Can The Longshot Space Cannon Kickstart an Orbital Economy?

Cutting Launch Costs Without Rockets?

Since the launch of the first artificial satellite, Sputnik, in 1957, we have become familiar with the sight of rockets to reach outer space. But rockets are inherently expensive, as they have to burn a lot of fuel to carry their own weight (and the fuel’s weight), as well as having reactors able to sustain the extreme conditions created by the fuel burning.

Recently, launch costs to reach the orbit have declined dramatically, thanks to SpaceX’s reusable rockets. And these costs might keep falling to the $100-200/kg if a large fleet of Spaceships is built and successful.

Still, this is many orders of magnitude more expensive than any other means of transportation. So any large-scale project in space seems doomed to stay very expensive.

So far, the only alternatives that have been envisioned can be grouped into one of two categories:

• Expensive megaprojects dependent on unproven technologies like mass drivers or space elevators. This is something we explored in depth in “Space Infrastructure – Building Stairways To The Heavens”.
• In-situ production, using resources mined on the Moon or asteroids to build space equipment with space resources, removing the need to lift them from Earth.

Both are, unfortunately, a rather long shot for now, with likely decades before they become a reality.

But maybe there is a third way, with an alternative to send massive amounts of materials from Earth to orbit, and then manufacture them in orbit. This is the plan revealed by Longshot Space, which is developing literal space canons.

Space Canons

Funnily enough, massive canons are maybe the first method imagined to reach outer space, with the proto-science-fiction novel by Jules Verne “From the Earth to the Moon”. In the 1865 novel (and its sequel “Around The Moon“), the protagonists use a massive canon to travel to the Moon, as at the time, notions of rocketry were pretty much nonexistent.

Source: Nation Air And Space Museum

The concept would be explored much later on with the High Altitude Research Project  (HARP) and Super High Altitude Research Project  (SHARP).

HARP

The HARP project financed by the USA Army Research and Development Center used an oversized 120-foot long (36-meter), 200-ton naval canon to attempt putting satellites into orbit.

It managed to send test slugs at up to 80km high, and then 180km with the Yuma Gun (the ISS orbits Earth at 408km high).

Source: Astronix

Unfortunately, short funding and political struggle would derail the program.

In a curious turn of events like from a spy movie, the mind behind HARP, Canadian artillery expert Gerald Bull, would later work on Project Babylon for Saddam Hussein, a similar idea, until Bull’s assassination in 1990.

SHARP

This US Army design, operational in 1992, did not rely on explosive propulsion directly but methane and then hydrogen gas compressed by a series of detonations. It used a total of 425 feet canon length (129 meters).

Source: Astronix

It was expected to be the first step before a “Jules Verne Launcher”. But the price tag of $1B for this launcher would lead to it not be produced.

Similarly, Quicklaunch, a university spin-off of the SHARP project, would try to build it with private funds but ultimately closed in 2005.

Longshot’s Space Gun

Longshot is also basing its design on gas compression, making it the latest in a long series of attempts to develop space guns.

Ultimately, the design of Longshot is an iteration of the very first hypersonic prototype, the WW2-era V3, with multiple gas injectors installed successively. It would, however, prove to be hard to aim different targets with it, and it was destroyed in an Allied bombing raid.

Source: Longshot Space

The multiple injectors meant that they could be made from inexpensive materials that were not designed to take high temperatures or pressure (contrary to rocket reactor nuzzles).

In the words of the Longshot team “Rockets are good weapons but expensive, space guns are bad weapons but cheap”.

Source: Longshot Space’s X account

Similarly to HARP and SHARP, they plan to use hydrogen gas, as the lightweight of the gas allows for the maximum possible velocity.

Source: Longshot Space

But this time, the goal is even more ambitious, with an even longer canon that allows for more speed and acceleration.

By extending the length of the barrel to 500+ meters and adding more boosters, Longshot will be able to accelerate payloads of up to 100 KG to Mach 5+ at acceleration loads that your cell phone can survive, and at prices significantly lower than current rocket-based accelerator systems.

Space Gun Issues

While space guns have been tried several times, they have so far been unsuccessful commercially.

