Astra - 'Stealth' Rocket Startup Testing Boosters In Silicon Valley

After finding out there was a company developing a smallsat launch vehicle practically in my back yard I hard to find out more. However the company is still in stealth mode - even calling themselves "Stealth Space Company" on LinkedIn ( / stealth-space-company ) - but between sightings of their booster, public documents, grants and leases I've got a pretty good idea of what their booster is like.
The public rocket views come from a local news station which caught site of the booster in Alameda
abc7news.com/technology/sky7-...

[@matchesburn]

[MEANWHILE AT ASTRA STEALTH SPACE COMPANY] "Oh, hey, a new Scott Manley vide- Oh no. It's about us. Guys! They discovered us! I told you that 'Stealth Space Company' tagline was too ostentatious, Bill!" "...It kinda pisses me off how accurate his estimations of our design are."

[@jerry3790]

Is that Bill Kerman you speak of?

[@NotRealNamesAgain]

Funny you ask- seeing as the payload rating is what it is... Hrrrmmmm.

[@dragonfiremalus]

At this point you could basically start your own news outlet with all the space news you're covering!

[@AdventurousJohn]

Wait... you mean this ISN'T a space news outlet?

[@hene193]

By uploading to his channel it's easier to reach the right audience and also they give something to upload since there is no really major series going on in KSP like there used to be few years back

[@makarlock]

Implying that this isn't my go to space news outlet

[@MrArgus11111]

they named themselves "stealth space company"... HOW VERY STEALTHY

[@brogot420]

lol

[@timothymclean]

Silly Astra. Everyone knows there's no stealth in space! ...Except Star Trek.

[@pluto8404]

_Nothing To See Here Corp._

[@marsgal42]

A few years ago I helped set up a new company (now defunct, alas...). Part of our planning was choosing a name that wouldn't cause customers to have too many preconceptions about what we did, or what we could do for them. The name we ended up with was Global Technical Engineering Solutions.

[@fiveoneecho]

Wait, but adding "stealth" to the name doesn't making it stealthy? My life is a lie.

[@ujdo]

Did you knock on any doors?

[@bmobert]

Hindenburg had an entire season flight with paying passenger without so much as a spilled drink. When you hear "Hindenburgs maiden flight" addendum "of the season" is often omitted. The electrical phenomenon that brought down the Hindering --choma-- wasn't even known at the time so it's unfair to fault the Zeppelin engineers that create the vessel for safety; especially since previous airship safety records for DULAG and Germany in general were so good. For perspective, 35 people died of the 97 crew and passengers aboard Hindenburg, or, about a third. Compare that to the worst accident for modern pssenger jets and I suspect this will be a favorable comparison. Furthermore, the N1 is also an unfair comparison. The N1 failures had everything to do with an overly ambitious program in a era of underwelming political support. However, all that being said, I did LOL at the comment. :-) Thanks for the vid!

[@HuntingTarg]

The destruction of the Hindenburg was as big a PR disaster for Germany and aerospace as the sinking of the Titanic was for England and modern shipbuilding. It was one of the first commercial travel accidents caught on video and live radio broadcasts. (And the most famous of those broadcasts coined the phrase 'Oh the humanity!' ) That being said, great info!

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

THANK YOU! I was going to post something similar, though I still appreciated that comment as it was funny and described the circumstance well. And, Yes the Hindenburg was very safe. DULAG hada very good record, but not only that Pretty much every German airship since pre-WW1 had good safety record. Some even thought Germany mastered the safe use of hydrogen. But the incident caused a unwarranted negative PR that one can argued doomed airship travel. There's also competition from the booming heavier-than-air industry too. The airship would of been really cool as a 'cruise' ship in the modern day.

[@zazugee]

its left such a scar that even today most projects of building new airships never came to fruition event tho they might make sense now for environmental and economic reasons for fright transport for example

[@homomorphic]

Yes, the use of differential thrust on the N1 was spectacularly ambitious given the technology of the day. To have a robust control model really requires a computer and as Manley says, electric turbopumps are probably required in order to obtain the necessary fidelity. The fact the N1 failed has, I think, little to do with the validity of differential thrust control and more to do with the mentality that would try to implement it with the technology available at the time.

