As someone who likes to follow space flight news, I was surprised how many of these I’ve never heard of before. I appreciate the overview and comparisons. You deserve a lot more views.
RFA gives me a lot of astra vibes,with their CEO and all their extreme pricing and rocket performance (I’m 99% sure the current RFA rocket could not do 1,300 kg to SSO)
Brazil is also making smallsat launchers: VLM. There also are companies building rockets by funding, VLN-AKR from akaer and MLBR from CENIC. They will launch in 2026/2027 and VLM in 2028
Again, as mentioned in the video, there are a lot of small lift launchers, and i didn't have the time to put all of them in on this list, so i just showcased some of the most known and interesting launchers on this list. Thanks for the comment!
Here is an adition to your list- Agnikul cosmos is building agniban smallsat launcher. They previously flown agniban sorted (a smaller suborbital rocket) just a few months ago.
As you probably heard me saying, there are so many smallsat launchers being developed right now, that I couldn't fit them all into this list. Along with not being able to show more than 8 or so rockets on screen, I tried to kept it down to a small list, featuring the most known and interesting smallsat launchers currently in development.
Space is hard. Getting to space, doubly so. Good video. Concise information presented cleanly. You’ve earned a subscriber. I look forward to your next video. Thank you.
1:33 interesting that almost all examples given for medium lift launch vehicles (with the exception of Soyuz) posses a configuration where they can lift more than 20t to a low earth orbit. The expendable Falcon 9, Vulcan Centaur VC4 and VC6, and Ariane 64 can all lift more than 20t to orbit.
I gave the example of Falcon 9 as a reusable rocket, as that's what SpaceX uses the most. Also yes, Vulcan also has a configuration as a heavy-lift launcher, but as these launchers have configurations as medium-lift launchers as well, that's why i put them there, and it gets the point across. Thanks for the comment!
If we take these cost estimates at face value, you'd end up with a per kg price that looks something like this (in 1000$/kg): RFA ONE: 2.77 Falcon 9: 6.0-6.5 SL-1: 11.5 Spectrum: 14.3 Miura 5: 22.2 Alpha: 23.8 Skyrora XL: 31.7 Eris-1: 35 Electron: 37.5 Prime: 33.3-38.9
Again, the values that i put there where pure speculation and based of publicly available numbers or numbers that the companies have mentioned, so that's why i chose not do do a $/kg comparison. Thanks for the comment!
@KionLionGuardOfficial Yeah, that makes sense. Really it's probably not to fair to compare prices from rockets that are actually flying (F9, Electron, Alpha) with those that haven't, since making the product look attractive to investors can be more important than publishing cost estimates that end up actually reflecting the reality years later for some launch vehicle startups. Still I feel this goes to show how insane the RFA ONE'S price estimate is and how maybe the Alpha isn't as expensive as it seemed.
I think China is the only country that has had success in fostering a small satellite launch vehicle market (despite being mostly missile derived) with the success of the Long March 6 and 11 (13 and 17 flights respectively), Galactic Energy’s Ceres-1 (17 flights), iSpace’s Hyperbola-1 (7 flights), CAS Space’s Kinetica-1 (5 flights), and CALT/ChinaRocket’s Jielong-3 (5 flights). There’s clearly a market for all of these rockets to coexist despite bigger and more affordable options existing.
There are some clear political realities you are ignoring. Chinese companies are "encouraged" to use Chinese rockets, very few Chinese payloads are ever sent abroad for lower launch costs. Chinese rocket companies are also heavily supported, subsidized, etc by the Chinese government, and that assumes that some of them aren't just government agencies in disguise. The Chinese launch market exists because China wants to have one and is prepared to put in the resources to get it, no matter the cost.
@@Rozitank That's exactly how all hi-tech industries come about. Silicon Valley was formerly just Pentagon employees and all of ULA's early rockets were former ICBMs.
Well if 50 tons to Leo is the threshold for “superheavy lift launcher” then Starship V1 isn’t a superheavy lift launch vehicle as it only demonstrated around 30 tons with reusability. Expendable, yes of course. For starship a lot of the numbers that get bandied about are aspirational rather than demonstrated. It’s only shown about 30t, which on its own is a fantastic achievement. Hopefully V2 will get us to the ambitious performance goals.
