Author Topic: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher  (Read 738516 times)

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #580 on: 09/18/2016 12:51 am »
The purpose of this Agreement is to preclude unauthorized access to or transfer of technologies associated with the launching from New Zealand of:

a. U.S. Launch Vehicles; 
b. U.S. Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles;
c. Foreign Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles; and
d. N.Z. Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles. [/i]
It isn't a U.S. launch vehicle.  It is designed in New Zealand, developed in New Zealand, tested in New Zealand, built in New Zealand, and will be launched in New Zealand by New Zealand citizens.  I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned.  The company's U.S. presence (an office in an office park) is, in my view, only due to the source of some venture capital. 

Perhaps all of those U.S. regulations apply, but I can't for the life of me see why.  It would be like the FAA regulating all Proton launches in Kazakhstan because International Launch Services (a Russian-owned company) has an office in Virginia.

Rocket Labs doesn't just "have an office" in the U.S. -- it's officially a U.S. company.  Their launch vehicle uses U.S. technology that is covered by ITAR.  ringsider even gave a specific example of some of that sensitive U.S. technology: "LOX-tolerant CFRP which comes from TenCate, a US corporation".

Russia has an extensive aerospace industry, so it could build Proton without any U.S. technology.  New Zealand does not have that.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #581 on: 09/18/2016 01:18 am »
this is interesting, maybe Jim -others can chime in on this...


Can be encapsulated by the customer, is this new?

Not new. Under the DARPA FALCON program AirLaunch LLC developed an "ECE" or Encapsulated Cargo Element that would have been used in the exact same manner.

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 #582 on: 09/18/2016 02:22 am »
The purpose of this Agreement is to preclude unauthorized access to or transfer of technologies associated with the launching from New Zealand of:

a. U.S. Launch Vehicles; 
b. U.S. Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles;
c. Foreign Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles; and
d. N.Z. Spacecraft by means of U.S. Launch Vehicles. [/i]
It isn't a U.S. launch vehicle.  It is designed in New Zealand, developed in New Zealand, tested in New Zealand, built in New Zealand, and will be launched in New Zealand by New Zealand citizens.  I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned.  The company's U.S. presence (an office in an office park) is, in my view, only due to the source of some venture capital. 

Perhaps all of those U.S. regulations apply, but I can't for the life of me see why.  It would be like the FAA regulating all Proton launches in Kazakhstan because International Launch Services (a Russian-owned company) has an office in Virginia.

Rocket Labs doesn't just "have an office" in the U.S. -- it's officially a U.S. company.  Their launch vehicle uses U.S. technology that is covered by ITAR.  ringsider even gave a specific example of some of that sensitive U.S. technology: "LOX-tolerant CFRP which comes from TenCate, a US corporation".

Russia has an extensive aerospace industry, so it could build Proton without any U.S. technology.  New Zealand does not have that.



Says right here on their career page: https://rocketlabusa.com/engineer/

"The company is expanding globally and is currently growing the team based at Rocket Lab’s Los Angeles headquarters."

Looks like from other postings on their site, most of the engineering is done in New Zealand. Looks like designing, testing and manufacturing is done in New Zealand based on the position types available.

Seems like their plan is to have concurrent operations in the US and New Zealand, but the US site is solely for producing launch vehicles intended to launch from the US. They are hiring engineers to develop the factory state side, from the description.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #583 on: 09/18/2016 02:57 am »
Rocket Labs doesn't just "have an office" in the U.S. -- it's officially a U.S. company. 
"Officially" is just semantics in this case, as far as I'm concerned.  Here's their office building.  They have rented space on the fifth floor.  I'm certain that there's no room for rockets!

https://www.pbcenters.com/Regions/Los-Angeles-County/HOWARD-HUGHES-CENTER-office-space-HHC.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=places&utm_campaign=la-howard-hughes

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/18/2016 02:57 am by edkyle99 »

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 #584 on: 09/18/2016 03:01 am »
Rocket Labs doesn't just "have an office" in the U.S. -- it's officially a U.S. company. 
"Officially" is just semantics in this case, as far as I'm concerned.  Here's their office building.  They have rented space on the fifth floor.  I'm certain that there's no room for rockets!

https://www.pbcenters.com/Regions/Los-Angeles-County/HOWARD-HUGHES-CENTER-office-space-HHC.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=places&utm_campaign=la-howard-hughes

 - Ed Kyle

The powerpoint that ringsider posted specifically says that the HQ is a 115,000 sq ft factory in LA. I'm guessing that the office space was just an office they used to officially incorporate in the US before moving forward with the US operations.