So, are Longshot’s plans realistic? Well, maybe, as long as it manages to handle what killed previous space gun projects.

Accelerations

The first thing to understand is that space guns are unlikely to ever be used for transporting people or anything remotely fragile, contrary to Jules Verne’s initial idea.

This is because the design inflicts acceleration forces of up to 100G on the payload, at least 3x more than what the human body can survive.

Even satellites would need to be hardened against for the launch to manage to survive such brutal acceleration.

Trajectory

Another issue is that by the very nature of the launch, a space gun is not capable of placing objects into a stable orbit. They will either fall back down on Earth or escape the planet’s gravity well.

So, all payloads will need to perform some sort of course corrections to reach a stable orbit.

Payload

Another limitation of the previous project is that ultimately they look to launch only a few kilos of material into space. While this was acceptable for satellites of the time, and compared to rocket payload at the time, the soon-to-come 100-200 tons of Starship payload has changed this.

So really, at least tens or hundreds of kilos of payload for space guns will be needed, as well as a very regular firing schedule to match what SpaceX’s latest rockets can achieve.

System Complexity

Since the 1980s and 1990s, a lot of progress has been made in many fundamental technologies like power electronics, computing, material sciences, energy production, etc.

This means that the details of space gun engineering can likely be done today cheaper and/or better than 40 years ago. For example, precise computer modeling, solar power to create hydrogen, gas injections at the exact right time, electronic guidance system ability to sustain 100G, etc.

Market Readiness

Until recently, the market for orbital launches was mostly government, some telecom satellites, and some scientific missions. This is quickly changing with space tourism, planned bases on the Moon, and maybe even colonization of Mars.

This completely alters the economics faced by a space gun company and could open the way to much more funding until the technology is mature, something that has killed all the previous programs.

A space-based economy would also open a large total addressable market, something somewhat missing in the 1990s.

Longshot’s Space Progress

Longshot’s Timeline

By all aspects, Longshot Space matches the scrappy, built-in-a-garage startup archetype.

Started with funding from friends and family in 2020 it was almost bankrupt by Q3 2021 and had built a prototype reaching Mach 1.8 speed.

That was when the US Air Force awarded it a direct-to-phase 2 SBIR for $750,000. This would validate the company’s technology and help with further fundraising. Money from Space Fund and Sam Altman (of OpenAI fame) increased the pre-seed round to $1.5 million.

With a new prototype in Oakland, California, they reached a speed of Mach 4.8.

Further funding from the Air Force and capital raising, including $5M in new money for a total of $8M.

This will be used to build a massive 500-meter-long gun in the Nevada desert to push 100-kilogram payloads to Mach 5. The move to Nevada will increase the safety of the testing, as well as use the unstable but more powerful hydrogen gas.

The goal is to keep iterating from here, with “next up is Mach 6, then Mach 15, then Mach 25”.

Competitive Position

In some way, SpaceX’s success is both a boom and a curse for Longshot and all the other space launch startups.

On one hand, it proves to investors that this can be a profitable venture, something thought impossible even in 2012.

On the other hand, it means very tough competition, while SpaceX had only to beat companies like Boeing used to a comfortable “cost-plus contracting”. The bar to reach is now so much higher and constantly getting tougher.

So indeed, competition with SpaceX means that a rocket bringing launch cost at $1,000/kg, or even an unprecedented $500/kg might not be enough.

This also means that differentiation is essential. While SpaceX can launch humans with a complex fragile payload, companies like Longshot Space or Spinlaunch can target something else: bulky, simpler payload.

And this is actually a must if we want to expand in space, as we presented in “The Future Space-Based Economy”. The same tens of thousands of raw materials will be required to build the large orbital solar arrays to power the whole Earth we discussed in “Space-Based Energy Solutions For Endless Clean Energy”.

Applications

Refueling Rockets

Assuming that Longshot could manage to send payloads to orbit at a cheap cost (

For now, the plan to land a Starship on the Moon or Mars relies on sending several more Starships to refuel the one left in orbit. Depending on the Starship’s actual payload, this means that between 15-30 launches in total would actually be required to bring one Starship to the Moon.