There’s a big flaw in the logic of better payloads to Orbit = Cheaper. Look at airliners, how successful is the A380 vs the 737 family? Also it’s very very rare for a launch vehicle to be sending even half of their capacity. The vast vast majority of missions are to launch lighter payloads, which is why falcon heavy has struggled for customers. There’s an entire industry dedicated to making light space vehicles, not heavy ones. Small sat may slump but it’s a segment that’s needed.
Probably because they are the largest launch provider in the entire world. If you want customers, you need a rocket and launch price that provides at least some benefit over choosing SpaceX, even if that benefit is somewhat handwavy. If you are trying to compete with the next largest competitor (Rocketlab), you are just fighting over a limited market share that Rocketlab already has a pre-existing advantage in. Far more lucrative to steal from the largest competitor, especially if they aren't trying to compete with you directly.
@Rozitank to steal from SpaceX you'd need to be cheaper than SpaceX on their own field, which is basically impossible... They have all the infrastructure already built, you need to start from scratch.
SpaceX don't have any small sat launchers. It's Falcon 1 rocket was retired after it's 2nd successful flight because SpaceX was awarded the CRS contact to carry cargo to the ISS by NASA, and evolved making a larger rocket (Falcon 9). If you are asking about these launchers competing with SpaceX's rideshare program, in my opinion they are not. As I explain on my video, there are benefits and drawbacks with launching on a SpaceX rideshare mission, and in my opinion I think they serve very different purposes. Also competition is good as more companies strive to reach goals, and advancing technology, therefor, lowering the cost by time.
@ SpaceX rideshare may have very clear downsides, but it is also quite cheap relative to a dedicated launch. The question companies have to ask is what is better, having to compromise on satellite design and initial orbit to get a cheaper launch deal, or spending more on a dedicated launch tailored to their needs? If you want to compete with SpaceX rideshare, you need a rocket that is A) reasonably priced, B) can actually perform the mission (both from a performance perspective and simple availability), and C) reliable enough for customers to trust you. Simply put, every satellite on a SpaceX rideshare is another lost launch for a small-sat launch company. That is why SpaceX are still the primary competition.
Depends on the needs of the payloads. If your satellite can go on the same orbit as the rest of the rideshare satellites, then falcon 9 is great, but if you need a different orbit or your launch is time sensitive, going with a small launch rocket can be preferable.
@bluesteel8376 EscaPADE demonstrated that you can take spacecraft that are of the size of a typical rideshare anywhere if you add have the kick stage that you would have needed on a dedicated small rocket anyway. Starship is going to have much more relaxed mass limits, and that only serves to underscore that fact, by allowing cheaper and more capable kick stages. With plans for >1000 flights per year, the lure of "fly when it suits you" evaporates. No one charters a Cessna to carry a 100 kg package from New York to London.
Note that I'm not saying that there wasn't a place for them in the past, but the question is, will there be a place for all these small launchers in the future. The future has Starship in it. A business plan that assumes a future that's exactly like the past will fail. Even Rocket Lab, the most successful player in this space, doesn't see a future for this class of rocket.
I can see a lot of work went into this! Well done!
Thanks Marcus! I'm glad you liked it! More content coming in the future!
Great summary on small launch vehicles that will be launching relatively soon. This is a great time to be a space fan.
You use your own voice?,awsome,its quite a rarity to see that these days its all AI !,good luck with your YT ❤
Yup, my own voice. Glad you enjoyed the video!
As someone who likes to follow space flight news, I was surprised how many of these I’ve never heard of before. I appreciate the overview and comparisons. You deserve a lot more views.
RFA gives me a lot of astra vibes,with their CEO and all their extreme pricing and rocket performance (I’m 99% sure the current RFA rocket could not do 1,300 kg to SSO)
Yeah I think the one that’s gonna be for the firsts flight is still a prototype, but eventually, it will be capable of that payload capacity.
Amazing video, I'm really hyped for Eris 1 🇦🇺
Great video. Really enjoyed the production and it's the sort of video I'd love to create myself. You earned a subscriber!
Brazil is also making smallsat launchers: VLM. There also are companies building rockets by funding, VLN-AKR from akaer and MLBR from CENIC. They will launch in 2026/2027 and VLM in 2028
Again, as mentioned in the video, there are a lot of small lift launchers, and i didn't have the time to put all of them in on this list, so i just showcased some of the most known and interesting launchers on this list. Thanks for the comment!