I found a slide deck via Google with some very recent shots / details that I don't think have been made public before:-

http://usgif.org/system/uploads/4606/original/ROCKET_LAB_INTRO_USGIF.pdf

e.g.

- 120 employees now, 25% PhD
- S1 has a separate power pack at 1M watts
- Apogee kick motor
- 5 sites incl tracking station
- photos of factory and production line

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #585 on: 09/18/2016 03:34 am »
Rocket Labs doesn't just "have an office" in the U.S. -- it's officially a U.S. company. 
"Officially" is just semantics in this case, as far as I'm concerned.

Ed, this whole back-and-forth started because you expressed disbelief that the FAA would have jurisdiction over RocketLabs.  Well, as far as jurisdiction is concerned, it matters that they are legally a U.S. company.

They chose to be a U.S. company.  Why?  Probably for three big reasons: (1) they get to use ITAR-controlled technology; (2) they get access to the US government market; and (3) they get easier access to US venture capital.  In return, they have to accept FAA oversight.

There's really nothing more to it.  Whether they do their own engineering in New Zealand or anywhere else is beside the point.  The point is that they chose to be a U.S. company and that is why the FAA has jurisdiction.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #586 on: 09/18/2016 06:29 am »
It isn't a U.S. launch vehicle.  It is designed in New Zealand, developed in New Zealand, tested in New Zealand, built in New Zealand, and will be launched in New Zealand by New Zealand citizens.  ... The company's U.S. presence (an office in an office park) is, in my view, only due to the source of some venture capital. 

From rocketlabusa.com website:

Rocket Lab is a US corporation with a New Zealand subsidiary, and has complete vertical integration over the launch process, from rocket manufacturing through to our its own commercial launch range.

From the slide deck I posted, and that you obviously didn't have time to read:



There were even questions in the NZ parliament when they made the switch, as Rocket Lab took about $20M NZD in public subsidy / Callaghan Innovation grants prior to that change in domicile. Its all public record if you want to look:



I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned. 

You need to read more. The "big chunks" are propulsion, avionics, GNC and electronics. This is from another slide deck that is out there in the wild:-



The current status is simple: they are a US corporation*, flying a US launcher under US authority and control. It needs to be under the oversight and control of US citizens, unless the NZ staff have special authorization. You can disbelieve that all you like, but that is the fact of the matter. That's why they now have a US flag on the launcher:-



*I believe they are now majority US-owned as they won a small $100k SBIR grant for an AFTS development, and SBIR is for companies with 50%+ US ownership; Peter Beck had 60% just after the Khosla transaction but I imagine that dropped below 50% when Lockheed Martin and Bessemer joined the party.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2016 04:13 pm by ringsider »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #587 on: 09/18/2016 07:18 am »
I'm not disputing their legal/licensing status, but that one slide with the statement about how much manufacturing is happening in US doesn't seem right according to other publicly available sources. They simply do not seem have enough people in US to do all of that, or they hid these people well somehow.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Hobbes-22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • Acme Engineering
    • Acme Engineering
  • Liked: 587
  • Likes Given: 485
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #588 on: 09/18/2016 08:21 am »

Rocket Labs doesn't just "have an office" in the U.S. -- it's officially a U.S. company.  Their launch vehicle uses U.S. technology that is covered by ITAR.  ringsider even gave a specific example of some of that sensitive U.S. technology: "LOX-tolerant CFRP which comes from TenCate, a US corporation".


Ironically, Ten Cate is a Dutch company that has a US subsidiary to make selling stuff to the US military easier. So we have two companies subjecting themselves to US regulations when they could have done nonencumbered business outside US jursidiction instead.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #589 on: 09/18/2016 08:38 am »
I'm not disputing their legal/licensing status, but that one slide with the statement about how much manufacturing is happening in US doesn't seem right according to other publicly available sources. They simply do not seem have enough people in US to do all of that, or they hid these people well somehow.

