Anyway, could be interesting. The big question would be if NASA or NanoRacks would actually be interested in additional cargo capacity at cheaper than Dragon $/kg, but in much smaller chunks.
Quote from: jongoff on 12/18/2018 08:18 pmAnyway, could be interesting. The big question would be if NASA or NanoRacks would actually be interested in additional cargo capacity at cheaper than Dragon $/kg, but in much smaller chunks. Nanoracks by definition would love you, since you would probably have to pay for access to Bishop. NASA might be interested from the ability to set a defacto small cargo standard and to foster it.A more immediate problem is where/how the service module would be hard berthed while Bishop is being manipulated. You need a hard stand/berth/grapple point (with related clearance issues) and power to the hard stand for SM keepalive power.I got the impression there wouldn't be enough clearance around where Bishop will go to allow a SM to hard berth on the outer shell of Bishop, plus you would likely need to use something like DEXTRE to grab your visiting SM. Maybe a DEXTRE variant itself could double as the hard stand (cover the back with MagTag's) and the means to move the cargo container into Bishop? Though that would require offloading DEXTRE + SM onto another grapple point from the main robot arm after capture so the arm can go grab Bishop...
Quote from: jongoff on 12/18/2018 08:18 pmAnyway, could be interesting. The big question would be if NASA or NanoRacks would actually be interested in additional cargo capacity at cheaper than Dragon $/kg, but in much smaller chunks. Nanoracks by definition would love you, since you would probably have to pay for access to Bishop. NASA might be interested from the ability to set a defacto small cargo standard and to foster it.
Quote from: Asteroza on 12/19/2018 04:35 amQuote from: jongoff on 12/18/2018 08:18 pmAnyway, could be interesting. The big question would be if NASA or NanoRacks would actually be interested in additional cargo capacity at cheaper than Dragon $/kg, but in much smaller chunks. Nanoracks by definition would love you, since you would probably have to pay for access to Bishop. NASA might be interested from the ability to set a defacto small cargo standard and to foster it.A more immediate problem is where/how the service module would be hard berthed while Bishop is being manipulated. You need a hard stand/berth/grapple point (with related clearance issues) and power to the hard stand for SM keepalive power.I got the impression there wouldn't be enough clearance around where Bishop will go to allow a SM to hard berth on the outer shell of Bishop, plus you would likely need to use something like DEXTRE to grab your visiting SM. Maybe a DEXTRE variant itself could double as the hard stand (cover the back with MagTag's) and the means to move the cargo container into Bishop? Though that would require offloading DEXTRE + SM onto another grapple point from the main robot arm after capture so the arm can go grab Bishop...This is starting to get off-topic for Rocketlabs, but if by service module, you mean the tug that delivers the cargo pod to the Bishop airlock, our Bulldog is pretty small, and has robot arms, so there are many ways I could think of it for it to hang out after dropping off the cargo pod. The technical problems are straightforward, but the question to me is if there is customer demand that can justify the development.~Jon
To keep it relevant, would a Curie based tug/SM be in the cards, or would contracting out to a third party specialist resupply tug like Bulldog be easier? A third party universal tug would be faster to implement, but it sorta ties into the questions regarding upper stages needing some proxops to also work with a propellant depot to begin with, so how much harder would it be to extend that work into a cargo delivery SM/upper stage.