[@KermitFrazierdotcom]

Rennie Allen ☆ The N1 Failed mainly because of No Testing. Kind of like that Soviet General sitting on the pad with all his toadies. Getting Roasted.

[@Afterburner215]

They just came out of stealth mode, and are planning on launching an orbital launch vehicle on Feb 21!

[@horacefairview5349]

My phone is like a million times more powerful than KORD, so maybe it is time to revisit N1 style designs.

[@lukefreeman828]

See SpaceX's BFR.

[@fiveoneecho]

Pretty sure KORD was ported from a different rocket in it's early stages, wasn't it? So, it seems it was bound to fail anyways.

[@sofuckingannoying]

KORD's raison d'etre was the unprecedented 24 (later 30) engines on the first stage, so I don't think so. Got a source? And I don't get all the hate toward KORD. It functioned exactly as designed, within the bounds of what was possible with analog electronics of the time. The root cause was always the engines.

[@sofuckingannoying]

Differential thrust sucks not only due to the difficulty of managing it. If you are at 100% thrust, you can only throttle down. With a gimbal, you can vector and stay at max thrust.

[@SuprSi]

You could slightly over-engine it and run them all at something like 80%, then you vector it while staying at the same overall thrust level. With a bonus of each engine under less pressure? idk.

[@DanielPierce]

I love this channel! Thank you Scott, for the hours of well researched and presented rocket science news and history!

[@bradleywasser9472]

My great grandpa was on the USS Hornet in WW2.

[@AntoineLeGrand610]

I love videos like these from Scott. So simple yet so interesting.

[@marionlara428]

Alameda: we don’t want a Walmart but rocket tests are fine

[@Markle2k]

Rocket companies don't destroy local businesses.

[@scottmanley]

There’s a Walmart 3 miles down the highway at Davis st. Do you really need two Walmart’s in walking distance?

[@marionlara428]

Sheldon Robertson That might very well be the underlying political motivation, but whenever I hear people complain about large chains in Alameda, it’s about how they’ll bring too much traffic to the island, not kill small businesses or anything. Plus I’m not sure how much lobbyists really influence city elections compared to just personal connections

[@danielkorladis7869]

Um, yeah. Fuck Walmart. I'd much rather have a rocket company.

[@Werdna12345]

Excellent investigation and research! Fascinating video

[@mattgti86]

This is an interesting story to bring to your channel. Keep it up. Thx!

[@paulgracey4697]

lets talk about how safe the Hindenburg actually was. 17 round trip Atlantic crossings were made the previous season quite safely. Now the Titanic didn't even get one full crossing before losing a higher percentage of those aboard. To explain further, 62 out of 97 aboard survived the crash landing on what was the first crossing of 1937. Mistaking that flight for the maiden flight is oft believed. Now as to the N-1, I recall that the control system was more inclined to shut down engines than to throttle them, if I am right. As with riding a bicycle, the first few meters or hundreds of meters in the N-1's case seems to be where the largest angle steering corrections take place. I do not know if the Soviets had a similar system for their moon rocket as we had for ours, but a tiny (by comparison) but crucial set of accelerometers at the very top of the Saturn V was responsible for keeping those initial engine gimbal swings to a very small set of arcs needed to "clear the tower".

[@dfdgfdgf0000]

I've just discovered your Channel... Awesome ! Thx for charing your knowlege.

[@JeffreyBue_imtxsmoke]

I don't know if your channel is my favorite on KZbin, but it's definitely in my "favorites" : )

[@fffUUUUUU]

Nice finding Scott! Also thank you for correct naming of N1 as a soviet (not russian) rocket.

[@dosmastrify]

Мандибрики і Цирупопики some parts were not of Russian origin?

