Yea... I am not convinced. Why did they opt to gimbal their engines? Because SpaceX does it? My hunch tells me that they can save a lot of weight by opting to do vector control with differential throttling instead. Get rid of the hydraulic system and piping. At least just for the first stage. The picture clearly shows a turbopump exhaust on each engine. Why not save that weight and do what the Russians do? Surely they don't need a turbopump for each chamber. Yea, they are touting the engine out capability. http://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/propulsion/rutherford/QuoteA single Rutherford engine pumps rocket-grade kerosene and liquid oxygen from the low pressure tanks into the combustion chamber producing 13.3 kilonewtons of thrust at lift-off. The regeneratively cooled engine passes the kerosene through channels in the chamber walls, allowing Rutherford to run at temperatures far beyond its melting point and at a significantly higher efficiency.Electron’s propulsion workhorse is the Rutherford rocket engine. Rutherford is the embodiment of power and efficiency; it is the key driver behind Rocket Lab’s ability to provide high-frequency, low-cost launches. Electron uses two variants of the Rutherford engine, a sea level and a vacuum engine. The vacuum variant differs only in nozzle shape, which is tailored to suit the vacuum conditions outside Earth’s atmosphere. The duplicate engine design for both stages makes Electron highly optimized for mass production.With nine Rutherford engines on the first stage, Electron can sustain a complete engine loss before launch and still complete its mission, making it one of few launch vehicles with such capability.The engine is named after the famous New Zealand born physicist Ernest Rutherford.
A single Rutherford engine pumps rocket-grade kerosene and liquid oxygen from the low pressure tanks into the combustion chamber producing 13.3 kilonewtons of thrust at lift-off. The regeneratively cooled engine passes the kerosene through channels in the chamber walls, allowing Rutherford to run at temperatures far beyond its melting point and at a significantly higher efficiency.Electron’s propulsion workhorse is the Rutherford rocket engine. Rutherford is the embodiment of power and efficiency; it is the key driver behind Rocket Lab’s ability to provide high-frequency, low-cost launches. Electron uses two variants of the Rutherford engine, a sea level and a vacuum engine. The vacuum variant differs only in nozzle shape, which is tailored to suit the vacuum conditions outside Earth’s atmosphere. The duplicate engine design for both stages makes Electron highly optimized for mass production.With nine Rutherford engines on the first stage, Electron can sustain a complete engine loss before launch and still complete its mission, making it one of few launch vehicles with such capability.The engine is named after the famous New Zealand born physicist Ernest Rutherford.
The web page talks about being innovative, but doesn't mention anything innovative about their approach. It seems to me they're somewhere behind Firefly and ahead of ARCA on the plausibility scale for groups trying to make it in the ultra-light-weight orbital launch business.
Ātea-1 is a two-stage sub-orbital vehicle capable of carrying payloads of 2 kg up to 150 km altitude. This launch vehicle is able to provide the international science community with a quick-response, mobile launch solution, with a focus on flexibility and rapid turnaround.
110 kg is a "small sat", not a cubesat.
So did the Atea 2 project die then?
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 07/31/2014 05:04 amInteresting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.I'm wondering, is Rutherford stage combustion engine? I don't see any turbine exhaust nozzle on that picture.
Interesting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. link That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.Question. If the Electron core is 1 m diameter, can anyone estimate the nozzle diameter of the Rutherford engine? I think it about 18 cm from looking at the photo.
We now know primary launch site is NZ and it is designed for our windy conditions. I' m guessing the launch site will be in northland as it's airspace has low air traffic and is only a few hours drive from factory. Trucking a few tonnes of LOX up country shouldn' t be a problem.
If I were going to name a Kiwi rocket engine, I think I'd call it Pickering.
I'm wondering, is Rutherford stage combustion engine? I don't see any turbine exhaust nozzle on that picture.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 07/31/2014 05:04 amInteresting photo on the scale of the Rutherford engine from Rocket Lab press photo on Doug Messier's Parabolic web site. link That is Peter Beck founder & CEO of Rocket Lab standing next to the Electron core, reminisce of Elon Musk next to his Falcon 1 photo.Question. If the Electron core is 1 m diameter, can anyone estimate the nozzle diameter of the Rutherford engine? I think it about 18 cm from looking at the photo.No downcomers, no hold downs, no connectors. It just seems like an engineering article. There's something that just seems too plain. Actual flight hardware has access doors, connectors for fluids, electricity and communications, mechanical hold downs, a couple of tubes for data wires and pressurization gases, etc.