@KionLionGuardOfficial Just adding, very good video, new sub
What a great video. Funny, engaging, and insightful, keep it up my man!! 🤝
This is incredible! Hope this video blows up soon.
Love the video! This quality is really good for such a small channel👏👏👏
Really good content! Keep going and you will grow big in no time!
Wow, what a great video!! The graphics are super professional. Keep it up!
Here is an adition to your list- Agnikul cosmos is building agniban smallsat launcher. They previously flown agniban sorted (a smaller suborbital rocket) just a few months ago.
As you probably heard me saying, there are so many smallsat launchers being developed right now, that I couldn't fit them all into this list. Along with not being able to show more than 8 or so rockets on screen, I tried to kept it down to a small list, featuring the most known and interesting smallsat launchers currently in development.
Thanks for this. The work you put into researching the subject, and in producing the video, is appreciated. Subscribed. 🙂👍
Space is hard. Getting to space, doubly so.
Good video. Concise information presented cleanly. You’ve earned a subscriber. I look forward to your next video. Thank you.
Good job at making this video
Great video!
Man, it's really a Detailed and Amazing Video.
Hats off man ;)
Love your videos mate!
Bro, this video is so great 👍
1:33 interesting that almost all examples given for medium lift launch vehicles (with the exception of Soyuz) posses a configuration where they can lift more than 20t to a low earth orbit. The expendable Falcon 9, Vulcan Centaur VC4 and VC6, and Ariane 64 can all lift more than 20t to orbit.
I gave the example of Falcon 9 as a reusable rocket, as that's what SpaceX uses the most. Also yes, Vulcan also has a configuration as a heavy-lift launcher, but as these launchers have configurations as medium-lift launchers as well, that's why i put them there, and it gets the point across. Thanks for the comment!
If we take these cost estimates at face value, you'd end up with a per kg price that looks something like this (in 1000$/kg):
RFA ONE: 2.77
Falcon 9: 6.0-6.5
SL-1: 11.5
Spectrum: 14.3
Miura 5: 22.2
Alpha: 23.8
Skyrora XL: 31.7
Eris-1: 35
Electron: 37.5
Prime: 33.3-38.9
Again, the values that i put there where pure speculation and based of publicly available numbers or numbers that the companies have mentioned, so that's why i chose not do do a $/kg comparison. Thanks for the comment!
@KionLionGuardOfficial Yeah, that makes sense. Really it's probably not to fair to compare prices from rockets that are actually flying (F9, Electron, Alpha) with those that haven't, since making the product look attractive to investors can be more important than publishing cost estimates that end up actually reflecting the reality years later for some launch vehicle startups.
Still I feel this goes to show how insane the RFA ONE'S price estimate is and how maybe the Alpha isn't as expensive as it seemed.
Miura 5 va a volar más barato que el resto, con mucha diferencia.
This is a great video and I hope you make more!
I think China is the only country that has had success in fostering a small satellite launch vehicle market (despite being mostly missile derived) with the success of the Long March 6 and 11 (13 and 17 flights respectively), Galactic Energy’s Ceres-1 (17 flights), iSpace’s Hyperbola-1 (7 flights), CAS Space’s Kinetica-1 (5 flights), and CALT/ChinaRocket’s Jielong-3 (5 flights). There’s clearly a market for all of these rockets to coexist despite bigger and more affordable options existing.
There are some clear political realities you are ignoring. Chinese companies are "encouraged" to use Chinese rockets, very few Chinese payloads are ever sent abroad for lower launch costs. Chinese rocket companies are also heavily supported, subsidized, etc by the Chinese government, and that assumes that some of them aren't just government agencies in disguise. The Chinese launch market exists because China wants to have one and is prepared to put in the resources to get it, no matter the cost.
Hey Phazzee!
@@Rozitank That's exactly how all hi-tech industries come about. Silicon Valley was formerly just Pentagon employees and all of ULA's early rockets were former ICBMs.
@KionLionGuardOfficial Hey hey!
Are the ispace lunar lander and ispace hyperbola 1 different companies?
Great video, new sub 👍
PLD all the way, can't wait for Miura NEXT.
