Author Topic: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher  (Read 738526 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #640 on: 10/26/2016 07:56 pm »
Looks like a road trip to Mahia before Christmas is called for. Hope it is weekend launch as I'm short on leave.

If they announce a date for the launch I'll come join you. Are the beaches good?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #641 on: 10/26/2016 09:34 pm »
Small amount of new detail on dates:

Rocket launches could start in November

ROCKET LAB could begin its test launches from Launch Complex 1 on Onenui Station by the middle of next month.

The space company has applied for a road closure between November 17 and December 24. Launch dates are yet to be confirmed and the road closure period will be shortened and refined closer to the launch date.
Rocket Lab operations manager Shane Fleming said there is increasing excitement around viewing a launch and residents will be updated on the plans.

He said the electron rocket will go through a series of tests before it is commercially available and he anticipated three test flights of the rocket before commercial operations begin.

Mr Fleming said Rocket Lab’s focus during the test phase will be on successfully launching the vehicle, optimising operations and ensuring minimal disruption to neighbours.

He said Rocket Lab’s recomm- endation is to wait and view the launches in the commercial phase as the variables around the test phase launches mean people could spend a lot of time waiting for a launch.
“It is possible during the test period that planned launches will be postponed or rescheduled to another day,” Mr Feming said.

Wairoa District Council is evaluating potential viewing locations for the commercial phase of launches and logistics and visibility for future viewing will be assessed during the test phase.

For safety reasons, during a launch, Rocket Lab has requested restrictions on parts of Mahia East Coast Road (from Wainuiorangi Road to Onenui Station) and the unformed Tawapata Road.

“Safety is the absolute priority and there are formal requirements around creating safety zones and road closures.”

Mr Fleming said the Mahia East Coast road is extremely narrow at points and ill-suited to heavy traffic. Due to concerns around a potential influx of spectators looking to access the site during launch, access will be restricted and vehicles turned around at a safe point.

Landowners with property in areas subject to closures will not have their access affected. “We’ll continue to consult with affected locals, the Wairoa District Council and other relevant groups. We want to ensure preparations for the test launch are well communicated to the community,” said Mr Fleming.

Rocket Lab is currently focussing on planning and consultation following the opening of the orbital launch site last Tuesday, Mr Fleming thanked all those involved in assisting Rocket Lab to get to this point, especially local contractors and businesses.


http://www.wairoastar.co.nz/Handlers/PdfHandler.aspx?d=1&p=Newspaper/20161006&f=wspage001
« Last Edit: 10/26/2016 09:37 pm by ringsider »

Offline orulz

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #642 on: 10/26/2016 10:38 pm »
Check out the date on that article - August 2015. That is from when they were still hoping to launch from Kaitorete Spit, and the fact that they were even considering Mahia at all was news. The launch site that was recently completed IS the second launch site the article is referring to.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2016 10:39 pm by orulz »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #643 on: 10/27/2016 03:50 am »
Looks like a road trip to Mahia before Christmas is called for. Hope it is weekend launch as I'm short on leave.

If they announce a date for the launch I'll come join you. Are the beaches good?
Beaches and weather are why it is popular holiday spot.

Viewing options will be limited, till local council find suitable location. Given narrow roading on headland it maybe a case of parking in centre/neck of peninsula and bus ride to viewing site. This would also allow locals and council to make some money from visitors.

Viewing from water is other option either by private or charter boat. Probably won't see LV till it clears pad.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2016 03:52 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #644 on: 10/27/2016 05:27 am »
Any thoughts on how the recent cratering of Firefly will affect RocketLab?

I tend to think it will help RocketLab because it eliminates what might well have been their strongest competitor.

On the other hand, it also might tend to throw doubt on the whole industry and scare off investors.

Online ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #645 on: 10/27/2016 05:38 am »
Check out the date on that article - August 2015.

Ah, I missed the 2015, thought it was this summer. Deleted.

Offline Davidthefat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Rockets are life.
  • Greater Los Angeles Area, California
  • Liked: 288
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #646 on: 10/27/2016 05:39 am »
Any thoughts on how the recent cratering of Firefly will affect RocketLab?

I tend to think it will help RocketLab because it eliminates what might well have been their strongest competitor.

On the other hand, it also might tend to throw doubt on the whole industry and scare off investors.


If I were a potential investor, I would be more concerned about the upcoming launches than the competitors' issues. In fact, the combination of good test flights and the situation at FFSS, would entice me to invest. Especially given that RLUS seems far ahead of any other competitors in regards to actually providing a working product.


