Rocket Lab General Discussion Thread

[su27k]

Sorry for starting a new generic thread like this, but I can't find a good thread to discuss the following:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1061628667397357573

Is $3B pipeline launches for payloads that Electron could compete for?

I'd like to know this too. The exact quote from the article is this:

But Rocket Lab has another launch scheduled for December, as well as 16 launches planned for 2019.

Rocket Lab has a backlog of launches for the next 18 months, Beck said, which is "around a $3 billion pipeline." The factories in New Zealand and California "have been specifically designed to produce one rocket a week," Beck said. Rocket Lab aims to be launching at a weekly rate in 2020.

But the number just doesn't make sense. Assuming they launch 16 times in 2019 and 52 times in 2020, that's 68 flights. At $5.7 million a launch as the article indicated, the total value of the backlog in the next 24 months is only $387.6M, an order of magnitude less than $3B, could there be a quote error?

[CameronD]

A pipeline is something you tap in to...  Hence he's most likely referring to a supply of potential and regular/repeat customers he knows that either are or might be out there over the next 10 years or so.

[TrevorMonty]

Peter B. de Selding (@pbdes) tweeted at 10:11 AM on Tue, Nov 13, 2018:
.@SpaceflightInc President on why launches like coming @SpaceX SSO-A mission won't be common despite ostensibly lower cost-per-kg to orbit for owners: It's just too complicated, so smaller rockets will take the business.https://t.co/A7IlKTwttL https://t.co/xuZGH8KErM
(https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1062090419683708928?s=03)

Small LVs can also do rideshare, Spaceflight use Electron for ride share launch. Its lot easy to do rideshare with small LVs than LVs like F9, only 5-10 payloads compared to 60+ to organise.

[high road]

Let's hope this is another sign that cost/kg is not (the only thing) that's keeping the space activities from growing exponentially. With Electron flying, VG and Blue testing their suborbital vehicles and SpaceX apparently having gotten through their backlog, the next few years will show whether we really are at the start of a new space age.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Let's hope this is another sign that cost/kg is not (the only thing) that's keeping the space activities from growing exponentially. With Electron flying, VG and Blue testing their suborbital vehicles and SpaceX apparently having gotten through their backlog, the next few years will show whether we really are at the start of a new space age.

At $240K for a 3U cubesat (about $80K/kg) there will be a hard limit to how much exponential that will be. Another hard limit will be the first time a cubesat causes an in-orbit collision. That will lead to a requirement for cubesats to have on-orbit manoeuvrability and de-orbit capability, making them even more expensive. What we need is $8K/kg and the ability to remove all the space junk that's out there.

[jongoff]

Let's hope this is another sign that cost/kg is not (the only thing) that's keeping the space activities from growing exponentially. With Electron flying, VG and Blue testing their suborbital vehicles and SpaceX apparently having gotten through their backlog, the next few years will show whether we really are at the start of a new space age.

At $240K for a 3U cubesat (about $80K/kg) there will be a hard limit to how much exponential that will be. Another hard limit will be the first time a cubesat causes an in-orbit collision. That will lead to a requirement for cubesats to have on-orbit manoeuvrability and de-orbit capability, making them even more expensive. What we need is $8K/kg and the ability to remove all the space junk that's out there.

Some of us are working on that second part...

~Jon

[TrevorMonty]

Let's hope this is another sign that cost/kg is not (the only thing) that's keeping the space activities from growing exponentially. With Electron flying, VG and Blue testing their suborbital vehicles and SpaceX apparently having gotten through their backlog, the next few years will show whether we really are at the start of a new space age.

At $240K for a 3U cubesat (about $80K/kg) there will be a hard limit to how much exponential that will be. Another hard limit will be the first time a cubesat causes an in-orbit collision. That will lead to a requirement for cubesats to have on-orbit manoeuvrability and de-orbit capability, making them even more expensive. What we need is $8K/kg and the ability to remove all the space junk that's out there.

Its more like $25k/kg to LEO if buying complete launch, probably lot less if you buy a few launches. With cubesats you need to factor in weight and cost of dispenser, plus rideshare is always going to be more expensive because extra handling and to allow for partial loads.

