Unfortunately this was published a few revisions too early IMHO. And a couple of peer reviews but the exploration itself is a nice try.<p>Due to nonlinearity of the rocket equation some assumptions are really really really off [a] [b]. V2 only has 2500m/s deltaV [5] and the launch vehicle's delta-v needed to achieve low Earth orbit starts around 9.4 km/s [6]
(the actual delta-v is typically 1.5–2.0 km/s more for atmospheric drag and gravity drag). [7] Therefore V2 only deliveres (2500/9400)^2 (7% or 1/14 of the needed kinetic energy)<p>Trouble is we only get to convert 1-4% of the launch mass into payload in LEO with chemical engines. And that's for large rockets with economies of scale.<p>Sputnik (rocket) Mass: 267,000 kg Payload to LEO 500kg [3]<p>The smallest orbital rocket is the Japanese SS-520 with the following characteristics: It can launch 3 kg to orbit in 4.4 minutes. It's a modified sounding rocket with three solid-propellant steps. It's only 9.54 m long, 0.52 m dia., and has a mass of 2.6T @ liftoff [google]. The SS-520 rocket cost less than $5 million [google]<p>Bolting a 2nd stage on top of V2 was tried in [2] programme and with both stages at ~0.7 reliability things only work half the time. Not commercially viable.<p>Is there a market for small & cheap rockets? [8] What about dual purpose ?
W54 "Davy Crockett" Atomic Projectile was the smallest nuke designed to maintain fission and could be carried around in a backpack! The final weapon was 10.862 inches (275.9 mm) in diameter, 15.716 inches (399.2 mm) in length and 50.9 pounds (23.1 kg). I guess this could be worked with. With the current risk of global war everyone should be mass producing a small launcher. However this way we still only get 1cubesat into orbit per $1m, not what the autor aimed at.<p>To get below $1000/kg into orbit we will need a bigger boat. And that's what SpaceX is doing.<p>(sorry to not have these in the nice order)<p>[8] <a href="https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36261/why-isnt-there-a-rocket-to-launch-a-single-cubesat" rel="nofollow">https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36261/why-isnt-the...</a><p>[a] assume that our bigger, more complicated (two-stage), and
higher tech (LH2/LOX instead of Ethanol/LOX), launcher costs ten times
as much as the V2<p>[b] If our mass produced LH2/LOX launcher equals the
performance of the Delta 6925 by placing 3900 kg in LEO, the cost to
LEO is US$333/kg; if we achieve better throw-weight, this figure goes
down accordingly. If we build the thing so cheap, dumb, and heavy
that its payload is only 1000 kg--one metric ton--the cost rises to
US$1300/kg, which is still a factor of ten lower than the comparable
cost to LEO for Ariane, Atlas, Delta, and Titan.<p>[1] So yes, a stripped-down stretch-tank engine-augmented two-stage V2-derived rocket, massing 351 tons as opposed to the 12.5 tons in the original, would be able to reach orbit*. :)<p>[2] <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-G-4_Bumper" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTV-G-4_Bumper</a><p>[3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(rocket)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(rocket)</a><p>[1] <a href="https://www.quora.com/If-boosters-were-strapped-on-the-V2-rocket-will-it-get-into-orbit" rel="nofollow">https://www.quora.com/If-boosters-were-strapped-on-the-V2-ro...</a><p>[5] <a href="https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/59879/how-much-delta-v-did-the-v2-have" rel="nofollow">https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/59879/how-much-del...</a>
[6] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit</a>
[7] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy</a>