Author Topic: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher  (Read 738564 times)

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #660 on: 10/28/2016 01:42 pm »
No, I'm not taking anyone's word. Neither Musk's nor Beck's. No emotional reactions on my part ;-) just cheering for the promising future of space flight. Preferably with many succesful companies. I'll cheer to all their successes, take their timetables and claims with appropriate amounts of salt,  and cringe at all of the 'my man beats your man any day of the week' cheers.

Just pointing out that RL is going for a specific niche. Will it be big enough? Who knows. Their investors seem to think so. We'll see how they do. Same for everyone.

As for the existing competition of dedicated rideshares that can launch in a week, where are they? I see no reason to believe that current launchers can do that within a few years. They all have plenty of backlog. Who will be first to the punch? According to what I've seen the last few years, we'll have to wait another five or so at the least.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #661 on: 10/28/2016 04:25 pm »
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.
The risk equation for primary payloads and insurers would have to completely change. For a long time, nobody will put a Galaxy Note 7 based cubesat from the next earth observation startup next to hundreds of millions of dollars in assets of a publicly traded comm-sat operator on a whim.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #662 on: 10/28/2016 04:32 pm »
Most of LEO constellations need SSO orbits while most large LVs are GTO missions. In these cases ride share will not work out. A large dedicated ride share will put multiple satellites in same SSO orbit. Constellations require their satellites spread over multiple SSO orbits.

Being primary payload means the satellite ends up in ideal orbit using very little of its DV to get there. If satellite needs to reposition its self after drop off from rideshare that requires DV which increases build cost of satellite or reduces its mission life.

Ride shares have there uses especially for experimental technology demostration satellites that don't care about their orbit.


Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #663 on: 10/28/2016 05:28 pm »
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.
The risk equation for primary payloads and insurers would have to completely change. For a long time, nobody will put a Galaxy Note 7 based cubesat from the next earth observation startup next to hundreds of millions of dollars in assets of a publicly traded comm-sat operator on a whim.

Most of LEO constellations need SSO orbits while most large LVs are GTO missions.

You've both misunderstood what I meant by "rideshare".  I don't mean as a secondary payload on a launch of a big satellite.  I mean dedicated flights with nothing but small satellites.  Spaceflight Services already has such a flight booked on a Falcon 9 with its Sherpa dispenser and plans to fly such flights regularly.

http://www.spaceflight.com/

Anyway, secondary payloads on launches of large satellites are also a thing.  Not all large satellites are going to GEO, and the idea that the Samsung battery issue will change any of that is just silly.  Everyone already knew that batteries can explode.  Yes, if you want to ride with a big satellite you can't just put a cell phone in a cubesat on a whim.  But at $5 million a pop for an Electron launch, RL is out of the price range of the cell-phone-in-a-cubesat crowd.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #664 on: 10/28/2016 06:37 pm »
A single launch can put satellites in multiple planes as long as you have a little time to wait and the satellites have some on-board propulsion.

The market for smallsat launchers isn't bulk launching of constellations (unless you're talking very tiny satellites such that even smallsat launchers can cluster them), it's for unique payloads and for on-demand replacement of satellite in a constellation in between bulk launches.

That's probably not a market big enough for all these smallsat companies to survive without dramatically changing their business model.

I think Masten has the best chance, actually.
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 savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #665 on: 10/28/2016 07:18 pm »
You've both misunderstood what I meant by "rideshare".  I don't mean as a secondary payload on a launch of a big satellite.
Rideshare is rideshare as used by the community, dedicated rideshare is dedicated rideshare.

Quote
Spaceflight Services already has such a flight booked on a Falcon 9 with its Sherpa dispenser and plans to fly such flights regularly.
One datapoint is not a trend. To the best of my knowledge, SpaceFlight has not talked about their intended cadence. Note that the first contract was announced more than a year ago.