Kion. Note: misspelled “factory” as “fatcory” (RFA ONE segment) time@5:12.
Yeah, i some how misspelled some stuff, but hope it still gets the point across. Thanks for the mention and comment.
Well if 50 tons to Leo is the threshold for “superheavy lift launcher” then Starship V1 isn’t a superheavy lift launch vehicle as it only demonstrated around 30 tons with reusability.
Expendable, yes of course. For starship a lot of the numbers that get bandied about are aspirational rather than demonstrated. It’s only shown about 30t, which on its own is a fantastic achievement. Hopefully V2 will get us to the ambitious performance goals.
There’s a big flaw in the logic of better payloads to Orbit = Cheaper. Look at airliners, how successful is the A380 vs the 737 family?
Also it’s very very rare for a launch vehicle to be sending even half of their capacity. The vast vast majority of missions are to launch lighter payloads, which is why falcon heavy has struggled for customers. There’s an entire industry dedicated to making light space vehicles, not heavy ones.
Small sat may slump but it’s a segment that’s needed.
Very well done 👍. Subscribed 😉🚀
Astra must go.
WHO MUST GO!
They've actually share some updates on Twitter/X about Rocket 4 I think.
Good video
Extra comment for the algorithm 😊
Surely Paraffin is just another name for Kerosene (Unless you're talking about wax or Laxatives)
Yeah i think they are using paraffin as in paraffin wax. The same as in house candles. Thanks for the comment!
Why does everyone try to compete with SpaceX?
Probably because they are the largest launch provider in the entire world. If you want customers, you need a rocket and launch price that provides at least some benefit over choosing SpaceX, even if that benefit is somewhat handwavy. If you are trying to compete with the next largest competitor (Rocketlab), you are just fighting over a limited market share that Rocketlab already has a pre-existing advantage in. Far more lucrative to steal from the largest competitor, especially if they aren't trying to compete with you directly.
@Rozitank to steal from SpaceX you'd need to be cheaper than SpaceX on their own field, which is basically impossible... They have all the infrastructure already built, you need to start from scratch.
SpaceX don't have any small sat launchers. It's Falcon 1 rocket was retired after it's 2nd successful flight because SpaceX was awarded the CRS contact to carry cargo to the ISS by NASA, and evolved making a larger rocket (Falcon 9). If you are asking about these launchers competing with SpaceX's rideshare program, in my opinion they are not. As I explain on my video, there are benefits and drawbacks with launching on a SpaceX rideshare mission, and in my opinion I think they serve very different purposes. Also competition is good as more companies strive to reach goals, and advancing technology, therefor, lowering the cost by time.
@KionLionGuardOfficial I mean they compete with spaceX medium launch rockets instead of developing small size rockets like Rocketlab
@ SpaceX rideshare may have very clear downsides, but it is also quite cheap relative to a dedicated launch. The question companies have to ask is what is better, having to compromise on satellite design and initial orbit to get a cheaper launch deal, or spending more on a dedicated launch tailored to their needs?
If you want to compete with SpaceX rideshare, you need a rocket that is A) reasonably priced, B) can actually perform the mission (both from a performance perspective and simple availability), and C) reliable enough for customers to trust you.
Simply put, every satellite on a SpaceX rideshare is another lost launch for a small-sat launch company. That is why SpaceX are still the primary competition.
Way to few views for the time put into the video.
No
Depends on the needs of the payloads. If your satellite can go on the same orbit as the rest of the rideshare satellites, then falcon 9 is great, but if you need a different orbit or your launch is time sensitive, going with a small launch rocket can be preferable.
@bluesteel8376 EscaPADE demonstrated that you can take spacecraft that are of the size of a typical rideshare anywhere if you add have the kick stage that you would have needed on a dedicated small rocket anyway.
Starship is going to have much more relaxed mass limits, and that only serves to underscore that fact, by allowing cheaper and more capable kick stages. With plans for >1000 flights per year, the lure of "fly when it suits you" evaporates.
No one charters a Cessna to carry a 100 kg package from New York to London.
Note that I'm not saying that there wasn't a place for them in the past, but the question is, will there be a place for all these small launchers in the future. The future has Starship in it. A business plan that assumes a future that's exactly like the past will fail. Even Rocket Lab, the most successful player in this space, doesn't see a future for this class of rocket.