https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1659237702380802049QuoteThe integrated Cruise Vehicle, Entry Capsule, and Mars Lander developed by Impulse Space will launch in 2026 on the Relativity Terran R launch vehicle. After traveling through interplanetary space for over half a year, the Cruise Vehicle will inject the Entry Capsule into the correct landing trajectory and detach. The Entry Capsule will use the proven combination of heatshield and parachute to slow down enough to safely deploy the Mars Lander into freefall. The lander will then perform a propulsive landing using purpose-built engines developed in-house at Impulse Space, completing the first commercial payload delivery to the surface of another planet.https://www.impulsespace.com/mars
The integrated Cruise Vehicle, Entry Capsule, and Mars Lander developed by Impulse Space will launch in 2026 on the Relativity Terran R launch vehicle. After traveling through interplanetary space for over half a year, the Cruise Vehicle will inject the Entry Capsule into the correct landing trajectory and detach. The Entry Capsule will use the proven combination of heatshield and parachute to slow down enough to safely deploy the Mars Lander into freefall. The lander will then perform a propulsive landing using purpose-built engines developed in-house at Impulse Space, completing the first commercial payload delivery to the surface of another planet.https://www.impulsespace.com/mars
Quote from: matthewkantar on 03/10/2023 09:41 amQuote from: whitelancer64 on 02/08/2023 10:47 pmQuote from: gin455res on 02/03/2023 11:49 pmIf Terran R is successful, would its much smaller size compared to starship, mean that re-entry of the upperstage will be easier?And do we know what they are printing the tank from (steel, titanium aluminium)?They use proprietary scandium-aluminum alloys for 3D printing the tankage.This was surprising to me. A quick bit of research shows scandium content in Al alloys at .01-.05%, and a price per kilo of $15,000 for nearly pure metal. If the tankage for Terran R will be ~18,000kg, does the scandium content alone come to ~$800,000? The number I came up with is naive, does anyone have an educated guess as to the cost of this material? Iterations add up if material is a million dollars per print. If my guess is close, material cost for 3D printed rockets is in carbon fiber territory, maybe times two?Assuming they're alloying themselves rather than contracting an Aluminium producer to make it, Scandium Oxide (highly refined scandium metal not necessary) prices are more in the $1k-$4k per kg range.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 02/08/2023 10:47 pmQuote from: gin455res on 02/03/2023 11:49 pmIf Terran R is successful, would its much smaller size compared to starship, mean that re-entry of the upperstage will be easier?And do we know what they are printing the tank from (steel, titanium aluminium)?They use proprietary scandium-aluminum alloys for 3D printing the tankage.This was surprising to me. A quick bit of research shows scandium content in Al alloys at .01-.05%, and a price per kilo of $15,000 for nearly pure metal. If the tankage for Terran R will be ~18,000kg, does the scandium content alone come to ~$800,000? The number I came up with is naive, does anyone have an educated guess as to the cost of this material? Iterations add up if material is a million dollars per print. If my guess is close, material cost for 3D printed rockets is in carbon fiber territory, maybe times two?
Quote from: gin455res on 02/03/2023 11:49 pmIf Terran R is successful, would its much smaller size compared to starship, mean that re-entry of the upperstage will be easier?And do we know what they are printing the tank from (steel, titanium aluminium)?They use proprietary scandium-aluminum alloys for 3D printing the tankage.
If Terran R is successful, would its much smaller size compared to starship, mean that re-entry of the upperstage will be easier?And do we know what they are printing the tank from (steel, titanium aluminium)?
Jefferies analysts, after a recent meeting with Relativity leadership, note the Terran R rocket has an implied price of $55 million per launch, although early customers "signed at a discounted rate" of ~$45 million.
Relativity has stated they have about 1.2 billion in launch backlog for Terran R, so at this price thats probably around 25 launches.
I dont't believe that those launch contracts ever existed.