[@danielkorladis7869]

Korelev was from the Ukrainian SSR. While it's common to conflate the Soviet Union and Russia, it isn't really accurate.

[@fffUUUUUU]

@@danielkorladis7869 exactly. Thank you sir. it's not so often I can meet intelligent person in comments on KZbin these days...

[@denisnikitin1927]

@@danielkorladis7869 Depends on how you define in this case the word "from". I would say he was from the Volhynian governorate of the Russian Empire.

[@dr4d1s]

Name a more iconic duo than Astra and rockets blowing up.... I'll wait.

[@thiskal]

I don't think it is completely fair to compare this rocket to the N1 given that in the 46 years since the N1 rocket science and (digital) control systems have improved a lot.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

Alessio Andreoli koralev was replaced by an incompetent alcoholic, at least he got his stuff together later on when they were doing space stations but he was not ready for the hot seat so quickly after koralev

[@HuntingTarg]

Just at a glance I go "that's WAY too many engines for dumb wires and plumbing!" I'll bet it could have worked in the '90s.

[@danielkorladis7869]

The N1 suffered from funding being split among competing projects, as well as the lack of large test stands to test the first stage on its own like the USA did with the Saturn V, and, of course, the death of Korelev. As I pointed out elsewhere, the Falcon 9 Heavy has 27 engines going at liftoff... only three less than the N1.

[@clydecessna737]

"...as safe as the Hindenburg" - Terrific!

[@donberg01]

This is part of NARF (what used to be Naval Air Rework Facility) I maintained Lockheed P-3 antisub-marine warfare aircraft at Moffett Field, down the road from here, all depot level maintenance was done here, similar to 'C' check in the commercial world.

[@danielkorladis7869]

Grew up in Alameda and always wondered what those taller buildings were for. Now I know. Thanks, Scott!

[@Kanives1]

I know; we can hear the "testing" at home here...

[@sleeptyper]

At the mission control: "Engine status?" - "No explosion yet."

[@andysim232]

"Wessels"

[@trespire]

"Nuclear wessels, that's what I said ! "

[@johnladuke6475]

"But how do we GET to Alameda?!?"

[@KermitFrazierdotcom]

Flappy Paddle ☆ "Checkov"

[@KermitFrazierdotcom]

John La Duke ☆ That's a Don't.

[@1_2_die2]

"Save as the Hindenburg!" =) that's one of the best PR quotes of all times. Interesting facts with more and more companies in this field.

[@manowartank8784]

"the only other rocket that i can find to use differential throtling to control the first stage..." me: N1! N1! N1! N1! N1! "...was the Soviet N1." me: yeaaaaah, i'm clever!

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

*"I'm Scott Manley. THROTTLE safe."* 😁😁😁

[@iirossii2005]

You travel A LOT! I am envious, enjoy Scott!

[@scottmanley]

I live here.

[@iirossii2005]

Scott Manley Scott Manley really?! oh im sorry! Now that I think of it you do have a lot of videos in California but probably you're recent outdoor videos threw me off. On top of trails down on flats in the middle of nowhere etc I think I just inadvertently thought you were way out of your local area. thanks for correcting me, have a nice day!

[@andrewmorris483]

Scott Manley Yeah, so about how far did you travel?

[@danielkorladis7869]

IIRC, He lives in either Alameda or Oakland, so definitely under 30 minutes, depending on traffic.

[@HAL_9001]

That's a nice looking FJ-80!

[@MrGrannyStylez]

cool video, keep it up!

[@InfraredSpace]

Hullo scott Manley Great Video Fly Safe

[@atwilight]

I love the bay area.