Now, about getting that first stage qualified in time for the test flight... Any news on that front?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #647 on: 10/27/2016 06:31 am »
Especially given that RLUS seems far ahead of any other competitors in regards to actually providing a working product.

They do seem ahead in regards to providing a product.  Whether it's a working product or not remains to be seen.

SpaceX failed on its first three launch attempts, then barely scraped up additional funding to try a fourth time.  I wonder how many failed attempts RL can afford.

Anyway, the reason I'd be scared to invest in RL isn't so much the technical risk that that won't be able to deliver cargo to orbit (though that is substantial) but the market risk that small expendable launchers are not economically competitive in the long run in the age of Blue Origin and SpaceX with their reusable, much larger, launchers.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #648 on: 10/27/2016 06:41 am »
..the age of Blue Origin and SpaceX with their reusable, much larger, launchers.
I hope you are not forgetting that this age of reusable rockets was first heralded over 3 years ago now, with no tangible deliverables so far in terms of cost reductions or turnaround times. With a reasonable turnaround time three years is a lot of time to actually generate revenue, if you can keep a rocket in service.
Soviets managed to fly R7's at a record turnaround time of roughly once a week a few decades ago, and Electron is a lot smaller. If payloads show up, there is plenty of business to be made.

A reasonable advice often given to startups is - forget what the industry giants might be doing in terms of competition, focus on delivering your value proposition and if you do it well, competition won't matter.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #649 on: 10/27/2016 07:18 am »
..the age of Blue Origin and SpaceX with their reusable, much larger, launchers.
I hope you are not forgetting that this age of reusable rockets was first heralded over 3 years ago now, with no tangible deliverables so far in terms of cost reductions or turnaround times. With a reasonable turnaround time three years is a lot of time to actually generate revenue, if you can keep a rocket in service.

Go ahead and tell a venture capitalist that your business plan is to run your business for just 3 years and then shut down the company because by then competitors will crush you.  See if you get funded.

VC's might only have a 3-5 year time horizon, but that's because at the end of that time they hope to have a much more valuable business that they can sell.  No VC would ever invest in something that will be worth zero in three years just for the cash flow coming in over those three years.

Soviets managed to fly R7's at a record turnaround time of roughly once a week a few decades ago, and Electron is a lot smaller. If payloads show up, there is plenty of business to be made.

A reasonable advice often given to startups is - forget what the industry giants might be doing in terms of competition, focus on delivering your value proposition and if you do it well, competition won't matter.

Well, I currently work at a start-up in Silicon Valley and have worked at other start-ups in the Valley, some successful some not, and I can tell you that is the exact opposite of everything I've ever heard.  You always need to be paying attention to the competition and anticipating it and have strategies to survive it.  What everyone worries about is having something special that the competition does not.  As Intel is fond of saying, "Only the paranoid survive."  Ignoring the competition is a very good way to guarantee failure.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #650 on: 10/27/2016 09:37 pm »
So far there really isn't any evidence that reusable rockets will ever be profitable. It's a shame, as true believers like us want them for our space dreams, but in terms of actually delivering a product you're taking a huge gamble by betting on reusability. Lean efficient production of small rockets to reduce operational costs with minimal R&D is a very competitive path. There's an opportunity now to start offering services at affordable prices with a healthy profit margin and reinvest in trimming the margins. Rockets are not commodity products, you care where your launch comes from because that affects your business case. There's lots of facets. RocketLab are aiming to win on facets that most other providers are ignoring.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #651 on: 10/27/2016 10:15 pm »
So far there really isn't any evidence that reusable rockets will ever be profitable. It's a shame, as true believers like us want them for our space dreams, but in terms of actually delivering a product you're taking a huge gamble by betting on reusability. Lean efficient production of small rockets to reduce operational costs with minimal R&D is a very competitive path. There's an opportunity now to start offering services at affordable prices with a healthy profit margin and reinvest in trimming the margins. Rockets are not commodity products, you care where your launch comes from because that affects your business case. There's lots of facets. RocketLab are aiming to win on facets that most other providers are ignoring.

That's a reasonable argument.  It remains to be seen whether reusable rockets will be economically viable.  I think it's likely they will, but it's by no means certain, and, even if they are economically viable eventually, that doesn't mean that small, cheap expendables don't have a place for the short-to-mid-term until they are eventually displaced by reusables.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #652 on: 10/28/2016 12:25 am »
Launch costs are split between vehicle cost, launch costs and payload integration. Rocket Lab seem to have low cost payload integration solution, being cubesats helps. Operational costs of their launch facilities are minor compared to likes of large F9 and Atlas launch facilities. See space.com article.

