Compare rockets
Put up to six launch vehicles side by side: drawn to the same scale, then size, performance, cost and track record. The best figure in each row is highlighted. Share the address to share the comparison.
| Figure | |
|---|---|
| Size | |
| Height | 29.0 m |
| Diameter | 2.5 m |
| Stages | 3 |
| Launch mass | 107 t |
| Performance | |
| First-stage engines | 3 × RD-0233 + 1 × RD-0234 |
| Propellant | N2O4 / UDMH |
| Thrust at liftoff | 2,080 kN |
| Thrust-to-weight | 1.98 |
| Payload to LEO | 1,950 kg |
| Cost | |
| Launch cost | ~$42M |
| Cost per kg to LEO, if full | ~$21,436 |
| Track record | |
| Launches | 1 |
| Successes | 1 |
| Failures | 0 |
| Success rate | 100.0% |
| Success streak | 1 |
| Upcoming launches | 0 |
| First flight | 1994 |
Figures from Launch Library 2. Gaps are filled from Wikipedia; “est.” marks a figure that isn't from it (unofficial, or worked out by us: point at it for the basis). A dash means no value for that rocket yet; a cost range counts by its low end; thrust-to-weight and cost per kilogram are worked out from its figures. Launch costs are rough public estimates and can be years old. Cost per kilogram divides the price by the most the rocket can lift to low orbit: that maximum is usually for a version that throws its boosters away, while the price is often for one that lands them, so read it as a best case. Total cost is the fairer comparison. The drawings are to scale but simplified: boosters and fairings follow rounded public figures.
Support NextLiftoff The site has no ads. If it's useful to you, a small tip helps pay for the server.