This is because each Starship arrives in orbit almost empty, with little carrying capacity left for extra fuel. With each Starship launch cost expected at $5M (and more billed to NASA) in a best-case scenario, this means that the whole Moon landing cost likely $100-150M or more in refueling alone.

Instead, a system like Longshot could send artillery shell-like containers into orbit. These could then be captured by a dedicated orbiting vessel and ferried back to the Starship needing refueling.

So it might be that the Moon missions refueling will be the very first practical use case for space guns, and the very first commercial contracts for Longshot Space.

Raw Materials

Ultimately, Longshot space guns could be used to send into orbit any kind of material that is sturdy enough to survive the 100G acceleration.

In theory, this can include electronics, including consumer-grade ones, but would need to be tested in practice.

What is certainly included is all kinds of raw material. Assuming a low launch cost of around $10-100/kg, this could make practical the sending into orbit of bulk amount of steel plate, aluminum, polysilicon, basic electronic components, and even water or food, etc.

For example, it was studied that space-based solar power could make sense economically as soon as the launch cost falls below $500/kg.

These should then be processed by space-based automated factories into useful materials, like for example radiation shielding (steel and water), solar panels (polysilicon), orbital mirrors (aluminum), etc.

This would radically reduce the cost of orbital space stations and space habitats in general.

Mars Cycler

Cheap bulk material in space could also be essential in building an Aldrin Conveyor / Cycler, or or Mars Cycler could be permanently orbiting so it comes regularly in the vicinity of both Earth and Mars.

Source: Ethan MacDonald

This way, you could build a permanent space station for people to transit to and from Mars. It would have heavy radiation shielding and food production, as well as more comfortable and spacious rooms and sports facilities to keep people in shape despite the absence of gravity.

It would avoid having to accelerate and slow down the whole shielding, life support, and food supply for each trip to Mars.

Micro Satellites

There is today a whole class of mini- and microsatellites weighing 10-180kg. This includes the CubeSats recently used to launch a cheap swarm of satellites.

Source: NASA

Ultimately, Internet-based satellites like the Starlink satellites (260kg) could maybe even be included in models that could be better launched with space guns than with rockets.

Space Weapons

Militarizing space is a very hotly debated topic, which would breach several international treaties.

It could even threaten mankind with Kessler syndrome, or the situation where so much orbital debris is in orbit that we would be locked in on Earth.

Nevertheless, the perspective of launching at an ultra-cheap cost payload of tens or maybe hundreds of kilos has potential military applications. This could include anti-satellite weapons, hypersonic missiles, surveillance tools, etc.

With geopolitical tensions with Russia, Iran, and China escalating, this is not a trivial matter.

This is likely a reason why Longshot Space received funding from the US Air Force in the first place, especially since the USA officially created a military Space Force during the Trump presidency.

So while space guns make for poor weapons in the sense of artillery pieces, they might still be a crucial military technology that great powers will want to control.

Investing In Space Infrastructure

Space is a very established industry experiencing a rebirth and explosive growth on the back of reusable rockets. We discussed how this would create whole opportunities in our article “Reusable Rockets To Create Multiple New Markets By Lowering Costs Drastically”.

The current space market is $443B, space tourism & hypersonic flight could add another $350B in revenues, to which can be added a forecast of satellite-based Internet worth $17B, as well as military applications and subsidized Moon bases, scientific projects, etc. And this is even while ignoring more speculative (but potentially very lucrative) ideas like asteroid mining.

You can invest in space-related companies through many brokers, and you can find on this website our recommendations for the best brokers in the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, as well as many other countries.

If you are not interested in picking specific space-related companies, you can also look into ETFs like ARK Space Exploration & Innovation ETF (ARKX) or VanEck Space Innovators UCITS ETF (JEDI) to capitalize on the growth of the space sector as a whole.

Space Infrastructure Companies

1. Rocket Lab

Rocket Lab is one of the most serious contenders in the reusable rocket market. The company has initially focused on small rockets, with the Electron launch system (320 kg of payload), which is progressively being turned into a partially reusable rocket. So far, Electron has deployed 177 satellites in 44 launches.

