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.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/28/2016 12:03 pmThe 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.
Spaceflight Services already has such a flight booked on a Falcon 9 with its Sherpa dispenser and plans to fly such flights regularly.
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.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/28/2016 05:28 pmYou'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.
QuoteSpaceflight 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.
QuoteAnyway, 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.
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.
Quote from: Davidthefat on 11/01/2016 08:57 pmDoesn'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.
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?
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 11/02/2016 04:46 pmQuote from: Davidthefat on 11/01/2016 08:57 pmDoesn'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.
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
This Rocket Lab presentation of July 2019 mentions the "Apogee Kick Motor" (page 8 ), but gives no details.
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.