[@ayeeoyo7865]

I think this company has gotten a lot of government funding because the US military wants to develop a small rocket and engine to be used in a new design. The only land based ICBM the US currently is using is the Minuteman III, which was first deployed in 1970. The US Air Force only plans to operate those until 2030. 2030 is still 12 years away, but it isn't too long for how long it takes to design and refine a new rocket and then produce them in larger number. The new engine is planned to be both small and powerful, which would could allow for the missiles to remain small, and easily moved over land. 100 kilos to orbit is enough for multiple warheads, and enough to fit vehicles like Lockheed martin's MK-V. The MK-V combined with the rocket's precise throttle control could allow the warheads to hit very precise targets, comparable to guided bombs. The development and refinement of both this rocket, as well as the recently restarted development of the MK-V, would both be used to create the United States latest generation of ICBMs, which could be guided into targets from the ground. It would make sense for the United States to start working again to maintain technological supremacy in the world's nuclear powers. This would come with Russia beginning to modernize it's nuclear weapons's arsenal. This could be a result of possibly both of the new START treaty possibly coming to an end in 2021, as well as Russia's new modernization plans to shift it's focus on road based ICBMs to one with multiple warheads. China, Pakistan, and India have also added to their warhead count in previous years. Astra's stealthy nature with little public standing could be as a result of a gag order from the government. Such close protection of information on as such secretive weapons as nukes is very important to maintain a technological advantage over other nuclear nations. Taking a government contract would allow for a secure source of funding to test and build their new engine and rocket design. It would also allow the company to build themselves up to compete in the future small sat market. The government funding probably outweighs the the potential funding from investors that would come with good publicity.

[@adamrdcp]

Ayy we used to go drifting at night around that base.

[@lastfirst5863]

I think the reason differential steering was used on the first stage of the N-1 is because the stage one diameter was much larger. As a result, the engines were all much further off center which I believe makes their thrust differential more significant. With this new rocket being much smaller, I'm not certain that the difference in thrust would allow for the control they are looking for, or that it would be efficient to steer a rocket in this manner.

[@_tyrannus]

Using the main engines as verniers, pretty clever! The N-1 having failed for various unrelated reasons (those NK-33s got so much undeserved hate...) doesn't scream to me that this would. I'll follow it attentively.

[@io78]

I think that your comparison of this rocket control system to N1, implying it is not safe or reliable, is not fair. People used to make the same comparison on Falcon's number of engines and SpaceX demonstrated that it can work.

[@TheEpicAppleEater01]

'Stealth' and 'rocket' sounds like what someone would want in an ICBM

[@sulljoh1]

The edit was helpful

[@notapplicable7292]

Great... Darpa is getting involved in space... Great.

[@MrMegaPussyPlayer]

My craft is fire proofed as the Hindenburg and sink proofed as the Titanic (also airtight as a pasta strainer)

[@illustriouschin]

that 3d map is crazy

[@zynius]

It's just standard google maps.

[@eoc356]

Scott, I’m in alameda rn too!

[@NicholasLittlejohn]

Do they still have the free Estuary shuttle to Oakland?

[@alsifjlasieflooo]

"Safe as the Hindenburg" 😂

[@StreuPfeffer]

If it would have blownup just that one time and flew afterwards for a couple years again and then Blowup a second time would that have made it less bad?

[@KermitFrazierdotcom]

StreuPfeffer ☆ The US at that time had a monopoly on Helium Production, giving the Chermans no other choice but to use Hydrogen.

[@mikes2381]

Hey! I applied there last year for an internship. No luck obv. I'd love to work there as it's close enough for me to be near family but still doing rocketry.

[@crispynugget3616]

Eyyyy i have that same image you used for the thumbnail... with a *bit* of an addition on rocket sizes to the end... Mostly a kerbal addition.

[@matty922117]

C'mon, we all know it's Jamie Hyneman building a rocket to dispense his mustache army around the world to conquer it...

[@unclejoeoakland]

I just love how this guy calls the Alameda NAS "the center of silicon valley"

[@scottmanley]

Yep, it’s all about speaking to the world

[@AndrewJonkers]

Now I want one of those engines for my lawnmower!

[@kworkshop]

I live right next to that place and I slept on the hornet, inside is a museum of planes and torpedoes, it was awesome.

[@nicholas1460]

Interesting video. Any idea what the "mishap" was? Assuming "Rapid Unplanned Disassembly", but any other info would be interesting.