If Curie is used even more expensive to cover its costs and reduced payload. On the plus side payload is insert into extact orbit so no need for propulsion or lot less propulsion. That is considerable saving on satellite build cost also one less thing to go wrong. Even expensive GEO satellites have propulsion failures trying to get from GTO to GEO, would be lot worst for lower cost cubesats.

Large LV rideshares using Sherpa rings with propulsion can also provide similar service as Curie. Same again the Sherpa rings come at a cost.

ULA long lived ACES upper stage can deliver rideshares to lots of different orbits without need for extra stages like Curie.

One potential upgrade for Electron would be long lived US capable of replacing Curie. If using methane would add extra performance along with extra capabilities.

[TrevorMonty]

A while back I discussed using Electron for taking small payloads to ISS. At time I don't we knew about Curie.

Between Curie stage and Nanoracks Bishop airlock this maybe possible.
Concept is mini Cygnus using Curie as service module. Vehicle would dock with Bishop airlock while it is removed from station. Jon of Altius may have bits of technology that could help here.

Once docked, pressurised cargo container separates from Curie service module which flys away for disposal.
Bishop module is reattached to station so crew can access cargo. Disposal of old cargo container would be via Cygnus or Dragon trunk.

[Asteroza]

A while back I discussed using Electron for taking small payloads to ISS. At time I don't we knew about Curie.

Between Curie stage and Nanoracks Bishop airlock this maybe possible.
Concept is mini Cygnus using Curie as service module. Vehicle would dock with Bishop airlock while it is removed from station. Jon of Altius may have bits of technology that could help here.

Once docked, pressurised cargo container separates from Curie service module which flys away for disposal.
Bishop module is reattached to station so crew can access cargo. Disposal of old cargo container would be via Cygnus or Dragon trunk.

Conceptually similar to what Intuitive Machines was doing with their JEM airlock sized reentry vehicle design, which could in theory be delivered by a grappleable service module. Unfortunately, their old RV design seems to be no longer present on their website though.

Considering current cargo regimes, a JEM/Bishop sized passable cargo module for time sensitive payloads or payloads that can't justify return on larger reentry vehicles would be an interesting market. There's also Terminal Velocity Aero for another take on the micro-RV from ISS concept, which ostensibly must be delivered.

Though a service module/long life upper stage that can stay at ISS to provide the means for cargo container disposal as well as directed precision reentry and orbit dropping would be a valuable service. Especially if it was some sort of "universal" type that could fly on a number of smallsat launchers

[TrevorMonty]

A while back I discussed using Electron for taking small payloads to ISS. At time I don't we knew about Curie.

Between Curie stage and Nanoracks Bishop airlock this maybe possible.
Concept is mini Cygnus using Curie as service module. Vehicle would dock with Bishop airlock while it is removed from station. Jon of Altius may have bits of technology that could help here.

Once docked, pressurised cargo container separates from Curie service module which flys away for disposal.
Bishop module is reattached to station so crew can access cargo. Disposal of old cargo container would be via Cygnus or Dragon trunk.

Conceptually similar to what Intuitive Machines was doing with their JEM airlock sized reentry vehicle design, which could in theory be delivered by a grappleable service module. Unfortunately, their old RV design seems to be no longer present on their website though.

Considering current cargo regimes, a JEM/Bishop sized passable cargo module for time sensitive payloads or payloads that can't justify return on larger reentry vehicles would be an interesting market. There's also Terminal Velocity Aero for another take on the micro-RV from ISS concept, which ostensibly must be delivered.

Though a service module/long life upper stage that can stay at ISS to provide the means for cargo container disposal as well as directed precision reentry and orbit dropping would be a valuable service. Especially if it was some sort of "universal" type that could fly on a number of smallsat launchers

ISS is tough and expensive destination due to all safety issues. A more likely market for these small cargo vehicles would be servicing unmanned robotic stations that Nanorack is proposing. Safety standards would be bit more lack especially if it lowers cargo delivery costs.