The only thing missing is low cost LV. 3D printing of engines has helped automate propulsion production, just need low cost assembly of tanks and stages.
Being able to manhandle a lot of parts eg engines, speeds up assembly considerably.

Building small LVs like Electron and LauncherOne is more like making missiles than current LVs.

The cheaper these expendable small LVs become, harder it is for RLVs to enter market. In saying that I do think RLVs will win out in long term.
« Last Edit: 10/28/2016 12:30 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1424
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #653 on: 10/28/2016 12:36 am »
"So far there really isn't any evidence that reusable rockets will ever be profitable"

Is there any evidence - evidence - that they won't be profitable?  So far there has been no test of the hypothesis, only tests of the hardware and software.  This time next year we may have evidence for or against the profitability of reusables.

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 548
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #654 on: 10/28/2016 01:21 am »
So far there really isn't any evidence that reusable rockets will ever be profitable. It's a shame, as true believers like us want them for our space dreams, but in terms of actually delivering a product you're taking a huge gamble by betting on reusability. Lean efficient production of small rockets to reduce operational costs with minimal R&D is a very competitive path. There's an opportunity now to start offering services at affordable prices with a healthy profit margin and reinvest in trimming the margins. Rockets are not commodity products, you care where your launch comes from because that affects your business case. There's lots of facets. RocketLab are aiming to win on facets that most other providers are ignoring.

That's a reasonable argument.  It remains to be seen whether reusable rockets will be economically viable.  I think it's likely they will, but it's by no means certain, and, even if they are economically viable eventually, that doesn't mean that small, cheap expendables don't have a place for the short-to-mid-term until they are eventually displaced by reusables.

Personally, I think it comes down to material technology.  When thinking of RLVs it seems we all tend to switch off that part of the brain that processes what happens to the rocket on its way up (ridiculously high speeds, stupidly high heating, words like "plasma", "fireball", etc...) and think that somehow a thin aluminium shell is going to fare just as well over repeated flights as it does in a sub-sonic low-altitude airliner. ..but that's simply not true.

The reality is that small, cheap expendables will have a place unless and until some game-changing material technology comes along that can (quite literally) take the heat.
 
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #655 on: 10/28/2016 01:45 am »
Going rapidly off topic for RocketLab. They definitely have a window of opportunity here to show what they can do with small, easily operable rockets designed for ease of manufacturing, and reasonably sized team. Sitting paralyzed about what some theoretical competitor might do at some point in time with whatever technology is a good formula for not doing anything, ever.
Looking forward to the first launch.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 548
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #656 on: 10/28/2016 03:36 am »
Looking forward to the first launch.

As are we all.. :)

Not long to wait.
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #657 on: 10/28/2016 05:20 am »
Personally, I think it comes down to material technology.  When thinking of RLVs it seems we all tend to switch off that part of the brain that processes what happens to the rocket on its way up (ridiculously high speeds, stupidly high heating, words like "plasma", "fireball", etc...) and think that somehow a thin aluminium shell is going to fare just as well over repeated flights as it does in a sub-sonic low-altitude airliner. ..but that's simply not true.

I don't know how you can say "that's simply not true" without any evidence.  The evidence suggests the opposite is true.  SpaceX has actually landed several stages, and after careful examination they have concluded that they can fly these "thin aluminium shell" stages over and over indefinitely.

These are the people who are actually launching real payloads into orbit.  They know what they're doing.  And they have landed stages, and they have examined them in detail.  And yet, somehow, you think that it's so obvious that they're wrong that you only have to say "that's simply not true" to refute them.

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #658 on: 10/28/2016 07:09 am »
Personally, I think it comes down to material technology.  When thinking of RLVs it seems we all tend to switch off that part of the brain that processes what happens to the rocket on its way up (ridiculously high speeds, stupidly high heating, words like "plasma", "fireball", etc...) and think that somehow a thin aluminium shell is going to fare just as well over repeated flights as it does in a sub-sonic low-altitude airliner. ..but that's simply not true.

I don't know how you can say "that's simply not true" without any evidence.  The evidence suggests the opposite is true.  SpaceX has actually landed several stages, and after careful examination they have concluded that they can fly these "thin aluminium shell" stages over and over indefinitely.

These are the people who are actually launching real payloads into orbit.  They know what they're doing.  And they have landed stages, and they have examined them in detail.  And yet, somehow, you think that it's so obvious that they're wrong that you only have to say "that's simply not true" to refute them.

Before anyone says blowing up a rocket on the launch pad during fueling with a payload on top says a thing or two how much they know what they're doing, let's wait for the first actual relaunch before drawing too many conclusions.

