-4

Why don’t we just use one launch vehicle to carry different payloads? For example, to launch payloads in the size range of supplies for a Martian base or something made to destroy a Dimorphos size object might be exclusively carried by Starship, while carrying payloads like those the space shuttle did might be done exclusively by say, Ariane 5s. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to do so?

Dave Gremlin
  • 2,819
  • 17
  • 36
A. N Asker
  • 406
  • 1
  • 12
  • 1
    Either your example is not actually be an example, or the question you asked is not what you're trying to ask. At any rate, most launch providers seem to be doing just that...SpaceX primarily operates Falcon 9 with a few Falcon Heavy launches for payloads it can't handle, with Starship to replace both, ULA will be operating Vulcan, Blue Origin will have New Glenn. Are you asking why we have multiple launch providers? Why there's not globally one and only one organization serving the world's military and civilian launch needs with one and only one vehicle? How would that even work? – Christopher James Huff Oct 09 '22 at 14:34
  • I’m asking why we don’t have just one launch vehicle for carrying different categories of payloads – A. N Asker Oct 09 '22 at 20:36
  • 1
    Again, your example is of the opposite, launches being split between Starship and Ariane 5. And who is "we"? The world? Imagine the situation the rest of the world would be in right now if Russia had been the world's one and only launch provider. Why would it be cheaper? What incentive would whatever company or organization was granted this global monopoly have to reduce prices? What exactly are you suggesting? – Christopher James Huff Oct 10 '22 at 05:50
  • I’m talking about the whole world would only use one rocket to carry one mass category of payload which can be by any launch provider. And it would be cheaper because we wouldn’t have to waste money on making new rockets when we already had a rocket that can do the same job as your one by a different launch provider. That’s what’s going on with Artemis, NASA could use Starship to launch its later Artemis missions but it doesn’t plan to do so. – A. N Asker Oct 10 '22 at 05:56
  • And how would that work? Why wouldn't anyone else build their own rockets? What would make all the nations of the world accept being reliant on one nation for all their orbital launches? Why would this be cheaper? – Christopher James Huff Oct 10 '22 at 06:04
  • Because we wouldn’t waste money on making a rocket when there was already one that could do the exact same thing. And I didn’t say anything about there only being one launch provider. I said the rocket could be by ANY launch provider, SpaceX, NASA, etc. – A. N Asker Oct 10 '22 at 06:52
  • 1
    I'd like to see your reasoning for thinking it would be cheaper. By that same reasoning, @Pearson's answer below asks why we have so many different kinds of vehicles - surely only one would be needed. There is no rocket that does the exact same thing as another - all have different specialities, profiles etc – Rory Alsop Oct 10 '22 at 09:21
  • "And I didn’t say anything about there only being one launch provider. I said the rocket could be by ANY launch provider, SpaceX, NASA, etc.": only one rocket provider then. And now you've added international licensing of launch vehicle technologies that could be used for ICBMs to the problems you need to address. Once again, how exactly would this work? – Christopher James Huff Oct 10 '22 at 13:57
  • 2
    "Because we wouldn’t waste money on making a rocket when there was already one that could do the exact same thing.": by this reasoning, SpaceX developing Falcon 9 when Atlas V and Delta IV did the same thing was a waste of money. SpaceX would seem to disagree. How would you even enforce this "one rocket for all"? You'd effectively have to ban new rocket development worldwide...how would you even do this? What one rocket should the world have picked instead of allowing SpaceX, Rocket Lab, Firefly, etc to exist? At what point should we have stopped developing rockets? – Christopher James Huff Oct 10 '22 at 17:18
  • Oh, just to clarify, launch vehicles would change over time as technology developed – A. N Asker Oct 12 '22 at 05:56
  • This is unbelievable I said one rocket for one different payload size category!! Look, it would work by evaluation of rocket performance and cheapness when someone wanted to make a new rocket and whichever one was the best overall would be chosen to launch everything in a payload size category! And I AlReady Said that the rocket could be by any launch provider!!! – A. N Asker Oct 12 '22 at 06:01
  • You've said multiple contradictory things (the first and second sentence of your question still say opposite things, and you've muddled things further in comments), and still haven't clarified how the scenario you're suggesting would actually work. And developing new vehicles is a critical part of advancing technology! – Christopher James Huff Oct 12 '22 at 13:51
  • I just clarified it this is just dumb – A. N Asker Oct 12 '22 at 13:53

2 Answers2

6

For that matter, why do we have more than one type of car, one type of truck, one type of plane, etc? There are a huge variety of different types of vehicles for many different purposes.

The US wants two launch providers for heavy payloads for redundancy purposes. Europe, Russia, and China want their own to not be dependent on others. Small rockets have some advantages over large rockets. The fairings are different, as are the vibrations on launch. As a whole it just depends exactly on what one is trying to accomplish.

PearsonArtPhoto
  • 121,132
  • 22
  • 347
  • 614
  • 1
    I'd be very curious to see concrete evidence of small-rocket advantages. A lot of money poured into that sector (and DoD seemingly had interest in putting small sats into orbit that way) and every time I've looked it still seems like a better idea to go on a Falcon 9 rideshare unless you want a very particular orbit for your smallsat (which is also probably a big factor in why DoD would rather have dedicated small launches) – Erin Anne Oct 09 '22 at 22:20
  • 3
    The fact that Rocket Lab has launched 31 rockets is pretty good evidence in my opinion that there is a market for it. – PearsonArtPhoto Oct 09 '22 at 22:32
  • I don't disagree that a market exists, but it'd be interesting if there any references to payloads choosing a particular small rocket for the fairing environment / vibration issues you noted. – Erin Anne Oct 09 '22 at 22:41
  • Usually they choose it because it gets them to the right orbit and is cheaper than a dedicated mission on a much larger rocket. The environment can help as well, Rocket Lab does have the gentlest rocket to orbit, but I'm not familiar with anyone who specifically designed to that rocket. – PearsonArtPhoto Oct 10 '22 at 01:08
  • Rocket Lab's not the best example, considering they're having trouble making a profit with Electron and are replacing it with a larger rocket. There's a market, but it's questionable whether it's big enough to support a launch vehicle specialized for it. – Christopher James Huff Oct 10 '22 at 17:07
4

From a clarifying comment:

I’m talking about the whole world would only use one rocket to carry one mass category of payload...

The military applications of space make this idea a complete non-starter in the international arena.

Even in the scope of a single nation, this doesn't work. The US tried to have One Launcher To Rule Them All in the 1980s. That turns out to be a Real Bad Idea when that launcher suffers a catastrophic failure and gets grounded for a couple of years. This is sometimes known as "putting all your eggs in one basket".

Organic Marble
  • 181,413
  • 9
  • 626
  • 815