[@kinchan3334]

Wow! So close to home. If anyone get the chance you should visit the USS Hornet its bigger in person and it holds a ton of planes. Wait is this different from Ad Astra another aerospace company? They need a better name btw cause that name sucks. 'Stealth Space Company'

[@mescode]

Now make it in KSP!

[@DumbSloth87]

Maybe with some kOS lines, I never used that, but people use that to to way crazier stuff.

[@thesentientneuron6550]

Action groups

[@robertarnold9815]

Although the Minuteman uses a single nozzle solid motor it uses variable thrust to steer. By injecting water (i think, could be some other liquid) asymmetrically inside the nozzle it decreases (i.e. variably) thrust from one side or the other and steers the rocket.

[@scottmanley]

It injects hydrazine, I did a short video on this while on vacation.

[@Patchuchan]

The X33 also would have have differential thrust for steering.

[@theletsplayer9503]

Hey Scott, I was watching one your older videos, and idk if youve done a video on this yet, but is it possible to calculate (using orbital debris, their materials, etc) how much mass we've taken from the earth?

[@fiveoneecho]

I thought the Proton and Black Arrow also used differential thrust.

[@thePronto]

Looks like they've got some serious wonga.

[@krakenburger56]

Stealth rockets??? Crazy concept.

[@bluemountain4181]

About the differential thrust attitude control, didn't the early versions of the Falcon 9 use differential thrust? Back before the octoweb when they had the 9 engines in a 3x3 square.

[@vanibh93]

Nice!

[@ch4.hayabusa]

Given there's no wind in KSP this might be a good way to get into LKO efficiently. Wonder if you could use control groups to simulate differential thrust. Video please :D

[@lukefreeman828]

MJ does it quite well if you use mods

[@solarisone1082]

Throttle Controlled Avionics is the best mod for that kind of thing.

[@ColdWindPhoenix84]

I would say that Alameda is in the middle of the San Francisco Bay area, not so much silicon valley.

[@ak101farhan]

That building reminds me of the robots from swat catz 3:26

[@twinturbostang]

Fly safe, Scott Manley.

[@kennethferland5579]

But the differential throttle on the N1 was not what failed. That said it's huge wide base gave much more leverage to those engines and a narrower rocket would have a much harder time.

[@Esgaldu]

comparing n1 is not fair tbh, 30 or whats the number of engines to 5 and 1950's computers to modern ones, its the same thing as gyrocopters once hardware is here it can be done

[@akizeta]

I guess some engines failed on the N-1, but it was the engine management system that blew the thing up.

[@alphaadhito]

Do they 'busted' the rocket?

[@StefsEngineering]

I didn't know that the base was featured in Star Trek, but did however see it used in quite a number of Mythbusters episodes :) Thanks for sharing though! Edit: Oh, If I waited 2 minutes before commenting I would have known that you would mention MB as well

[@oldfrend]

fun fact - it wasn't really the USS Enterprise in the film (cvn-65), but rather a gas powered stand in (the Kitty Hawk i believe).

[@SystemCellSound]

I applied for a Project Manager position there a little while ago. They were looking for someone with more aerospace experience. D'oh!

[@rossh2386]

So that's who that launch in Alaska was, heard alot about it the day of but not much after

[@vf7vico]

I really like your program, Scott, but gotta call you out on this: Alameda is not by any measure "the middle of Silicon Valley." It's all the way on the other side of the Bay! Anyway, keep up the good work :-)

[@scottmanley]

I’m obviously speaking to people who don’t live in California

[@KermitFrazierdotcom]

The Hindemberg was a Viable Airship, except those meanies over at the US State Department wouldn't let them have any Helium, cuz they said "Strategic Material"

[@jhyland87]

I remember that place from MythBusters!

[@MarkoDash]

one of the mythbusters favorite location.