To bring this back on topic: you guys are forgetting that Beck has stated that the important thing is the 'per launch' cost and lead time to launch. Even with reusable rockets having a smaller price per kg of payload, 'mass' produced smaller launch vehicles still have a market segment to cater to: smaller payloads that don't want to wait for years until the next rideshare opportunity becomes available, or all the red tape that comes with that for the main customer or other rideshares to allow you to share the rocket. 'Order today, launch next week' (or next month, more likely) sounds like quite a good catch phrase.

Buying a ride years in advance means you need to have a lot of money early on, and a fixed deadline to finish the thing you want to launch. Not easy if you're launching something new and experimental. If you could focus on working the kinks out of what you want to launch, showing advancement every time you talk to whoever is giving you the money, and only buy the ride with the finished product in hand without having it lying around for years afterwards, that sounds much more convincing to investors/donators. And that's how Beck attracted his investors as well: show them the hardware. Attract more money, postpone costs to when you actually use what you buy, and go through tests and red tape with the actual hardware instead of plans and designs that might eventually turn out to not be less than optimal.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #659 on: 10/28/2016 12:03 pm »
Personally, I think it comes down to material technology.  When thinking of RLVs it seems we all tend to switch off that part of the brain that processes what happens to the rocket on its way up (ridiculously high speeds, stupidly high heating, words like "plasma", "fireball", etc...) and think that somehow a thin aluminium shell is going to fare just as well over repeated flights as it does in a sub-sonic low-altitude airliner. ..but that's simply not true.

I don't know how you can say "that's simply not true" without any evidence.  The evidence suggests the opposite is true.  SpaceX has actually landed several stages, and after careful examination they have concluded that they can fly these "thin aluminium shell" stages over and over indefinitely.

These are the people who are actually launching real payloads into orbit.  They know what they're doing.  And they have landed stages, and they have examined them in detail.  And yet, somehow, you think that it's so obvious that they're wrong that you only have to say "that's simply not true" to refute them.

Before anyone says blowing up a rocket on the launch pad during fueling with a payload on top says a thing or two how much they know what they're doing, let's wait for the first actual relaunch before drawing too many conclusions.

To bring this back on topic: you guys are forgetting that Beck has stated

Really?  On  the one hand, you're going to dismiss everything SpaceX has said about its actual experience landing rockets and doing extensive examination and testing of landed rockets.  On the other hand you're going to take the word of someone who has never even launched a rocket with a guidance system or telemetry.  Right.

You've got to be pretty strongly biased against SpaceX to use one mistake as an excuse to ignore all their successes while simultaneously ignoring all the lack of experience of Peter Beck.

that the important thing is the 'per launch' cost and lead time to launch.

Of course Beck is going to say that.  People starting companies are always going to spin things to put their own approach in the best possible light.

Even with reusable rockets having a smaller price per kg of payload, 'mass' produced smaller launch vehicles still have a market segment to cater to: smaller payloads that don't want to wait for years until the next rideshare opportunity becomes available,

If there's a big market for small payloads, rideshare opportunities won't be years apart, they'll be very common.  If there isn't a big market for small payloads, the volume will be too low for dedicated small launchers to have a business.

or all the red tape that comes with that for the main customer or other rideshares to allow you to share the rocket. 'Order today, launch next week' (or next month, more likely) sounds like quite a good catch phrase.

Rocket Labs is targeting about $5 million per launch.  Even without reusability, SpaceX's prices are far, far less per kg.  Rideshare launches will be much cheaper.  Customers for small sat launches usually are very price-sensitive, so there are unlikely to be many that will pay so much more just to launch with a week's notice.

Buying a ride years in advance means you need to have a lot of money early on, and a fixed deadline to finish the thing you want to launch.

The rideshare model doesn't envision requiring booking years in advance.  The idea is to have regular launches and let people catch the next launch, like catching a bus.

Not easy if you're launching something new and experimental. If you could focus on working the kinks out of what you want to launch, showing advancement every time you talk to whoever is giving you the money, and only buy the ride with the finished product in hand without having it lying around for years afterwards, that sounds much more convincing to investors/donators. And that's how Beck attracted his investors as well: show them the hardware. Attract more money, postpone costs to when you actually use what you buy, and go through tests and red tape with the actual hardware instead of plans and designs that might eventually turn out to not be less than optimal.

You're comparing Rocket Labs against a strawman, not against their actual competition, which is dedicated ride share launches on big launchers.  That competition is already here today.  Electron is not.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0