Q: What is the time-line for a demonstration launch that will quiet the nay sayers?? A: Our first suborbital vehicle flew on January 27, 1999, and our first orbital vehicle should fly before March 1, 2001. These dates are dependent on financial, political, and government funding issues more than technical ones.
Q: Is there a mailing list I can join to keep track of Scorpius developments? A: No, but we may consider an e-mail list, if enough people are interested. In the meantime, we will continue to post developments on the Scorpius Home Page (www.scorpius.com).
Q: What is the next stage of development? A: Several things need to happen in order to move forward. First we need additional engine testing. While a long demonstration firing is good, we need multiple tests to both characterize and verify the available performance. We also need substantial engine testing to characterize the available control authority. We have developed and tested a lower cost injector that meets our performance and chamber wall compatibility requirements. Our next substantive test will be a flight test of a much larger twin-engine suborbital test rocket (SR-XM). SR-XM will flight demonsrate key aspects of our launch vehicle propulsion "pod" as well as a higher energy sounding rocket capability.
Q: How does the Scorpius development time scale compare with the Venture Star/X33? A: There is no realistic way to say, since both efforts are driven much more by the available funding than by the technical development time. An unbiased observer might reasonably conclude that Scorpius has the far easier technical task and that the Venture Star and the SSTO have far greater political support. Predicting what will actually transpire in the world of space politics is almost impossible.
Q: Have you come up with a better cost estimate for heavy lift than that given above? A: Yes. A recent study resulted in the design of an even larger, unmanned heavy lift vehicle than previously evaluated. The estimated cost for putting 160,000 lbs into LEO is $80 million or about $500/lb.
Q: What is the current status of the program? A: The program is moving along smoothly, although more slowly than we would like due to funding limitations. We have built nearly 20 ultra-low engines, which are described in professional papers. We have built and burst tested low-cost subscale tanks. The first flight sets of avionics were integrated into our first suborbital vehicle. We have flown the first elements of the Scorpius technology and are under contract to validate several others. We are demonstrating that low-cost components can, in fact, be assembled into a low-cost system.