May still be case for space tug to allow for simpler cheaper and cargo vehicle. Along lines of Altius Bulldog satellite servicing vehicle.

[oiorionsbelt]

How does Electron deal with lightning at Mahia?
 Lightning towers aren't obvious.

[CameronD]

How does Electron deal with lightning at Mahia?
 Lightning towers aren't obvious.

They only go vertical for test and launch and they only do that if it's nice weather.

Remember, Electron isn't anywhere close to the size of SpX Falcon or any of your typically large launchers.. it's tiny.

[oiorionsbelt]

How does Electron deal with lightning at Mahia?
 Lightning towers aren't obvious.

They only go vertical for test and launch and they only do that if it's nice weather.

Remember, Electron isn't anywhere close to the size of SpX Falcon or any of your typically large launchers.. it's tiny.

They're more agile than F9 because they are smaller, therefore no need for lightning protection? ?
 

[tyrred]

How does Electron deal with lightning at Mahia?
 Lightning towers aren't obvious.

They only go vertical for test and launch and they only do that if it's nice weather.

Remember, Electron isn't anywhere close to the size of SpX Falcon or any of your typically large launchers.. it's tiny.

They're more agile than F9 because they are smaller, therefore no need for lightning protection? ?

Weather is always a consideration in any rocket launch, but when was the last time we saw a rocket launched during lightning conditions *with lightning towers at pad?  I can't recall.  It may not be a relevant issue wrt to potential launch cadence.

Election is definitely not launching during weather that can generate lightning conditions, at least for the foreseeable future.   However, triboelecrical discharges are a factor that has been compensated for, according to Peter Beck. I'm not an electrical engineer, so am not aware of the comparative hazards between weather-induced lightning strikes vs triboelectric discharges, mayhaps a more qualified person can elaborate.

[CameronD]

Weather is always a consideration in any rocket launch, but when was the last time we saw a rocket launched during lightning conditions *with lightning towers at pad?  I can't recall.  It may not be a relevant issue wrt to potential launch cadence.

Election is definitely not launching during weather that can generate lightning conditions, at least for the foreseeable future.   However, triboelecrical discharges are a factor that has been compensated for, according to Peter Beck. I'm not an electrical engineer, so am not aware of the comparative hazards between weather-induced lightning strikes vs triboelectric discharges, mayhaps a more qualified person can elaborate.

Triboelectrical discharges are caused by skin friction when the rocket is in flight - not on the ground - so all they need worry about is the weather forecast.  The rocket is also statically earthed just in case.

Being smaller, they're a lot more agile than an F9 and certainly don't need to keep the rocket vertical for long periods of time (or overnight) like SpX often do - besides, from the tip of the Mahia Peninsular they'd get a pretty good view of any nasty weather approaching in plenty of time to take action.

[jongoff]

May still be case for space tug to allow for simpler cheaper and cargo vehicle. Along lines of Altius Bulldog satellite servicing vehicle.

Definitely an idea we've thought of. For pressurized cargo delivery, if you could keep the pressure shell weight small (and the size small enough to fit through the Bishop Airlock) and relatively cheap, the idea could have some real merit. To ISS inclinations and altitudes you're talking around $28k/kg for the Electron. Dragon deliveries are something like $52k/kg ($130M/flt for a typically 2500kg payload). So there's definitely room for a tug-based solution to allow you to deliver small payloads on a cost-competitive basis.

I think the idea definitely makes sense for future commercial facilities, since they'll likely need smaller levels of cargo, are likely to want to divide that up over smaller more frequent batches (more Just In Time), and are likely to be a lot more willing to take calculated risks than NASA can with ISS. But those facilities are still several years in the future, so it'd be interesting to see how open the ISS community would be to something like this when they already have CRS contracts and such... Not sure. Definitely could make a lot of technical and economic sense.

~Jon

[TrevorMonty]

May still be case for space tug to allow for simpler cheaper and cargo vehicle. Along lines of Altius Bulldog satellite servicing vehicle.