Quote from: Asteroza on 12/20/2018 03:13 amTo keep it relevant, would a Curie based tug/SM be in the cards, or would contracting out to a third party specialist resupply tug like Bulldog be easier? A third party universal tug would be faster to implement, but it sorta ties into the questions regarding upper stages needing some proxops to also work with a propellant depot to begin with, so how much harder would it be to extend that work into a cargo delivery SM/upper stage.I could be wrong, but the way I've always thought of having an upper stage rendezvous with a depot was a lot less stringent than what would be required for it to rendezvous with the ISS. I'm biased, but I think they'd be better off keeping their stage simple and doing the minimum work to make it work with depots/tugs, instead of trying to make it super sophisticated. After all, they're not reusing the upper stage, while a tug can be reused many times. Economically that makes more sense to me. But as I said, I'm biased. ~Jon
The raw cost of launch in dollars per kilogram isn't enough of the story to draw conclusions.A fiber pulling machine on the ISS can be launched, powered, loaded, and unloaded, and there is transport up and back.Launch cost is significant, although complicated by NASA's non-commercial practices.A fiber puling machine launched on Electron, or any independent craft, has to carry it's factory, power system, and a reentry capsule, and do it all robotically. That becomes a dominant overhead to the launched mass. So much that ZBLAN fiber is probably incompatible with Rocketlab.
Key points from Rocket Lab CEO @Peter_J_Beck's interview on @tmro today:- 12 or more flights in 2019- Next flight in early February- First flight from Wallops in September- Launch rate of one launch a week in 2020
The latest @SpaceWorksSEI report just came out and shows Electron was 4th in terms of small satellites launched to orbit globally in 2018! Not bad for our first year of operations. #SmallSatLaunchSolved
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/03/2019 06:00 pmRocket Lab to launch three R&D satellites for the U.S. Air ForceInteresting that this is the third institutional mission in a row for Rocketlab.QuoteWith proven flight heritage from multiple orbital missions, Rocket Lab is the only fully commercial small satellite launch service provider in operation.Disagree with that. Pegasus was commercially developed and is in operation, although very expensive and with a very low flight rate.
Rocket Lab to launch three R&D satellites for the U.S. Air Force
With proven flight heritage from multiple orbital missions, Rocket Lab is the only fully commercial small satellite launch service provider in operation.
Pegasus stage 1 and 2 motors trace back to the MDA ICBM-T family and led to the creation of the Pegasus and Taurus families.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 04/05/2019 02:02 amPegasus stage 1 and 2 motors trace back to the MDA ICBM-T family and led to the creation of the Pegasus and Taurus families.I think you have it backwards. Pegasus first flew in 1990 while MDA wasn't formed until January 2002. Gunter describes the ICBM-T2, but its first reported flight was in 2017, long after Pegasus first flew.https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/icbm-t2.htmATK made the Orion 50S, Orion 50 and Orion 38 motors which form the first, second and third stages of Pegasus, respectively. From their 2008 catalogue."The Orion family of motors was originally designed for the three stages of the Pegasus launch vehicle."https://web.archive.org/web/20100415145936/http://www.ltas-vis.ulg.ac.be/cmsms/uploads/File/DataSheetSolidATK.pdf
Atonio Elias himself has said the Pegasus solids were derived from technology developed on the SICBM program.
Also, the Orion 32 was derived from the D5 (Trident II) SLBM.
Orbital started from a NASA contract (TOS), and the company was never fully-commercial (as in, no Gov't revenue), nor was Pegasus itself entirely commercial, in that its first payloads were DARPA, and it later carried numerous other Gov't payloads.
Quote from: Kabloona on 04/09/2019 08:33 pmAtonio Elias himself has said the Pegasus solids were derived from technology developed on the SICBM program.Just to be clear, the Orion 50 motors (1270 mm diameter) are of different size to the SICBM motors (1168 mm diameter). I'm pretty sure that Electron is also using technology that was funded or part funded by the government, like cryogenic carbon composites.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/03/2019 06:00 pmQuoteWith proven flight heritage from multiple orbital missions, Rocket Lab is the only fully commercial small satellite launch service provider in operation.Disagree with that. Pegasus was commercially developed and is in operation, although very expensive and with a very low flight rate.
QuoteWith proven flight heritage from multiple orbital missions, Rocket Lab is the only fully commercial small satellite launch service provider in operation.Disagree with that. Pegasus was commercially developed and is in operation, although very expensive and with a very low flight rate.