Quote
Anyway, secondary payloads on launches of large satellites are also a thing.  Not all large satellites are going to GEO, and the idea that the Samsung battery issue will change any of that is just silly.  Everyone already knew that batteries can explode.  Yes, if you want to ride with a big satellite you can't just put a cell phone in a cubesat on a whim.  But at $5 million a pop for an Electron launch, RL is out of the price range of the cell-phone-in-a-cubesat crowd.
I gave you an example of extreme case of multiple payload integration concerns, there are plenty, and these aren't exclusive to big payload co-manifesting either. A large launch is a large launch representing correspondingly large total financial risk. Nobody can afford shortcuts and much experimentation there.
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 #666 on: 10/28/2016 08:51 pm »
You've both misunderstood what I meant by "rideshare".  I don't mean as a secondary payload on a launch of a big satellite.
Rideshare is rideshare as used by the community, dedicated rideshare is dedicated rideshare.

We could debate the meanings of words, but what's the point?  Whether the misunderstanding was your fault or mine, the fact is that you misunderstood and so your responses didn't address what I was actually talking about.

Quote
Spaceflight Services already has such a flight booked on a Falcon 9 with its Sherpa dispenser and plans to fly such flights regularly.
One datapoint is not a trend. To the best of my knowledge, SpaceFlight has not talked about their intended cadence. Note that the first contract was announced more than a year ago.

Obviously, the flight rate will depend on demand.

If there's a lot of demand for launches of small payloads, there will be lots of dedicated flights.  If there's not much demand, Electron will fly only infrequently and Rocket Lab won't be able to succeed.  Either way, it's bad for Rocket Lab.

Quote
Anyway, secondary payloads on launches of large satellites are also a thing.  Not all large satellites are going to GEO, and the idea that the Samsung battery issue will change any of that is just silly.  Everyone already knew that batteries can explode.  Yes, if you want to ride with a big satellite you can't just put a cell phone in a cubesat on a whim.  But at $5 million a pop for an Electron launch, RL is out of the price range of the cell-phone-in-a-cubesat crowd.
I gave you an example of extreme case of multiple payload integration concerns, there are plenty, and these aren't exclusive to big payload co-manifesting either. A large launch is a large launch representing correspondingly large total financial risk. Nobody can afford shortcuts and much experimentation there.

You're failing to address my point, which is that Electron isn't an option for shortcuts and experimentation either.  It's $5 million per launch!

If you want to experiment with small satellites, it's much cheaper to spend a few thousand dollars on space-rated power systems than use a cheap cell phone battery but pay $5 million for the launch.

Spaceflight Services has signed up lots and lots of customers, both for secondary payloads and for dedicated shared flights, so obviously the requirements for safety on these flights are not overly burdensome -- not worth $5 million to avoid.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #667 on: 10/28/2016 09:29 pm »
A lot of the RL launches are actually ride shares, look their on line booking system.

The will also be private missions with surplus capacity. The customer may allow ride share on these flights, would reduce their launch costs.

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 #668 on: 10/28/2016 09:45 pm »
If you go the ride share route on the Electron, it starts at $70k a cubesat according to the website. And RL is almost fully booked till 2019. Even if Electron doesn't launch as many times per year as predicted, it still has contracts till the foreseeable future.

Look at STP 2, a mission within the DoD rideshare program. They were originally supposed to launch in 2012? 2013? Now it seems mid to late 2017.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #669 on: 10/28/2016 09:49 pm »
Look at STP 2, a mission within the DoD rideshare program. They were originally supposed to launch in 2012? 2013? Now it seems mid to late 2017.
And now think about knock-on effects and opportunity costs of not flying things like DSAC and GPIM 5 years earlier.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #670 on: 10/30/2016 02:38 am »
Nice pics of the launch site progress

Rocket Labs Launch Site, Onenui Station, Mahia Peninsula, NZ - 5/6/16
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25355759@N07/27472156065

Rocket Labs Launch Complex 1, Mahia Peninsula, Hawkes Bay, NZ - 21/10/16
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25355759@N07/29848743024/

Found from https://www.flickr.com/photos/25355759@N07/

EDIT: full album of all the shots

« Last Edit: 10/30/2016 02:40 am by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #671 on: 10/30/2016 04:55 am »
Cool photos, just need LV on the pad even if it is just ground tests.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #672 on: 11/02/2016 11:44 pm »
Doesn't Electron have an option for a 3rd stage kick motor? Are the payload capability figures all considered with the utilization of the optional motor?
I haven't read anything about a 3rd stage option. It would allow for earth escape of smallsats  or cubesats. Moon express could use modified version of their lander as 3rd stage.