Quote from: spacenuance on 05/31/2023 11:33 pmRelativity has stated they have about 1.2 billion in launch backlog for Terran R, so at this price thats probably around 25 launches. Relativity is claiming since 2018 that they have a 1 billion launch backlog, which now allegedly was shifted from Terran 1 to Terran R. Unfortunately, they were never able to name the customer(s) for most of these launches.I dont't believe that those billion dollar contracts ever existed. At best there may be some tentative memorandums of understanding. Terran R obviously will never launch, so who would be so mad to build a satellite constellation on this dead horse?
Quote from: PM3 on 06/01/2023 07:40 amI dont't believe that those launch contracts ever existed. They've been mentioned in financial filings, so that's a major accusation of fraud to level at them without evidence.
No risk for constellation owner to book with Relativity as long as they don't pay deposit this far out. There is Firefly MLV, Neutron, F9R, New Glenn and SS if Terran R isn't available.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 06/01/2023 08:17 amNo risk for constellation owner to book with Relativity as long as they don't pay deposit this far out. There is Firefly MLV, Neutron, F9R, New Glenn and SS if Terran R isn't available.If there is no risk for the customers, then there is no binding contract between customers and Relativity, which means there is no launch backlog.
Quote from: PM3 on 06/01/2023 08:18 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 06/01/2023 08:17 amNo risk for constellation owner to book with Relativity as long as they don't pay deposit this far out. There is Firefly MLV, Neutron, F9R, New Glenn and SS if Terran R isn't available.If there is no risk for the customers, then there is no binding contract between customers and Relativity, which means there is no launch backlog.I think this is where the exact definition of "launch contract" may be important to clarify. It seems likely to me that Relativity legitimately has Memoranda of Understanding with customers, and those customers would gladly fly on Terran R if they get the promised prices. But it also seems like those customers put little to no money down. So those customers can go somewhere else with little downside if someone else is available much earlier. Although they probably aren't getting a better deal elsewhere: Rocket Lab seems determined to sell Neutron launches for no less than $50M, $5M more than the pre-sale price of Terran R, despite Neutron being less capable than Terran R.
Been pretty heads down and busy after launch - now working on our next phase of development and setting the stage for Terran R. Some solid development progress by the team, hardware continuing to ramp up, especially now with complete focus on a singular product to deliver on our $1.65B (and growing!) in contracts across 7 signed customers. I just walked by Aeon R engine chamber 009 today!
Tim, why the switch to a more traditional rocket for Terran-R?
It’s not super traditional, only the straight barrel sections aren’t printed. This rocket is pushing additive tech farther than Terran 1 did in many ways.
How are things looking for the first Aeon-R full engine static fire? Still expecting it to happen this year?
Yes, it’s tracking!
only the straight barrel sections aren’t printed
Quote from: Tim Ellis only the straight barrel sections aren’t printedHard to get more direct and explicit than that. Though I suspect the usual suspects will still continue to claim otherwise.
Quote from: edzieba on 06/02/2023 08:17 amQuote from: Tim Ellis only the straight barrel sections aren’t printedHard to get more direct and explicit than that. Though I suspect the usual suspects will still continue to claim otherwise.Indeed. And TBH those parts were the ones that were a)Strucuturally the simplest b)Had the most area.IOW they always made the least sense to mfg using AM.There are (and have been for some time) multiple ways to make seamless barrel sections, including integral stiffners in a variety of materials from aluminium alloys to FRP (with the F being anything from carbon to glass or IIRC hemp). For aluminum "ring forging" can be to at least 5m dia and at least 1m wide. Centrifugal casting can go to 8m and considerably longer. That is of course if you're that worried about the strength of longitudial joints and/or the mass addition due to "doublers" at the weld to begin with. Given the Shuttle era ET had someting like a 1/2 mile of welds this is not an insignificant mass. OTOH FSW has been quiet a game changer in this area.
FSW?FRP?