In that regard I tend to agree with you. That slide is from July, and it looks to me that it is a freshly rented facility. But the issue that will drive work to that location will be export of critical parts like GNC gyros to NZ.

They are now hiring people for that location e.g.:

https://rocketlabusa.com/payloads-structure-and-mechanisms-engineer/

Work will be based in our Los Angeles facility with support from our subsidiary office in Auckland, New Zealand.

And the hiring rules are different for LA-based roles compared to NZ based roles:

LA: To conform to US Government space technology export regulations, applicants must be a US citizen, lawful permanent resident of the US, protected individual as defined by 8 USC 1324b(a)(3), or eligible to obtain the required authorization from the US Department of State.

NZ: For security reasons background checks will be undertaken prior to any employment offers being made to an applicant.  These checks will include nationality checks as it is a requirement of this position that you be eligible to access equipment and data regulated by the United States International Traffic in Arms Regulations.  Under these Regulations, you may be ineligible for this role if you do not hold citizenship of Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, the European Union or a country that is part of NATO, or if you hold ineligible dual citizenship or nationality. 

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #590 on: 09/18/2016 04:18 pm »
I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned. 
You need to read more. The "big chunks" are propulsion, avionics, GNC and electronics.
Rutherford was developed in New Zealand.  What other propulsion is there?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #591 on: 09/18/2016 05:28 pm »
this is interesting, maybe Jim -others can chime in on this...


Can be encapsulated by the customer, is this new?

Not new. Under the DARPA FALCON program AirLaunch LLC developed an "ECE" or Encapsulated Cargo Element that would have been used in the exact same manner.


Thx for the info
Looks like a great opportunity to keep costs inline for tight projects, and open many new doors.

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #592 on: 09/18/2016 05:50 pm »
I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned. 
You need to read more. The "big chunks" are propulsion, avionics, GNC and electronics.
Rutherford was developed in New Zealand.  What other propulsion is there?

 - Ed Kyle
The Avionics, fuel tanks, launch pad structures, electric turbopumps were all designed and built in NZ. They buy in components like electric motors, batteries, electric components, carbon fibres etc just like every other vehicle (car, plane boat LV) manufacturer.

Most importantly software would have been developed locally, this one of more important and expensive parts of LV development these days.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #593 on: 09/18/2016 07:56 pm »
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #594 on: 09/18/2016 08:23 pm »
Electron? Why not name it something more interesting like Thorondor, lord of the Eagles in Middle Earth during the First Age?
Likely because the name is very fitting due to the electric powered pumps of the Rutherford engines. And because "Thorondor" is still copyrighted by Middle-earth Enterprises (formerly known as Tolkien Enterprises)
« Last Edit: 09/18/2016 08:28 pm by Skyrocket »

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #595 on: 09/18/2016 10:40 pm »
Rutherford was developed in New Zealand. 

So?

What other propulsion is there?

There are some images on the Internet that show a 40kN turbopump-driven engine for E+, but you'd probably prefer to do the research yourself.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2016 10:50 pm by ringsider »

Offline PhotoEngineer

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • SoCal
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #596 on: 09/19/2016 03:47 pm »

Likely because the name is very fitting due to the electric powered pumps of the Rutherford engines. And because "Thorondor" is still copyrighted by Middle-earth Enterprises (formerly known as Tolkien Enterprises)
[/quote]

That would be a pretty cool name though.  Or Nazgul depending on your business intentions.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #597 on: 09/19/2016 03:56 pm »
Rutherford was developed in New Zealand. 
So?
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States, which obviously is not true when Rutherford, the primary engine for the rocket, was developed and test fired in New Zealand, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/19/2016 03:56 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #598 on: 09/19/2016 06:21 pm »
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States.

That is not what was said.
« Last Edit: 09/19/2016 06:24 pm by ringsider »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #599 on: 09/19/2016 09:43 pm »
The claim I to which I was responding was that "big chunks" of Electron's propulsion was developed in the United States.

That is not what was said.
That is how I read it during this exchange:
Quote
Quote
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/17/2016 05:53 PM

    I've never read about the "big chunks" of U.S. hardware that you mentioned.
You need to read more. The "big chunks" are propulsion, avionics, GNC and electronics. This is from another slide deck that is out there in the wild:-

 - Ed Kyle

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1