Here link regard 3rd stage kicker. Not sure about electric one, but make senses if performance increases that Vector plan to get from their one is valid.
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/electron.htm



Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #673 on: 11/02/2016 11:59 pm »
Doesn't Electron have an option for a 3rd stage kick motor? Are the payload capability figures all considered with the utilization of the optional motor?
I haven't read anything about a 3rd stage option. It would allow for earth escape of smallsats  or cubesats. Moon express could use modified version of their lander as 3rd stage.

Here link regard 3rd stage kicker. Not sure about electric one, but make senses if performance increases that Vector plan to get from their one is valid.
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/electron.htm

Here is an illustration of the payload and stage 3 from the RocketLab website. Clearly a solid fuel stage.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #674 on: 11/10/2016 08:53 am »
Here is an illustration of the payload and stage 3 from the RocketLab website. Clearly a solid fuel stage.

According to this environmental impact statement:-

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Extra%20downloads/Source%20file/space-launch-vehicle-discussion-doc.docx

...there is no mention of a 3rd stage motor, and there are no explosive elements on board i.e. solid fuels.

Maybe they use the high viscosity fuel they invented, the Viscous Liquid Monopropellent? Or maybe that is an option they have not yet developed?

Here are the stage dimensions and masses from the same document:-

« Last Edit: 11/10/2016 09:04 am by ringsider »

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2631
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #675 on: 11/10/2016 10:23 am »
This Rocket Lab presentation of July 2019 mentions the "Apogee Kick Motor" (page 8 ), but gives no details.

http://usgif.org/system/uploads/4606/original/ROCKET_LAB_INTRO_USGIF.pdf
« Last Edit: 11/10/2016 10:23 am by Skyrocket »

Offline orulz

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #676 on: 11/10/2016 02:02 pm »
I like the idea of a VLM third stage. It is a pretty interesting and promising technology. The patent application can be found here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120234196 
The chemistry of it all is way beyond me but they claim comparable performance to solids, full restartability, and what appears to be a better safety profile than many solids. Interestingly it includes lots of methods for pressurizing the tank, such as a hydraulic or electrical piston, a separate gas generator, tapping some of gases from the combustion chamber, or a separate turbopump (maybe electrical, like the Rutherford?)

I have seen no claims regarding performance, ie specific impulse, of this propellant but to me it seems ideally suited to the job of an apogee kick motor. All in all, an excellent tool for Rocket Lab to have in their toolbox.

Sent from my LGL44VL using Tapatalk


Offline TrevorMonty

Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #677 on: 11/10/2016 04:49 pm »
I like the idea of a VLM third stage. It is a pretty interesting and promising technology. The patent application can be found here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120234196 
The chemistry of it all is way beyond me but they claim comparable performance to solids, full restartability, and what appears to be a better safety profile than many solids. Interestingly it includes lots of methods for pressurizing the tank, such as a hydraulic or electrical piston, a separate gas generator, tapping some of gases from the combustion chamber, or a separate turbopump (maybe electrical, like the Rutherford?)

I have seen no claims regarding performance, ie specific impulse, of this propellant but to me it seems ideally suited to the job of an apogee kick motor. All in all, an excellent tool for Rocket Lab to have in their toolbox.

Sent from my LGL44VL using Tapatalk
Multiply restarts would make it ideal for deploying lots of cubesats, which most missions will involve.

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #678 on: 11/10/2016 06:05 pm »
This Rocket Lab presentation of July 2019 mentions the "Apogee Kick Motor" (page 8 ), but gives no details.

Yes, I agree there is clearly an engine, at least planned, it's just not clear what type.

I guess if it was solid they would need a whole bunch of approvals for handling that material and (potentially) dumping it in the ocean, same with most hypergolics.

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: RocketLab Electron Smallsat Launcher
« Reply #679 on: 11/12/2016 06:39 am »
I guess if it was solid they would need a whole bunch of approvals for handling that material and (potentially) dumping it in the ocean, same with most hypergolics.

Are solids that bad? I mean, I know nothing about NZ laws, but here in the US hobbyists use APCP motors and it's not that big a deal.

Tags:
 

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