[@Demonslayer20111]

The Hindenburg was very safe. So we're all the other Zeppelin's at the time. The Hindenburg was the one and ONLY crash of the entire Zeppelin fleet (commercial anyway)

[@ioaircraft]

If I was doing stealth and it's high tech, it would be named Jose's Taco Truck

[@DesignedbyWill2084]

"May" enable differential throttle control.

[@celeriumlerium8266]

Using Google Earth/Maps you can see where on the old runway they tested the rocket, there is a test stand and burn mark on the corner that was used for the Matrix freeway, there is also a white concrete rectangle identical to the one seen in the video (minus rocket/equipment) and the outer runway line matches with the position of the burn mark. Not very stealthy to just leave that stuff out in the open.

[@orellaminx3530]

It'll be fun watching this thing spin out of control and explode. I for one don't think they'll ever make it to orbit.

[@Kanakotka]

5:00 Someone needs to teach those rocket science guys where the CAPS LOCK BUTTON IS.

[@JohnDoe-vf2yo]

Silly question here: At 4:51 in the clip of the rocket firing, what is the lower pipe pumping into the engines exhaust?

[@nunobartolo2908]

Right because there will be a client that preferes to risk precious payload on a startup when they can go to space x for cheap regular flying hardware, the launch market is a total bubble startups should focus on what to do once in space and forget about launchers

[@EtzEchad]

How do they do roll control do you think?

[@MrRobertX70]

Alameda is about 50 miles north of Silicon Valley, otherwise it was a very informative video.

[@ScottMaday]

Is this the same base the mythbusters used to fly their concrete, test a hoard of zombies, and make 5 second air blasted fried shrimp?

[@kg4boj]

And shot a cannonball accidentally into someone's house !

[@stevepirie8130]

Was ASAT the anti sat missile you were talking about? It was launched from F-15 at a high angle years back.

[@scottmanley]

No this is a different gizmo

[@MrSkyl1ne]

The only reason i know the Alameda Naval Air Station is thanks to Mythbusters :p

[@williamrosen3179]

From here to orbit

[@themistaken9571]

Wouldn't the motors be too close to the centre of mass (from a top down view) so any adjustment would be much slower and/or unstable than say, a standard gimble?

[@lastfirst5863]

themistaken Aww, I thought I was the first one to think of that. Cheers mate!

[@Chezburger8]

Didn’t the Falcon 9.0 also have differential thrust?

[@CraigLYoung]

I wouldn't call them "Stealthy" but conservative. They just didn't do a media blitz like SpaceX but living by Roger's Rule, "Do it first than brag."

[@scottmanley]

You might not, I might not, but they called themselves that.

[@E9X330]

Craig L. Young pretty sure SpaceX only got attention after landing the first stages, they've been around way longer

[@CraigLYoung]

boboprime2000 : Not really, I remember reading about SpaceX's Merlin engine and the Falcon rocket long before they were successful.

[@lastfirst5863]

Craig L. Young This is fact. I remember it too.

[@AzimuthAviation]

An engine "Hush House" put to use.

[@imthefuckinglizardking4590]

Are we sneaking into space now?

[@williamemmet9896]

By using thrust adjustment on a five engine launch system to change rocket pitch, what kind of forces and stress would that put on the rocket fuselage? How do you design a rocket that can handle that without folding in on itself?

[@free_spirit1]

So did you ring their doorbell?

[@krungstar4541]

What do you need an overpowered maneuverable rocket for? Other that sat weapons?

[@ghostbirdlary]

i remember it from mythbusters

[@reamie]

A KSP differental thrust steered rocket launched using KOS would be a suitable upcominig video ;)

[@reamie]

Upgraded challenge: also do roll with differential thrust, by having a fixed opposing angle on the engines, Then generate a roll torque by differential thrust on the diagonally opposing engines (in a 4 engine configuration, or the 4 outer engines with a fifth center engine). This would ofcourse decrease efficiency somewhat when not rolling.

[@reamie]

Would make a fun challenge, regardless.

[@JoeRogansGutBiome]

Alameda is not in "Sillicon Valley" its 300 miles away.