Later on, Rocket Lab is looking at creating a medium-sized reusable rocket, the Neutron, comparable to Falcon 9 (8,000 kg to LEO in fully reusable mode, 1,500 kg to Mars or Venus). The Neutron will be powered by a methane-burning rocket engine (like Starship), which seems to become the trend for the next generation of rockets.

The company is remarkable for its fully vertically integrated satellite manufacturing process, allowing it to optimize costs and design speed. This resulted in multiple contracts with NASA & the US government, including a $515M military satellite contract. and a civilian $143m contract for Globalstar.

Rocket Lab is also a major manufacturer of solar panels for satellites after its 2022 acquisitions of SolAero Technologies, with 1000+ satellites powered by these panels, and 4MW solar cells manufactured in total.

Source: Rocket Lab

For now, its launch system is reliant on outside suppliers, but a series of strategic acquisitions should change that, replicating in the launch system the vertical integration already achieved in satellite design and manufacturing.

The company is also looking at the possibility of a telecom LEO constellation to generate recurring revenues. It is also contributing to research for in-space manufacturing with Varda Space Industries and orbital debris inspection.

While SpaceX had Elon Musk’s business talent to develop its technology from scratch, Rocket Lab used a mix of R&D and acquisitions to vertically integrate the technology required. This has proven very successful in satellite manufacturing, and they are now looking to replicate this strategy for reusable rockets.

Considering the existing cash flow from satellite production & the Electron successes, Rocket Lab is a good candidate to catch up with SpaceX, at least until mass drivers and other infrastructures are built in a few decades.

2. Virgin Galactic

The company was founded by Richard Branson and is focused on space tourism.

The tickets are in the $250,000-450,000 range, with a long waiting list. The first customers seem to be ecstatic with their experience:

“I always knew it was going to be the most extraordinary experience of my life. I always knew that. And people kind of told me it was going to be. But then when it is… and it’s on another level to the experience you thought you were going to have… then it’s very difficult to explain.”

“This has been the best day of my life, the most sensational day of my life. And you can’t get any better than that. It exceeded my wildest dreams.”

Virgin Galactic has been working on improving its unit economics, with a new launch system, the “Delta”, able to carry 6 passengers instead of 4, and to perform 8 flights/per month instead of just one.

Together, these 2 improved metrics should boost revenue per unit by 12x, with a payback time of less than 6 months for each Delta shuttle. The Delta flight test is expected in mid-2025.

Source: Virgin Galactic

Markets were concerned when it was announced that Branson would not invest further into Virgin Galactic. Especially following the layoff of 185 employees and a pause of space flights in 2024, to wait for the arrival of the Delta shuttle and reduce cash burn speed.

Still, Virgin Galactic is forecasted to have enough cash to run until 2025 or 2026. So if the development of the Delta flight system goes smoothly (a risky proposition in the aerospace industry), the company should be able to focus on restarting and growing cash flow, with a system that is profitable on a unit basis. And bring the company to turn cash flow positive in 2026.

Source: Virgin Galactic

(It should be noted that Virgin Galactic is different from Virgin Orbit. Virgin Orbit filed for bankruptcy in April 2023, and provided launch services for small satellites, with Rocket Lab acquiring the company’s Long Beach facility, manufacturing, and tooling assets).

The recent bankruptcy of Virgin Orbit and distancing from Virgin Galactic by founder Richard Branson has damaged the company’s image with investors, resulting in a plummeting stock price in 2023 and 2024.

Caution regarding the stock itself is highly recommended.

At the same time, the previous customers’ satisfaction, a clear plan for a profitable design (Delta shuttles), and a long waiting list of potential clients show that the company might still be viable even without raising more funds.

As long as it can fly the Delta-class shuttle soon enough. So far, the factory to build Delta is finished, and construction should start in Q1 2025.

A lot will rely on the success of developing, manufacturing, and operating the Delta shuttle and achieving it before the end of 2025.

If this is the case, the much lower valuation would create an opportunity for investors to grab company shares at a discount.