Definitely an idea we've thought of. For pressurized cargo delivery, if you could keep the pressure shell weight small (and the size small enough to fit through the Bishop Airlock) and relatively cheap, the idea could have some real merit. To ISS inclinations and altitudes you're talking around $28k/kg for the Electron. Dragon deliveries are something like $52k/kg ($130M/flt for a typically 2500kg payload). So there's definitely room for a tug-based solution to allow you to deliver small payloads on a cost-competitive basis.

I think the idea definitely makes sense for future commercial facilities, since they'll likely need smaller levels of cargo, are likely to want to divide that up over smaller more frequent batches (more Just In Time), and are likely to be a lot more willing to take calculated risks than NASA can with ISS. But those facilities are still several years in the future, so it'd be interesting to see how open the ISS community would be to something like this when they already have CRS contracts and such... Not sure. Definitely could make a lot of technical and economic sense.

~Jon

Biggest hurdle for you would be strict safety requirements when approaching ISS. Lot easier with unmanned commercial station which Nanoracks are considering.

[jongoff]

Biggest hurdle for you would be strict safety requirements when approaching ISS. Lot easier with unmanned commercial station which Nanoracks are considering.

Agreed. Still worth having some conversations with NASA to see if there's interest, but it's definitely more of a market for a commercial station. The two ways I could see this happening for ISS are if a) the ISS program was interested in supporting this as an ISS-based demo, and/or b) if the ISS program was interested in having a low-cost Just-in-Time payload delivery option.

~Jon

[TrevorMonty]

Biggest hurdle for you would be strict safety requirements when approaching ISS. Lot easier with unmanned commercial station which Nanoracks are considering.

Agreed. Still worth having some conversations with NASA to see if there's interest, but it's definitely more of a market for a commercial station. The two ways I could see this happening for ISS are if a) the ISS program was interested in supporting this as an ISS-based demo, and/or b) if the ISS program was interested in having a low-cost Just-in-Time payload delivery option.

~Jon

Have any idea how much cargo by mass you could deliver, by time you factor in vehicle's mass.

Would need to make it two stage vehicle, with detachable cargo pod entering station via Bishop airlock and service module staying outside, attached to station. For disposal run, just reattach pod and do a deorbit burn.

From NASA point of view it would be nice to have cargo vehicle that can be launched on short notice for emergency spares.

I allow for scaling in design to support, 500kg LauncherOne and 1000kg Firefly or Relativity LVs.

[jongoff]

Have any idea how much cargo by mass you could deliver, by time you factor in vehicle's mass.

Would need to make it two stage vehicle, with detachable cargo pod entering station via Bishop airlock and service module staying outside, attached to station. For disposal run, just reattach pod and do a deorbit burn.

From NASA point of view it would be nice to have cargo vehicle that can be launched on short notice for emergency spares.

I allow for scaling in design to support, 500kg LauncherOne and 1000kg Firefly or Relativity LVs.

Just spitballing, but it looks like Electron is actually pretty nicely sized for station cargo delivery via Bishop. The ID across the flats for Bishop is around 1.346m while electron is 1.2m outer diameter (see: http://nanoracks.com/wp-content/uploads/NanoRacks-Airlock-Presentation.pdf and https://www.rocketlabusa.com/assets/Uploads/Rocket-Lab-Payload-Users-Guide-6.2.pdf). Bishop can accommodate a 1.2m long payload. So, if you made a pressure vessel using say the same tooling as they make their tanks on, you could probably make a pretty lightweight cargo vessel. Volume-wise you'd be around ~1m3 (about 10% of Dragon), and my guess is net payload could probably be somewhere around 180-200kg with cleverness.

LauncherOne is also small enough diameter that you could fit it into the Bishop airlock (1.3m diameter), but it has a longer fairing, so you might have to do two smaller pods that go in one at a time. Vector and Astra are also small enough that in theory they could be in running, if they can get their vehicles flying.

Relativity, ABL, and Firefly are all >2m diameter, so the only way they'd be able to do cargo would be making a pod more like a Cygnus module that berths to a CBM. They're cheaper in $/kg to LEO for launch so it might still be worth it, but the cargo pod would definitely be more expensive/heavy.

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.


~Jon